What books do I need to read to get a steady background in phenomenology? >inb4 start with da greeksWhich books? I have already read Aristotle's On the Soul.
>>24116933David Cerbone - Understanding PhenomenologyRobert Sokolowski - Introduction to PhenomenologyHerbert Spiegelberg - Doing PhenomenologyEdmund Husserl - Logical Investigations, Philosophy as Strict Science, IdeasFirst few books give good concrete examples of what kind of questions phenomenology tries to answer and the methods of how those tentative answers are reached. The Husserl books and essay are the works that were specifically formative for Heidegger.
>>24116952Thanks, I was looking for more primary sources, but I'll probably check these out too. Guess phenemonology isn't too big around these parts.
>>24118333Basic Problems of Phenomenology is quite a bit more accessible than Being & Time, if you want to read some Heidegger.
>>24116933In addition to books, you should also play Pharaoh (1999).
>>24116952OP I'm fucking stunned, this is basically the answer I came to give. this is exactly what you should read, this anon knows what he's talking about. usually /lit/'s filled with retards but for some reason on this friday afternoon it isn't
>>24118333Husserl's books are the key primary sources, but he also revised himself over and over and wrote too prolifically to condense well. Those intros are essentially Husserlian, though with a lot of engagement with Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty. Heidegger's early 20s lecture courses are better introductions to his understanding of phenomenology than Being & Time, since he spells out in the courses what he thinks works and what doesn't in Husserl's conception (but more implicitly, since he didn't want his criticisms getting back to Husserl), and how he sees what he's doing to be phenomenology, plus the early lectures make Being & Time much more intelligible. Merleau-Ponty is difficult and presupposes familiarity with Being & Time.
How does phenomenology operate without assuming an ontology to ground the object of its study? Never really understood it desu. Even if you bracket away the problem, don't you have to revisit it at some point? The appearances aren't nothings.
>>24118375Frankly, it can't, and Husserl's constant revisions are in part attempts to make sense of this and reduce problems that keep popping up. In a certain way, Heidegger addresses this well enough with his discussions of facticity, where phenomenology has to satisfy itself with starting with where we already are in an average way, since to ask about the assumptions itself already assumes a theoretical mode of understanding things. If you try to start by emphasizing the objects in too theoretical a way, you're no longer doing phenomenology, i.e., addressing how things appear to us. This is a big factor in Heidegger's retreat to the Greeks, where even their theoretical mode isn't as sediment laden as the post-Enlightenment intellectual tradition he and Husserl found themselves operating within.
>>24118370>Heidegger's early 20s lecture courses are better introductions to his understanding of phenomenology than Being & TimWhich books specifically? Is Basic Problems of Phenomenology from one of these lecture courses?
>>24118405Have you read Iain Thomson's essay on ontotheology? It's definitive IMO and lays the outcome of the sedimentation process bare: presencing-presence... which was preceded by a more dynamic phusis-aletheia. Also, that there was no essence(what)-existence(that) distinction for Heidegger's favorite Pre-Socratics in question. Unfortunately... idk what else to do with that, except think that phusis-aletheia was some kind of dynamic presencing without presence? Hmm.http://www.unm.edu/~ithomson/Ontotheo.pdf
>>24118452There's two couses titled Basic Problems of Phenomenology, an earlier one that's pretty close to Huserlian research, and a later course right after Being & Time was published which contains some of the material meant for the unfinished divisions of B&T. I'm not sure which one that anon meant, I'd think the later course depends on B&T somewhat.>>24118503I haven't. Maybe if I get time later.
>>24118534Highly recommend it. It is really that good. Apparently it was reviewed by both Dreyfus and Derrida before it was published too.
what am I in to gain from this? I saw two authors of phenomenology were studied in my university's last year of the philosophy degree so I'm kind of interested. I'm currently reading Schopenhauer then Nietzsche
