um, no Stranger in a Strange Land can definitely be made better

Anyone can larp Hegel or Kant, but you have to carefully study Husserl. Because you cannot imitate him.

>>25362512
Frater Asemlen was a Husserlian but I don't think he posts anymore

>>25362512
Jean-Luc Marion is the mega chad of contemporary philosophy.

You can read my verdict concerning Husserl in Dummett's Origins of Analytical Philisophy or otherwise in my diary (black notebooks) desu.
It is good that Husserl turned against psychologism. But seemingly very much (if not all) of this phenomenology stuff is based on a misconception of the relation between thought and language.
I also admit that I don't get how this bracketing stuff goes together with this "back to the things themselves" stuff.
I like Husserl's prose. And Hussserl wrote so much stuff, I really get why anyone would want to delve into this highly creative mind. No doubt, Husserl was a genius.

I really want to recommend Dummett's little booklet mentioned above. He is an excellent scholar, a benevolent interpreter of Husserl and a serious philosopher. This book is a very good example of how it is impossible to write a history of philosophy without doing philosophy in the process. The way how you formulated your question suggests that you also want to know how Husserl's philosophy compares to that of others. This book does exactly that: it compares and critically evaluates the philosophy of Frege, Bolzano and Husserl.

Concerning Scheler: I haven't read much of his
Work. I had some interest in the catholic tradition of personalism but that interest all went into the drain, for it all seemed to be very loose thinking (not only scheler, but also von Hildebrandt and to a lesser extent Woytyla / John Paul II) and i am used to the rigour of scholastic and analytical philosophy. I still agree with many things he says about ordo amoris or the importance of grasping personhood for life and lived philosophy.

Heidegger i both love and hate. He is a loose thinker but like Scheler, too a very interesting writer and I like his general attitude. He just isn't a serious philosopher, at least not persistently. He still thought "deeply" and I don't regret having studied him. I especially like his interest in ancient philosophy and his love for the german language and Volk.

The classical french phenomenologists like Merleau ponty etc I have not read, except some obligatory readings back in graduate school.

If you count the existentialists among the phenomenologists, then my verdict is that they are, besides being ridiculously loose thinkers, diabollically evil. Existentialism is literally satanic. The PoMo are even worse and the quality of my life deterioted with every page I studied. I cannot express how much I regret ever having read Foucault or Derrida.

I also read some czech phenomenologists like Patočka or his students. Again, I think definitely worth reading, especially if you also have an interest in european history and the history of thought. Also an interesting Plato scholar. (I LOVE Plato). But I admit that much of the core phenomenology in Patočka went straight over my head/seemed nonsensical to me.

Among all those mentioned, Husserl is the one the least in need of studying a few textbooks on logic.

Sorry for sounding like ...

>>25362635
... sorry for sounding like as if i were talking about food. If the thread is good, we can effort post and talk about substance.

>>25362635
I actually own Dummetts book, haven’t read it though (besides the introduction).

Have you read Gabriel Marcel? He is mostly a Christian existentialist but he draws on phenomenology a lot.

>>25362635
Dummet misreads Husserl, possibly misunderstanding him in the process.
He makes language primary, rather than experience. Animals have experiences, without language, they might not have fully fledged out language-concepts like us, but they recognize a tree.
Intentionality comes before language, because it structures all experience, linguistic and non-linguistic.

>>25362635
I am starting with Routledge introduction of Heidegger after reading existentialism by kevin aho, why do you hate existentialism so much? Although I get sartre was a faggot

>>25362635
Roderick Chisholm misread Brentano to an almost brutal degree, which makes me deeply skeptical whenever analytic philosophy characterizes other thinkers. I also think Dummett misunderstood Frege, and I've come to deeply believe that Frege simply wanted to be a mathematician, having read a lot of papers that make that argument. Can I really trust analytic philosophers?

>>25362661
No. You have misread Dummett.
Dummett does not state that Husserl thought that language is primary and thought secondary. This is something that Dummett thinks, and he criticizes Husserl for thinking otherwise, after laying out many arguments in favour for the "theorist of language". (that phrase is not from Origins, but from The Seas of Language, where he wrote much more on this topic)
Please calm down. Lit is supposed to be a slow and rational board.

>>25362651
I haven't read Marcel, I only read about him in the the VSI to Existentialism.

>>25362667
Frege definitely was a philosopher. Just read his works. He deeply cared about semantics, ontology and the nature of propositions, of judgement, of logic, about the nature of numbers or about the relations of concrete or abstract objects to time. He even cared about the ontological status of perception, though to a lesser degree. Have you even studied his work?
If you don't even know of Frege's highly philosophical ambitions, how can you state that Dummett misread him? Are you the same anon who accused Dummett of misreading Husserl? Give me a break please.

Also, what is it that you dislike Chisholm's Brentano? I have read only little Chisholm and even less Brentano. In what I have read, Chisholm was siding with Brentano against Russell.
I only read Brentano's book on Aristotle's analysis of ousia/einai. I don't know the psychology Brentano first hand.
I hope that you can tell me at least something substantial about Brentano and Chisholm's reading of him. But please don't waste your own time.

>>25362694
I can really recommend him. He is very unsystematic and sometimes he combines his philosophy with autobiographical elements, but i like him a lot.
I can recommend:
Man against mass society
Problematic man
The philosophy of existence
These are all quite short, maybe a little too introductory for you but nevertheless worth reading.

>>25362661
Also, if you actually had read Dummett's book, you would have known his theory of proto-thoughts and what he has to say about animal cognition.

And for anyone else, who is actually interested in learning stuff, I can really recommend Davidson's Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective on this topic. It contains many essays concerning animal "thought" and "holism of the mental".

And as I already said in another post, Dummett also writes more on this in Seas Of Language.
I also like Norman Malcolm's Wittgenstein on the topic of animal thought.
Or Anscombe's Intention on animal action.
I can share some of my favourite arguments if someone else effort posts too.

>>25362690
You have misread my comment, the "he" was directed at Dummet, and he is wrong, Intentionality comes before language, thought needs to precede language for language creation/acquisition in infants for example. Object-tracking, and categorization are needed to acquire language, are thoughts, experienced before language.
We already have an experience (directed towards the world) before language.
If you require language for thought, then you wrongly imply that infants don’t really perceive a world.
His proto thought real though disticitnion is really just begging the question

>>25362512
I have views that approach it while quite 'being' as such.

>>25363026
But Dummett is not denying that we have a directed experience towards the world before we acquire language. He denies that it could be of the same kind like the one we acquire through language.
Also, how is Dummett misreading Husserl?

>>25362512
I was mostly into Husserl and Merleau-Ponty, but at the end of the day, Heidegger is right - phenomenologists nailed perspective but didn't see it through all the way into participation. Also, Merleau-Ponty writes like he's retarded, it's always the Greeks and the French who are trying to give you a stroke with how they go about their ideas.

>>25362512
I've never read Husserl but I suspect he's right given who I've seen shit on him and snippets of his ideas that I've heard

>>25363112
Dummet assigns explanatory priority to language. The order runs in the opposite direction, language presupposes a prior openness to and engagement with the world, even if that engagement is not yet propositionaly articulated.

>>25363130
I know what Dummett writes, because I have read him. But I don't know how he misread Husserl. Please tell me.

>>25363179
Dummett reads Husserl as if the main point was a theory of meaning, reference, and objectivity, but for later Husserl with transcendental phenomenology, which dummett rejects, derivative phenomena. Stuff like the horizon structure, and the noesis-noema correlation.
Husserl’s intentionality is not just aboutness in language or thought. It includes perception, bodily experience, temporal flow of consciousness
pre-predicative experience (before language)

he tends to read intentionality as if it were basically the relation between language and meaning
Husserl treats meaning as located within the structure of experience itself, while Dummett treats meaning as explanatorily primary in our account of understanding, without grounding it in transcendental structures of experience which Husserl later studies.

I think I struggle to explain myself, because I haven't done any philosophy in English. But the core issue is with dummets reading of intentionality. Intentionality is not about meaning like dummett uses it, but about givenness of experience

File: Screenshot_20260619_165547_X.jpg (1.24 MB, 1080x2178)

1.24 MB JPG

Actually, normies only know this board through Husserl. But normies today are vastly different from the old days. They always learn the wrong lesson from 4chan.

Philosophy since the Enlightenment has literally been nothing other than a series of vain men who have applied their intellects stubbornly to the construction of their own private theological systems with the desire of securing infamy and independence from authority.

That's it. That's all that is happening. These men do not influence anything in history at all, they are rather caused by history. Their ideas are pulled from whatever notions are "in the air" and not-yet-penned, which correspond to the range of inquiry permitted at that particular stage of the dialectic. Nobody proposed atheistic or deistic systems until significant numbers of intelligent men began to ponder atheism and deism in their private thoughts, and the reason such men would now turn to new regions of inquiry is that historical circumstances generated new questions.

None of these men matter and studying them can cause you to become members of their particular cult. System-building is something all great poets, allegorists and philosophers excel at, these persons naturally compete with religions, they are essentially self-styled minor prophets attempting to gather "followings". Don't live in their universes or your mind will become a carbon copy of theirs and you will lose your identity and possibly your destiny. Think for yourself and grant consideration to the thinking of your forefathers, particularly ideas that have existed for many generations extending back to antiquity.

I'm a Bachelardian

>>25363812
So it’s platonism or aristotelianism or stoicism or Epicureanism or scepticism or cynicism for you.
I’m just joking.
I made this thread not with the intention to discuss the different schools that have emerged in history and have found adherents on this board, but to discuss phenomenology. If you deny that there’s anything valid in philosophy past the enlightenment then that’s a you-problem for me. But feel free to enlighten us with your ancient wisdom about the errors of the modern man.

>>25363914
Very specific category. Why?

>>25364174
It's very simple, God is the only thing that actually exists, everything else is more or less an illusion.

Since God is the singular fact of reality nothing whatsoever is comprehensible without reference to Him. Every effort to create a system of thought without reference to Him can at best function as a kind of manifold where certain things appear true and consistent within a highly restricted domain, but as one moves in any direction of scale (such as time) the whole thing inevitably falls apart as you approach the Omega points of Creation and Eschaton.

>>25364225
I thought like you when I was 16 you just need to read authors who will challenge you. It’s just not as simple as good theists vs evil modern atheists. Also why are you talking about creation and eschaton ancient philosophy sees time as eternal and cyclical in general. Abrahamics had to crudely graft their beliefs on time into Plato and Aristotle (inb4”Timaeus is creationist!”). A metaphysics of linear time starts with Kant, in many ways Kant is closer to Christianity than the Greeks actually. To the op I have not read Husserl yet but he loved Fichte and called himself a transcendental idealist so I’ll probably get a lot out of him. I might even skip Neechee for now and go straight to him once I’ve read a bit more Kierkegaard.

File: IMG_1375.jpg (2 KB, 125x113)

2 KB JPG

>>25363812
>inquiry permitted at that particular stage of dialectic

Hegel keeps winning even in his grave

>>25364225
I get that you have to be careful, when you’re engaging with philosophy (in general btw/ including the ancients) and you don’t want to lose your faith in the process. However there are some atheistic modern systems and some systems which are open to religion/revelation/theology. I think that there are a lot of problems with ancient and medieval philosophy, which can’t imo just be swept under the rug. For example: ancient polytheistic notions of godhood (unmoved mover/the one) getting integrated in Christian thought.
I also think that medieval philosophy bore within it the seed of modern philosophy, which is very clear in the rationalism, idealism and even positivism.
Phenomenology as a method isn’t opposed to religion thought/experience. It isn’t theological though, but since we’re talking about philosophy and not theology, I don’t see the problem.

>>25364261
I'm a 35 year old man and you are extrapolating far more biographical imagery out of that post than you have any right or ability to. I referred to Abrahamic terminology because western religion is Abrahamic. The private philosophies of individuals working outside of revealed truth, like works of great poetry, are useful for a form of entertainment approximating religious experience. They do nothing whatsoever to illuminate truth or the soul and are great hazards for confusion and perdition.

File: IMG_0057.jpg (52 KB, 896x1133)

52 KB JPG

>>25364268
I didn’t say anything personal about you only about myself. Your views are extremely immature, read more, or don’t, we don’t care.

>>25364267
There is not any doubt in my mind as to the reality of the One God. There are forms of knowledge other than that which is obtained in books. Since I have complete certainty in God's reality, everything that attempts to explain reality without reference to Him is pointless and useless.

Having spent ten years in a kind of existentialist search for God in the manner of Kierkegaard or Wittgenstein's brief Christian phase, I understand that most people's conception of faith involves such notions as "leaping", leading to an impression of faith as precarious and in need of careful protection.

I don't care if, in the course of a particularly bad day, everyone in my family dies in unlikely accidents, I get diagnosed with stomach cancer, the stock market crashes and UFO aliens invade earth from outer space, it would not diminish my certainty in the reality of a Merciful God at all.

>>25364270
>I thought like you when I was 16 you just need to read authors who will challenge you.

You seem to know I have an adolescent perspective on reality and a habit of avoiding perspectives contrary to my own. I'm sure you are typically the smartest person in your rooms and I understand it is easy to habitually assume this, it's okay. Relax. Only be a little bit more cautious and imaginative as to what other minds may be out there.

>>25364272
God is certainly a spinoza god rather tha being some mericful benovalent entity, sadly, but you can keep deluding yourself helps with living a peaceful life.

>>25364272
I get that. I am also certain of god’s existence and the grace with which he has impacted my life. The distinction between philosophy and theology for me still is very important. I want to be intellectually honest when I’m engaging with philosophy, i want to understand different positions and arguments and I can respect when someone is wrestling with his beliefs and his life through philosophy, whatever the outcome may be or was.
Take the proofs for the existence of god for example. It’s not enough to know the five ways of st. Thomas and call it a day. You have to engage in some way with what Kant said about this. And you have to acknowledge that post-kantian philosophy isn’t just Antichristian or atheistic as a whole. There nuances, personal biographies of people struggling with the modern world, traditional beliefs and so on. There are conversion and rejections.
That’s what interests me in modern philosophy. I am a modern man as well, if I like it or not. I too have to grapple with this world around me, and I want to do in faith and honesty.

>>25364279
The essence of religion (in some etymologies this word descends from the Latin religire, 'to bind') is obedience to an external code of conduct. It is not self-delusion. Likewise, the essence of atheism is not self-honesty, it's the refusal to follow any external codes of conduct. Now we can apply this to your sentence
>God is certainly a spinoza god rather tha being some mericful benovalent entity, sadly, but you can keep deluding yourself helps with living a peaceful life
to which I would say
>God is certainly Merciful, One and Transcendent rather than a defective pantheism or gnostic god, happily, but you can keep doing whatever you want if you're willing to live in a hopeless universe.

>>25364283
>The distinction between philosophy and theology
is that theologians care less about being famous

>>25364261
I’m reading the idea of phenomenology right now, which is an introductory lecture from 1907 and I find myself thinking a lot about Fichte. Husserl seems to draw similar conclusions from Descartes method of doubt. The I, that thinks, cannot be doubted, it has to be set before we can engage the phenomena. Perception, judgment, memory is already in the realm of the phenomenon.

>>25364919
Yeah but Fichte goes beyond Descartes like Kant did by making empirical apperception secondary to the transcendental, and Fichte improves on Kant by making transcendental apperception moral and divine. One of the main ways people get filtered by Fichte is thinking the I=I is empirical apperception. You don’t have to believe me but even the German-language wikipedia article on him points this out. Fichte doesn’t start with certainty really he starts with belief. But the language in part 1 is intentionally cryptic and misleading, also apparently contradictory.

>>25365125
Fichte-anon is it you?

>>25362667
Can analytic philosophers really trust continentals?

Anyways, Max Scheler hardly ever gets discussed here.

>>25362667
you can trust davidson and early rorty. and what about quine.