Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 1   [ 3 posts ]   
Author Message
 Post subject: Phenomenology
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:45 am 
Offline
Handmaids of the Lord
Handmaids of the Lord
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 5:02 pm
Posts: 12531
Location: Ultima Thule
Religion: Catholic
I don't really understand phenomenology. I understand it has different branches, so to speak, so I'm wondering in particular about the phenomenological method of Edith Stein, and also how this was similar to or differed from that of St. John Paul II.

Could anyone explain it to me in simple terms.

_________________
'The only cure for sagging or fainting faith is Communion.... Like the act of Faith it must be continuous and grow by exercise. Frequency is of the highest effect. Seven times a week is more nourishing than seven times at intervals.'
J.R.R. Tolkien

Blasé member of PPPA


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Phenomenology
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:04 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5255
Location: Tampa, FL
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
There's a pretty big distinction between modern phenomenology and that of Husserl, Scheler, Stein, and JPII. I can't speak well enough of the latter three to offer any meaningful insight into how their thoughts worked out with respect to phenomenology.

With respect to Husserl, in some ways, he was responding to the crisis in epistemology and metaphysics more generally that had been created by the Cartesian revolution. Put simply, Descartes really established in the minds of philosophers and scientists that "real philosophy" had to start with the question, "What do I know and how do I know that I know it?" What happened (and what must happen with that sort of project) is you end up with hyper-subjectivist and hyper-objectivist philosophy. In the case of the former, you can never get outside of your own mind, so there's some sense in which you can't know anything about the real world at all. This leads to hard skepticism. To take a simple example, suppose you observe a tree. On this view, how do you know what you're looking at is really a tree or that it is even there at all? All you have in sense-impressions that your mind constructs into a picture that you call "a tree." But you've no way to get "outside" of your mind to compare that picture to "the real thing" (whatever that is). Lots of implications and ways to take that, but the point is that it ends up hyper-subjective. Everything is about the "I".

On the other extreme is the hyper-objectivist approach. Take the same problem but now ask, how do you even know that there is an "I"? What is this "I" that is even speaking or thinking? What really needs to happen, on this view, is that everything needs a firm, objective description. This is the scientific method. Here, the mind is reducible to brain states (to take one example of how this might work out). There's no such thing as free will because all of this is just a giant machine working out -- atoms and molecules bumping into each other according to the laws of physics and so on. But it turns out you can't describe the "I" in objective terms. It has to be described in first person, subjective terms. So it's just left out of the equation entirely.

Husserl wanted to get away from this entire debate, so he came up with this idea he called phenomenology. In a sense, he wanted to get back to Aristotle's common sense realism. His "big idea" was to "bracket" (his word) all of those assumptions and question and senses -- all that philosophical stuff -- that came along with a sense experience. He just wanted to deal with the experience itself and treat it as real because, well . . . it's as real to us as anything can be! In other words, he wanted to just treat the phenomena themselves. He then just wanted to describe those phenomena as deeply and fully as possible and see what came out of it. To go back to our first person-third person problem (or the subjective-objective problem), rather that starting with the subjective approach OR starting with the objective approach, he took the whole thing as a single experience. You could visualize it something like this:

Subject - Object

Where the "-" means something like "perceives" or "knows" or "observes" or whatever. He realized that any and all such statements include BOTH a subject and an object. In fact, take it further, you simply cannot conceive of perceiving something without necessarily presuming both a perceiver and something perceived. To be conscious, he said, is to be conscious of something, even if what you are conscious of is merely your own consciousness. So he thinks Descartes' error (along with the subjectivists) is to think they can just deal with the subject side, and the reverse error with the objectivists. He is concerned with the dash, so to speak.

So, then, everything that is known is known by a knower, is perceived by a knower. It's just inconceivable (literally) to abstract the knower from the known (like trying to conceive of "nothing"). The task of the phenomenologist, then, is descriptive. It is to probe not merely an objective description (such is both impossible and meaningless) but a full-fledged, incarnated description of our experience of some phenomenon. That experience is what something "means."

That's the basics. It's been bastardized in modern times by just reducing phenomenology to another form of hyper-subjectivism, just insisting that my experience of reality is all that is real. We're just back to the "I" at the exclusion of all else (and, perversely, this approach is often taken by materialist philosophers who even deny that a real, substantial "I" exists -- ugh, the self-contradictions!). That's where things like social constructionism come from. But that's just an abuse of the system.

The most I'll say about the other thinkers is that, I think, Max Scheler was very interested in the phenomenology of love. He wanted, I believe, a deep description, to understand the full meaning, of love, in this Husserlian sense. He finds this (again, I THINK -- I'm very much not an expert on Scheler), love I mean, to be at the center of everything, so to understand love is, in some sense, to understand the essence of everything. I have no idea about Stein, but I am under the impression that JPII was highly influenced by, or at least very impressed with, Scheler's work on the phenomenology of love and worked it into his philosophy.

Now, I have no idea if this counts as simple terms. I don't think I can do any better because my own studies on the subject got interrupted before I was able to take it very far. There are a few great playlists, though, on Husserl YouTube you might find helpful. And his actual works are in the public domain now and really are worth reading if you have the time.

_________________
Indeed, the Lord Jesus, when He prayed to the Father, "that all may be one. . . as we are one" (John 17:21-22) opened up vistas closed to human reason, for He implied a certain likeness between the union of the divine Persons, and the unity of God's sons in truth and charity. This likeness reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself. ~ Pope Paul VI, Gaudium et Spes 24.3


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Phenomenology
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:35 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept

Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:33 am
Posts: 4161
Religion: Catholic
Two thoughts:

1) Excellent explanation. Really appreciate the insights.
2) Great to hear from you again [The]Jack. Always enjoy your thoughts.....and yes, i still owe a response from posts we engaged in some time long ago....I haven’t forgotten. :D

_________________
"So mercifully blessed to be free from the ravages of intelligence." - Taken from Time Bandits


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 1   [ 3 posts ]   


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


Jump to: