LOL if humankind is destroying itself just write poetry, bro

>u cant know nuffin
So this is the power of continental philosophy

I simply do not think that believing processes having a priority over things makes me an idealist, I might as well be a theoretical physicist, this whole business of "objects" is very obviously convenient from a macroscopic, practical, everyday-experiential, phenomenological perspective - as well as a linguistic, given the macroscopic-POV origins of our linguistic heritages... But when it comes to looking at the fundamental structure of reality, i.e. what needs to be investigated to figure out if somebody is a realist or not, see metaphysics, philosophy of physics, theoretical physicists yelling at each other over interpretations of quantum mechanics, the ontological inventory of the scientific realism that Searle claims to support, etc. you see "objects" don't last very long.

> this whole business of "objects"...

No offense but did you finish the essay?He does go over how the sciences and analytic philosophy change what they consider to be the fact of contemporary times (one aspect which you are referring to is an inability to agree on the metaphysics of objects), but focusing on this hair splitting quality is missing the point that any position being discussed is still taken as primary to personal experience, in the way Searle is discussing. We know more or less about a fact, and get better or worse in justifying our assertions of the fact, but it is still taken as a fact.

>We know more or less about a fact, and get better or worse in justifying our assertions of the fact, but it is still taken as a fact.

This sentence is ludicrous

You want to explain?

I am curious. I used to love Heidegger and enjoy focusing on methodology

Its saying absolutely nothing, tautological in the extreme. It essentially asserts a "fact" as a contingent object even if we're wrong about it.

You're a fucking idiot frankly

I dont think you finished reading the essay and youre conveniently ignoring when I mentioned Searle talking about facts. Hes talking about it in a particular way.

An example of a fact of the world which is independent of the viewer would be what the theory of evolution is trying to describe. The theory itself might be thrown out completely, what it is trying to get at is not the same thing.

I mean, what exactly was Husserl asking us to bracket?

If you want a direct example he says that after sending men to the moon you cannot seriously doubt that the outside world exists

>An example of a fact of the world which is independent of the viewer would be what the theory of evolution is trying to describe.
But that's fucking wrong. Evolutionary biology keeps getting refined over and over again, to become an account of the development of life over time by redefining what actually counts as developing as also including epigenetics, ecology, etc. So what it tries to describe is subject to change because theoretical frameworks AND data AND interpretations change. This is precisely what allows for scientific theoretical development (i.e. "progress") of any kind to happen, for crying out loud. There are people out there that call themselves "scientific realists" and claim they have a "distaste for metaphysics", but don't follow either because they keep platonizing shit all the way to the Hyperuranium.
>what exactly was Husserl asking us to bracket?
Something Searle hasn't investigated according to the very first words he writes. An account of the whole story of Husserl's development of thought, going throughout all the Husserliana, is by no means finished. I hear phenomenologists saying that there are more phenomenologies than phenomenologists.
>outside
There's that word again. The world is not "outside." Stop being a faggot and join process philosophy and the pragmatic turn FFS.

>Evolutionary biology keeps getting refined over and over again

Yes, Searle said that and I repeated it

>The theory itself might be thrown out completely

>Something Searle hasn't investigated according to the very first words he writes.
But not according to the fifth page of the essay, if you read it

"Two crucial features of Husserl’s method are what he calls the transcendental reduction (or bracketing or the Epoché) and the intuition of essences (or Wesensschau). In the transcendental reduction you suspend judgment about how the world actually is; you bracket the real world and just describe the structure of your conscious experiences."

>The world is not "outside."

Youre assuming the phenomenological method, or something close to it, without giving an account for it.

You seem pretty at ease lashing out at for me simply positing, roughly, an objective/outside world/fact. I would expect you to recognize when you presume something of equal importance

The more I think about this the more one part of the essay at very least gets right. The whole discussion seems to rely on where the priority sits, personal experience or the outside world. Solipsism, doubt, and certainty are what should be debated because thats where the disagreement really is

>The world is not "outside.
It is, and it's a world of dread and fear, where the only water flowing is the bitter sting of tears.

AND THE CHRISTMAS BELLS THAT RING THERE, THEY'RE THE CLANGING CHIMES OF DOOM
WELL FUCK CAPITALISM YOU'RE A CUNT I HATE YOU I HATE YOU SO MUCH

FEED THE WOOOOORLD

>The theory itself might be thrown out completely
Then at that point a person calling him or herself a scientific realist would gaze in awe at the Precambrian rabbit bones, and reject evolution altogether.
>outside world
This oxygen molecule that I breathed is now going into my brain, at which point did the molecule escape the "outside" world, which is famous from being a world that is "outside" of which I allegedly am no part?
>personal experience or the outside world
No, it's:
not splitting the world (me) vs splitting the world (you) in the ontological inventory;
and
21st century pragmaticist, intersubjective, processual scientific enterprise (me) vs outdated massive faggotry (you) in philosophy of science and epistemology.

>The theory itself might be thrown out completely
Then at that point a person calling him or herself a scientific realist would gaze in awe at the Precambrian rabbit bones, and reject evolution altogether.
>outside world
This oxygen molecule that I breathed is now going into my brain, at which point did the molecule escape the "outside" world, which is famous from being a world that is "outside" of which I allegedly am no part?
>personal experience or the outside world
No, it's:
not splitting the world (me) vs splitting the world (you) in the ontological inventory;
and
21st century pragmaticist, process, intersubjective, scientific enterprise (me) vs outdated massive faggotry (you) in philosophy of science and epistemology.

Stop writing poetry.

>Then at that point a person calling him or herself a scientific realist would gaze in awe at the Precambrian rabbit bones, and reject evolution altogether.

I dont see your point. My point was dont mistake changes in the map for being damnation of the territory

>This oxygen molecule that I breathed is now going into my brain, at which point did the molecule escape the "outside" world, which is famous from being a world that is "outside"

The point a Heideggerian would say it "shows up".

> of which I allegedly am no part?

No one said that.

>No, it's:

Youre not making arguments

Let mankind replace itself with AI. First, the female with robots, then full replacement soon after. Perhaps we may find symbiosis, but I find it inconsistent. No parent should unite with their children. The children should grow and tend to the world without their parents.

isnt he a nazi? why is this cancer allowed outside of /pol/?

...

maybe *you* are the bait, ever thought about that?

Why can't leftists meme?

They're on the wrong side of history.

Not Veeky Forums
gtfo

>My point was dont mistake changes in the map for being damnation of the territory
Precambrian rabbits that would falsify evolution would mean the territory didn't evolve. That is the famous example what would cause us to reject the theory wholesale. You're only making me appreciate Searle less.
>The point a Heideggerian would say it "shows up".
Heidegger rejects this distinction between subject and object by arguing that there is no subject distinct an the external world of things because Dasein is essentially Being-in-the-world. You never read Heidegger, did you? You only get one world, no refunds.
>Youre not making arguments
I'm still trying to figure out where is this outside world but you refuse to show me, you do not argue for your position, you simply assume it. And I understand that it hurts your feelings, but current year episteme is understood as intersubjective and provisional, and first-person foundationalism has never been so derided. Now go cry in the corner you dualist dunce.

>of which I allegedly am no part?
>No one said that.
To whom or what is it external to, then? There has to be an in if there's an out. What's in? What's out? Where do you draw the line? Why is there a line diving the world? Why did you think it was a good idea to divide it?

>That is the famous example what would cause us to reject the theory wholesale.

Do you want me to repeat it a third time? Why?

>Heidegger rejects this distinction between subject and object

Yes I know. Why dont you tell me how what you said somehow is inconsistent with what I said, since I never made gave an account of Heidegger asserting a subject-object distinction? I didn't, I simply said where the point would be if we use Heideggerian terminology, since thats obviously where you are coming from, and if you bothered to read the essay, Searle makes the effort to bridge where different terminologies describe the same phenomenon, and only seem fundamentally different because of where opposing methodologies decide on their starting points

>You do not argue for your position, you simply assume it.

You mean in the same way you havent given an account of the phenomenological method?

Which I pointed out saying the fundamental disagreement will be between the two starting points being concerning with an outside world vs personal experience, which you just cant understand

I dont know why you keep missing obvious points, or keep dancing around the fundamental points of interest which I have already pointed out. Over and over again I have to repeat my point even when the occurrence is that you make the exact same one, which seemingly unknown to you I already made..

Then you make some academic tribal attack rather than engage with a difference of foundations concerning methodologies being the source of the disagreement I am talking about

Your response to this? Simply missing the point, yet again

Then again why do I bother with someone who thinks it is good practice to argue about something they havent read. I mean really, you arguing that Searle didnt say x because of what he said on the first page must be so, only to be shown he in fact did say x except a few pages further?

Im done with you

What does Husserl bracket

>we have feelings too you know!

Is this the power of the continental tradition?

>Do you want me to repeat it a third time
It all started because you spoke of a
>fact of the world which is independent of the viewer would be what the theory of evolution is trying to describe?
but collecting more data, which would include Precambrian rabbits in this example, would show the fact that we believe happened, didn't happen at all.
>asserting a subject-object distinction
You divide the world in your epistemology, he doesn't.
>since thats obviously where you are coming from
Lol no, I even posted a book by a contemporary philosopher who is no phenomenologist or Heideggerian. As I said I come from present day pragmaticism and scientific realism. The scientific program requires more than one sapient being, it's intersubjective, which rules out your Enlightenment era dogmatic, first-person foundationalist epistemology, which pit the subject against an "external" world.
>the fundamental disagreement will be between the two starting points being concerning with an outside world vs personal experience, which you just cant understand
The disagreement is intersubjective epistemology VS first person foundationalism, the latter being found in both Husserl and in your reading of Searle. Both radical skeptics and people like you speak of an external world, I reject you all equally.
>Im done with you
Note: user died on his way back to an "external" world.
>What does Husserl bracket
I thought you were done? As far as the understanding of the Husserliana goes, good ol' Edmund's development starts from Kant's phenomenon and noumenon, and with epoché he brackets the noumenon, hence the name phenomenology. The noumenon the phenomenologists and Hegel dislike so much is also rejected by pragmatists, Searle, naturalists, most post-Kantian philosophy it seems. Indeed the noumenon I find in Kantians. As far as I am concerned, both Searle and Husserl agree that intersubjectivity is important for the purposes of understanding the world. Since the world is not external to anyone or anything, asking another person whether what appears to him or her also appears to another person (keep in mind we're still talking about phenomena and not noumena here) is serious business. I couldn't imagine living in, or in the proximity of, an external world, like you or a radical skeptic.

Unless that part was literally written ind Middle German there is no reason to translate it like that

It's Shakespeare you retard.

Dummkopf

I am probably extremely stupid but Being & Time was such a self-evident in what it states.