I don't get Husserl. Every time I think I get this piece of shit he comes out of left field and asks me to believe in some kind of logical realism. Some shit that makes no sense.
I get Heidegger just fine. Why can't I get Husserl?
Can someone well-informed please explain Husserl to me? Particularly his transcendental turn. I'm reading two books on it right now (Dermot Moran) and I still don't get it.
Your mental blocking the effects of a large dosage of Platonism. You need to let go of your preconceptions and allow the light of the rational to guide you
Too smart 4 you
I actually studied directly under Dermot Moran in Dublin. He's an excellent lecturer and really opened my eyes to the importance of Husserl, to the point he was only rivaled by Wittgenstein for his impact among 20th century philosophers.
Really though if you can't comprehend him on this wide a level I don't know what I can tell you other than git gud
He's on my shelf, never read, perhaps will never read.
(unnecesary bump for non-shitty thread)
this is probably unrelated (i havent ever read husserl) but how is logic not psychological? Isnt it just a system invented by humans to verify other systems invented by themselves? What in the universe could verify that logic exists independently of human thought? Wouldnt the only be to map logic onto mathematics which can exist independently of human thought but what happens once that failed? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding this or am being stupid.
just ask the husserl scholar on here whos in $500k debt after completing a phd on him
When you owe that much money its not your problem its the banks problem
>Husserl's transcendental turn
Husserl's transcendental subjectivity is not a speculative notion such as the transcendental subject (Subjekt Überhaupt) of German idealism (and Neo-Kantianism, clearly).
Husserl's transcendental subjectivity refers to the immediate, available consciousness; that is, the first experience (of an object), free of all prejudice and pragmatical tendencies. Transcendental subjectivity is the source of every phenomenon (everything that is, since everything is a phenomenon).
Anyways, here are some general tips regarding understanding Husserl:
You cannot read Husserl's phenomenology properly unless you completely understand the notions of intentionality and reflexivity.
You have to keep in mind that Husserl was inventing a new philosophy so what he wrote in his early phase differs from the later works; therefore Husserl's work is usually separated into two phases: the early and the late.
Also, keep in mind that his intention has never been to create a philosophical system, but to constitute a new method of philosophical approach.
seconding this, i don't understand refutations of "psychologism"
i do know that psychologism was refuted strongly by neokantians in the late 19th century and then husserl himself, but i dont really understand why or what they understood by psychologism
i do know that ultimately logic IS bound by "psychology" in heidegger, in the sense that it isn't transcendentally primary to dasein, and in wittgenstein in the sense that grammar decides what counts as logical
read Frege's Grundlagen
can you please explain? i find frege confusing for the same reasons as OP and he seems to commit to logical realism that is plainly retarded
Psychologism doesn't distinguish between psychological and philosophical (gnoseological and logical) problems of knowledge. According to psychologism, thought and knowledge are psychological; a psychological process and function. Therefore all knowledge is based on psychology, ie psychological theories.
What's the problem with psychologism? It's very delicate but I'll keep it very short: Hume proved that all of our knowledge (knowledge from the perspective of psychologism) is pure fiction. That's when Kant comes into the picture and tries to save objectivity by constituting the transcendental subject...
Posting relevant sad user
is this ordinarily how you approach different views?
a-are you the mcdonalds husserl guy?
reading them and asking for clarification when i don't understand? usually i guess
Who are the primary proponents of psychologism that I can read up about? Any recommended texts for a fast-tracked understanding?
Bump
Maths, languages formal or not, are a safe space of coherence created by normies once they whine that what they call reality is not enough coherent to them.
Math is the step beyond the one done by normies with their little legal rules, justifying them from what they experience, by some rationality, common sense, necessity and other spooks like progress (and whine when they see that most people do not care about their little rules even if the first people manage to enforce them)
Then they get butthurt when some guy not spooked about all these spooks recall them that all these people is projecting lots of feelings and fantasies or just create other spooky formal languages after the same intention.
Of course, these normies create an idea of ''accuracy of my formal language with what I experience'' because deep down people know that their little inferences are just the result of their imagination, so they crave some spook called ''non-human objective third party '' which would make everybody agree on anything while shitting on empiricism, because ''my senses dupe me since the straw bends in water, but not in the air, thank ???? for giving the faculty of reason I can totally see the real reality now''.
Logic and mathematics are extremely consistent in explaining the world and its events. They can even predict 100 years forward like Einstein did.
>What could verify logic
Observing the nature and waiting for the even thappen which lolgic or math predicted.
The points you make aren't good enough for you to be so smug about them
>muh spooks
>According to Simplicius, Diogenes the Cynic said nothing upon hearing Zeno's arguments, but stood up and walked, in order to demonstrate the falsity of Zeno's conclusions.
How do you even get half a million debt when you can/could/have only worked minimum wage jobs and only studied philosophy at Uni?
Wouldn't the banks just say "hey, you are a fucking student working minimum wage, why should we let you have 450k?"
what the fug
>Wouldn't the banks just say "hey, you are a fucking student working minimum wage, why should we let you have 450k?"
Thats not how student debt works. THe banks would have loaned him 50-100K to get his degree.
Now that debt has interest payemets attached to it that increases the debt every month by a %.
Accordingly if he never made enough money to pay more than the interest being accrued his total debt would grow.
Hence why that user has to pay 450K for a 100K loan
kek student loan in my country is interest free
lol
Wow, Amerifags are systematically FUCKED by banks for studying.
Hail self-learning o/