Phenomenology of perception

Here, I'll even save you some. This is what MP has to say about 'Marxism', originally a footnote.

Posting from my phone, so Veeky Forums will rotate my larger image files for no reason at all.

...

...

...

>ignoring the advances in actual scientific study on conciousness on neurosciences and evolutionary biology in favor of frenchman's feefees
do not do this to yourself Veeky Forums, stop reading fiction

>being a naïve empiricist

Understandable, given the vulgarity of our historical moment. But, like, just look around you, friend. What do you see?

...

I don't understand his arguments.

>Sensation is certainly intentional; that is, it does not remin in itself like a thing, it intends and signifies beyond itself. But the term that it intends is only recognized blindly through the familiarity of my body with it, it is not constituted in full clarity; it is reconstituted or taken up through a knowledge that remains latent and that leaves to its opacity and haecceity.
How is this anything new then? How is this anything different from sign-signified interplay, or plain old structuralism, or some kind of applied theory of form, that general idea has been circulating and rearing its ugly head in intervals through history. I'm not wasting another few weeks decyphering yet another frenchmans book just for the same-old. Pop science neurology books are MUCH more helpful in anyone actually interested in conciousness.

>calls me naive

Whatever homo, your loss.

rationalists are shit at phenomenology, only an empiricist can say something relevant about consciousness, intention and other part of the experience, but you are too much of an undergrad to see this.

The very basic idea is that your body is something you inhabit, and it is not an object 'for you' alongside other objects. You encounter the world through your body, and you simultaneously inhabit 'a world'. Prior to reflective analysis, which is a second-order 'operation', and through which we attain, among so much more, the objects of natural science, your encountering objects in the world is as a body, and the primordial significance of objects is 'conditioned' by what MP calls 'motricity', which is the action-intention-gestalt of your body. You perceive the table as possessing 4 sides not because you form a representation of it within an ideal space, but because you can move around it.

If you're interested in what this kind of analysis looks like with reference to more recent research, you might look into Alva Noë's Action in Perception.

This kind of shit blows my fucking mind, but it makes so much sense. Thank you for persuading me to continue my studies into phenomenology.

do I need a thorough understanding of Husserl and Heidegger to approach this? been meaning to read it for ages, and I know I'll love it, but I feel like I'll probably miss out on most of what it has to offer. for what it's worth, I've read Cartesian Meditations and plan on getting to Being and Time soon

Science is trash, for children.

They're not necessary.

What exactly is mindblowing about it?

is there anything that you would regard as absolutely necessary?

No, just read it. He cites other philosophers while explaining their thoughts.

>some marxist frenchman ranting on consciousness, something that can't be understood without science
"no"

i dont agree with the term objects. people see things as tools not objects

I don't think this is at odds with MP's thinking, at least for a certain class of objects. Then again, it's hard to know what you mean by 'tool. Of your using the term in it's Heideggerian infection, then MP would pretty much be in agreement, though he is really intent on drawing out the significance of being a body, embodied being, which is covered over Heidegger's analysis.

If you mean 'tool' in its more common, pragmatic ense, as something that might be used to some concrete end--it would take some doing to convince me the primordial signification of a hummingbird flitting about my yard is 'I could totally build a house with that'.

Keep trying. Someone will get mad, eventually.

How to fenomenology, do I start with Husserl?
A guy I used to know was really into phenomenology and linguistics and kept ranting on how he's gonna be the most important person of the 21st century by crafting a complete explanation of the human experience -> language process, which he called morphophonophenomenology

Husserl would be the most appropriate. By the way, Merleau-Ponty makes a good introduction about what is phenomenology, in PoP.

DESU while the book is great and definitely deserves more recognition, I think its not read as much in the philosophy community because its kind of a regurgitation of modern era (1700 Kant-Hegel) metaphysics/phenomenology. Its a great book but its kind of a restatement of all the things a person thats into phenomenology has probably read.

>morphophonophenomenology
Would actually read about this

>he thinks the word salad he spews at people actually means something

I know, right?
if you mix yellow and cyan you get green, fucking mindblowing

>unable revel in the carnal pleasure of fingerpainting

Sad desu

Veeky Forums constantly confuses empiricism with rationalism. I don't know if they'll ever stop.