Very glad I found your channel. I had an undergraduate degree in philosophy in the 1970s. Then did one semester of graduate work in philosophy. Dropped out due to poor academic philosophy job market at that time. Got an MBA and worked as a financial analyst for 30 years. Now I am retired and am back to studying philosophy. I did an independent study on Descartes and Hassell. Good stuff. Thanks for this great venue.
Hey Mark! Hope you’re doing wel since it doesn’t look like you’ve uploaded a video in awhile . Regardless I greatly want to thank you for the excellent videos. I went through these a couple years ago when first getting into Heidegger and to come back to them now is making me remember and appreciate how good of a teacher are when explaining such complicated subjects! Wish you the best!
husserl has been my pet philosopher ever since i read ideas 1, thank you for these clear explanations of a (in my experience) very challenging but very rewarding and interesting text!
Thanks for doing this. Husserl needs to be understood. I have three requests or questions. 1). The problem of psychologism does not get enough attention and is too often denied. Psychology is today a leading science that everyone studies but the critique of psychologism is never addressed. Where psychology focuses on experience as interaction, the critique of psychology addresses intra-action. How is reality distinct from experience, e.g. unconscious and non conscious unawareness? Isn't there a Freudian method of unconcealing in Husserl and Heidegger? 2). Number 8 in Ideas seemed to me to address theory-laden perception, that is, that our perceptions are theory laden in terms of both beliefs and past experiences, not to mention the distortions which our thinking can impose on actual memories and lead to improper judgments. Is theory-ladenness here in Husserl? 3). Kant does assert that time, space and causality are conditions of thinking, not objects of thought! Husserl seems to reinforce this view. However, we have to ask how do we know time -- because of the perceived distinction between before and after. Likewise, how do we know space -- because of perceived depth. The coincidence between the concept and the percept seems to meet Kant's guideline that concepts require intuitions. So, is it accurate to say that space and time are transcendental?
Some time ago I became interested in philosophy. Now I’m trying to read Husserl and your videos are super helpful. It’s really hard for me to understand what the texts says, so i would like to thank you!😄
This is Kant, except that Kant was content to deduce the transcendental categories from the structure of experience, while Husserl seeks to grasp them directly, intuitively.
it is an amazing cross irony start at 1:19 in: "Parents Kicked off School Property" Columbus police video RU-vid.. & you sound very similar so I know hussurl you are a brilliant speaker but part of me is like "I always knew how smart & cool this cop is" lol :}*
Minor Nitpick: An Individuum isn't a this-here but "a this-here who's material essence is a concretum," i.e. any object of which is entirely self-sufficient (as a concept). The colour red or it's genus colour would not be an individuum as you cannot speak of it without reference to an object which is coloured, the coloured object is an individuum.
Remember that Husserl, unlike Hume, is looking for transcendental ideas or essences, which necessarily show up directly in experience-through the reduction. That’s what makes them transcendental. Hume is discussing ideas outside experience. Husserl always begins with and deals with experience.
"Husserl's idea of philosophy is determined by the thought of a revival of the Socratic-Platonic idea of philosophy as absolute knowledge in its connection with self-knowledge. As such an idea, philosophy is only to be realized in Husserl's view in an infinite historical process, and not as the work of one man and his system."
your voice is amazing it is so similar to the Columbus police channels video host voice that blows my mind put them side by side very similar voice wow
Thanks for the great presentation, was looking for such a thorough one! I also like the charts you use, obviousely this is not Microsoft PPT, could you please tell what program you use?
It is extremely unlikely that you will see a dog just start flying. There is no case documented of it happening -- nor is there any mechanism known by which that is possible. However, can the natural sciences prove that it is absolutely, totally impossible for there to be a genetic mutation tomorrow causing the Pegakelev (winged dog) to be born?
I know it's a rhetorical question but I think a natural scientist's ability to do such a thing is contingent on their understandings of quantum field theory and also their answer to the question can only be true or meaningful in the same context. Which is cool when you think about where new knowledge really comes from. Like if we somehow had a magic 8 ball that just told us if it was possible or not and guaranteed accurate, its answer is totally useless right?
The pot that called the kettle black experienced that pot as such color...sure enough that is a pot...water boils in it...but we don't know what color it is...it is the absorption of everything that reflects nothing...or everything
Do you hear yourself saying "right"? I'd compare it to a constant crackle or skip in an old analog lp, thus rendering it barely listenable. I'd suggest going digital. e.g. "That's what the world is, right", (?), Professor.
Thanks for sharing this, but to be honest this series of videos' on phenomenology is really very poor. unfortunately there is no comprehensive material available on this subject on RU-vid 1) the material is terrible. instead of using PowerPoint alike way, that everybody is using, here we have a very very big sheet (with a very bad background choice) that all the material is residing on. what the hell is this? what is wrong with that old good way of presenting? 2) the choice of words, how to explain things, is like a spaghetti. all together mixed and without any clear distinction 3) no good example to maneuver on to explain difficult idea (this example of book keeps coming back without even fully use it) 4) doesn't answer typical questions that comes to mind on this topic (usually good lecturers replies to typical questions that comes to mind of students. not here!!) 5) using too many difficult words (believe me. I listened to , like 100 video's on philosophy on youtube. none of them uses such difficult words as this one does)
We don't need to think necessarly with words. Please listen to the greatest geometers or painters. About mathematics and experience- William Thurston posed a problem - where do mathematicians get their questions from? He seems to believe - it''s from experience. Nice essay of him - "On proof and progress". www.math.toronto.edu/mccann/199/thurston.pdf
