Haha like I said, no one else has “even begun”. I wouldn’t blame you for switching to Ideas II or better, Thing and Space, Analyses Concerning passive and Active synthesis, or Experience and Judgement. Those are packed with “oh wows”, especially E&J.
Many thanks for what you are doing! You should have at least 100K subscribers. I think I am about to binge watch all your videos in a week or so, they are so interesting and clear!
I will say that Husserl has always galvanized me more than Heidegger and the rest. Something hopeful and ballsy in his approach, methodological rigor, and intense certainty of theoretical knowledge. I hate that most of the other phenomenologists gave all that up for more politicized and anthropological focus.
Oh God another comment and I will stop. Hopefully as you engage with him more you realize that you're incorrect that Husserl argues that we have to somehow step outside the world and lived experience. In fact, the point of the phenomenological project is to disclose philosophically meaning as essence to first person subjectivity , which, I think clearly, is a commitment to lived experience, not a retreat from it to a more abstract analysis. You suspend the natural attitude to disclose to your reflection the immanent essential meanings you provide to objectivity in lived experience - not a retreat to analysis and abstraction, in fact it's the opposite. Though I take it that this is probably a comment on the type of writing that Husserl uses, which tends toward abstraction (and he was a poor writer, admittedly), and Ideas I circles around the drain for awhile before getting sucked into the whole project after the reduction. Been years since I read it from beginning to end, so your video is a good refresher for me!
I agree that Husserl doesn’t hit the core of our being in the same way as others. I’m hoping that this process is a healthy sort of slogging, like some of Kant or Hegel. Thank you always for making such helpful companion videos!
Thanks Thomas. I definitely think Husserl qualifies as a "healthy sort of slogging". You may not _enjoy_ reading him (fewer of those satisfying and enlightening, "Oh yeah, that's exactly right!" moments), but you will come out the other end better off for it.
I’ve always though that understand Heidegger required one of two dispositions-either you’ve never studied philosophy but are ‘poetically’ or artistically inclined in a profound way (or you’ve only ever studied Nietzsche), or...you are very well versed in the history of modern philosophy and have a thorough understanding of Kant and Husserl and therefore a strong understanding of the transcendental paradigm. Otherwise, you are bound to develop some fundamental misunderstanding of Heideggers method or his actual theories of being. Just my opinion though
I’ve been thinking about reading Husserl for awhile . His form of phenomenology appeals to me more than Sartre cause I come from a nonmaterial starting point . I know he’s hard to read though I’ll have to listen to this later
Hey Mind Hack. Long time, no hear. Oh cool. Maybe this will be right up your alley, then. On a side note: my RU-vid algorithm recently kicked up that old vid of yours about The Joker. Good times...
Morning Nathan! I am quite happy that you're doing this Husserl series now! I was actually wondering if you could set up an Amazon wishlist, I'd totally buy you a book (or whatever else) as a sign gratitude for your work.
Gee, thanks a lot, Till. That's really generous. A couple of people have asked about Patreon, but I don't feel 100% comfortable with that just yet (these vids just don't seem to me like something I should accept payment for). I also worry that accepting payment might (somewhat justifiably) encourage requests, which, as much as I would love to fulfil for people, I just don't have the time for. That said, I'll set up a public Amazon wishlist under my full name, Nathan Hohipuha, this weekend. (I won't be offended if you wait to see if the series is worth it!!)
@@Schildkroetenpanda Yes, I did. I made it public, so I think you can search for it using my name. I can't see how I can invite you without some specific contact details.
@@kalplata1 Ah, so it seems you can't just search for someone's wish list. Thanks for making things complicated Amazon. Here is the link, which I believe will take you to my wish list: www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/3N746I02FV27S?ref_=wl_share
@@captainstrangiato961 many of them still haven’t been translated & Husserl never gets easy, just less dry/abstract. See: experience and judgement. The Paris lectures. Analyses concerning passive and active synthesis. Thing and space. Ideas II. The phenomenology of internal time consciousness. .
@@captainstrangiato961 upon review, looks like the “Husserliana” may have been completed recently. If you want secondary sources check out: Sokolowski - Introduction to Phenomenology D Wellon - The Other Husserl
Hi. No inconvenience at all. Unfortunately, I haven't read Ideas II, so I'm not sure. However, Husserl considered Ideas I the place where he first properly laid out the principles of phenomenology, so I would imagine it to be at least very helpful to read first.
dear mr absurd being thanks for your video, you help me in my studing. I want request video biografi edmund husserl. thank you. oh im sorry my english vary bad
It seems to me that the video starts off missing the point, I could be wrong. I think the husserl was trying to do, given my limited knowledge on the subject, was that he first wanted to bracket any preconceptions, or judgments about what we are experiencing; then just take the experience as it is without prejudice. In other words when you experience, just as an example, don’t regard that there is some mental world and at the same time some physical world outside the mental world, for that is a Cartesian judgment. Suspend all judgments and just take, or accept and be inclusive of the experience as it is given in the manner that it is given; and try to discover real structures of experience. And by real structures, I believe admin means structures that are in variant. But I am still learning this myself, so again I might be wrong.
Well, you're right about Husserl's method (it's called the phenomenological reduction), but not about my method in this series, I think. You know I'm working through _Ideas_ right? The reduction doesn't come up until Part II, chapter 1.
