- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
I have a note “Phenomenology for dummies on the example of dummies”, where I tried to explain everything as clearly as possible. If you still have any questions, you can ask them here or there.
Based on guseletovo ideal “Philosophy as rigorous science” and the slogan “Back to the things themselves!”, modern (i.e. not knowing the intellectual and cultural context of the emergence of ideas of phenomenological philosophy in the XIX-XX centuries). the reader may expect that the “phenomenological method” is a new scientific method of study of external subject (material, objective, etc.) of the world. However, the vector of Husserl's thought is directed in the opposite direction-in the direction of consciousness. Because the things of the external (for the researcher) world, whether they are physical objects and processes, mental phenomena, cultural values and meanings, are:
(1)” things “ for the researcher's consciousness, i.e. given to him (consciousness) as objects (subject-literally, what is before-me (t), “in front of me”), and
(2) the researcher's” things ” of consciousness, i.e. those derived from consciousness (its orientation, structure, activity) no less than from the external world and its circumstances.
This circumstance is discovered by the researcher in direct intuition( from within it), i.e., as an intuitively self-evident and self-reliable description (description) that does not require an external explanation, but itself potentially capable of becoming an explanatory and constitutive (establishing) principle for all other “external” things. Potentially, this is because a large, complex and unusual task for classical thinking (due to the need to keep consciousness in such a phenomenological setting) is previously necessary to reflect on the consciousness of its own actual experience.
The procedures (and requirements for their implementation) of consciousness for achieving the phenomenological attitude constitute the content of the phenomenological method. The description and characteristics of these procedures differ both for E. Husserl himself in his works of different times, and for his students, who quite freely interpret the basic concepts of phenomenology in relation to the subjects of their specific research. Research assessments of phenomenological procedures are equally plentiful. Therefore, the following is a certain average and schematized nomenclature of concepts and definitions that characterize the method as an” approximation “of consciousness to” pure consciousness ” through a sequential description of the stages of such purification.
Reflection is the conversion of consciousness from what is given in it (an external object), to the perception of the given, to the very act of such a given. Reflection reveals that what is given in consciousness is given due to the fundamental orientation of consciousness towards something in general – that is, the intentionality of consciousness.
Methodological approach-refraining from making preliminary judgments about the real world as “naive” and irrelevant to phenomenological (“strictly philosophical”) research.
The phenomenological epoch is the operational basis of the following reductions, the consistent “bracketing” of judgments about phenomena of consciousness that are transcendent (i.e. external) to the “pure consciousness”sought by phenomenology.
Phenomenological and psychological reduction – external spatio-temporal world as it is given in the “natural setting” in the traditional Sciences (natural, social, humanitarian), one way or another based on it, is reduced to the mental experiences of a specific subject as to empirical facts that are of informative value to phenomenology regardless of the veracity or illusory nature of the contents of these facts.
Eidetic reduction-clearing the phenomena of consciousness from facticity; reduction of a specific subject and the empirical facts of his experiences, which have a space-time binding (“here and now”) and therefore relative in their truth, to their timeless and universal essences (eidos). Eidos are not derived from facts and are not postulated as being outside of them (separate from them). Eidos are given in the act of ideation.e. they are directly seen in reflexive facts (perceptions, experiences) as a condition of their possibility – as a condition that allows them to happen and be recognized as this perception.
In all cases, the phenomenologist recognizes pain as one or another concrete and at the same time as a separate embodiment of pain in general, since he has (can distinguish) the idea (eidos, essential representation) of pain based on these phenomena.
Transcendental reduction is the further purification of consciousness from the last traces of its connection with transcendent (extra-conscious) phenomena, i.e. with any forms of subjectivity and objectivity. Consciousness completely ceases to be “someone's” and “about something” (no matter how abstract and abstract these “someone” and “something” may be), it opens up as “pure”, absolute, universal, transcendental consciousness. Now it is a correlative noema-noetic structure, wherenoema is the fundamental possibility (and thus unreality) of an object in consciousness, the “pure meaning” or “pure content” of a potential object. And noesis is a pure (i.e., cleansed of objective content) real experience, experience as such.
Having thus dismantled things (the world) and consciousness to their fundamental foundations, E. Husserl could not/did not have time to make a complete reverse assembly, as, indeed, did his students. On the other hand, the critical attitude of phenomenology, which overcomes the traditional non-reflexive attitudes of thinking (even in science), proved to be very fruitful in certain areas that were creatively developed by its followers: in psychology (K. A. Tolstoy). Jaspers), aesthetics (p. Ingarten), sociology (A. Schutz), ontology (J.-P. Sartre), etc.
As a brilliant example of living implementation, if not the letter, then the spirit of the phenomenological method, I will name Merab Mamardashvili: to read any of the series of lectures (about Proust, Descartes, Kant, etc.).
Well, more modest examples – a couple of your own answers 🙂 At least these: �https://thequestion.ru/questions/362891/answer-anchor/answer/513954#answer513954-anchor,https://thequestion.ru/questions/453815/answer-anchor/answer/652136#answer652136-anchor
Good luck! 🙂
It also became interesting. The first impression about the phenomenon of phenomenology — no one can really explain it.�
And when something isn't clear when reading an explanation, it's one of two things: either you don't understand something, or the person explaining it isn't clear-or all at once. We must not lose sight of the phenomenon of a damaged phone — some of the answers above leave the impression that someone who answers, thinking that he knows the answer, does not fully understand what exactly he knows.
In such cases, the most correct thing to do is to refer to the original source, so as not to be a victim of a bad retelling. But I haven't started reading Husserl yet, and I've tried, nevertheless, to make up some impression from more accessible sources.
In any case, it is a noble thing to understand, so I will write what I have formed in my head based on everything that I overlooked on the links in Google and from Tikhonravov's post.
Phenomenology is Platonic idealism, from which all idealism has been cut off.
Here I will make a digression about Platonic idealism in order to explain a less understandable subject through the prism of a more understandable subject.
Plato took the ability of consciousness to classify to the extreme: if a person sees, for example, in the catalog of Ikea, Hoff and the Belarusian furniture factory two dozen different chairs and, despite the radical differences between them, still does not confuse chairs with pots, even when the difference between the chairs is almost greater than between some chairs and some pots — this is because the person has some basic idea of�
Therefore, “idealism” is not from the word “ideal”, but from the word idea. there is a certain reference chair, a sample in the form of a chair idea.
All phenomena that we are able to perceive are projections of universal ideas from the world of ideas onto our reality.
Plato's extremism lies in the fact that, instead of assuming that the general idea of each object and phenomenon is formed by each person for himself, when confronted with them-ideas are actually centralized, exist in their own world of ideas, and we slowly get acquainted with it. That is, there are no 100 ideas that there is a chair — there is one universal idea of a chair in the world of ideas, and the one who first met it-then introduces it to others.�
To make it less metaphysical, you can interpret it as a metaphor for language. That is, we are not talking about the astral and twilight, but banal words: here the word “chair” is just an example of the “idea of a chair” that exists independently of us from the world of ideas — the world of words. �
Nevertheless, Platonic idealism implies a world in which the classifiability of experience is raised to an absolute: everything observed in the real world refers to something in the ideal. Nothing unique, incomprehensible or blurry can exist: either a sheep or a bull, and when it is not clear, it means a musk ox. Everything has its own label.�
Platonic idealism is a view of the world that focuses on the similarities between phenomena, looking for patterns to put everything on the shelves.�
Phenomenology, on the other hand, completely ignores the layer of “ideas” — it does not deny that phenomena can be classified, but avoids it, focusing not on the similarities of phenomena, but on their differences — which makes them unique, each experience of contact with them unique.�
An example of phenomenological thinking is the denial of sexual identity as a social construct. From the point of view of phenomenology, as I understand it, in general, all ideas do not come to us from the world of ideas, but are invented by someone and imposed by society, making it difficult to notice the uniqueness of exceptions.�
Here is the same gender: according to Plato, there is the idea of a man and the idea of a woman — according to them we measure others, referring to one or the other sex. But this classification constantly turns out to discriminate: if there is a “real woman” and a “real man”, then there are also “fake” ones-for whom this “idealism” turns into discrimination: “you're not a man, “” what kind of woman are you?”
And if you start expanding both concepts so that everyone can fit in, they will inevitably overlap and interfere with each other. And there is simply no universal criterion: even chromosomes will not help you, because here transgender people come into play.�
And in order not to offend anyone, it is easier to abandon these gender identities altogether. We're all human, we're all human. Having abandoned the gender classification, the Husserlian makes his own measure for each person, taking him as much as possible as he is, without driving him into any pre-established “ideological” framework.�
In this I see the moral force of phenomenology — any classification always implies coarsening, a cut-off line, beyond which-sorry, you are objects and observed phenomena from another category.�
Actually, this is how I now, at this stage of acquaintance with the subject, see phenomenology: phenomenology is not just another idea that explains the structure of the world, but rather a moral position, a critical point of view on the loss of the subjective factor, the factor of uniqueness of each experience experienced by a person, by existing ideas of explaining the structure of the world.
Phenomenology does not deny the systematizability and orderability of reality — it simply does not take them into account.�
For example, suffering. No one suffers uniquely — we all experience pain for the same set of reasons and from the same palette of sensations.�
This is the explanation. But there is no compassion in it. And, from the point of view of a person who is experiencing pain, it is useless — for everyone, their own pain is unique.�
Of course, a systematic approach is necessary: without classification and systematization of suffering, the appearance of painkillers would be impossible.�
But not all pain is treated, and those who regularly encounter it — for example, psychological support specialists: even if a hundred people turn to them in a row with an absolutely identical problem “teenager-unhappy love-suicide-drug addiction” — this information will not help either the sufferers to stop suffering, or the specialists to do their job — so the thoughts that” everyone has the same thing ” are dismissed — and each case is considered unique. This is the essence of phenomenology and the ethics of phenomenology — what I have been able to understand so far.
The phenomenological method
I have already reached this point on a tangent, catching an even more general impression.
As I understand it, the phenomenological method is not an independent methodology, but a filter, an ethical filter that can be applied to any existing method of any research related to a person in order to enhance the significance of subjective aspects of the issue, individual factors.�
Therefore, it is more correct to call it not even a method — the word method has other translation options that are more nuanced than the literal one-since there is no method as such, but an approach.
In other words, the phenomenological method is a phenomenological approach to the existing methods of any research related to humans.
And the phenomenological approach is an approach with an emphasis on individuality.
In short, the phenomenological method (approach) consists in humanizing the methods.
And so that a very good definition comes out:
The phenomenological approach is to humanize the methods in order to improve their accuracy.
“Human-related research” — because phenomenology is subjectivism raised to the absolute. If there is no person in the subject of research, then there is no subjective side of the question that can be overlooked by traditional methods.�
In other words, the method of calculating the average temperature of the Earth in the Cretaceous period can be tried to humanize — but this will not improve the accuracy of the results.
Whereas in sociology, psychology, and a million other sciences and subjects, the phenomenological method improves the accuracy of results.�
For example, the method of organizing the labor force: resume. There is a standard scheme: contacts, basic data, work experience, achievements, wishes, blah-blah-blah.
A lot of people suffer from this and feel that they cannot present themselves correctly within these fields.�
Phenomenological method of finding employees:�
Level I. Resume + cover letter.�
Level II. An empty village without a graph. Everyone writes their resume as they see fit, as they see fit. But this is also not phenomenological enough, because it restricts people to the textual way of expressing thoughts, discriminating in favor of those who have a better command of the written word.�
Level III. Custom resume submission form and format.�
Of course, the spherical phenomenological method in a vacuum generally consists in destroying any research, since it denies systematization.�
Therefore, in practice, as I understand it, the phenomenological method means an improvement of existing methodologies for human-oriented research, with the aim of more subtle reading and recording in the results of research of individual characteristics of a person.�
That is, level I: add a field for a cover letter to the resume submission form on the site — and expand the systematization of resumes by criteria applied to cover letters — for example, initiative, eloquence, etc.�
Additions and amendments are accepted, but attempts to show off will not be appreciated.
This is my first approach to the topic. The goal of the approach was not to “learn everything”, but to learn something, but in a complete enough way to understand what follows and what justifies it.