Phenomenology Husserl, Heidegger and Catholicism

[jimmy85]

I was watching this video
youtube.com/watch?v=aaGk6S1qhz0

and reading about Edmund Husserl, in wikipedia, he is said to be one of Pope John Paul II.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Husserl

In Husserl’s conception, phenomenology is primarily concerned with making the structures of consciousness, and the phenomena which appear in acts of consciousness, objects of systematic reflection and analysis. Such reflection was to take place from a highly modified “first person” viewpoint, studying phenomena not as they appear to “my” consciousness, but to any consciousness whatsoever. Husserl believed that phenomenology could thus provide a firm basis for all human knowledge, including scientific knowledge, and could establish philosophy as a “rigorous science”.

I personally wonder in which way John Paul II was influenciated by phenomenology since the christian philosophy is a kind of departure from these schools of philosophy like the philosophy of language, phenomenology, existensialism etc.

As I see it, in most of these schools of thought the philosophy is subjective, the abstract concepts or platonic ideas are key, the study of meaning plays a huge roll in the philosophy of language, conciousness is studied and so on, unlike in catholic philosophy.

 

[kooldood]

ok, so i dont really know much about this, but if this helps, Husserl and his Phenomenology caused many people, like St. Edith Stein, to convert to Catholicism and i think phenomenology is acceptable by Catholic standards.

 

[Betterave]

I personally wonder in which way John Paul II was influenciated by phenomenology since the christian philosophy is a kind of departure from these schools of philosophy like the philosophy of language, phenomenology, existensialism etc.

As I see it, in most of these schools of thought the philosophy is subjective, the abstract concepts or platonic ideas are key, the study of meaning plays a huge roll in the philosophy of language, conciousness is studied and so on, unlike in catholic philosophy.

Actually there is no ‘christian philosophy’, simply put. Catholic philosophy is really catholic, not a parochial rejection of anything that does not fit within a predetermined program. It is not synonymous with Thomism, for example. I think that philosophy of language, phenomenology, existentialism, etc. are better seen as developments of Christian philosophy than departures (which is not to say they necessarily remain Christian or that they are always ‘true’ developments). One of JPII’s favorite themes was the personalistic norm, he was very concerned with the nature of the subject and its differentiation from/coincidence with the object. Platonism is also not a departure from Christianity. Augustine considered Plato to be the philosopher par excellence. As for the study of meaning, this has always been important in philosophy (how could it not be?).

 

[Areopagite]

Actually there is no ‘christian philosophy’, simply put. Catholic philosophy is really catholic, not a parochial rejection of anything that does not fit within a predetermined program. It is not synonymous with Thomism, for example. I think that philosophy of language, phenomenology, existentialism, etc. are better seen as developments of Christian philosophy than departures (which is not to say they necessarily remain Christian or that they are always ‘true’ developments). One of JPII’s favorite themes was the personalistic norm, he was very concerned with the nature of the subject and its differentiation from/coincidence with the object.

I agree.

Platonism is also not a departure from Christianity. Augustine considered Plato to be the philosopher par excellence.

Just to be annoying, I’ll say that Platonism has a few things incompatible with Christianity, such as the idea that it is more natural for the soul to be separated from the body. You could say Augustinian Neo-Platonism got rid of that aspect. But it just shows that even if some philosopher said something really wrong, it doesn’t necessarily contaminate everything else he said.

Also, if I’m not mistaken, JP2 said that Phenomenology can be used as a good “method” for discovering certain truths. However, he also said it was highly unfit to discover truths about morality, for example. In fact, he went so far as to say that if one is a Phenomenologist (on that matter, at least), one cannot be a Christian.

 

[Daedelus76]

Just to be annoying, I’ll say that Platonism has a few things incompatible with Christianity, such as the idea that it is more natural for the soul to be separated from the body. You could say Augustinian Neo-Platonism got rid of that aspect. But it just shows that even if some philosopher said something really wrong, it doesn’t necessarily contaminate everything else he said…

In fairness, how do you know it is indeed more natural for souls to have a body? I guess it depends on what you mean by “soul” and “body” too. Many people have highly dualistic views of this. In fact I’d argue in some ways many Christians views of the concept of body and soul are just as dualistic as Platonists, when there are other ways to view what the soul could be, other than a mind trapped in matter. Thinking of a human being as a rational intellect controlling a robot-like body, is completely wrong, in fact.

I don’t pretend to understand the metaphysics of resurrection, but just consider this: The Egyptians also believed in something like resurrection, they believed in packing away all their stuff for the afterlife. They didn’t rationally think it out at all and it would seem absurd to many modern, especially irreligious people, it was just magical thinking (in reality, a sentiment suited far more to the living). I’d argue the Hebrews belief in resurrection appealed to the same basic magical thinking. Other cultures conceived of otherworldly existence as involving some kind of spiritual body in some other realm (the ancient Chinese, or the later Taoist for instance).

 

[Betterave]

Also, if I’m not mistaken, JP2 said that Phenomenology can be used as a good “method” for discovering certain truths. However, he also said it was highly unfit to discover truths about morality, for example. In fact, he went so far as to say that if one is a Phenomenologist (on that matter, at least), one cannot be a Christian.

I’d be interested if you could elaborate on that.