What is Phenomenology?

[Jim_Baur]

What is Phenomenology?

The part that seems to be confusing me is perception.

Is in only intellectual perception?

If it is possible, keep it simple!

THANKS!

 

[davidv]

What is Phenomenology?

The part that seems to be confusing me is perception.

Is in only intellectual perception?

If it is possible, keep it simple!

THANKS!

This quote from the Wikipedia article on Phenomenology may be a good place to start. It seems go well beyond intellectual perception. Pope John Paul II used a phenomonological basis for much of his Theology of the Body.

In its most basic form, phenomenology attempts to create conditions for the objective study of topics usually regarded as subjective: consciousness and the content of conscious experiences such as judgments, perceptions, and emotions. Although phenomenology seeks to be scientific, it does not attempt to study consciousness from the perspective of clinical psychology or neurology. Instead, it seeks through systematic reflection to determine the essential properties and structures of experience.citation needed]

 

[Jim_Baur]

davidv:

Thanks!

I did not know that about St. Pope John Paul II.

 

[Bahman]

What is Phenomenology?

The part that seems to be confusing me is perception.

Is in only intellectual perception?

If it is possible, keep it simple!

THANKS!

To know yourself/consciousness through reflection.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Thanks!!!

 

[thinkandmull]

This quote from the Wikipedia article on Phenomenology may be a good place to start. It seems go well beyond intellectual perception. Pope John Paul II used a phenomonological basis for much of his Theology of the Body.

“does not attempt to study consciousness from the perspective of clinical psychology… it seeks through systematic reflection to determine the essential properties and structures of experience”

What’s the difference?

 

[Bahman]

“does not attempt to study consciousness from the perspective of clinical psychology… it seeks through systematic reflection to determine the essential properties and structures of experience”

What’s the difference?

The former is third person whereas the later is first person observation. I however think both of them are necessary.

 

[Jim_Baur]

“does not attempt to study consciousness from the perspective of clinical psychology… it seeks through systematic reflection to determine the essential properties and structures of experience”

Am I correct, they are concerned only with intellectual experience?

Am I correct, they are not concerned about physical senses?

THANKS!

 

[Bahman]

“does not attempt to study consciousness from the perspective of clinical psychology… it seeks through systematic reflection to determine the essential properties and structures of experience”

Am I correct, they are concerned only with intellectual experience?

What is internal or spiritual.

Am I correct, they are not concerned about physical senses?

THANKS!

What is external or physical.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Thanks!

 

[davidv]

“does not attempt to study consciousness from the perspective of clinical psychology… it seeks through systematic reflection to determine the essential properties and structures of experience”

Am I correct, they are concerned only with intellectual experience?

Am I correct, they are not concerned about physical senses?

THANKS!

I don’t think either of these can be concluded from what I quoted.

 

[thinkandmull]

I think phemenology is a myth. Name one doctrine, or one sentence, in the theology of the body that is based on the idea that things merely appear a certain way and may not really be that way. Can anyone find this idea in anything John Paul II wrote?

 

[davidv]

I think phemenology is a myth. Name one doctrine, or one sentence, in the theology of the body that is based on the idea that things merely appear a certain way and may not really be that way. Can anyone find this idea in anything John Paul II wrote?

What you describe here is not phenomenology. There is nothing merely about it. Before making such rash proclamations a reading of the introduction to Man and Woman He Created Them A Theology of the Body by John Paul II, translated by Michael Waldstein would be prudent. (ISBN 0-8198-7421-3)

 

[thinkandmull]

“Phenomenology is primarily concerned with the systematic reflection on and study of the structures of consciousness and the phenomena that appear in acts of consciousness. This ontology (study of reality) can be clearly differentiated from the Cartesian method of analysis which sees the world as objects, sets of objects, and objects acting and reacting upon one another.”

Male and female are physical objects right? So this alleged “Cartesian method” enters in when speaking of sex, a physical act. How else do we know that the male and female bodies are meant for each other without observation of reality. If phenomenology is speaking of how **ideas **fit together, than it is metaphysics and psychology. If its just feelings, than its psychology. This is not a different “method” than the human method that was used by Aristotle when speaking of the soul, on dreams, ect.

I read a lot of the BOD and I am never rash when discussing philosophy. People like to make up words and put old ideas in that category. It’s like the anti-Confucian campaign in China in the 1970s which attacked the "four olds (Confucian culture, ideology, customs, and habits). Customs and habits are the same thing, and culture is ideology combined with customs.

 

[davidv]

“Phenomenology is primarily concerned with the systematic reflection on and study of the structures of consciousness and the phenomena that appear in acts of consciousness. This ontology (study of reality) can be clearly differentiated from the Cartesian method of analysis which sees the world as objects, sets of objects, and objects acting and reacting upon one another.”

Male and female are physical objects right?

Not completely correct. People are also subjects. It is the study of the human as a subject which is phenomenology. One of JP II dissertations was largely based on this view.

So this alleged “Cartesian method” enters in when speaking of sex, a physical act. How else do we know that the male and female bodies are meant for each other without observation of reality. If phenomenology is speaking of how **ideas **fit together, than it is metaphysics and psychology. If its just feelings, than its psychology. This is not a different “method” than the human method that was used by Aristotle when speaking of the soul, on dreams, ect.

I read a lot of the BOD and I am never rash when discussing philosophy. People like to make up words and put old ideas in that category. It’s like the anti-Confucian campaign in China in the 1970s which attacked the "four olds (Confucian culture, ideology, customs, and habits). Customs and habits are the same thing, and culture is ideology combined with customs.

Have you read Michael Waldstein’s introduction to the TOB?

 

[thinkandmull]

I haven’t read that, but who has denied before this “phenomenology” came about that people are subjects? I am not saying that in those writings there aren’t ideas or arguments. But it is not a new philosophy. Its not distinct. That’s what I’ve tried to show to some traditionalists who think that phenomenology is a boggy man. I ask them “name an IDEA that you disagree with”, not this alleged method or use of a certain phrase. There really isn’t such a thing as a method in philosophy. A method is a technique like in fencing. In philosophy there are accepted principles, arguments used to show new truths, and that’s all

 

[davidv]

I haven’t read that, but who has denied before this “phenomenology” came about that people are subjects? I am not saying that in those writings there aren’t ideas or arguments. But it is not a new philosophy. Its not distinct. That’s what I’ve tried to show to some traditionalists who think that phenomenology is a boggy man. I ask them “name an IDEA that you disagree with”, not this alleged method or use of a certain phrase. There really isn’t such a thing as a method in philosophy. A method is a technique like in fencing. In philosophy there are accepted principles, arguments used to show new truths, and that’s all

Based on this I am very confused as to why you called phenomenology a myth.
Can you explain why you posted the following?

thinkandmull:

I think phemenology is a myth. Name one doctrine, or one sentence, in the theology of the body that is based on the idea that things merely appear a certain way and may not really be that way. Can anyone find this idea in anything John Paul II wrote?

 

[thinkandmull]

There may be new ideas and arguments in Hurssel and John Paul II’s writings, but philosophers usually bring something new to the table. Take the first (whoever it was) philosopher who said that everything is idea. That’s new. What is new about phemenology in general?

 

[davidv]

There may be new ideas and arguments in Hurssel and John Paul II’s writings, but philosophers usually bring something new to the table. Take the first (whoever it was) philosopher who said that everything is idea. That’s new. What is new about phemenology in general?

I don’t know if there is anything new. Given that Husserl died almost 90 years ago, I would not bet against some advancement since then. Besides, why is the newness of Phenonomenolgy a concern?

 

[thinkandmull]

Well people act as if it is a new field of philosophy and its not. What modern idea did John Paul II get from it that he incorporated into his written works?