But Let’s Give It A Shot

It is difficult to answer this question simply by considering the works of Husserl himself, easier with Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty slightly, and with Sartre even. But let’s give it a shot. You can study from anyone. Yet the principle things we can learn from Husserl need to all be “under interpretation,” and an interpretation that he and his Orthodox enthusiasts would not admit. For example, yes we should “get to the things themselves lower back,” and this means phenomena, i.e. the basic things and occurrences inside our experienced world once we experience them.

Start with experience: this is an excellent philosophical guideline, although I’d like to permit this to add the knowledge of reading/imagining: experience does not have to be outside the library. Start from experience: this is the same call that are manufactured by the American pragmatists, and that is clearly a plus.

  • 2 cups of standard water
  • Frizz-X Keratin Spray 4oz Coarse Hair By Forever Smooth
  • 79 – Look after your inner religious beauty. Which will reflect in that person. Dolores del Rio
  • No To Crash Dieting

Further, we can agree that philosophy involves description of experience, and even, shocking for some, that the aim of philosophical inquiry is intuition of essences. However, unlike Husserl, the essences intuited aren’t eternal and unchanging. Essences aren’t universals in the traditional sense: indeed they’re people of a sort.

They even have local color, i.e. when one intuits a substance, say the essence of art, there is certainly an experience included that’s not subconscious purely, that has a sensuous aspect. Essences are patterns in neuro-scientific experience, very specific behavior distinctive because of their penetrative ability and their, at least at some point in their opportunities, infectiousness. It comes after that, contra Husserl, and even, almost every other philosophers, with the possible exception of Heidegger, I maintain that the main difference between poetry and beliefs is not very great. For example it isn’t true that philosophy just deals with universals and poetry just with particulars.

Rather, the essences that are recognized and described both in idea and in poetry have two aspects: a specific aspect and a common aspect. Both ideas and poetry try to achieve understanding through metaphors, except that in idea the metaphors are not always viewed as such and don’t operate quite just how metaphors do in poetry. The intuition of essences is also not purely subjective, but neither is it purely objective: the subjective/objective distinction collapses here, both in philosophy and in poetry.

Essences are real as intentional items of phenomenological or philosophical (a similar thing) inquiry but are constituted as they are intuited. That is, the discovery of them is also a making. The differentiation between truth and strategy to that your concept refers dissolves in the intuition and brief description of essences.

Essences are patterns in experienced that are somewhat actualized by their meaning, and the elaboration of this meaning is further actualization. Again, I agree with Husserl a type or kind of bracketing is needed for phenomenological insight, however the consequence is similar to what Kant witnessed as disinterested aesthetic experience, the essences being more like what Kant observed as visual ideas. Both Kant and Husserl said that people should not think about the existence of the plain thing, except Kant discusses this with regards to aesthetic experience, i.e. experience of beauty, and Husserl in relation to phenomenological account.