Husserl

 I feel we all owe Husserl, at least -- anyone who takes phenomenology seriously. He was treated poorly by the philosophical community for unjust reasons. 

But my God, I'm going to say, I have a hard time reading him. lol. I love everyone inspired by Husserl, other than Heidegger. I owe Husserl a read. But daaaaaamn I don't know what it is but I just tone out reading him.

I think it's both what I'm interpreting as seeming like it's just obviously false on so many frontiers, and that he treats it all like it's obviously true. I think it must be the sort of description of the mind that a scientist would give, a more particular phenomenology than how it is presented -- because I don't believe there *is* a science of science, much less a science of consciousness, and then Husserl goes off the deep end, so it seems, in Ideas (though, of course, there are interpreters who go a different direction with him too. . . )

Soooo.... it's like I'm reading him to appreciate the intellectual background of people I'm interested in, but everytime I try I'm so influenced by those later people that I often find myself rolling my eyes and being actually unable to read with charity. lol. All this time later and I can still find a writer who does this to me, who challenges my notion of charity. 

This all by way of expressing my frustration to read him for realzies. I've been sitting on these thoughts and looking for the proper venue to put it, and I think my silly blog is the best spot because I wouldn't take the thoughts too seriously. Just frustrations in reading.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Continental/Analytic

 I think the real origin of the continental/analytic divide is laziness. Given that you'd have to read so much more to appreciate the other side, one picks up a few representative examples to make sure they're not wrong, quickly reads through them, horribly misinterprets them, then calls it a day.
Read more

list of projects i won't work on, most likely, but float around in my head from time to time so maybe i'll get motivated to move them to the work on them list

 distinction between transcendental logic, classic logic, and modern logic (would need to review prior/post analytics, and actually read the topics rather than just summaries, then probably the transcendental deduction at least, then move onto actually tackling cantor and frege -- so, like, kinda cool idea but what a huge project) -- with the intent of finally being able to offer a bridging theory on the dialectic (so, once again, i would have to subject myself to the science of logic, and just suck it up this time) SO THAT IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE to state Marx's theory in Capital, v.1 in multiple logical systems. <---- look i told you i probably won't work on it lol, but what a book that would be, eh? A thorough Marxist history of feudalism to the dawn of capitalism which includes pre-feudal history to the extent possible (anthropological rather than philosophical pre-history, ala the state of nature and all that rot -- rather, a proper history of primitive accumulation, again
Read more

Nonsense and Anarchy

 I think I'm a reluctant anarchist in the sense that I wish something other than anarchy would have worked But am an anarchistic because I believe the state won't work. Against the state. Against the nation. For the people. I liked Occupy for the reason that it gave me that experience where people could be people.  We all are just dancing according to whatever nonsense. And anarchy is the way out of that nonsense. If we just choose to see it, and act on it. 
Read more