Husserl’s critique on the state of philosophy and what it must become if it is to be considered a rigorous science reminded me of Descartes foundational project. Husserl doesn’t appear to embrace the same form of radical skepticism, but I think the general idea is still there.
Zahavi’s piece was very enlightening. I have had trouble in the past trying to understand how phenomenology wasn’t just idealism, but this piece made it clear that there is a discrimination between the act of knowing and the object of knowledge.
I agree with the idea that philosophy cannot be considered a true science since it is too objective. And as Husserl points out, would we even want that? Philosophy, among many other things, deals with how to properly carry out a meaningful life given our circumstances. There can be no objective answer to some huge philosophical questions such as these.
I've never thought of the difference between math and psychology in the way that Husserl describes it in that mathematical formulas remain true independent of reality while psychology is much more subjective and reality-dependent.
I do believe there are different ways in which something can be claimed a "science". However as Husserl wrote, philosophy is not something which can be defined as a true science. I believe science is something where you can find one definitive answer, where as philosophy is always open for discussion and debate.
I found this to be the most interesting part of the readings because we still read articles from philosophers from a hundred years ago, and we value their ideas and what their writing says, however the majority of scientist, with regards to a few who made groundbreaking discoveries, fade away because their work becomes invalid after being proved wrong. I just found this to be a unique difference between the two.
I agree with Husserl's conception that philopshy is not a true science and also agree with his stance that its a good thing it is not. With philosphy we are given incredibly differnt ways that we can precive information and live a good life. Instead of these ideas competing like they do in science we can sere which ideas influence us the most. We also can see how we can build off old ideas and and expand upon them in philosphy which does not discredit the ideas like it would in science, but shows us building blocks. We see this with the ancients and the more modern philosphers or people like Hegel transitioning to Marx.
I also enjoyed the reading about phenomenology that Zahavi's wrote. It gave me a better uderstanding on how how its different from epistemology and laid down the building blocks for why the differnts is so important. It also helped me understand my other class about Hegel better and understanding what his true objective is.
I am inclined to agree with Husserl throughout much of the reading. I didn’t think philosophy was a particularly good “natural science” and Husserl rather easily and quickly convinced me that philosophy isn’t a natural science at all. Logic, working off of a binary (“P” or “not P”), is the closest thing to a natural science that philosophy can achieve, but as the reading suggests, the scientific part of logic isn’t using it to find objective conclusions, rather it is the systems and structure of logic that makes is scientific.
I think it is interesting that Husserl gives arguments that support my intuition. His criticism of Psychologism is structured around supporting an idea that I had never read or considered before. I never thought of logic as a psychological phenomenon. It seems quite impossible for me to think that logic exists primarily in the subjective mind, like the perception of color, and not in the natural world, like principles of mathematics.
Whilst I agree with Husserl that philosophy is not a science, I don't think it needs to redefine itself so it becomes one. He mentions that "every position is a matter of individual conviction, of the interpretation given by a school'. I argue that why is this a negative quality of philosophy? The different point of views lend a naturally subjective take on the study of philosophy and that, through study, an individual can choose to guide their life according to their priorities.
I find the linking of Husserl to Plato makes a lot of sense. Like Plato and his theory of the forms, Husserl's perception of logic sounds like a lofty untouchable phenomenon that is often masked by subjective consciousness. Preventing us from observing a kind of mathematical truth.
I find that philosophy is not often even thought of as a science amongst the community of the hard sciences. Philosophy as Rigorous Science was very interesting because it brought up all the doubts that I have about philosophy. Husserl does say in the reading that it is becoming a science, I don't understand how it can even begin to become a science with all the objective stances that everyone takes when it comes to the subject.
Zahavi wrote a very informative piece on phenomenology. It cleared up how I viewed the subject and gave clear guidelines on what the subject actually is.
Husserl's stance on philosophy is an interesting one. he believes that just like science enough information about philosophy can he gathered to the point where philosophy is actually considered to be a science. When science began information was always being gathered and changed before it was considered as concrete truth. hussars believes that philosophy is a lot younger that is why it needs more time to become more like a science.
However, he also acknowledges the differences between philosophy and sciences because philosophy cannot necessarily be taught. Philosophy is a lot more of a feeling out process that science. Science is generally based on hard facts that are irrefutable. Philosophy has a lot to do with opinions and discussions a fact can be changed through mere discussion.
Husserl's critique of psychologism (more properly naturalism) is undoubtedly a necessary one. As there may not be anything more dangerous that one who is empowered by the fruits of empirical knowledge with little to no ethical reasoning skills.
However the positive Husserl may fall into a trap that so many Platonist fall into when trying to put their formalism into theory, namely that, if Husserl wants to make philosophy a science than he must leave room for fallibility. However fallibility and transcendent logical formalism are directly at odds with one and other.
Husserl’s critique on the state of philosophy and what it must become if it is to be considered a rigorous science reminded me of Descartes foundational project. Husserl doesn’t appear to embrace the same form of radical skepticism, but I think the general idea is still there.
ReplyDeleteZahavi’s piece was very enlightening. I have had trouble in the past trying to understand how phenomenology wasn’t just idealism, but this piece made it clear that there is a discrimination between the act of knowing and the object of knowledge.
I agree with the idea that philosophy cannot be considered a true science since it is too objective. And as Husserl points out, would we even want that? Philosophy, among many other things, deals with how to properly carry out a meaningful life given our circumstances. There can be no objective answer to some huge philosophical questions such as these.
ReplyDeleteI've never thought of the difference between math and psychology in the way that Husserl describes it in that mathematical formulas remain true independent of reality while psychology is much more subjective and reality-dependent.
I do believe there are different ways in which something can be claimed a "science". However as Husserl wrote, philosophy is not something which can be defined as a true science. I believe science is something where you can find one definitive answer, where as philosophy is always open for discussion and debate.
ReplyDeleteI found this to be the most interesting part of the readings because we still read articles from philosophers from a hundred years ago, and we value their ideas and what their writing says, however the majority of scientist, with regards to a few who made groundbreaking discoveries, fade away because their work becomes invalid after being proved wrong. I just found this to be a unique difference between the two.
I agree with Husserl's conception that philopshy is not a true science and also agree with his stance that its a good thing it is not. With philosphy we are given incredibly differnt ways that we can precive information and live a good life. Instead of these ideas competing like they do in science we can sere which ideas influence us the most. We also can see how we can build off old ideas and and expand upon them in philosphy which does not discredit the ideas like it would in science, but shows us building blocks. We see this with the ancients and the more modern philosphers or people like Hegel transitioning to Marx.
ReplyDeleteI also enjoyed the reading about phenomenology that Zahavi's wrote. It gave me a better uderstanding on how how its different from epistemology and laid down the building blocks for why the differnts is so important. It also helped me understand my other class about Hegel better and understanding what his true objective is.
I am inclined to agree with Husserl throughout much of the reading. I didn’t think philosophy was a particularly good “natural science” and Husserl rather easily and quickly convinced me that philosophy isn’t a natural science at all. Logic, working off of a binary (“P” or “not P”), is the closest thing to a natural science that philosophy can achieve, but as the reading suggests, the scientific part of logic isn’t using it to find objective conclusions, rather it is the systems and structure of logic that makes is scientific.
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting that Husserl gives arguments that support my intuition. His criticism of Psychologism is structured around supporting an idea that I had never read or considered before. I never thought of logic as a psychological phenomenon. It seems quite impossible for me to think that logic exists primarily in the subjective mind, like the perception of color, and not in the natural world, like principles of mathematics.
Whilst I agree with Husserl that philosophy is not a science, I don't think it needs to redefine itself so it becomes one. He mentions that "every position is a matter of individual conviction, of the interpretation given by a school'. I argue that why is this a negative quality of philosophy? The different point of views lend a naturally subjective take on the study of philosophy and that, through study, an individual can choose to guide their life according to their priorities.
ReplyDeleteI find the linking of Husserl to Plato makes a lot of sense. Like Plato and his theory of the forms, Husserl's perception of logic sounds like a lofty untouchable phenomenon that is often masked by subjective consciousness. Preventing us from observing a kind of mathematical truth.
I find that philosophy is not often even thought of as a science amongst the community of the hard sciences. Philosophy as Rigorous Science was very interesting because it brought up all the doubts that I have about philosophy. Husserl does say in the reading that it is becoming a science, I don't understand how it can even begin to become a science with all the objective stances that everyone takes when it comes to the subject.
ReplyDeleteZahavi wrote a very informative piece on phenomenology. It cleared up how I viewed the subject and gave clear guidelines on what the subject actually is.
Husserl's stance on philosophy is an interesting one. he believes that just like science enough information about philosophy can he gathered to the point where philosophy is actually considered to be a science. When science began information was always being gathered and changed before it was considered as concrete truth. hussars believes that philosophy is a lot younger that is why it needs more time to become more like a science.
ReplyDeleteHowever, he also acknowledges the differences between philosophy and sciences because philosophy cannot necessarily be taught. Philosophy is a lot more of a feeling out process that science. Science is generally based on hard facts that are irrefutable. Philosophy has a lot to do with opinions and discussions a fact can be changed through mere discussion.
Husserl's critique of psychologism (more properly naturalism) is undoubtedly a necessary one. As there may not be anything more dangerous that one who is empowered by the fruits of empirical knowledge with little to no ethical reasoning skills.
ReplyDeleteHowever the positive Husserl may fall into a trap that so many Platonist fall into when trying to put their formalism into theory, namely that, if Husserl wants to make philosophy a science than he must leave room for fallibility. However fallibility and transcendent logical formalism are directly at odds with one and other.