I think that Husserl's main contribution was to define phenomonology. It will be difficult to interpret Heiddegar or Sartre without the ideas in his book "Ideas". It is true that Heiddegar and Sartre, deal with being and Husserl sort of missed it, but the application of phenomenology to ontology was really what gave them their breakthroughs – and that’s where your breakthrough can occur too – Husserl’s reduction gave them access to the material they published..
Vam might have some recommended reading from India. Not sure how he got tuned in but I bet you dollars to donuts he has some very interesting source material. You might consider this reduced list : Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Kierkegaard, Nietchze, Jung, Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Wittgenstein, Popper, Denning, Searle (Not sure Jung belongs there. Have you seen his « Red Book yet ?) I would study them in this order though : (Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre), (Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas), (Kant), (Kierkegaard, Nietchze), (Wittgenstein), (Jung), (Popper, Dennet, Searle) I would focus on ontology throughout. You won't be able to get through all of each category but after you get a feel for it you can move on and come back to fill in detail. Who knows, maybe we will need to add you to the list if you ever can write up what you find out! What's that phrase? "The unexamined life is scarcely worth living?" Oh, and one other thing to remember... you know what's wrong with just "having a positive mental attitude"?...... Its just too depressing...:) On Jan 18, 1:25 pm, Twirlip <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan 18, 12:08 pm, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Consider adding Husserl and Aquinas > > I certainly considered adding Husserl, especially since he started as > a mathematician, but something I read somewhere, a year or so ago, > suggested that I would not really find him at all congenial. I'm > sorry I cannot remember the details, but it was an article comparing > and contrasting his version of phenomenology with someone else's, > possibly Merleau-Ponty (but again I'm not sure), and although I'm > unfamiliar with the field, I formed a definite impression that the > argument went in favour of the other guy, from my point of view. > > I also skimmed through a book called /Numbers in Presence and Absence: > A Study of Husserl's Philosophy of Mathematics/, by J. Philip Miller > (this was a good few years ago, but I have some notes somewhere), and > again didn't form a favourable impression of H's way of thinking. I > know he's a founding father, and all that, bu FWIW my impression is > that I would prefer to know about how the field moved on after he > founded it (if that is possible). > > Aquinas, of course, is bound to come up in any list of great > philosophers, but I just don't happen to know anything about him that > would give me any impression, favourable or unfavourable, that I can > latch onto (apart from my bias against Christians).
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
