On Jan 18, 12:54 pm, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
