An introduction to Phenomenology

[Bernardo Carleial]

Here is an ENTIRE PLAYLIST on the subject. Which covers its fundamental concepts in a very educational manner.

Enjoy!??

 

[Origins]

Descarte's cogito I'd argue is false and I've reasoned up to a similar point in my own observations however I went one step further by realising that it could just be a loop. 

A loop doesn't necessarily have to exist but merely loop that it is existing, similar to his notion about a computer program but one step further, the appearance of "I exist" may actually just be a bug in said programming.

Moreover, its been established that we have hundreds of cognitive biases so what makes us so confident that the appearance of "I exist" is also not just a cognitive bias.

I don't know why I'm the first person I've come across that's established this very basic reasoning.

Remember, the brain fools itself so darn easily by its own reasoning, its because our reasoning is so faulty that we believe ourselves to be faultless on some points sometimes. 

[Origins]

He's also wrong about Locke's conception of the mind where he talks about Locke saying "Well how can I be certain that what I'm experiencing in my minds eye actually accurately represents the object in the world?" and then saying its impossible.

All you have to do is look at a pencil close your eyes and draw it blindfolded then compare before and after. 

Edited October 23, 2020 by Origins

[Origins]

15:54 min/sec 

First person experience is just a common experience but its likely a major, major assumption. Referentially speaking it has credibility, in that, consciousness refers to itself when articulating on and extending itself through the lens of experience, but this is more of a loop than a categorical static sensation that is often denoted as the first person experience. 

Firstly, what is meant by "first", "person" and "experience" and how exactly does this come before consciousness? 

There's A LOT of assumptions embedded in each of those words held together I'm suspecting.

[Origins]

17:41

Massive assumptions there regarding directionality, perfect description of someone Locke'd (pun intended) in Descarte thought.

He's leading the audience as well, getting them to make the exact same assumption by assuming the assumptions that underpin his statements, of which he hasn't articulated very well, must be true.

[Origins]

21:18 min/sec

This is not only not factually correct its also overly simplified, for example when we're born for the first time we're not like this, we also experience this very differently depending on our psychological and biological development, a mental action that can also be highly influenced by things like drugs, neuroplasticity and other perceivable (i.e. social - for example, sometimes the social biases around conformity might actually dictate our prejudices more than our prior mental schemas) and experiential phenomena.

Dunning-Kruger effect unfortunately so far, this just shows us how far behind philosophy is to basic reality.

Edited October 23, 2020 by Origins

[Origins]

25:30- more dunning-kruger effect unfortunately - the distinctness between psychology and philosophy is purely based on your beginning position (i.e. questions) and has nothing to do with philosophy being fundamentally distinct and prior to psychology. You can't philosophise without psychology and you can't do psychology without a philosophy, its total nonsense, what we're looking at is different ends and varying means rather than entirely separate subjects. There is always an intrinsic overlap and this can be represented by a Venn diagram with separations owing to psychology and on the other side separations owing to philosophy, that is how they get their categories, where they diverge not where one begins and the other ends as that is the wrong question to be asking.

Edited October 23, 2020 by Origins

[Origins]

29:51

Genetic psychology has literally zero to do with studying the causes of mental phenomena. ZERO. 

Genetic psychology on the other hand has everything to do with how genes influence behaviour. 

Not cause. NEVER cause. This is merely correlational.

Again, severe dunning-kruger here.

[Origins]

Gotta be careful, so many PhD's that are just bullshitters because they need a cushy job to preach what they've been brainwashed by because they struggle to create original content. This person does not understand what their teaching here on a deep level, very, very shallow introduction.

I've just gotta say it how it is. 

At the same time it's not really their fault, and I'm sure it gets beginners minds still thinking of interesting ideas.

Thanks for sharing.

[Bernardo Carleial]

3 hours ago, Origins said:

Gotta be careful, so many PhD's that are just bullshitters because they need a cushy job to preach what they've been brainwashed by because they struggle to create original content. This person does not understand what their teaching here on a deep level, very, very shallow introduction.

I've just gotta say it how it is. 

At the same time it's not really their fault, and I'm sure it gets beginners minds still thinking of interesting ideas.

Thanks for sharing.

Hi @Origins ! Thank you for sharing your thoughts! ??

To be honest. I'm actually one of those begginers with regard to this topic, I don't know much about it(yet). But I decided to share it anyway because he seemed to be very factual with regard to its basic concepts as wel as its history. Well... I might be wrong about that...??

 

[Origins]

I'm also overly critical sometimes, that's just how it is on the path to truth though though on that path I sometimes forget I'm dealing with other human beings haha. Truth only has one standard and humans only have a certain standard they can reach within the exact moment they're attempting to potentialise themselves. Peace and good luck on your journey there.

[Bernardo Carleial]

4 hours ago, Origins said:

I'm also overly critical sometimes, that's just how it is on the path to truth though though on that path I sometimes forget I'm dealing with other human beings haha. Truth only has one standard and humans only have a certain standard they can reach within the exact moment they're attempting to potentialise themselves. Peace and good luck on your journey there.

Thank you my friend!?

@OriginsBy the way. What good source would you recommend as an introduction to Phenomenology? I tried to read Heidegger's Being and Time, but I find it extremely complex, both the content as well as his writing style...

If you have any suggestions I'd appreciate it deeply.?

 

Edited October 23, 2020 by Bernardo Carleial

[Carl-Richard]

11 hours ago, Origins said:

Descarte's cogito I'd argue is false

LOL

[Cosmin_Visan]

On 10/23/2020 at 2:11 PM, Origins said:

Firstly, what is meant by "first", "person" and "experience" and how exactly does this come before consciousness?

Clearly, all words can be questioned. But if we do this, don't we end up in madness ? Where do we draw the line so that we can have a healthy understanding of the world ? For example, if you question even "experience", which to me is so basic, what are you left out with ? What are your basic concepts on which you build your understanding of the world ?