What is the best way to start studying E. Husserl's phenomenology?
What is the mandatory philosophical minimum for entering into phenomenological problems?
Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
For myself, as I have no higher education and have only a keen interest in the problems of self-knowledge, I found a slightly different path in studying the subject. Although after the fact. In the beginning, I started with “Cartesian Reflections”as recommended here. But it is difficult for a person who is not versed in philosophical special terminology and research levels to perceive the information presented in them,which is of a qualitatively higher level than even a confident orientation in “everyday” philosophy. This, in my opinion, is already a qualitative intersection of science, philosophy, faith and (although not so independent) – esoteric and parapsychological trends. �The easiest way to start reading is to follow the following coordinates: “Ideas for pure Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy” – “Book One” – “Section Two” – “Fundamental Phenomenological reasoning” and then to the end of the book. Here the topic unfolds from the simplest concepts to more complex ones in a consistent and clear way. In fact, these are the first lessons on the study of phenomenology itself. And only then can you start “Thinking”. Here, the experience gained after studying the “first stage” begins to work and understanding the calculations of the subject becomes easier..and more amazing!
Cartesian meditations (reflections). A key book, I would say.
A juicy book and quite systematic ( well, as for Husserl).
Mandatory minimum. Well, damn the brains.
But seriously, it's sad to miss the entire previous discourse.
I will be banal, you just need to take a course on epistemology.
Well, or even such a read.
For example, Florensky's “Pillar and Statement of Truth”. At least the first three letters (well, if you are not afraid of the fact that this is theology.
Mamardashvili Talks about thinking listen.
Well, I'm xs. We need to be in the whole of this discourse about cognition.
So Descartes is not bad either. Reasoning about the method and so on. Ottudova legs that grow.
In general, the question is complicated, but I hope this will be enough.