/lit/ - Literature

>>21565672
Plato, Aristotle and Husserl all reached the peak imho.

>>21205638
What interest you in Husserl, specifically? If you only want to understand him generally, then you don't really need anything else but Brentano, and even then it isn't entirely required.
>After you get past behind his vocabulary it isnt that hard, at least not Kant or Hegel tier hard.
I'm going to assume here you haven't tried getting into On the Passive Synthesis.

>>20852971

>>20656506
>The self is an incoherent idea
Wrong, the cogito is perfectly logical. The apodictic intuition of the self is at the basis of every intentional act, because every act is based on a doxatic positioning.
Imagine I were to offer you a wager, that I win if you do not exist and you win if you do exist. Now the question is not how to prove it, but rather how to define the strength of that belief in logical terms. The strength of a belief can be "quantified" in relations to how much should you be reasonably willing to bet on it. The usual analytical position is that you should therefore never be willing to bet everything as you cannot reasonably have an absolute confidence in your belief.
The Cogito logically & eideticaly defeats this, as it is obvious that given that particular bet, you should be willing to bet everything you have, as if you lose the bet, you didn't have anything to start with, as you did not exist.
Read some Husserl, btw, it'll help you see the truth.

>>19648793

>>19191168
>This is not an argument that proves that time itself is comprised of moments
If you are asking for a mathematical proof of lived time, you won't get one. That's the point. Lived time is not mathematical time. You don't have a linear progression marked by a point which divides a past from a future. In lived time, you have a temporal space formed by the specificity of you psychic acts. You see, taste, act and intend in a specific timeframe which you do not control, which is the result of your physical inner operations and essence of the intentional acts. You are also "turned" toward the past and future through your present, depending on those acts. The now of political and cultural events is longer than the now of physical events.
> but is just describing how our mind arranges experience in a way so that sense-perceptions leave traces.
So? Even if transcendental time has a foundational priority over lived time, this does not make lived time "wrong" or "incorrect". It doesn't mean you can't "prove" anything about it, just that the "proof" is going to be found in a different phenomenological strata.

>>18995703
>where do i go from here
Husserl

>>18908657
All metaphysics imply an epistemology. Ontology and epistemology are co-related, which is why you ultimately cannot use one as a foundation to the other, and why the development of a proper philosophy requires an architectonic "science" corresponding to Husserl's phenomenology.

>>18769316
>The entire post of what you quoted should have been referenced in your analysis.
Sorry, too high, and the thread bumps quickly for a /phi/ one. :/

>>18610368
Husserl was a pipe smoker tho.