/lit/ - Literature

Figures no one here knows

>>19214034
start with sartre maybe

>>19214138
I could explain, vaguely, the basic thrusts of rationalism, empiricism, idealism, etc. Is phenomenology not going to provide such a thing?

>>19214147
probably not? i don't think that's very useful for understanding any philosophy anyways

>>19214156
To try to understand the sorts of questions that are trying to be answered?

>>19214170
yes

>>19214034
phenomenology examines the origins of qualia, epistemology examines the origins of knowledge. basically

>>19214034
Phenomenology is a massive epistemological failure, because we only have the present, so when you’re writing down observations on phenomena you’ve already lost them, so you’re actually just writing about your memories. Similarly qualia arguments are just special pleading

>>19214034
I could explain it to you but I dont really care nor have the time for it
Look up berkeley immaterialism and kants transcendental idealism first
I also assume that youre familiar with the universalias debate in the middle ages, phenomenology is an evolution of nominalism compared to naive realism
You should also look up intentionality, since its the basis of understanding phenomenology, and Brentano

Those are more or less the guys you need, berkeley, kant, brentano (+ medieval and ancient idealism/nominalism if you want to feel special)

>>19214034
Study of things as they are.

Study Buddhism. The meditation is a tool to observe phenomenalogy. There's a great amount of Buddhist literature that deals with how to observe phenomenalogy as they are.

>>19214178
Like the way the world causes qualia (rather than justifies it), or qualia just within a single person?

>>19214226
>having this understanding of time
LOL
Read Heidegger

to the things themselves
simple as

Phenomenology is essentially just transcendental philosophy. Husserl is straightforwardly a Kantian, Heidegger is a Kantian but he swaps the transcendental conditions for all possible experience for Being which is the transcendental conditions for all possible beings. You star with a close, faithful description of actual experience, suspending all casual or logical inferences, and then use that to find the conditions under which such experience is possible. Transcendental deduction but a bit less rationalist.

>>19214178
Bullllllshit, read Husserl

>>19214533
>idegger is a Kantian but he swaps the transcendental conditions for all possible experience for Being which is the transcendental conditions for all possible beings.
You've never read Heidegger have you.

>>19214574
Its reductionist but it aint wrong, read Blattner

>>19214574
He's right. Heidegger is not some kind of mystic, he's a neo-Kantian Nietzschean historicist phenomenologist. All of those are deeply post-Kantian/transcendental.

>>19214521
No matter how you understand time, it is nevertheless true that the moment in which you record your phenomenological experience is not the moment in which you experience it.

introduction to phenomenology by dermot moran

>>19214034
>phenomenology
somewhere husserl called it the science of the essences. the purpose of phenomenology is to state "what is what" in the lebenswelt (that is, roughly, experience). ultimately, phenomenology is philosophy itself, just with some vague "method" which nobody ever took seriously and a its own jargon.

>>19214268
Is Buddhism really related to phenomenology? They seem similar, but I don't seem to recall phenomenologists advocating for soteriological release from suffering through methods such as meditation. They only seem concerned with categorizing their present experience.

>>19214034
it's all just a bunch of dissatisfied hacks arguing semantics, philosophy is a scam

>>19214601
nah he's a neoplatonist-diltheyan-lutheran-dunsscotianist

>>19214226
The memory of some way that we experience our own minds doesn’t differ hugely from experiencing that mental content in that very moment, it hardly makes phenomenology a failure that we cant freeze time

>>19214034
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/

>>19216423
What evidence do you have of this? This is a naive assumption.

>>19214034
Husserl developed a method of philosophy to study the structure of the experience and, therefore, studying the essence of the way things appear to us and its relation to intentionality(aboutness), wich is a concept developed by Bentrano that refers to the capacity of some mental states like desire or belief to be about something. You can find intentionality in the work of all philosophers of phenomenology, but those authors don't talk necessarily about the same subject, they just use the same method.

>>19214034
It's obscurantist nonsense, mostly, predicated on outdated scientific models that the phenomenological authors themselves barely understood. Read some Frege, read some Kuhn.

>>19215842
Yes. The first "phenomenologist" were Buddhist. The Buddha's idea about the Skandhas and various consciousness models presented were from him alone. The earliest complete written works on Buddha was written down in Abhidhamma (metaphysics of Buddha's words) and the writing further refines the mental model of consciousness. The development continued through thousands of years from then on.

I've no idea when the western world picked up on the concept of a mind/consciousness, the earliest I could think of is Hume where he was basically borrowing a Buddhist theory of Skandha and calling it "bundle theory" as we know in the west. Before this idea and even after Hume gave his shoutout on bundle theory, the western world was largely ignorant on the idea of a mind/consciousness and relegated most of it to a supernatural entity called the soul.

So yeah, Buddhist conception of the mind is not only related but also imo is very likely the driver for our human and naturalistic understanding of the mind/consciousness idea in the first place. And afaik, western world is still caught up in the platonic soul/essence nonsense and we have added garbage shit like qualia thats holding back our western sciences.

>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-indian-buddhism/

If you even read the basic buddhist conceptual understanding of the mind/consciousness, then you're basically caught up to date with modern western understanding of the mind. Its just silly.

>>19218071
Also particularly is the tool called Meditation in Buddhism where its not just Buddhist talking about it shit in their texts, but also giving us a method on how to observe the reality as they are

>>19218071
No phenomenologist or philosopher of mind or even cognitive scientist needed to read the buddhist teachings to study consciousness. I don't understand why you're recommending this, even if you're familiar with buddhist concepts you will not be familiar with phenomenological concepts like intentionality, epoché, noesis, noema etc

>>19218120
The concepts are all there in Buddhist conception of consciousness and more. Thats why I'm suggesting Buddhist mental model. Its basically the same shit, furthermore, its likely drawing on Buddhist model itself, thats the ironic part.

>>19214034
Phenomenology is, in the simplest terms possible, the study of the foundational conditions of knowledge, science and philosophy. Husserl sometimes seems to infer that Pheno is anterior to philosophy, and that all philosophy up until it did not respect it's own impulse. Essentially, Phenomenology is philosophy taken as a rigorous science.
The main problem with Husserl is that he does not teach, he does not explain, he explores. At no point in his books will you actually see an example of a full phenomenological reduction (you can find them in much more obscure, untranslated journals). And the entire structure rests on this methodology which is never explicited fully (for good reasons, however).
The one way the analogy to buddhism works is that Phenomenology is a practice that takes an enormous amount of time, and completely changes your outlook on existence multiple time through its practice.
For a beginner, the recommended way is to spend a few months/years working on your eidetic reductions as you read and familiarize yourself with the LI and try tackling the Ideas.

>>19218120
Linking Pheno and buddhism is a meme, there's always one woman in each class which tries to do her text on the relation between the two. I was very happy last time it happened and the teacher just straight up told her to rewrite her 20 page essay on something related to the course.

>>19218237
Its just the teacher being triggered by the idea that Buddhist came up with the very idea of a human mind and consciousness. It didn't enter into the western literature or even understanding until 18th century. Its a point of shame for our western civilization, thats why we don't talk about it so often. That often seems to be the case. We just deny it and then hope people dont bring them up for us. Maybe its a traumatic moment.

>>19218254
>Buddhist came up with the very idea of a human mind and consciousness
>It didn't enter into the western literature or even understanding until 18th century.
> Phenomenology is 100% founded on Brentano's development of the 7th century Scholastic concept of intentionality, which they themselves took from Parmenides of Elea.
Galaxy brain hours.

>>19218287
Thats neat and all but thats nothing. The Buddhist idea of the theory of mind itself was formed 2500 years ago. Thats the problem. You can take the idea of intention is in the first sentence of Dhammapada which is a short condensation of Buddha's teaching in which the entire book is devoted to. I'm not just talking about the concept of intention, I'm about the full blown picture of the mind. From start to finish. From perception to conceptualization to the action of a person. The entire discourse detailing every single step in between and not just one sentence or two page or two books, but an entire library of books in which thousands of pages are devoted to studying the entirety of the model of consciousness. The entire package. 2500 years ago.

>>19218350
> makes a demonstrably wrong claim
> claim is demonstrated to be wrong
> MUH BUDDHA HAD IT ALL FIGURED OUT A QUINTILLION YEARS AGO
Mate calm the fuck down, they still haven't figured out how not to shit in the streets. Sure isn't the vision of Kultur husserl had in mind.

>>19218392
Reduction ad absurdum.

>>19218392
????

You're not making any sense.

>>19214147
The one-sentence account of phenomenology is: an attempt to lay bare the way in which phenomena are apprehended and interpreted by the subject, not how they are in-themselves, or, in other words, how they are for-us.

>>19218287
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDCmFum-Jbg

Buddhist model is ancient, but its comprehensive.

Here's one part of symbolic model used in Buddhist text to describe what is happening from moment to moment in the mind.

>>19218424
... are valid when used to demonstrate the invalidity of the rethorical devices used by an opponent.
>>19218428
Neither is the one recommending pseudo-religious esoterica when asked about Husserl.

>>19218465
No one asked about Husserl. The question is about phenomenology.

I think you're overreacting here. You seem to be emotionally reacting and being irrational. I don't know what you're griefing about, but seems to be a personal issue

>>19218432
In other words: the interpretation of the experience of interpretation

>>19218479
>No one asked about Husserl
Yes, because if you ask about Pheno, unless you refer to someone else explicitly, you are referring to Husserl. The hint was his picture in OP too.

>>19218453
Very interesting, anon. I'll check it out. I don't usually visit this board, but I got hooked in philosophical writings after stumbling upon The Fixation of Belief by CS Peirse. I want to read How To Make Our Ideas Clear now, but reading your posts I'm definitely taking a look at some entry level Buddhism (I meditate a variation of tummo technique).

>>19218350
>The entire package. 2500 years ago.
So, same time as Parmenides, then?

>>19218502
Phenomenology is a field, not a person. I think you're confused here. Specifically the thread is about what phenomenology is, its a general question about the nature of phenomenology.

>>19218521
+-100, yeah. Exactly. The same time the Greeks were working out prototypes of many of philosophy and sciences of today, the far side of the east had also consolidated a good chunk of philosophy as well. Thats why cross cultural philosophies are very interesting.

>>19218522
>Phenomenology is a field
Developped almost entirely by a single person, and the specificities of the branches that came out of it means you should qualify them separately. If you want to be precise, your speak of hermeneutic Phenomenology when you speak fo what Heidy did.
You are also completely disregarding the purpose of Phenomenology as a transcendantal exposition of the entirety of experience. Explain to me how Phenomenology, which leads you to contemplate your transcendantal Self in all its apodicticity, is compatible with buddhism?

>>19218575
>Developped almost entirely by a single person
Yes and I said its likely a copypasta of earlier Buddhist works. The entire discipline is lifted from within Buddhism. Heck the entire discipline is lifted directly from the earliest buddhist works. Thats the sad part.

>>19214034
Phenomenology is a foundational approach to experience & knowledge developed by Husserl as a result of his interactions with Frege and Brentano at the beginning of his works on the nature of mathematics.
To note, the term was used a few times by Kant, who did not expand much on it or on its purpose, and once more (very hilariously) by a quack French philosopher who tried to secure a grant from Napoleon to create a "phenomenological institute", pitching it was to be a universal science. He was apparently laughed out of court.
To insulate himself from the psychologism critic which he had accepted as being guilty off, he developed the phenomenological method, generally explained as the commitment to the epoche (suspension of ontological biases) coupled by the phenomenological reduction (a variation of attitude brought on by a practiced familiarity with eidetic reductions in which the thought-construct is always taken to be "radically accepted).
As Husserl pushed further and further, he eventually posited that phenomenology was capable of presenting to you, in a very real way (although, not a mystical one), the transcendental field in which you could contemplate a holistic view of your own Self, which coincides with the very conditions of the possibility of any consciousness (Husserl did not believe that animals have any forms of consciousness to speak of, because phenomenological consciousness here isn't purely cognitive, it is cultural, historical, transcendental).

>>19218648
>Yes and I said its likely a copypasta of earlier Buddhist works.
Husserl was introduced to Buddhist texts ~30 years after starting his philosophy, by his assistant Fink. He loved them and said they compared to the greatest texts of ancient philosophy, and he certainly drew some inspiration, but this was well after his most productive years.

There is no bigger pseud than this pathetic German. Husserl had some relevant insights but this snow ape isn't capable of writing one sentence without contradicting himself. An absolute lack of clarity in writing betrays a lack of clarity in thought. His attempts to disguise his meanderings as profound through the invention of his own language prove him an obscurantist at best, though much more probably he was simply a charlatan. How did this garbage capture academia in the last century? It's unreadable, incomprehensible, and even his students have no idea what he meant, the result of substituting jargon for substance. They can't decide on what he meant because he didn't MEAN anything- Heidegger's corpus is no more meaningful than the idea of a perfectly round square, a series of words which when strung together lose any propositional value; yet at least "round" and "square" are clear and understandable terms, unlike Heidnigger's private language of dasein, the nothing nothinging, et alia. If I could travel through time I wouldn't have any other aim than preventing this monster from inflicting his cruelties on mankind. It would be unfair to say he ruined the credibility of philosophy because what he was doing wasn't philosophy, it was pseudoprofound, erzatz mystical word salad.

just read what Biemel and Fink writes about husserl´s philosophy, it can be a good place to start.
Also anon you can also read the 2nd section of Ideas II, it can be really dark sometimes but it explains a lot about the concept of Natural world and the trascendental reduction in husserl´s phenomenology.
Be careful with heidegger´s phenomenology. Husserl really dislikes the way that heidegger sees science

>>19218749
It does have meaning, although not nearly enough to justify the length and technical "sophistication", however the kicker is that once you manage to filter it and understand it, it is incredibly offensive both to your own intellect and to the philosophical legacy he was picking up.
However, there have been far more damaging authors, and much less reknown. Jean Toussaint Desanti is fucking obscure as hell, but if French philosophy has been 90% bullshit in the last 50 odd years, it is much more his fault than Heidie's

>>19214147
>>19214178
>>19214226
>>19214258
>>19214533
>>19215622

wtf, is this board full of pseuds? Can't you people explain something properly without obscuring it with a bunch of random jargon?

OP, there are things which people can experience, and things which people can't experience.
For example, no matter how hard you try, you'll never be able to see the world as a dog does, or as an alien does, or as a table does.
From the mid 18th century onwards in Germany, some philosophers got really worried about this, because the whole field of "metaphysics" depends on people actually having an accurate grasp of the world around them.
As such, a bunch of philosophers started to develop ideas which tried to prove that the world everyone was experiencing really does "look like that".

This is where phenomenology comes in.
Phenomenologists believe that reaching the world outside of human experience (what Kant calls the "noumena") is impossible, so we should really not worry about that stuff.
Instead, philosophers should focus more on understanding how human experience works, and what is really going on when we "experience" the world around us.
This kind of serves as a replacement to metaphysics--as a move from a study of the "noumena" to a study of "phenomena".

For phenomenology, Kant is really the best place to start.

>>19218842
>Phenomenologists believe that reaching the world outside of human experience (what Kant calls the "noumena") is impossible
More accurately, consciousness (reduced) has a single universal form.
If the lion could speak, we *would* understand him.

>>19218974
jesus christ, don't reply to me if this is how you type

if there's one thing I hate, it's people who obscure and mystify the field of philosophy.
If you can't say what you want to say in layman's terms, then don't bother saying it.
It's hard enough to distinguish between how different schools and scholars refer to similar ideas, without people on 4chan making up their own schizo-babble to express basic concepts.

And to actually respond to what you're saying (after parsing through your retarded expression):
panpsychism is novel, but hacky. There's no point in discussing a "singular reduced consciousness" when you can't even prove that others have it (the hard problem).
Even then, I don't know why you would mention it when talking about phenomenology, when it's clearly a philosophy of mind thing.

I swear, people just want to show off that they "know" a philosopher (Wittgenstein), without actually saying something meaningful.

>>19219009
>panpsychism
Jesus fuck, learn to read. What I wrote has nothing to do with panpsychism. Phenomenology reduces consciousness beyond any specific umwelt, to its universal conditions.

>>19219018
what you said here makes more sense now.
You should have began with that sentence, instead of >consciousness (reduced) has a single universal form

>>19214034
I remember being interested in phenomenology as a teenager so I bought an introductory book about it. The book started with an example of trying to philosophise about the subjective experience of a dog and I read that, knew it was bullshit and threw the book straight in the trash.

>>19218842
Good explanation anon, thank you.

>>19218842
based and phenomenologypilled

>>19218013
Frege got Kantianised/phenomenalised

btfo

Also, I'm curious regarding what "scientific models" Husserl appealed to

>>19218842
Thank you anon, only post that explained it in a non-pseud way.

>>19218842
absolute midwit take.
1. for you phenomenology means just empiricism, which is the typical mistake of wikipedia readers. but if you had read just a couple pages of husserl's , you would have met terms like noemata, intentionality, phenomenological residual, transcendental ego, etc. and that would have prompted in your 10 IQ brain the question whether husserl's philosophy is about your trite noumenon-phenomena duality or something more specific.
2. phenomenplogy has little to do with kant and husserl himself read him only later in life. he never handled the kantian terminology, which is the source of many technical popular-level misinterpretations of his writings.

>>19218071
>And afaik, western world is still caught up in the platonic soul/essence nonsense and we have added garbage shit like qualia thats holding back our western sciences.
translation: my crude crypto-materialist reductionism turns out to be philosophically unsound and it doesn’t solve the hard problem of consciousness ands that's frustrating.

>>19217873
>What evidence do you have of this?
Blue doesn’t have a different color in real time versus memory, they present themselves the same way

>>19219713
Explain it in a non-midwit way then.

>>19218254
> Buddhist came up with the very idea of a human mind and consciousness
This is just stupid, the Upanishads were talking about mind and consciousness centuries before Buddha
>>19218648
> The entire discipline is lifted from within Buddhism
>Thats the sad part.
Why should it be sad what Buddha himself lifted so many concepts from the Upanishads?

>>19219713
Dude I'm a grad student. I have BA (Hons) in philosophy, during which I specialised in Heidegger.
You're free to contradict me, but you need to provide more clarity if you wish to do so.

>>19219725
Yes, your memories correspond to your present. That’s the problem, it corresponds to the present and not to the past. You have a colour blue, but how can you know that your mind experiences blue the same way at all instances? All you have demonstrated is that your at a particular instance your mind experiences all blues similarly.

>>19219891
Oh no! He got a degree from the sophistry department! We all lose by default!

>>19219926
no... I said you could contradict me, but you need to provide an actual point..
Did you read my comment?

>>19219891
i wrote something very precise, that is, you conflate phenomenology with some vague empiricism, defined by you in kantian terms. you basically wrote that phenomenology says: "fuck the noumenon, let's focus on the phenomena". for starters , this is just false, secondly , the phenomenological attitude towards the "noumenon" is treating it as a human experience, and this is what heidegger or merleau-ponty or scheler do.
>>19219940
he is not me

>>19219922
>You have a colour blue, but how can you know that your mind experiences blue the same way at all instances?
If it appears to know blue in the same way in my experience, of what philosophical worth is the question of what if it’s not exactly the same? If it’s good enough that I can recognize distinct shades of blue as being relatively consistent across time, what’s the issue? It seems like a pointless hypothetical question and not a problem in itself.

>>19220034
Husserl is not the only scholar in the discipline of phenomenology.
In my original post, I just gave a brief outline of what induced the rise of phenomenology from a history of philosophy perspective, along with a general outline of its key characteristics.
Of course, Husserl's ideas are themselves more nuanced, and go far deeper than what I described; as do theories purported by other thinkers, such as Heidegger (who does respond to Kant), and Merleau-Ponty.
I did not seek to fully describe any of these theories, as this is not what the OP asks.

You cannot say Husserl is the only phenomenologist.
Of course, my brief description of phenomenology would not completely trace his theory, just as a general description of microbiology would not detail the complete research of Louis Pasteur.

Hey OP, I’m gonna assume you’ve already been given a brief explanation on phenomenology both Husserl’s in particular and the general history and different types, my recommendation for you is to pick up a dictionary of whatever philosopher interests you, such as a Husserl dictionary, then going to town and just reading one of his works. It’ll be fun and easier.

>>19220034
>>19220071
Also, I forgot to mention:
although you are right in saying that many phenomenologists do not make the noumena/phenomena distinction and simply treat human experience as what constitutes the "world", this is not the case for all of them.
Either way, bringing attention to the distinction is the easiest way to explain the leap from metaphysics to phenomenology.

>>19220050
You can’t recognize that though, you only have the present.

>>19220111
You can only have an understanding of what presence is by contrasting it to non-presence

>>19220125
Well unfortunately you’re never going to have a good conception of presence because of epistemological problems

>>19218749
>it was pseudoprofound, erzatz mystical word salad.
I've seriously thought that the so called continental philosophy is based on midwits not understanding the jargon used by premodern writers, thus rendering their texts mystical in their eyes, thus making them think, philosophy is about writing magical sentences about nothing really, or if their obscure sentences are written in understandable language, they state only they most obvious of things.

>>19220161
Analytical philosophy is discursive reductionism
Continental philosophy is obscurantist pseudery

>>19218749
>"Das Nicht nichtet" - NEEIN YOU CAN'T SAY DASS, ES IST MEINUNGSLOS
> "negrulo suĉas mian dikon" - real scheisse, esperanto is a real language

>>19220173
This is a meme someone would scrawl on the bathroom walls of the philosophy department building

>>19220111
>You can’t recognize that though
If blue looked like another color in the moment of perception, I would just see that color and not blue, if it looked like another new color, I would see that new color and not blue. The implausible hypothesis that we actually seeing something else in the moment doesn’t align with our lived experience and as a question it has little to no philosophical importance or relevance.

>>19220130
Why not?

>>19220318
Because you only ever have one single observation, so unless you suppose that every single ‘presence’ is the exact same you can’t know what is fundamental to presence and what is incidental to the specific observation.

Start with Brentano, assuming you have some background in Aristotle, having read at least De Anima, Physics, Metaphysics, and his logic.
Brentano is the precursor to phenomenology, and without him, Husserl would never have writted what he did.
For Brentano, start with either a secondary work on him, or Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint.
He introduces intentionality and his psychology and theories of perception and objects, which are very important to Husserl.

>>19220559
>Because you only ever have one single observation, so unless you suppose that every single ‘presence’ is the exact same you can’t know what is fundamental to presence and what is incidental to the specific observation.
Observation is not presence, awareness is fundamentally the same as presence, and this awareness as presence remains the same regardless of the things which are presented to it because it reveals them without itself changing. When awareness reveals different things, the only thing that differs between the two experiences is that difference in revealed content but not the presence of revealing awareness itself. What is incidental is the content which is revealed as the objects of that awareness.

>>19214034
read franz brentano who taught husserl, then it might make more sense.

>>19214521
>read Heidegger

>>19220071
>You cannot say Husserl is the only phenomenologist.
You can however say that there were no phenomenologists before Husserl. Kant isn't one. It is a useful foundation to understanding the context in which Husserl developed his philosophy, but it itself has very little to do with phenomenology or Husserl's specific brand of phenomenological Idealism.
Not trying to discourage anyone to read him, it is however much less useful (and time consuming) than reading Brentano.

>>19220185
>negrulo suĉas mian dikon
kek, ok you got me anon

>>19219891
Doesn't matter, you are completely incorrect when saying that Kant is a phenomenologist or a necessary base for learning it. Even Descartes is more relevant.

>>19216423
Memory is incredibly unreliable. It changes every time you access it.

>>19222005
>>19223288
I did not say Kant is a phenomenologist. Of course he isn't.
I said he was the best place to "start".
If you read my comment, then you would see that I describe's Kant ideaa as a "precursor" or "inducer" to the discipline of phenomenology.
As in, reading Kant provides the necessary background knowledge to understand the context that many early phenomenologists were operating in.
After reading him, then OP (if he's still here) can jump into whichever scholars people here have recommended, whether that be Brentano, Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, etc.

>>19214620
Vlogging debunks this

>>19222005
>>19223288
And again, I should say that I have a bias towards Heideggar.
You seem to be more of a Husserl guy.
For Husserl, of course Brentano is the clear precursor, perhaps Kant can be "skipped" (I'm not sure).
But Heideggar was a scholar of Kant, and Kant's ideas feature often in his writing.
Also, I believe that Kant's noumena/phenomena is an excellent way to introduce students to the concept of phenomenology. It is what I use in my tutorials.
I think Kant's contribution to the discipline (especially given the German nature of all this writing) cannot be overlooked.
Even though you cannot call him a "phenomenologist", his ideas are what paved the way for this sort of thinking in 19th century Germany, including the move from Idealism to Phenomenology, onto the more contemporary Philosophy of the Mind.

>>19223383
> "I have learnt incomparably more from Hume than from Kant. I possessed the deepest antipathy against Kant, and he has not (if I judge rightly) influenced me at all".
Letter to Metzer, 1919.

>>19223383
>I said he was the best place to "start".
Well, even then I would disagree, however definitely not as vocally. Studying Kant would at least let someone cut their teeth on something technically harder than say, Descartes, which would definitely help once you reach the Ideas.
>As in, reading Kant provides the necessary background knowledge to understand the context that many early phenomenologists were operating in.
True enough, although if we are trying to provide a helpful context, there are a lot more that needs to be added. Hume and Frege amongst the first ones.
>After reading him, then OP (if he's still here) can jump into whichever scholars people here have recommended, whether that be Brentano, Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, etc.
Heavily recommend exploring the entire School of Brentano as you focus on Husserl, Fink and Adolf Reinach, then Merleau-Ponty. Also, William James.

>>19223454
see my second post >>19223420
It is well known that Husserl strongly disagreed with Kant, but you cannot his deny the impact his ideas had on the discourse of the period