/lit/ - Literature

>>19964126
Pharaoh(1991).

>>19964136
based

>>19964126
Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint, by Franz Brentano.

>>19964126
Read heidegger instead

>>19964136
Kek.

>>19964126
Philosophy as Rigorous Science is the easiest place to start with.

>>19964126
What you can also do is take a peek at Ideen I, Third Section, Chapter 2, you can skip to [72], and just push through it.
As a new science, Phenomenology had to be circumscribed, defined and justified prior to be genuinely developed. We have a fraction of what Husserl and his students wrote, and what you'll find published is nearly all the preparatory work to Phenomenology itself. You'll have hundred of pages talking about the various reductions, but not a single actual, properly delineated example of an eidetic reduction on paper.
We 100% know Husserl and his students practiced reductions, wrote then down and had a journal of them. If I'm not mistaken there are untranslated hard copies in Leuven. But they won't be published anytime soon, and despite having taken course on Husserl with 3 different teachers specialized on him, they have never presented an actual example of reduction, or asked of us to operate any.

>>19966056
>but not a single actual, properly delineated example of an eidetic reduction on paper.
>they have never presented an actual example of reduction, or asked of us to operate any.
Are you retarded?

wikipedia or google, you fucking villager

>>19964136
poor guy

>>19964126
The preface to Phenomenology of Perception by Merleau-Ponty is widely considered a gold standard introductory text to phenomenology as such, and for good reason. Then move on to Ideas I. Or this >>19964176, if you want to be anally retentive about it.

>>19964193
A few years ago I would have agreed, now, not so much. The more I read Husserl the more I realize he has been completely mischaracterized by the American Heideggerians who absolutely insist that there must be some sort of "progress" from Husserl to Heidegger, while in reality the substantial similarities completely dwarf the differences.
Go for either one. Husserl if you have greater tendencies towards autism and would prefer philosophy to stylistically emulate this, Heidegger if you have greater tendencies towards schizophrenia and would like philosophy to stylistically emulate that.

>>19966056
I am unironically of the conviction that the reduction is completely pointless and unnecessary.

>>19966086
>Are you retarded?
Mate, there's an entire literature dedicated to the lack of precise examples of reductions. Gaston Berger tackles the problem at the beginning of his "Le Cogito dans la Philosophie de Husserl".

>>19966086
>>19966056
The reason why I suggested Ideen I [72]+ is precisely because the examples on joy and anger and the exploration of reflexivity on them is the closest thing to an operated reduction we have, and even that only serves to show the transition toward transcendental phenomenology.

Instead of starting with Husserl, I recommend working backwards from philosophers who used phenomenological approaches, or were influenced by phenomenology: John Paul II, Gasset, Kolakowski, Scruton, Heidegger, Jaspers, Merleau-Ponty, whoever takes your fancy. I always saw phenomenology as an approach to doing philosophy than a specific system.

>>19966109
He got better. Honestly I think the issue was trying to get a career in the US with a specialty on Husserl. In France and even Canada he probably would have been hired immediately.