File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0307, message 109


From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Phenomenology and Science.
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:28:56 +0000


Jud, no offense, but please shorten your answers a bit. It's hard to keep up 
a dialogue when it takes so long to get through your posts. For example, in 
my case, if the same question occurs twice in a post, or if two questions 
can be answered in the same way, I answer one and clip out the other. It 
really helps.

>Jud:
>Put another way in aid of clarity, if as you say, any
>interest shown by the scientist is just as scientifically irrelevant
>as personal bias, again why does Husserl insist on the scientific
>phenomenologist bracketing-out in the manner of the detached mode of
>science, if the detached mode of science is not necessary in the first
>place?

Jud look at it this way. Let's say I perform an experiment on my own dog. I 
want to cure it of some deadly disease that it has. Let's say I really love 
my dog, and so really want the cure to work. I concoct the cure, and give it 
to my dog. Now, do I have a great desire for the cure to work? Yes. Am I 
passionate about what I am doing? Yes. Is that scientifically relevant at 
all? No, because all that is scientifically relevant is whether or not the 
cure ends up working, and if so why. It adds absolutely nothing 
SCIENTIFICALLY to indicate how I feel about the outcome. So in making my 
scientific observations and hypotheses, I am bracketing out how I feel 
because they are not scientifcally relevant. This does not mean that I 
actually have no feelings as I make my observations and hypotheses. It 
simply means that I do not let them enter into my actual observations and 
conclusions. That is all Husserl means by bracketing.

>Anthony: Interest shown by the scientist is just as scientifically 
>irrelevant
>as personal bias.
>
>Jud: So why does Husserl favour this type of methodology over Heidegger's
>unstructured, amorphous mess?

Probably because he thought Heidegger's philosophy was just an unstructured, 
amorphous mess.

>As for Husserl? What you still haven't addressed is whether it is true
>that in order to bracket out the world he must bracket out himself.

He says that although the independent existence of the world is not 
apodictically certain, it is apodictically certain that I am experiencing a 
world-phenomenon, whether or not it is a dream. So the "I-world" 
relationship is apodictically certain, though not the independent existence 
of the world.

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005