Intuition or interpretation?! Husserl's phenomenology
Hello dear members,
As a student of English literature I have to study some introductory philosophy to interpret literary works. As it is well-known the modern literary criticism starts with the work of the German philosopher, Edmund Husserl, and his famous phenomenology. Going through his philosophy, I have understood the concepts that he bases phenomenology upon. He first argues that to see the world as a separate natural existence and independent of the mind is wrong. He calls this perspective "natural attitude" and he rejects it. The perspective that empirical thinkers held; they ignored the role of the mind in perceiving the world. A perspective that finally gave rise to positivism. He then claims that everything in the universe must go through the minds of the subjects, so what is out there is a "pure phenomenon". He disagrees with the Kantian idea that "the things in themselves" are inaccessible because we never get out of our heads and see them. On the contrary, he believes that we can "reduce" these phenomena by "bracketing" all other immediate experiences that interfere with a certain phenomenon in our consciousness. This "phenomenological reduction" can help us arrive at the "essence" of things which are invariable and unchangeable. This method finally gives us a genuinely reliable knowledge based on which we can construct sciences. So phenomenology is a science of sciences. Husserl aimed at finding a way to finally get to the concrete essence of things in themselves. He also called this essence "Eidos", the Greek word for "type". An eidetic abstraction is an unchangeable concept, such as "redness" or "jealousy", although their degree varies in different subjects.
I just gave a very brief description of what i have understood from Husserl. First of all i want to know if I am wrong in any of the points I have mentioned and the second thing I am concerned with is an approach that Husserl believed in. He called his approach "intuitive". He claimed that phenomena need not be interpreted and reasoned, instead they must be understood intuitively. Can anyone help me understand what he means by that? Are not our intuitions deceitful and subjective? if it is subjective, how is it possible to get to the things in itself?
By the way, I have learned all this from a book I am reading called "literary Theory, An Introduction" by Terry Eagelton"
As a student of English literature I have to study some introductory philosophy to interpret literary works. As it is well-known the modern literary criticism starts with the work of the German philosopher, Edmund Husserl, and his famous phenomenology. Going through his philosophy, I have understood the concepts that he bases phenomenology upon. He first argues that to see the world as a separate natural existence and independent of the mind is wrong. He calls this perspective "natural attitude" and he rejects it. The perspective that empirical thinkers held; they ignored the role of the mind in perceiving the world. A perspective that finally gave rise to positivism. He then claims that everything in the universe must go through the minds of the subjects, so what is out there is a "pure phenomenon". He disagrees with the Kantian idea that "the things in themselves" are inaccessible because we never get out of our heads and see them. On the contrary, he believes that we can "reduce" these phenomena by "bracketing" all other immediate experiences that interfere with a certain phenomenon in our consciousness. This "phenomenological reduction" can help us arrive at the "essence" of things which are invariable and unchangeable. This method finally gives us a genuinely reliable knowledge based on which we can construct sciences. So phenomenology is a science of sciences. Husserl aimed at finding a way to finally get to the concrete essence of things in themselves. He also called this essence "Eidos", the Greek word for "type". An eidetic abstraction is an unchangeable concept, such as "redness" or "jealousy", although their degree varies in different subjects.
I just gave a very brief description of what i have understood from Husserl. First of all i want to know if I am wrong in any of the points I have mentioned and the second thing I am concerned with is an approach that Husserl believed in. He called his approach "intuitive". He claimed that phenomena need not be interpreted and reasoned, instead they must be understood intuitively. Can anyone help me understand what he means by that? Are not our intuitions deceitful and subjective? if it is subjective, how is it possible to get to the things in itself?
By the way, I have learned all this from a book I am reading called "literary Theory, An Introduction" by Terry Eagelton"
Comments (3)
As for intuition, this is a hard think to understand. I.Kant said that noumenon can be defined as an object of non-sensible intuition which we, people, do not possess. E.Husserl disagrees with Kant on this point and thinks people do have an intellectual intuition which enables them to grasp the true entities by seeing them with self-evidence. And phenomenology doesn't explain, it only describes what is seen. It is supposed that when we see properly we will see the same self-evident things. This is a big problem indeed.
As for intuition, I believe this is the only route to a deeper understanding of ourselves, of life, and the universe. It is a process of self-journey and as with everything else is subject to change. The way I already intuition is by observing events from many different perspectives and finding the similarities and differences and forming new positions and ideas.
Will intuitive observations change and will they differ from individual to individual? Yes, they will. But no more than any other process that we might use. Every process towards understanding is always subject to change, to disagreements, to different observations, to different conclusions. It is an aspect of the creative mind that is at the heart of everything and embedded in the fabric of the universe. The universe simply did not yield to absolutes because it is always changing.
"The natural attitude is the focus we have when we are involved in our original, world-directed stance, when we intend things, situations, facts, and any other kinds of objects. The natural attitude is, we might say, the default perspective, the one we start off from, the one we are in originally. We do not move into it from anything more basic. The phenomenological attitude, on the other hand, is the focus we have when we reflect upon the natural attitude and all the intentionalities that occur within it. It is within the phenomenological attitude that we carry out philosophical analyses"(Sokolowski, 1999, p. 42).
Sokolowski, R. (1999). Introduction to Phenomenology. Cambridge, UK?; New York: Cambridge University Press.