A new world for me. I stayed away from Heidegger till now (and Derrida! Too much name dropping!). I come to this from Indian Idealism *and* Indian 'Realism'. That includes Advaita (nondual consciousness), Buddhist idealism (Yogacara etc), Buddhist empiricism and the Vaiseshika-Nyaya system. The last analyses perception, knowing, worldly categories of all "objects", particulars and universals, language etc. I am so excited to discover this aspect of Western philosophy. Thanks.
A worthwhile set of videos for anyone interested in phenomenological philosophy as a method of understanding oneself and one's environment. In following this series one would do well to remember Leslie Dewart's insight: "The phenomenological method, then, is not the diametric opposite of the ontological; it is a more comprehensive one than the latter, whose merits it preserves and whose inadequacies it tries to remedy." Evolution and Consciousness: The Role of Speech in the Origin and Development of Human Nature (1989:31).
I found watching and listening to Professor Thorsby's narrative on phenomenology, useful. I got most of my formative education in the 1960's. That shaped me and gave me a personal understanding which I've then applied and developed across personal life experience; while memory of what educated me, has fallen away pretty completely. So its helpful to have that earlier educational experience, refreshed. At the same time it leaves me conflicted. It seems to me there are two broad streams of understanding in play: the one attaching to elite settings, such as universities; the other out on the street, as it were. It does then strike me that phenomenology is an activity out on the street, as well as an activity of scholastic reflection. That may come from earlier education being sociological, where Schutz rather than Husserl was the referred to figure. I have found the idea of philosophising as an activity of active meaning making intrinsic to being human, to be useful in supporting autistically characterised young people educationally; in seeking to experience such individuals holistically and non-reductively, in the way that Carl Rogers might, I found it helpful to bend myself to asking and answering the question, "what active meaning making or philosophising, is mediating the being and person" of this and that individual. If you give over to the hermeneutic idea radically, you might consider that an autistically characterised individual is spinning up a being from "first things" that do not figure in the constituting or mediating processes in play in a contextualising collective; where I find the example of Neitzche (and others) to lend credence to that idea (of singularity in the becoming of made meaning). Again, grateful that resource such as this videoed talk/lecture, are freely available online; much appreciated.
i watch these vids on YT and i think; had i had these kinds of guys, which put completly their heart in making and putting this information out in the most kindest and clearest of ways, as a teachers i wouldnt be so ignoramous right now
Phenomenon comes from the greek word "φαινόμενον" which in its turn comes from the verb "φαίνεσθαι". The meaning of this verb ranges from _"that which becomes apparent"_ , or _"that which makes itself visible"_ to _"that which vaguely seems to be the case"_
This is all very interesting. I come at this with a lot more experience with meditation especially non dual traditions like Dzogchen which has a similar objective as phenomenology which is to see our experiences for "what they really are". One thing that is interesting to me is the descriptions given of first person experience not just in this video but in the other stuff that I've seen and read about phenomenology. This is where it seems aligned with a practice similar to Zen or Dzogchen but at the same time is pretty different. For instance you gave the example of holding a pen and having the experience of a 3D object. From the meditative perspective with the intent on seeing experience for what it is prior to conception (putting aside the inherent limitation and conceptual nature of words) if we are going to say anything about it we might describe the experience of holding the pen something like; There's a pattern of yellow color which is easily changed by turning it, for instance a long thin pattern as opposed to a nearly perfect circle and this pattern will grow and shrink insofar as the pattern of color that is my hand grows and shrinks." This is just meant as the most literal description of my visual field as it is actually appearing to me from my first person view. As in when I am holding the pen I can turn it around and view it at different angles which is evident because of the way the pattern of its light is morphing into various shapes and perspectives that we would intuitively think that a long cylindrical object would do. For instance when I'm viewing it from the side it looks long and thin and when I view it directly head on it appears as a circle. Then if I were to hold it close to my eyes it would appear very large and when I hold it away from my eyes it would appear much smaller which we intuitively interpret as distance and motion to and away from ourselves. Or perhaps a better way to describe all of that would be to take a video from your first person view and then just describe the video in terms of its pixel content on the screen. There would be an area of many different shades of mostly yellow pixels. The yellow pixels would take on a long cylindrical shape or a circle and would morph between these shapes as the image of the hand moves it around. It would also be represented by many more pixels if held closer to the camera and far fewer pixels if held further away. There's no actual depth on a 2d screen just as there's no actual depth that makes up our first person visual field of color and shadow. That is just a very brief example but the most important thing is to make very clear that all we are doing is trying to describe it in as literal a way as possible from our own first person view. That if we both watched the video of the pen together we would agree on what would then be objective descriptions of the pixel content of the screen. It would just be pointing out what is there to see which is exactly the premise of traditions like Dzogchen, to just see what is always there to be seen exactly as it is. I bring all of this up to say that it seems phenomenology is kind of in the same realm of what I just described but at the same time is very different. Especially the existential phenomenologists, that almost has no equivalent in a non-dual meditative practice. But its all very interesting. Thanks for the content!
Dear Mark, thank you for taking the time and effort to make and upload these videos. They're immensely useful for beginners and those needing recaps on philosophical ideas. Best wishes, Andy
I know im asking randomly but does any of you know of a method to get back into an Instagram account..? I somehow forgot the password. I appreciate any assistance you can give me!
@Morgan Bjorn I really appreciate your reply. I found the site thru google and Im trying it out atm. Takes a while so I will get back to you later with my results.
I am in the Masters program for architecture and I minored in philosophy in my undergrad. My thesis is going to be on the intersection of phenomenology and architecture. Naturally my ears perked when you mention that you work with architects. I was wondering if you could explain what that relationship is like and how you found yourself working with them. Does your input find literal manifest into their design or is it really just musings? Thanks!
Hey, just saw your comment, i am currently working on the intersection between structuralism and phenomenology in architecture. I would be thankful if your work is accessible somewhere. Thanks in advance, that would be immensly useful 🙏
I've got three problems in phenomenology: -Are the conditions of the experience of phenomenons only describable in a single way? And if they aren't, doesn't that undermine any transcendental attemps of doing so? - Are all phenomenons intentional? It seems that intentionality necessarily requires two distinct phenomena, say a sensation and a reptesentation of that sensation. Without two distinct objects, the concept of intentionality seems to break down: do you really need to be conscious OF something, or can there just BE an experience? - Is language adequate to describe phenomenons? For example, the human eye can see millions of distinct colours, yet the distinctions in language cannot begin to account for them. If such is the case for such a simple case as colour description, how inadequate is language in general? Perhaps human experience is too varied, subtle and generally fuzzy to ever try to describe in the cookie cutter way language necessitates.
Thks, I'm a retired physicist. Although the concept-of-space/time is essential to describe the mezzo/mid world (ex: newtonian physics), the concept-of-space/time changes dramatically for descriptions the macro & micro worlds (ex: Einstein's relativity & atomic quantum mechanics). Maybe phenomenology might help me get a handle on these sort-of-things.
Philosophical ideas are difficult for me too. I never read actual texts; I always read secondary sources. I started with visually engaging survey books like "The Story of Philosophy" by Brian Magee. (google it for good low priced 2nd hand copies) If you read a couple of these types of books, they may make the advanced videos more approachable. And of course, check out Thorsby's introductory videos.
"Regardless of what's outside. " No. Phenomenology does not assume that experience is inside us. Manifestly, the screen I am looking at is outside my body (and inside my house). Whether some of the factors making my perception possible come from the mind--my perception, and perceptual phenomena, are not "in" me.
If the solidity of the pen is a primary quality, as it could not have been a pen if it was liquid. Why is color secondary? Would not the color of the pen be equally important if the object at hand is not only a pen, but more specifically a "yellow pen" then, if it was blue, it would no longer be able to be "a yellow pen". If we could say that our perception of colors are impossible to know if are the same, because well your green could be my blue, what's to say there this can't also be a property of other sensory input? Like what about the tactile feeling of wood. If I were to say, that my sense of a wooden surface, could be, to me, the same as your tactile perception of plastic. The answer then of course would be "that's ludicrous, they're obviously different materials with quite different properties" so why isn't that the same answer to the color question? Red and yellow i.e. do not have the same wavelength, they're quite different, and yet our eyes (all healthy eyes at least) work the same way, so why shouldn't the perception of the colors be the same? Maybe these questions are stupid, please do tell me.
Just to be clear. You apparently think that philosophy should be about establishing truths independently of dialogue, response to others, and public critique. If so, where do we find this philosophy?
Kudos for the formatting! I forget the name of the PowerPoint alternative product that you're using but it's a more appropriate tool than PowerPoint. And I think the window with you speaking is also very good.
I'm looking forward to the rest of this series. Heidegger is one of the philosophers I've always had a hard time wrapping my head around, especially the later Heidegger. Anything beyond a vague comprehension seems to elude me. Not sure how much Heidegger you'll be covering, but I'm sure these videos will give me some new insight regardless. Thanks!
Uh... believing that the literal translation of "cogito ergo sum" is "thinking thus being" [7:00] is a mistake on a veeery basic level. I must say, it made me pause the video and reconsider. I mean, if an error like that can slip in, what else is there, that I won't be clever enough to notice?! .. but you are a professor, so I'll keep watching :-)
Pretty sure "cogito" means "I think", not "thinking". Also, Descartes wrote "Je pense, donc je suis", not "cogito ergo sum", and it was in "Discourse de la Methode" not in the meditations. I think that's important, because it shows that Descartes also had ambitions to make his ideas available to the wider, non-latin using, public.
Even if he first wrote it in ''Le discours de la méthode'' in french, he didn't deploy his whole argumentation for it in it. It's clearly in the meditations that we understand the meaning of ''Je pense, donc je suis'' and it's written in latin.
It's been ages since I've read them, but I seem to remember that most of the argument is there in Discours de la méthode (thanks for that correction), but that the meditations also had a bunch of stuff about corpuscles and such. I might very well be wrong, though. Anyway, that particular sentence is only in Discours de la méthode, not in the meditations.
The way I understand it (after reading both and having a class on modern philosophy) is that Descartes true masterwork is the meditations, his sytematic work. However, I kind of agree that there is in the Discours de la Méthodean explanation of the cogito, only it is not the complete cartesian system.
Many thanks for one of the most clear explanations of phenomenology, whic is never easy to grasp, much less at a first grasp. It's not that important but you spoke of refraction when you meant reflection, I think. Also I would really love consciousness wasn't continuously used as meaning wakefullness (not just in your video). Consciousness should include all altered states and not just wakefullness.
Thank you. If you can study Abhidhamma of Buddhism, everything will be clear about phenomenology. Abhidhamma is like a huge huge mountain while phenomenology is like a small hill. :D
I would just start with the online Stanford Philosophy Library...Abhidharma is too vast, complex and technical. Not discouraging you...merely setting the correct expectations.
Cogito ergo sum literally means I think therefore I am. The verbs are not (present) participles but conjugated to the first person (present and singular).
Ontology is a social phenomenon as is mastery or familiarity of which the root is intentionality again a social -ouema, face this as thinkers or we miss everything.
Decaret's cogito cement subjectivity the point of departure for philosophical reflection. Locke's conception of mind we can't get out of our sensory illusions or we can't get out of the lens. David Hume a lots of assumptions aren't derivable from sensory experience. Kant mind made concept exists such as chair. Idealism, contents are dependent on mind. A priori by vs {empiricism}, thing that exist before experience {knowledge comes from experience}. Intentionality, directionality of consciousness through scheme, worldview, and a framework. Although psychology and philosophy can be closer, The philosophical investigation of consciousness precedes logically the investigation of psychology at an empirical level. How can we know meaning of something (maybe sensory experience is) without knowing its feartures and structures of consciousness that make it possible. The psychology is only empricl and often assume our nature as biology. How obejects are consititued in pure or transcendental consciousness. Pure psychology, transcendental subjectivity. How pen is seen by transcendental features, laws, and strutucres of psyche.
Isn't Descarte cogito a plagiarism of the 10th century Avicena (sheikh Ibn Siena) hypothesis of the flying man and his theory of knowing of existence not dependent on senses. His work was expanded on by Thomas Aquinus.
Very good, thank you. Meat and potatoes here. All on one plate. I will be coming back here to eat again (I'm a skinny guy so this plate won't be consumed in one sitting).
Hey, loved the lecture and the way it's structuralized. Could share the link for the flow chart software you're using? Can't find it on my own. Thanks :)
hundimzug I think I know what you mean, the aboutness/intentionality form of consciousness (conscious of) is very different to being conscious i.e. not asleep, in a coma or vegetative state etc.
@@timblackburn1593 I'm not dismissing your comment. Can you elaborate? One way I approach this is as one who meditates. At least I had thought it an insight available through meditation that conscious is always-and-only "conscious of". Eg, through jhana meditation it is possible to systematically release levels of "conscious of". And the question arises, what is the experience of 8th jhana? Many report no-time no-self, an unrivaled peaceful release: still awake, still able to "conscious", and with nothing present to "conscious of". The great thing about meditation is it is not theoretical. Simply try it for yourself, and you may find you witness what has been reported by uncounted fellows for thousands of years. A different approach is now ever more available via sensory deprivation tanks. For less than $100 in most cities you can "turn off" basically all external sensation. And then... Ask what--aside from thought--is left? I think you will not find this "conscious yet not conscious of" you invoke.
I can't resist asking you, (since you dropped the sidebar that you work with architects/philosophy of architecture), are there any good readings on enantiomorphism? Kant's Prolegomena has sent me through quite a loop and I've been doing some research- I find it absolutely fascinating; perhaps you don't.
I know the word enantiomorph from chemistry and philology. I suspect philosophical searches will yield using 'incongruent counterparts'. Eg, here's a link to a reasonably accessible discussion www.oliverpooley.org/uploads/7/7/5/9/7759400/handout7.pdf Picking Wittgenstein as an historical watershed, I imagine contemporary thought would dismiss Kant's point of view as ill-formed, empty of content... something like discussing square circles. The handedness is a feature requiring the "external" perspective, the additional dimension specifically not available in Kant's speculative discussion. Personally, I feel Mobius had the final word, "that things that are incongruent in a three-dimensional space can be turned around in a four-dimensional space so as to be enclosed in the same limits as their counterparts." scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cleve+Van+and+Frederick+Philosophy+pp.+39%E2%80%9341 via www.cambridge.org/core/journals/kantian-review/article/three-remarks-on-the-interpretation-of-kant-on-incongruent-counterparts/8291DE1E7B1718A66A86260A65B6F054 However as a general rule, go with Leibniz. It constantly amazes me how many disregard this advice. ;)
What is the awareness of the fact that my consciousness is jumping around called? Isn't that consciousness? Or does consciousness have a consciousness of it's own?
How do we know there is anything transcendent other than subjective experience? Is there anything outside of the material. It’s possible (however remotely) that the material is even non-existent.
Dear Mark I appreciate your PPT very much. As a teacher, I will pay attention to how to present my speech so that students can have an intuitive feeling. Your PPT is very shocking, clear at a glance, intuitive and beautiful.I I wonder what software was used to make it? Have a nice day and Hope your back...
Once upon a time, a guy named René Descartes wrote a phrase: *cogito ergo sum* or “I think therefore I am”. Let’s say he hadn’t written that. Let’s say he had a brilliant mind but wrote nothing down. Would he, in such a scenario, “be”? Would he “exist” without that phrase - that *meme* if you will - having echoed down time like that to us? To transcend time so that a guy in 2022 would be thinking about his catchphrase is a neat trick. Doesn’t the set of what “is”, come down to, what we can think of, and even more specifically what we are thinking of right now? How would it be possible for me to think of René Descartes at all, if he hadn’t written such an amazing phrase? Answer: it wouldn’t. He would be “lost in the wash of history” like all other souls outside of those few who have achieved transcendence in some way.
Prof. Mark Thorsby, The fundamental notion to be considered here is that the brain is the epiphenomenon of consciousness; in other words, the brain is the result of the mind or consciousness and it uses the brain to apprehend physical reality. Consciousness direct attention through the brain for its own purposes. Intention and attention comes from consciousness. My fundamental thesis, as Kant and Hegel postulated: The purpose of human existence is to expand consciousness. That's all that is; in my humble opinion.
Tristan, I invite you to read my article dubbed, "Which came first the Brain or Consciousness." You will find it at the following link. Then express your opinion: albertamao.wordpress.com/what-is-first-the-brain-or-consciousness/ Incidentally Hegel himself says that the only reality is "The Absolute Idea" which is another word for consciousness. Thus consciousness is prior to any physical expression.
I can see why you tried to stress Hermeneutic Phenomenology, I think that's the kind of thing I've been looking for and thinking about in some roundabout way for some time now, if it turns out to be in any way similar to thoughts I've had I'll feel greatly justified and will be desperate to learn more. I first found out about Phenomenology through stumbling across Husserl's phenomenology of the other and reading about it very briefly on Wikipedia, it seemed to in part agree with some kind of notion I'd had for some time. I've never really read up on philosophy and I'm not sure where to start with it all, I don't suppose you could point me in any direction of things that you think might interest me or things that you have found very interesting? Either way, thanks for the video, I'll be sure to subscribe!
Sir, haven't the problems of Transcendental constitutive phenomenology been solved by Kant when he talks of the form of our reason that arranges our sense experiences according to them?
Thank you for very informative and clearly explained disciplinary thoughts. About the description on Oxford Dictionary, when did you use the website-or which edition of printed dictionary did you use? I am now seeing the explanation as "The science of phenomena as distinct from that of the nature of being" and the nature seems to be a very important aspect to not be in your citation. Just wondered if they changed it over time... Sincerely.
I have a question regarding the Cogito. It obviously feel intuitively correct that one must exist to experience, but what proof do we have that experience requires existence, how do we support this idea other than intuitively?
@Lessons in Logic Weird, maybe I am missing something but that just begs the question doesn't it, How can you substantiate the claim the Cogito makes that Experience requires existence using the Cogito?
@Lessons in Logic I accept that my question may be dumb but I am honestly not trying to be dumb, or afraid of asking a stupid question. The intention of the cogito is clear, I am questioning how we know the conclusion is correct, other than by intuition. "If something is experiencing.....then there is a something" My question is why couldn't there be experience without something to experience it? how do we substantiate that experience requires existence other than it just sounding right? Perhaps the answer is, "because we can't think of a way for something to experience without existing" Im asking how do we substantiate that the conclusion is sound. If one only repeats the Cogito one risks begging the question. Thanks for you patience 👍
@Lessons in Logic "The mere fact of thinking implies there is a thinker, something doing the thinking. To doubt one's existence is proof one exists, otherwise one could not doubt it" I don't know how else to say that I understand this. I understood this before writing the original question. Ok well thanks for trying anyway. I still don't think you can prove the assertion by using the assertion. The fact that thinking implies a thinker still doesn't explain why there can't be thought without a thinker. I'm actually surprised you used the term "implies" I would expect you to say thinking requires a thinker. I literally just want to know how we substantiate the claim "experience requires existence" If we only substantiate it by saying "because it must" or "because we can't think of how it couldn't", then fine. I find that interesting. Anyway thank you for your time and effort.
Hi thank you for these videos, they are helpful. But I still have a hard time with much of it. If I could ask 2questions: Can anybody briefly help me to understand why Husserls phenomenological project was/is important, like why do phenomenology, rather than just do science? Or rather than Common Sense Realism? And can anyone succinctly contrast Husserls phenomenology with other approaches, how is phenomenology different than pragmatism, how is it different than Kant?
In regards to generative historicist phenomenology, which philosophers, phenomenologists, or thinkers would you recommend I read in order to get further insight into this topic?
No, sorry it seemed like that. Ontology is independent of phenomenology. I think that phenomenologies get to ontology, but there are still other paths. Thanks for the comment
I think, he needs to make a clear distinction between consciousness and attention. When he describe consciousness it seems that he is talking about how we direct our attention to different things. Then, he says that consciousness is directionally or intentionality, it is always about something. The question would be: Is consciousness similar to attention? Don't think so. Any help.
That is a great point, and I think you may be right. We need to distinguish attention from intention, from consciousness. I think Husserl does make these three clear .
Is it right to say that consciousness directs (intends to) attention towards some object - so intentionality or directionality is an 'act' of consciousness and consciousness uses attention to do so? In order words, consciousness uses attention as a probe pointing to an object, at a given moment in time? Is this a correct conception of consciousness, intentionality, directionality, and attention?
@@gvks I like how you explained the relationship. Being conscious is the state that utilizes structures for constant perceiving of sensory input and that is constantly -- sometimes very rapidly -- directing attention from one thing to the next.
Your definition of phenomenology seems strange to me because it’s not just any old method of studying what must be true for us to experience what we do, but it is studying it in a very specific way, namely in a phenomenological way. That’s what it seems like to me at least. There’s no scientifically custom models, rather there is this nebulous metaphorical system that you have to embed yourself and to understand. It’s a very different way of studying things and it seems like that method should be a part of the definition. am I wrong on any of that?
Disagree that you can be conscious of nothing. Well, soft disagree. You can be conscious of nothingness (which is distinct from nothing), as in, the pure consciousness event.
A new world for me. I stayed away from Heidegger till now (and Derrida! Too much name dropping!).
I come to this from Indian Idealism *and* Indian 'Realism'. That includes Advaita (nondual consciousness), Buddhist idealism (Yogacara etc), Buddhist empiricism and the Vaiseshika-Nyaya system. The last analyses perception, knowing, worldly categories of all "objects", particulars and universals, language etc.
I am so excited to discover this aspect of Western philosophy. Thanks.
A worthwhile set of videos for anyone interested in phenomenological philosophy as a method of understanding oneself and one's environment. In following this series one would do well to remember Leslie Dewart's insight: "The phenomenological method, then, is not the diametric opposite of the ontological; it is a more comprehensive one than the latter, whose merits it preserves and whose inadequacies it tries to remedy." Evolution and Consciousness: The Role of Speech in the Origin and Development of Human Nature (1989:31).
I found watching and listening to Professor Thorsby's narrative on phenomenology, useful. I got most of my formative education in the 1960's. That shaped me and gave me a personal understanding which I've then applied and developed across personal life experience; while memory of what educated me, has fallen away pretty completely. So its helpful to have that earlier educational experience, refreshed. At the same time it leaves me conflicted. It seems to me there are two broad streams of understanding in play: the one attaching to elite settings, such as universities; the other out on the street, as it were. It does then strike me that phenomenology is an activity out on the street, as well as an activity of scholastic reflection. That may come from earlier education being sociological, where Schutz rather than Husserl was the referred to figure.
I have found the idea of philosophising as an activity of active meaning making intrinsic to being human, to be useful in supporting autistically characterised young people educationally; in seeking to experience such individuals holistically and non-reductively, in the way that Carl Rogers might, I found it helpful to bend myself to asking and answering the question, "what active meaning making or philosophising, is mediating the being and person" of this and that individual. If you give over to the hermeneutic idea radically, you might consider that an autistically characterised individual is spinning up a being from "first things" that do not figure in the constituting or mediating processes in play in a contextualising collective; where I find the example of Neitzche (and others) to lend credence to that idea (of singularity in the becoming of made meaning). Again, grateful that resource such as this videoed talk/lecture, are freely available online; much appreciated.
Best description of phenomenology on youtube. So much of the rest just never gets to the point, or makes it clear. Good job.
i watch these vids on YT and i think; had i had these kinds of guys, which put completly their heart in making and putting this information out in the most kindest and clearest of ways, as a teachers i wouldnt be so ignoramous right now
Phenomenon comes from the greek word "φαινόμενον" which in its turn comes from the verb "φαίνεσθαι". The meaning of this verb ranges from _"that which becomes apparent"_ , or _"that which makes itself visible"_ to _"that which vaguely seems to be the case"_
thank you fellow classicist for pointing this out. "Phenomenology is a Latin word"? For shame!
This is all very interesting. I come at this with a lot more experience with meditation especially non dual traditions like Dzogchen which has a similar objective as phenomenology which is to see our experiences for "what they really are". One thing that is interesting to me is the descriptions given of first person experience not just in this video but in the other stuff that I've seen and read about phenomenology. This is where it seems aligned with a practice similar to Zen or Dzogchen but at the same time is pretty different. For instance you gave the example of holding a pen and having the experience of a 3D object. From the meditative perspective with the intent on seeing experience for what it is prior to conception (putting aside the inherent limitation and conceptual nature of words) if we are going to say anything about it we might describe the experience of holding the pen something like; There's a pattern of yellow color which is easily changed by turning it, for instance a long thin pattern as opposed to a nearly perfect circle and this pattern will grow and shrink insofar as the pattern of color that is my hand grows and shrinks." This is just meant as the most literal description of my visual field as it is actually appearing to me from my first person view. As in when I am holding the pen I can turn it around and view it at different angles which is evident because of the way the pattern of its light is morphing into various shapes and perspectives that we would intuitively think that a long cylindrical object would do. For instance when I'm viewing it from the side it looks long and thin and when I view it directly head on it appears as a circle. Then if I were to hold it close to my eyes it would appear very large and when I hold it away from my eyes it would appear much smaller which we intuitively interpret as distance and motion to and away from ourselves. Or perhaps a better way to describe all of that would be to take a video from your first person view and then just describe the video in terms of its pixel content on the screen. There would be an area of many different shades of mostly yellow pixels. The yellow pixels would take on a long cylindrical shape or a circle and would morph between these shapes as the image of the hand moves it around. It would also be represented by many more pixels if held closer to the camera and far fewer pixels if held further away. There's no actual depth on a 2d screen just as there's no actual depth that makes up our first person visual field of color and shadow.
That is just a very brief example but the most important thing is to make very clear that all we are doing is trying to describe it in as literal a way as possible from our own first person view. That if we both watched the video of the pen together we would agree on what would then be objective descriptions of the pixel content of the screen. It would just be pointing out what is there to see which is exactly the premise of traditions like Dzogchen, to just see what is always there to be seen exactly as it is.
I bring all of this up to say that it seems phenomenology is kind of in the same realm of what I just described but at the same time is very different. Especially the existential phenomenologists, that almost has no equivalent in a non-dual meditative practice. But its all very interesting. Thanks for the content!
Dear Mark, thank you for taking the time and effort to make and upload these videos. They're immensely useful for beginners and those needing recaps on philosophical ideas. Best wishes, Andy
I know im asking randomly but does any of you know of a method to get back into an Instagram account..?
I somehow forgot the password. I appreciate any assistance you can give me!
@Kase Jayden Instablaster =)
@Morgan Bjorn I really appreciate your reply. I found the site thru google and Im trying it out atm.
Takes a while so I will get back to you later with my results.
@Morgan Bjorn It did the trick and I actually got access to my account again. I am so happy!
Thank you so much, you saved my ass :D
@Kase Jayden You are welcome =)
I subscribed to your channel because of this philosophical movement or whatever we call phenomenology.
Thanks alot Sir, I am a Swede studying at a Swedish university, and your lectures are great, and helpful!
holy!! i just found your videos and im really excited
I am in the Masters program for architecture and I minored in philosophy in my undergrad. My thesis is going to be on the intersection of phenomenology and architecture. Naturally my ears perked when you mention that you work with architects. I was wondering if you could explain what that relationship is like and how you found yourself working with them. Does your input find literal manifest into their design or is it really just musings? Thanks!
Hey, just saw your comment, i am currently working on the intersection between structuralism and phenomenology in architecture. I would be thankful if your work is accessible somewhere. Thanks in advance, that would be immensly useful 🙏
I was wondering if you have your thesis work available for viewing? I'm interested in that area of study as I'm doing my M. Arch as well!
Your videos are amazing. Congratulations from Brazil.
I've got three problems in phenomenology:
-Are the conditions of the experience of phenomenons only describable in a single way? And if they aren't, doesn't that undermine any transcendental attemps of doing so?
- Are all phenomenons intentional? It seems that intentionality necessarily requires two distinct phenomena, say a sensation and a reptesentation of that sensation. Without two distinct objects, the concept of intentionality seems to break down: do you really need to be conscious OF something, or can there just BE an experience?
- Is language adequate to describe phenomenons? For example, the human eye can see millions of distinct colours, yet the distinctions in language cannot begin to account for them. If such is the case for such a simple case as colour description, how inadequate is language in general? Perhaps human experience is too varied, subtle and generally fuzzy to ever try to describe in the cookie cutter way language necessitates.
great lecturer TY.
Thks, I'm a retired physicist. Although the concept-of-space/time is essential to describe the mezzo/mid world (ex: newtonian physics), the concept-of-space/time changes dramatically for descriptions the macro & micro worlds (ex: Einstein's relativity & atomic quantum mechanics). Maybe phenomenology might help me get a handle on these sort-of-things.
Indeed! Einstein was a Hegelian, also do you have any suggestions on where to read on quantum mechanics in relation to magnets?
@@rickmendoza3328 Hmmmmm ... sorry I don't.
Definite watch later... have read and been taught much on this and these philosophers..
Thanks for your time and sharing your knowlage to others.
I will try to follow along but with my feeble mind it feels like grasping at wisps of smoke.
+Erryday LOL
Erryday lmaoooo
Philosophical ideas are difficult for me too. I never read actual texts; I always read secondary sources. I started with visually engaging survey books like "The Story of Philosophy" by Brian Magee. (google it for good low priced 2nd hand copies) If you read a couple of these types of books, they may make the advanced videos more approachable. And of course, check out Thorsby's introductory videos.
@Roger Crew You have a girlfriend? What's that like?
"Regardless of what's outside. " No. Phenomenology does not assume that experience is inside us. Manifestly, the screen I am looking at is outside my body (and inside my house). Whether some of the factors making my perception possible come from the mind--my perception, and perceptual phenomena, are not "in" me.
very useful content and made easy to understand by the graphics, thanks Mark
Very lucid presentation! Good stuff. Thank you!
If the solidity of the pen is a primary quality, as it could not have been a pen if it was liquid. Why is color secondary? Would not the color of the pen be equally important if the object at hand is not only a pen, but more specifically a "yellow pen" then, if it was blue, it would no longer be able to be "a yellow pen".
If we could say that our perception of colors are impossible to know if are the same, because well your green could be my blue, what's to say there this can't also be a property of other sensory input? Like what about the tactile feeling of wood. If I were to say, that my sense of a wooden surface, could be, to me, the same as your tactile perception of plastic. The answer then of course would be "that's ludicrous, they're obviously different materials with quite different properties" so why isn't that the same answer to the color question? Red and yellow i.e. do not have the same wavelength, they're quite different, and yet our eyes (all healthy eyes at least) work the same way, so why shouldn't the perception of the colors be the same?
Maybe these questions are stupid, please do tell me.
Phenomenology: the study of someone's interpretations of other peoples' interpretations and what they mean to that person's "world view".
Just to be clear. You apparently think that philosophy should be about establishing truths independently of dialogue, response to others, and public critique. If so, where do we find this philosophy?
@@timadamson3378 I'm pretty sure that's your interpretation; I did not write such a thing.
@@SeanGoreshtWhat exactly did you write?
@@SeanGoresht The interpretation is unclear because of a failure in linguistics, not because of individualism.
excellent introduction sir!
Thank you very much for the video.
You made Husserl very user friendly for novices like me.
Kudos for the formatting!
I forget the name of the PowerPoint alternative product that you're using but it's a more appropriate tool than PowerPoint. And I think the window with you speaking is also very good.
prezi its called prezi
I'm looking forward to the rest of this series. Heidegger is one of the philosophers I've always had a hard time wrapping my head around, especially the later Heidegger. Anything beyond a vague comprehension seems to elude me. Not sure how much Heidegger you'll be covering, but I'm sure these videos will give me some new insight regardless. Thanks!
My goal is to read him in the original German - sure to break my head!
The genesis of Heidegger's Being and time
Book by Theodore Kisiel
Uh... believing that the literal translation of "cogito ergo sum" is "thinking thus being" [7:00] is a mistake on a veeery basic level. I must say, it made me pause the video and reconsider. I mean, if an error like that can slip in, what else is there, that I won't be clever enough to notice?! .. but you are a professor, so I'll keep watching :-)
amazing class!
Pretty sure "cogito" means "I think", not "thinking".
Also, Descartes wrote "Je pense, donc je suis", not "cogito ergo sum", and it was in "Discourse de la Methode" not in the meditations. I think that's important, because it shows that Descartes also had ambitions to make his ideas available to the wider, non-latin using, public.
Even if he first wrote it in ''Le discours de la méthode'' in french, he didn't deploy his whole argumentation for it in it. It's clearly in the meditations that we understand the meaning of ''Je pense, donc je suis'' and it's written in latin.
Thank you for posting the correction.
It's been ages since I've read them, but I seem to remember that most of the argument is there in Discours de la méthode (thanks for that correction), but that the meditations also had a bunch of stuff about corpuscles and such. I might very well be wrong, though. Anyway, that particular sentence is only in Discours de la méthode, not in the meditations.
The way I understand it (after reading both and having a class on modern philosophy) is that Descartes true masterwork is the meditations, his sytematic work. However, I kind of agree that there is in the Discours de la Méthodean explanation of the cogito, only it is not the complete cartesian system.
Those are really just details
Wonderfully clear explanation of difficult ideas. I also like the upgrade to Prezi (?) software vs. earlier simple whiteboard.
thank you so much!!! you are a great teacher :)
Great lectures!
Very clean and clear. Thank you.
Well done...very helpful video!
Thanks, very helpful!😊
Many thanks for one of the most clear explanations of phenomenology, whic is never easy to grasp, much less at a first grasp. It's not that important but you spoke of refraction when you meant reflection, I think. Also I would really love consciousness wasn't continuously used as meaning wakefullness (not just in your video). Consciousness should include all altered states and not just wakefullness.
Thank you. If you can study Abhidhamma of Buddhism, everything will be clear about phenomenology. Abhidhamma is like a huge huge mountain while phenomenology is like a small hill. :D
Do you have in mind some books or texts that could be introductory to Abhidhamma? It sounded interesting :)
I would just start with the online Stanford Philosophy Library...Abhidharma is too vast, complex and technical. Not discouraging you...merely setting the correct expectations.
Thank you for creating such wonderful content!
Brilliant, thanks!
Cogito ergo sum literally means I think therefore I am. The verbs are not (present) participles but conjugated to the first person (present and singular).
Ontology is a social phenomenon as is mastery or familiarity of which the root is intentionality again a social -ouema, face this as thinkers or we miss everything.
Listening to this while at work.
Me too
Decaret's cogito cement subjectivity the point of departure for philosophical reflection. Locke's conception of mind we can't get out of our sensory illusions or we can't get out of the lens. David Hume a lots of assumptions aren't derivable from sensory experience. Kant mind made concept exists such as chair. Idealism, contents are dependent on mind. A priori by vs {empiricism}, thing that exist before experience {knowledge comes from experience}. Intentionality, directionality of consciousness through scheme, worldview, and a framework. Although psychology and philosophy can be closer, The philosophical investigation of consciousness precedes logically the investigation of psychology at an empirical level. How can we know meaning of something (maybe sensory experience is) without knowing its feartures and structures of consciousness that make it possible. The psychology is only empricl and often assume our nature as biology. How obejects are consititued in pure or transcendental consciousness. Pure psychology, transcendental subjectivity. How pen is seen by transcendental features, laws, and strutucres of psyche.
Isn't Descarte cogito a plagiarism of the 10th century Avicena (sheikh Ibn Siena) hypothesis of the flying man and his theory of knowing of existence not dependent on senses. His work was expanded on by Thomas Aquinus.
Thank you. 🤔
Excellent Work 👍
Very good, thank you. Meat and potatoes here. All on one plate. I will be coming back here to eat again (I'm a skinny guy so this plate won't be consumed in one sitting).
Thank you very much!
Serious Q: What is your opinion of Tom Sparrow's book "The End of Phenomenology"?
Hey, loved the lecture and the way it's structuralized. Could share the link for the flow chart software you're using? Can't find it on my own. Thanks :)
Sure. I use Prezi. Go to Prezi.com
I used to think that attention and conscioussness where different experiences where conscioussness is a broader feeling of self and existence
hundimzug I think I know what you mean, the aboutness/intentionality form of consciousness (conscious of) is very different to being conscious i.e. not asleep, in a coma or vegetative state etc.
@@timblackburn1593 I'm not dismissing your comment. Can you elaborate?
One way I approach this is as one who meditates. At least I had thought it an insight available through meditation that conscious is always-and-only "conscious of". Eg, through jhana meditation it is possible to systematically release levels of "conscious of". And the question arises, what is the experience of 8th jhana? Many report no-time no-self, an unrivaled peaceful release: still awake, still able to "conscious", and with nothing present to "conscious of". The great thing about meditation is it is not theoretical. Simply try it for yourself, and you may find you witness what has been reported by uncounted fellows for thousands of years.
A different approach is now ever more available via sensory deprivation tanks. For less than $100 in most cities you can "turn off" basically all external sensation. And then... Ask what--aside from thought--is left? I think you will not find this "conscious yet not conscious of" you invoke.
I can't resist asking you, (since you dropped the sidebar that you work with architects/philosophy of architecture), are there any good readings on enantiomorphism? Kant's Prolegomena has sent me through quite a loop and I've been doing some research- I find it absolutely fascinating; perhaps you don't.
I know the word enantiomorph from chemistry and philology. I suspect philosophical searches will yield using 'incongruent counterparts'. Eg, here's a link to a reasonably accessible discussion www.oliverpooley.org/uploads/7/7/5/9/7759400/handout7.pdf
Picking Wittgenstein as an historical watershed, I imagine contemporary thought would dismiss Kant's point of view as ill-formed, empty of content... something like discussing square circles. The handedness is a feature requiring the "external" perspective, the additional dimension specifically not available in Kant's speculative discussion.
Personally, I feel Mobius had the final word, "that things that are incongruent in a three-dimensional space can be turned around in a four-dimensional space so as to be enclosed in the same limits as their counterparts." scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cleve+Van+and+Frederick+Philosophy+pp.+39%E2%80%9341 via www.cambridge.org/core/journals/kantian-review/article/three-remarks-on-the-interpretation-of-kant-on-incongruent-counterparts/8291DE1E7B1718A66A86260A65B6F054
However as a general rule, go with Leibniz. It constantly amazes me how many disregard this advice. ;)
What is the awareness of the fact that my consciousness is jumping around called? Isn't that consciousness? Or does consciousness have a consciousness of it's own?
How do we know there is anything transcendent other than subjective experience? Is there anything outside of the material. It’s possible (however remotely) that the material is even non-existent.
Thank you so much!
Dear Mark I appreciate your PPT very much. As a teacher, I will pay attention to how to present my speech so that students can have an intuitive feeling. Your PPT is very shocking, clear at a glance, intuitive and beautiful.I I wonder what software was used to make it? Have a nice day and Hope your back...
its's a website named prezi
Wow! That diagram!!
Hi dr Thorsby, whu don't u start a podcast. It will be very nice if u start a one 😉
GOD SEND DUDE
John Locke's primary and secondary qualities...according to Locke, are they qualities of perception or the qualities of the objects?
Once upon a time, a guy named René Descartes wrote a phrase: *cogito ergo sum* or “I think therefore I am”. Let’s say he hadn’t written that. Let’s say he had a brilliant mind but wrote nothing down. Would he, in such a scenario, “be”? Would he “exist” without that phrase - that *meme* if you will - having echoed down time like that to us? To transcend time so that a guy in 2022 would be thinking about his catchphrase is a neat trick. Doesn’t the set of what “is”, come down to, what we can think of, and even more specifically what we are thinking of right now? How would it be possible for me to think of René Descartes at all, if he hadn’t written such an amazing phrase? Answer: it wouldn’t. He would be “lost in the wash of history” like all other souls outside of those few who have achieved transcendence in some way.
Prof. Mark Thorsby, The fundamental notion to be considered here is that the brain is the epiphenomenon of consciousness; in other words, the brain is the result of the mind or consciousness and it uses the brain to apprehend physical reality. Consciousness direct attention through the brain for its own purposes. Intention and attention comes from consciousness. My fundamental thesis, as Kant and Hegel postulated: The purpose of human existence is to expand consciousness. That's all that is; in my humble opinion.
Albert A hardly humble. what nonsense are you speaking?
Tristan, I invite you to read my article dubbed, "Which came first the Brain or Consciousness." You will find it at the following link. Then express your opinion:
albertamao.wordpress.com/what-is-first-the-brain-or-consciousness/
Incidentally Hegel himself says that the only reality is "The Absolute Idea" which is another word for consciousness. Thus consciousness is prior to any physical expression.
TLDR: chicken and egg for the 20th century
Albert A that’s a poor reading of Hegel
I can see why you tried to stress Hermeneutic Phenomenology, I think that's the kind of thing I've been looking for and thinking about in some roundabout way for some time now, if it turns out to be in any way similar to thoughts I've had I'll feel greatly justified and will be desperate to learn more.
I first found out about Phenomenology through stumbling across Husserl's phenomenology of the other and reading about it very briefly on Wikipedia, it seemed to in part agree with some kind of notion I'd had for some time. I've never really read up on philosophy and I'm not sure where to start with it all, I don't suppose you could point me in any direction of things that you think might interest me or things that you have found very interesting?
Either way, thanks for the video, I'll be sure to subscribe!
thanks for your video
a phenomenon, some phenomena
Sir, haven't the problems of Transcendental constitutive phenomenology been solved by Kant when he talks of the form of our reason that arranges our sense experiences according to them?
Thank you for very informative and clearly explained disciplinary thoughts. About the description on Oxford Dictionary, when did you use the website-or which edition of printed dictionary did you use? I am now seeing the explanation as "The science of phenomena as distinct from that of the nature of being" and the nature seems to be a very important aspect to not be in your citation. Just wondered if they changed it over time... Sincerely.
I have a question regarding the Cogito. It obviously feel intuitively correct that one must exist to experience, but what proof do we have that experience requires existence, how do we support this idea other than intuitively?
@Lessons in Logic Weird, maybe I am missing something but that just begs the question doesn't it, How can you substantiate the claim the Cogito makes that Experience requires existence using the Cogito?
@Lessons in Logic I accept that my question may be dumb but I am honestly not trying to be dumb, or afraid of asking a stupid question. The intention of the cogito is clear, I am questioning how we know the conclusion is correct, other than by intuition.
"If something is experiencing.....then there is a something" My question is why couldn't there be experience without something to experience it? how do we substantiate that experience requires existence other than it just sounding right?
Perhaps the answer is, "because we can't think of a way for something to experience without existing"
Im asking how do we substantiate that the conclusion is sound.
If one only repeats the Cogito one risks begging the question.
Thanks for you patience 👍
@Lessons in Logic
"The mere fact of thinking implies there is a thinker, something doing the thinking. To doubt one's existence is proof one exists, otherwise one could not doubt it" I don't know how else to say that I understand this. I understood this before writing the original question.
Ok well thanks for trying anyway. I still don't think you can prove the assertion by using the assertion. The fact that thinking implies a thinker still doesn't explain why there can't be thought without a thinker. I'm actually surprised you used the term "implies" I would expect you to say thinking requires a thinker.
I literally just want to know how we substantiate the claim "experience requires existence" If we only substantiate it by saying "because it must" or "because we can't think of how it couldn't", then fine. I find that interesting.
Anyway thank you for your time and effort.
Thank you very much!!
Hi thank you for these videos, they are helpful. But I still have a hard time with much of it. If I could ask 2questions: Can anybody briefly help me to understand why Husserls phenomenological project was/is important, like why do phenomenology, rather than just do science? Or rather than Common Sense Realism?
And can anyone succinctly contrast Husserls phenomenology with other approaches, how is phenomenology different than pragmatism, how is it different than Kant?
Thank you sir
Thank you so much for your informative videos. Could you tell me what application you use for making the diagrams in your presentation?
ts called prezi
In regards to generative historicist phenomenology, which philosophers, phenomenologists, or thinkers would you recommend I read in order to get further insight into this topic?
LancerRugby jesus christ and his books.
great vid thank you very much
Hi Mark, thanks alot and nice slideshow, which program are you using?
Solipsistic 😊
If you don't mind me asking, what presentation software are you using that allows you to have video/audio in the corner? thanks
It’s Prezi
so, there is not ontology outside of phenomenology, that's to say ontology it is only possible since and after phenomenology??
No, sorry it seemed like that. Ontology is independent of phenomenology. I think that phenomenologies get to ontology, but there are still other paths. Thanks for the comment
I think, he needs to make a clear distinction between consciousness and attention. When he describe consciousness it seems that he is talking about how we direct our attention to different things. Then, he says that consciousness is directionally or intentionality, it is always about something. The question would be: Is consciousness similar to attention? Don't think so. Any help.
That is a great point, and I think you may be right. We need to distinguish attention from intention, from consciousness. I think Husserl does make these three clear .
Is it right to say that consciousness directs (intends to) attention towards some object - so intentionality or directionality is an 'act' of consciousness and consciousness uses attention to do so? In order words, consciousness uses attention as a probe pointing to an object, at a given moment in time? Is this a correct conception of consciousness, intentionality, directionality, and attention?
@@gvks I like how you explained the relationship. Being conscious is the state that utilizes structures for constant perceiving of sensory input and that is constantly -- sometimes very rapidly -- directing attention from one thing to the next.
Thinking presupposes being.
What is the Heidegger essay?
Thank you.
you welcome!
In his talk, he mentions "if you are reading the text." Anyone know which text he is referring to?
Thanks in advance.
I don't know.
Which software is that? Please tell me.
What is the text to follow along with? Thanks!
Sir, the singular form is, "phenomenon," not "phenomena."
Oh, lord! I can be so arrogant. Professor, I enjoy your method of instruction, and look forward to more. Please forgive my moodiness.
good
yes
Hi which programme did you use for this presentation?
I used Prezi.
Thanks Mark.
"plural noun: phenomena", "What is a phenomena?"
Can anyone tell me what presentation software was used for this video?
It looks like Prezi :)
Can you give me the name the software that you use in the representation plz
its called prezi
@@reneperez2126 thnks
...one year ago, exactly.
21:09
Play at 1/2 speed while smoking.
Your definition of phenomenology seems strange to me because it’s not just any old method of studying what must be true for us to experience what we do, but it is studying it in a very specific way, namely in a phenomenological way. That’s what it seems like to me at least. There’s no scientifically custom models, rather there is this nebulous metaphorical system that you have to embed yourself and to understand. It’s a very different way of studying things and it seems like that method should be a part of the definition. am I wrong on any of that?
"A phenomena" is incorrect. "Phenomena" is the plural of "phenomenon."
Fucking awesome bro
Disagree that you can be conscious of nothing. Well, soft disagree. You can be conscious of nothingness (which is distinct from nothing), as in, the pure consciousness event.