During a game of Nerts
UPDATE:
The story may be found on CNN's website hereTurn on the TV," Kileen said as she managed her cards. "I want to see something ( Read more... )
The story may be found on CNN's website hereTurn on the TV," Kileen said as she managed her cards. "I want to see something ( Read more... )
He's right to point to experience. But he doesn't ask what experience is. He's still working from the Cartesian problematic. Consequently, in his last chapter, when he applies his casaul discoveries to a skepticism towards "reality," he is unable to "prove" the existence of "external objects" which cause experience. Well, of course he can't prove it. He's starting on the other side, and there ain't no escape from that.
Which is why I love phenomenology, especially Heidegger's stuff. Thinking experience in terms of subjects and objects, or mind (ie a bundle of impressions) and external things, isn't the way to go about it. What is experience? We gotta find it's foundations, its possibility, in something else.
With moral type stuff, feeling is not the direction I want to head in though. Feeling also implies the Cartesian problematic. Straight up subject stuff right there. If we could figure out a way to understand morality or at least instances of "right" and "wrong," "good" and "bad," without appealing to subjects or objects, that'd be slick. I wonder if phenomenology can get us there.
In any case, Heidegger doesn't want anything to with it. Husserl neither as far as I can tell.
Reply
Leave a comment