Hi everyone,

My main interest these days is in philosophy of ecology. I recently came across an article where the author argued that Husserl's philosophy had much to bring to ecological thinking, especially his account of the mathematization of nature by modern science. In a footnote, the same author was referring to Husserl's vienna conferences, which, if I remember well, are transcribed in the appendixes of Crisis of European Sciences. I started reading appendix 1 but found it quite obscure, so decided to go back to the start of the book where Husserl talks about the crisis of the ideal of universal knowledge as pursued by Renaissance thinkers, and the subsequent loss of faith in reason and mankind. This first chapter is easier to grasp and I plan on reading more from Husserl.

That being said, I wouldn't like to spend too much time either on this, as right now I want to focus more on ecology. How or where can I get a good général overview of Husserl's philosophical project? I'm sure this would help me understand the content of the vienna conferences.

Thanks for reading. PS. I'm French, sorry if there are any mistakes.

Have you also felt that the fifth meditation was very repetitive and that Husserl could shortened it in half?

Hello everyone,

I am currently reading the Sixth Logical Investigation in Husserl’s Logical Investigations, and I am trying to understand his account of truth as evidence.

As I understand it, two central notions are at work here: signitive acts and fulfilling acts, both of which fall under the broader class of objectifying acts. My current understanding is that a signitive act intends an object through meaning, while a fulfilling act provides the intuitive givenness that can confirm or complete that intention.

Husserl seems to argue that knowledge arises when signitive intention and intuition coincide in what he calls a kind of intuitive fulfillment. One of his examples is the gradual passage from an approximate pencil sketch to a more defined one, and then to the completed image in all its vividness. Another possible example would be perceptual correction in fog: I initially take a bush to be an animal, and only later, as perception becomes clearer, recognize that this first assumption was mistaken. In both cases, I can see how fulfillment works at the perceptual level.

What I do not understand is how this model applies to logical or mathematical knowledge.

I can understand how there may be an initial symbolic or signitive grasp of a proposition, formula, or law. But in that case, what exactly counts as fulfillment? If mathematical or logical truth is not given perceptually, then in what sense can the original signitive intention be fulfilled? What is the intuitive correlate here? And how does this fulfillment amount to genuine knowledge rather than merely correct symbolic manipulation?

I know for sure that categorial intuition is part of the response but I would like someone to introduce me to that idea simply.

So my question is: how should we understand fulfillment in the case of logical or mathematical propositions?

I hope the question is clear. Thanks in advance.

ontocubism

Husserl thought that science depends on a hidden ‘Idea of Science’—a normative ideal discovered by the phenomenological reduction. Would generative phenomenology imply a fundamentally different scientific ideal than naturalistic objectivism? How would scientific practice change if we grounded it in genetic/generative intentional structures instead of physicalist assumptions?

Hi guys . I hope ur having a good day . So ive develloped a new intrest in husserl and ive been trying to read cartesian Meditations . Ive found it somewhat hard to have a full grasp of the depth of the text , im very fascinated by husserl and i really would like to improve my understanding of his work . What do u guys recommend (Sorry for any mistakes english isn't my first language )

I’ve been reading about Husserl’s eidetic reduction as a tool for isolating the essential features of an object, whether concrete or abstract, particular or universal. None of the secondary sources I’ve encountered discuss how we might know when the eidetic reduction of a given object is complete. Is there a way to know? Or is it never complete, in which case every object has an infinite number of essential features?

"Ontocubsim" is a "cacophonous perspectivism" inspired by Husserl, Leibniz, Mach, and Heidegger.

This is an "ontological" perspectivism that critiques the notion of "objective reality" is basically empty. I understand consciousness as the from-a-point-of-view "presence" or "being" of the lifeworld.

The analytic philosopher Christian List seems to be working on something similar. My version is perhaps more direct, but I lean on the work of Heidegger and Husserl. Though my attempt to resuscitate the concept of consciousness in terms of the ontological difference will not appeal to many who also value Heidegger's work.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ontocubism/

https://www.patreon.com/c/fil0s0fi

Note that I'm looking to start an online philosophy forum. We have a few founding members already and would like at least 10.

For more details see the Public Chat on my Patreon page.

we have no choice
we have no worth
we have no time to stop this

we have no choice
but to react
we wanted to connect
it's worthless

it seems so empty
we must delete

get out of this system
we must retreat

it turned us on
we now
have to turn it off

at best it's vapid entertainment
at worst a fatal secret weapon

An informal paper on meaning from the point of view of aspect theory ( AKA ontocubism )

A few informal pages on "ontocubism" or "aspect theory".

https://ontocubism.github.io/text/eigenhoff_2.pdf