"Classical, pure phenomenology aims to comprehend “those structures of experience and understanding that permit different types of beings to show themselves as what they are.” It does this by rejecting the idea that the subject, qua experiencer, is conceptually distinct from that which it experiences. (p. 74) "

I am writing about phenomenology as a method by which we can understand mental health problems, and I'm on the section of the paper where I do a quick 'here's the contemporary thought, and here's the concept I'm going to use.' - is the sentence above ok?? I've talked about how phenomenology isn't just a way of describing things accurately, but a study of the structures of experience. (Basing this all on Husserlian concepts)

Thank you in advance for your insight!! xxx

  • 1
    Do you have a reference for the quoted text? I don't know much about phenomenology, but this might be something worth reading. Welcome to Philosophy! – Frank Hubeny Jan 6 at 15:32
  • Phenomenology is closely associated Psychology, and it is almost as diverse... If you want more than "Yes, this summary will serve your purpose" you may elicit better responses if you could elaborate a bit more on your references and intention: Which phenomenologists would you like to quote or credit? – christo183 Jan 7 at 6:35
  • 1
    "permit different types of beings to show themselves as what they are" is too cryptic without a paragraph of explanations, and why only "beings"? It was "back to the things themselves", including but not limited to beings. You can quote something from Merleau-Ponty's What is Phenomenology, for example. – Conifold Jan 7 at 8:59
  • Obviously, no description that short is possibly accurate. I would be careful to include at least a short discussion/qualification for any graded text since otherwise, it would surely solicit negative impact on the grading. Other than that, I would think that Conifold's point about "back to the things (in) themselves" is spot on. It is about structures of the things showing themselves, which has transcendental character for the late Husserl and is only insofar "neither of object (appearance/phenomenon) nor subject". – Philip Klöcking Jan 7 at 12:13
  • @FrankHubeny it's just literally a sentence from the essay I'm writing! The bit in quotation marks is from Dan Zahavi Subjectivity and Selfhood - it's very good I highly recommend it. – Maisie Gibson Jan 7 at 16:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.