Edmund Husserl is the one who developed the philosophical method called Phenomenology. He tried to connect it in all other sciences. He also continued Descartes’ Cartesian Meditation. Descartes had a problem in bridging the subject to the object. Husserl solved it with his Theory of Intentionality.
If Descartes problem is the veracity of God, Husserl’s problem is the veracity of the other. He has three solutions to solve this problem and these are pairing, concordant behavior and free variation wherein he favored most in pairing. In pairing, my Body is Leib for me while others’ bodies are korper. For the Other, a subject just like me but other than me, his Body is Leib for him and mine is korper. Both our bodies are Leib and korper. Pairing, empathy, and appresentation supports the theory of intersubjectivity, a theory that says all subjects are connected. We are different subjects but we are all interconnected. When there are acts of empathy, intersubjectivity comes in. Emphatic experiences are intersubjective experiences. Both of them correlate.
We are all egos and what is so common in us is that we are different. We have different worlds. The number of egos is the number of different worlds (subjective). For Husserl, we are monads. A monad is an independent, self-sufficient, and a being that is equated to “I and my world.” The problem with this is the objectivity of the world. If I have my world and others have theirs too, what is the objective world? This can only be achieved both by the point of view of the ego and other egos. Others’ point of view is needed for the objectivity of the world. With the ego’s point of view alone, it will only be subjective. Being a monad (I and my world) is leading to solipsism (I alone exist). That is why the objectivity of the world must be settled. In order to settle this, we need other subjects. Being a monad (I and my world) is going out of human’s nature as being social. As subjects, we need other subjects. That is why we need others’ existence. Without them, we will feel lonely. Community is not an option, it’s a need. For me, without others, it will be impossible to live. Maybe we will become crazy and fool. As subjects, we must be social not monads.
In the start of Cartesian Meditation, Husserl’s problem is the veracity of the Other. In the fifth meditation, he proved that other egos exist. With these, it is clear that we are not to be monads and solipsistic. We are persons in nature and persons are communal beings. Now that the problem with the Other is solved, Husserl still has the problem which is ending up to solipsism and becoming monad. If we review Husserl, he is also known in his transcendental intersubjectivity. In this process, the subject who is in the natural attitude, who is in the pre-reflective life world, and who has pre-reflective consciousness while undergoing transcendental reduction will end up in being in the transcendental attitude. If the subject is already in the transcendental attitude, he can only be a monad. If he stops the reduction, he goes back to his natural attitude and in going back to it, his consciousness is the post-reflective consciousness. His natural attitude is different from his old natural attitude. The problem with Husserl and most of the philosophers after undergoing this process is that they forget their pre-reflective consciousness. After reaching transcendental attitude, and in returning to his natural attitude, he cannot recover his pre-reflective consciousness which if we look at, has a big role in going down to the perspective of ordinary people. Without it, the ego cannot go down to the level of others wherein he also came from. He only considers his point of view and perspective. Let us take into example, a teacher giving an exam to his students about the things that only the teacher knows and things where in he has never discussed to his students. How can the students answer it correctly without undergoing the process of being taught about those things which are the content of the exam? The students cannot answer because they are left behind. The teacher can answer it but in answering it, the students will not understand why it is the answer. In order to solve this problem, we will use the solution of Fr. Domingo to this problem which is called “eduction.” Eduction is the going back of the ego to the lower level which is also the ego’s orientation or where “I” came from and lead them to “I’s” phenomenological perspective. Let us always remember that a good phenomenologist is the understanding one, the one who takes the perspective of ordinary people as important as his phenomenological perspective. With that, ordinary people will see that their views are included to us phenomenologists. And so, sociality happens. For example, I am a philosopher-teacher who knows a lot in philosophy. If I discussed using the language of philosophy that I alone can understand without minding that my students can’t understand my lesson, they will not learn. In order for them to learn, the correct approach is that as a teacher, I will go down to their level of understanding and explain to them well what I mean. It is just my guidance to them that will lead them to understand what I mean. In this situation, relationship happens and I as subject have brought my students to my level of understanding. It is just like saying to my students “I know where you are coming from. I was there before. I experienced how hard it is.” On the part of the student they will say “This person is advance but by his advancements he still understands us. He is just like us. Our idea is under him. Hopefully he can teach us.” With this, I as a subject become more a person and social being. I as a monad, opening my windows to others, now become a person. Every person is communal. It is the thickest constitution. The more we become a person, we become less precise because not all of us reach the level of understanding that I have (as a phenomenologist for example), but the less we become a monad, the more we become social and communal and the more we become thicker. On the other hand, if we become a monad, the more we become ideal, the more we become precise but the more we become thinner. Which will you prefer, the thin one, or the thick one?
As a conclusion, we should recover our pre-reflective consciousness after stopping reduction and returning to the natural attitude. Our post-reflective consciousness cannot be understood by the ones who are still in the level of pre-reflective consciousness. And so, speaking to them what we have achieved in the post-reflective consciousness is useless if they cannot understand. In order for them to understand it, we should go back to their level of thinking by recovering the pre-reflective consciousness while still maintaining the post-reflective consciousness. In that way, we still maintain the preciseness and we are leading them to be also precise. As a whole we become less precise because most us is still in the pre-reflective consciousness. And so, it is our “self-responsibility” to teach them and lead them to be precise. In that way, we become thicker and more social. If we lead them already to the preciseness of our post-reflective consciousness, we reach the end point which is the “social responsibility.” It is being responsible as a community to lead other communities who are still in the pre-reflective consciousness to the post-reflective consciousness. With that, we become thicker and more social.
If Descartes problem is the veracity of God, Husserl’s problem is the veracity of the other. He has three solutions to solve this problem and these are pairing, concordant behavior and free variation wherein he favored most in pairing. In pairing, my Body is Leib for me while others’ bodies are korper. For the Other, a subject just like me but other than me, his Body is Leib for him and mine is korper. Both our bodies are Leib and korper. Pairing, empathy, and appresentation supports the theory of intersubjectivity, a theory that says all subjects are connected. We are different subjects but we are all interconnected. When there are acts of empathy, intersubjectivity comes in. Emphatic experiences are intersubjective experiences. Both of them correlate.
We are all egos and what is so common in us is that we are different. We have different worlds. The number of egos is the number of different worlds (subjective). For Husserl, we are monads. A monad is an independent, self-sufficient, and a being that is equated to “I and my world.” The problem with this is the objectivity of the world. If I have my world and others have theirs too, what is the objective world? This can only be achieved both by the point of view of the ego and other egos. Others’ point of view is needed for the objectivity of the world. With the ego’s point of view alone, it will only be subjective. Being a monad (I and my world) is leading to solipsism (I alone exist). That is why the objectivity of the world must be settled. In order to settle this, we need other subjects. Being a monad (I and my world) is going out of human’s nature as being social. As subjects, we need other subjects. That is why we need others’ existence. Without them, we will feel lonely. Community is not an option, it’s a need. For me, without others, it will be impossible to live. Maybe we will become crazy and fool. As subjects, we must be social not monads.
In the start of Cartesian Meditation, Husserl’s problem is the veracity of the Other. In the fifth meditation, he proved that other egos exist. With these, it is clear that we are not to be monads and solipsistic. We are persons in nature and persons are communal beings. Now that the problem with the Other is solved, Husserl still has the problem which is ending up to solipsism and becoming monad. If we review Husserl, he is also known in his transcendental intersubjectivity. In this process, the subject who is in the natural attitude, who is in the pre-reflective life world, and who has pre-reflective consciousness while undergoing transcendental reduction will end up in being in the transcendental attitude. If the subject is already in the transcendental attitude, he can only be a monad. If he stops the reduction, he goes back to his natural attitude and in going back to it, his consciousness is the post-reflective consciousness. His natural attitude is different from his old natural attitude. The problem with Husserl and most of the philosophers after undergoing this process is that they forget their pre-reflective consciousness. After reaching transcendental attitude, and in returning to his natural attitude, he cannot recover his pre-reflective consciousness which if we look at, has a big role in going down to the perspective of ordinary people. Without it, the ego cannot go down to the level of others wherein he also came from. He only considers his point of view and perspective. Let us take into example, a teacher giving an exam to his students about the things that only the teacher knows and things where in he has never discussed to his students. How can the students answer it correctly without undergoing the process of being taught about those things which are the content of the exam? The students cannot answer because they are left behind. The teacher can answer it but in answering it, the students will not understand why it is the answer. In order to solve this problem, we will use the solution of Fr. Domingo to this problem which is called “eduction.” Eduction is the going back of the ego to the lower level which is also the ego’s orientation or where “I” came from and lead them to “I’s” phenomenological perspective. Let us always remember that a good phenomenologist is the understanding one, the one who takes the perspective of ordinary people as important as his phenomenological perspective. With that, ordinary people will see that their views are included to us phenomenologists. And so, sociality happens. For example, I am a philosopher-teacher who knows a lot in philosophy. If I discussed using the language of philosophy that I alone can understand without minding that my students can’t understand my lesson, they will not learn. In order for them to learn, the correct approach is that as a teacher, I will go down to their level of understanding and explain to them well what I mean. It is just my guidance to them that will lead them to understand what I mean. In this situation, relationship happens and I as subject have brought my students to my level of understanding. It is just like saying to my students “I know where you are coming from. I was there before. I experienced how hard it is.” On the part of the student they will say “This person is advance but by his advancements he still understands us. He is just like us. Our idea is under him. Hopefully he can teach us.” With this, I as a subject become more a person and social being. I as a monad, opening my windows to others, now become a person. Every person is communal. It is the thickest constitution. The more we become a person, we become less precise because not all of us reach the level of understanding that I have (as a phenomenologist for example), but the less we become a monad, the more we become social and communal and the more we become thicker. On the other hand, if we become a monad, the more we become ideal, the more we become precise but the more we become thinner. Which will you prefer, the thin one, or the thick one?
As a conclusion, we should recover our pre-reflective consciousness after stopping reduction and returning to the natural attitude. Our post-reflective consciousness cannot be understood by the ones who are still in the level of pre-reflective consciousness. And so, speaking to them what we have achieved in the post-reflective consciousness is useless if they cannot understand. In order for them to understand it, we should go back to their level of thinking by recovering the pre-reflective consciousness while still maintaining the post-reflective consciousness. In that way, we still maintain the preciseness and we are leading them to be also precise. As a whole we become less precise because most us is still in the pre-reflective consciousness. And so, it is our “self-responsibility” to teach them and lead them to be precise. In that way, we become thicker and more social. If we lead them already to the preciseness of our post-reflective consciousness, we reach the end point which is the “social responsibility.” It is being responsible as a community to lead other communities who are still in the pre-reflective consciousness to the post-reflective consciousness. With that, we become thicker and more social.
RSS Feed