0

I'm trying to understand Phenomenology better and I have a question that might be clarify it for me:

Let's assume that I'm looking at the stars during the night. What I see is that the stars are moving, I have a friend the he is astronomer and he said to me: "It's not the stars are moving - it's earth! (that rounding)".

If we have 3rd person with us that he is a phenomenologist (I don't know if this is the correct word...), that telling us what the Phenomenology will say. He will say:
"Both of you right... at the human point of view - the stars are moving, and at the scientific view - it's earth (and not the stars) - so it's dependent on which point of view you take...".

Did the 3rd person right? This is what the Phenomenology claim?

If it's not clear enough tell me and I'll add more details.

Thank you!!

Philo-il
  • 101
  • 2
    Your 3rd person sounds more like a relativist than a phenomenologist. Phenomenology brackets out assumptions about the external world to focus on the phenomena as they are given in experience, this is called epoché. So it is simply not concerned with who is "right" in this case. On the other hand, what you see is not that the stars are moving. That description is already loaded with preconceptions about what the stars are and are not, the actual experience needs to be redescribed in more basic phenomenal terms. – Conifold Dec 08 '21 at 11:31
  • @Conifold - Thank you for your answer and for your clearness! So if I understand you right: In this case it's not a question of "the phenomena as they are given in experience", it's a question about what is the truth (that this is Relativism). But what I tried to understand in the meaning of Phenomenology, it's how Phenomenology treats the phenomena of the moving stars, i.e. - you wrote: "the external world to focus on the phenomena as they are given in experience" - and the movement of the stars are kind of phenomena, right? Thank you!! – Philo-il Dec 08 '21 at 12:56
  • 1
    Theoretically mediated observations such as these are not phenomena in the sense of phenomenology, they are what is processed ("constituted") by the subject, and in need of phenomenological reduction to uncover what is immediately given. – Conifold Dec 08 '21 at 13:27
  • @Conifold - So if I understand you right - the movement of the stars is not a phenomena in the sense of phenomenology (in your word), but the stars is a phenomena, right? I.e. Phenomenology "works" with (or study) objects but not their behave (like movement of some objects). Thank you!! – Philo-il Dec 08 '21 at 13:34
  • 1
    Objects and behaviors are constituted in consciousness, what phenomenology studies is how they are constituted. And the first step is to peel away the familiar concepts we naively take for granted when describing them. – Conifold Dec 08 '21 at 13:43
  • @Conifold - So if I understand you right - at the example above: the phenomenological question is: how we constitute the stars and their movement in our consciousness, and who is right, right? In other words, the phenomenologist will be interest at how we know that those are stars and we recognize that they are moving, right?

    Thank you so much!

     – Philo-il Dec 08 '21 at 18:18
  • 1
    Phenomenologist is interested in the constitution (and intuitional manipulation) of the more elaborate conceptions, like stars and movements, from the raw given of consciousness, but not in who is "right". That is a technical question for positive sciences. – Conifold Dec 09 '21 at 15:23

0 Answers0