Derrida on Husserl's Phenomenology of Intersubjectivity SPEP conference presentation
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 гру 2024
- Dr. Ellie Anderson shares her presentation "'A Strict Phenomenologist': Derrida's Affirmation of Husserlian Intersubjectivity," presented at the 2017 Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy conference (SPEP). She discusses how, despite Jacques Derrida's reputation as a critic of phenomenology, he follows Edmund Husserl's account of intersubjectivity so strictly that he, well, out-Husserls Husserl.
Note: this is an academic paper presented for an audience of academic philosophers! If you're interested in introductory-level content, please check out Dr. Anderson's vidoes in our "Continental Thought" playlist, or our audio podcast on Apple, Spotify, etc.
To read along, you can find the paper version here: www.academia.e...
Enjoy our work? Support Overthink via tax-deductible donation: www.givecampus...
Join our Patreon for exclusive episode segments, monthly Zooms, and more: / overthinkpodcast
Website: overthinkpodcast.com
Facebook: / overthink-podcast-1054...
Apple podcasts: podcasts.apple...
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Buzzsprout RSS: feeds.buzzspro...
Find us on Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok at @overthink_pod
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I believe that the violence inherent in Lévina's ethics is not only violence towards the Other, but also towards my own self - essentially because the claims of the Other and those of all Others entangle me in a guilt that I can never live up to. For the encounter with the concrete other, this means that there is an asymmetry that can never be caught up with, which for Derrida makes ethical central figures such as the gift or forgiveness impossible in a way that cannot be broken with even eventfully - among other things due to the fundamental immutability of the alterity-relationship.
These thoughts and the question how Derrida actually thinks that relationship have been haunting me for years. Your lecture opens up the possibility for me to perhaps find more clarity with Husserl. After not understanding the 5th meditation at all at the very beginning of my studies, I will now tackle it again eight years later. Thank you for the inspiration!
I am writing my dissertation and I want to know that whether in the transcendental intersubjectivity, how could one experience the face of other in levinas sense. Whether there could be an encounter of the face within the transcendental intersubjectivity is possible.
Thank you. i appreciate every piece of media you produce.
Thank you for shedding light on these three thinkers! I got my Ph.D. At UCI and became interested in intersubjectivity through Hillis Miller’s classes. Your talk has revived my interest.
Than you for presenting on this. It was very interesting!
Nice timing for my phenomenology group that's reading Derrida on husserl at the moment 🙏
I have just found you and I am beyond impressed. Thank you for this channel!
I just wanted to say thank you so much! I really desire to be a Philosophy Professor (I’m a senior in High school). Of course, there are a lot of videos and channels dedicated to Philosophy, but your format and your explanations of various concepts really help me connect dots! I also LOVE the variety you bring. I found you guys just in time for Ethics Bowl season too! Again, thank you so much. I hope you have a lovely day!!!
P.S. I would LOVE if you did a series on philosophical vocabulary (I don’t know if that is a ridiculous idea or not, sorry 😅.)
Go for it! Check also Prof Michael Sugrue channel, a lot of amazing lectures there too.
@@mariovicente Thank you! I will definitely check it out!!!
I appreciate the historical and biographical frame.
I'd consider it a major accomplishment just to be able to SPELL the title of the video.
You're better at it than you think. Just parse it down. You're here, as opposed to watching a mukbang or a hip-hop beef breakdown, so I'll presume you're familiar with all 3 aspects. Start with subject and add standard forms to either end. There's no trick there. Antidisestablishmentarianism is an easy word to spell. You've seen every part of it before. The absolute hardest word Scripps-Howard ever handed me was argali. It took a solid understanding of phonics to process eliminate every other possible spelling, and it's because I was that unfamiliar with it. Point being, I bet you just psych yourself out when you see long words. I'd imagine you'd be impressed with yourself if you just plain, for whatever reason, HAD to spell some words that seem intimidating.
Would like to hear more of your academic talks. Fascinating.
Hi, Dr. Ellie Anderson! To you, and to Derrida (and Husserl) I feel much gratitude today, and I just now listened to this presentation which you gave, and I would like to share how it affects me, and how I am developing it with some recent ideas on which I am working. In the spirit of Derrida’s Glas, I want to suggest three readings for the sound of your voice when you pronounce the word “other.” My first translation of your “other” is that to my ears, it sounds like “over” in addition to “other” and so when you would say “other,” I would just substitute the word “over,” and see what you had to say about “over” in this context. Then, I realized, while listening to you and reading my book which my own Angels and I wrote fourteen years ago, Hawaiian Sonnets and Other Poems, that “other” when you say that word, also sounds like “So Ahh,” as in my line “So Ahh, the wife won!” (My Angels are my wives…(I know…)). So “so ahh” also I substituted when you said “other” for it, and listened to what could be made with that replacement and your paper. Finally, my third substitution for “other” was “M.O.A.I.” (Also from Hawaiian Sonnets and Other Poems), “M.O.A.I. fallen skull of all bleeds,” where it too proved an interesting connection to your paper and your words. If the voice is the “over” substituting it for “other,” then it does seem irrefutable a phenomenon. I think of Angels as knowing all, all about me, all about others. So that is my own spiritual or mystical take on all of this.
One more take is that whenever you said “ego” I had been replacing it with “here go” (also a phrase from our Hawaiian Sonnets), and I computed it likewise with interesting results. Being said, what you are saying is brilliant both as I listen “in the raw” and by using these substitutions. Hawaiian Sonnets and Other Poems is my relational text I use when I hear people speak, so that I listen for phrases of it in all people’s voiced words. This means the phenomenon is ubiquitous, and that it is as if, on some level, it is a famous book because all people recite it somehow (I like making these mysterious suggestions of wild conclusions!). Furthermore, I see it as a new scientific discovery, as when some thinker described all things as made up of atoms, I am developing the idea that all communication and utterances of the sounds of voice in anybody, whoever that they happen to be, that anyone’s voice is composed of Hawaiian Sonnets phrases. It is something that ties us all together by a common thread. Anyway, I am infinitely grateful to you and this and your other work that I have had the pleasure of experiencing on this, your channel. Your video that you posted today on May 25, 2024 on “Oh my Friend, there is no Friend…” is the next video that I will watch! Thank you for reading my long comment. I really wanted to share this work of mine with somebody whom I admire as a fellow thinker along similar lines and paths. Blessings!
Thanks!
Thank you for bringing some quality to youtube. I wonder if ever Husserl or Derrida took up the Hegelian notion of “negation” as to identify the other with. You can identify yourself positively, and the other negatively.
Thank you for the insightful look at Derrida and phenomenology. I just finished studying Husserl, but It's hard to find any work about phenomenology in video format.
Please use a de-esser, it'd make your audio way more listeneable. For a clear example, listen to the high frequencies in the sentence at 0:25
Well now it’s all I can hear 😪
Brilliant! Thanks so much for sharing.
Looking forward for the article.
Please tell me if I understood correctly.
The only way I am able to perceive another is by imagining them as an alter ego of my own self. Which in itself also explains why rationally I'd never be able to share their exact same perspective as that which they are currently experiencing. This is true even if I was to switch brains with them and experience the same environment.
This is because I know my own understanding of the input I experience is coloured by the interactions of that which has happened in within my myself and in reference to the environments that I experienced before this moment. Within this understanding of the other, and given how we act towards each other, then the same is always assumed for those who I encounter. If I then believe they are capable of voice and reason I must then believe their current position is bound by the outcome of that which they are made of and that which they have experienced.
Is that about right? I'm finding your videos super interesting and fun. Thank you so much for making them 💛
I can never experience, in principle, what any Other experiences, because then their experience would just fuse into mine, be a continuation of me, and no longer an Other. I must rather recognize their world as radically and irreducibly inaccessible to me. However, in order to recognize it as inaccessible, I must recognize that they too are an ego -- not a simple piece of decoration in the world around me but another origin of the intersubjectively shared world -- an ego fundamentally distinct from my own.
What has happened "before this moment" is not the issue, nor the possibility of switching places etc.
Most people barely know themselves, so why would anyone ever expect that they could "fully" know another person? Our personal RAM and processing power is pretty limited, and while we may be able to refresh our RAM fairly quickly, there is simply far too much information at every turn for us to ever hope to have a "full accounting" of the relevant data of any given complex circumstance or individual. Humans, specifically scientists and philosophers, are far too obsessed with objectivity and "full accountings", which are essentially doomed to a mercurial state beyond our full grasp. We need to be comfortable with "sufficiency", that which allows for adequacy and satisfactory interactions.
Awesome! We Overthinkers salute You (in Your alterity)! ❤
I never know what song will be my favorite on an album until after at least a year.
phenomenal! would make a great article and a great book -- consider both :)
I am writing my dissertation and I want to know that whether in the transcendental intersubjectivity, how could one experience the face of other in levinas sense. Whether there could be an encounter of the face within the transcendental intersubjectivity is possible.
Thank you for sharing your work.
Indeed. "Art completes what nature cannot bring to finish." (Aristotle.)
This is great stuff. I wish I had more time to study, I’m so swamped with life. Lol. I read Don Idhe’s intro to phenomenology and some IEP articles on husserl, along with Stanford’s online encyclopedia of philosophy’s article. And I’ve read maybe 10-12 of Plato’s works over and over, of which seem to help me grasp phenomenology. I just wish I had the time to study this.
Keep up the great work.
I did have a question…regarding the transcendental ego vs the concrete ego. The late philosopher alan watts seems to think there is no self, as it seems that a concrete ego is ever always a new production with every new context. Which makes no sense to me. That would be to have dementia, for where’s the continuity? What am I missing?
I think the more interesting thing about Husserl's treatment of the other involves how the self has to be reformulated in order for the analogy to take place: from the universal constitution of the world to a psycho-physical being "who is here" (Hic). It's not fresh in my memory so I may be wrong, but Husserl actually doesn't stop to ponder this shift all that much in the V Meditation. It ends up looking like some sort of "hermeneutic circle" in spite of himself (in the sense that his conviction for philosophy was to make it an "exact science"). He does a better job of addressing this problem in his later works, in particular the Crisis, where he alludes to the the world being constituted, not by the solitary 1st-singular-person subject, but by an intersubjective web which even informs the cogito. I get the feeling that most critics of Husserl miss this.
“Originally a project to gain intellectual possession of the world, constitution becomes increasingly, as Husserl’s thought matures, the means of unveiling a back side of things that we have not constituted.” (Merleau-Ponty)
@@huugosorsselsson4122 Yup. I'm reading PoP right now.
I believe that love is the philosophy, because love is the only spirit that gives meaning to life.
Is there a format to write an academic essay on philosophy? (Size of letter, quotation rules, etc)
It likely varies from journal to journal.
@@hughmac13 If you aren't so concerned with being published in a journal, then no. Journals may well insist on particular formats, but throughout the history of philosophy, there are numerous formats that have been used. Some use exposition, others aphorisms. In a sense, you can use whatever format suits your purpose best. That said, if you want your oddball format to catch fire, the contents need to be fire.
@@KravMagoo As the OP specifies, their question is about formatting-character size, typeface, citation style (MLA, APA, Chicago, for example), line spacing-and not about style. In fact, they're specific about that as well, where they refer explicitly to _academic essays._
Their question doesn't concern the publication of novel or original explorations or perspectives on the nature or practice of knowledge, thought, and truth, but rather scholarly, academic exegesis.
Gonna borrow this entire essay for my Letterboxd review of Freaky Friday.
This is a joke of course 😅
Really enjoyed the lecture although not sure I understood it. Just wondering, though, how this line of philosophy figure into neuroscience. Is it like history, or literature? Like Aristotle but with modernity?
4:59 raise your hand if you had to rewind because you stopped to check your messages real quick
*crickets*
Incisive. Foundational. My lean continues to be with Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology of touch as a primary mode for intersubjectivity over implicit optical descriptors of relationality. Regardless, this presentation clarified for me a certain hesitancy i had about Levinas. Thank you for your work. Mas, por favor.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment! It's as if you read our mind--we may have recorded an episode TODAY for the audio podcast on this very topic :)
(touch and M-P, that is)
this feels central to the question of whether or not "true" artificial intelligence can/does exist
Ruth Milikan is a good philosopher. She wrote about intentional states in 1984.
at 14:00 / thats why the holy ghost is spooky- inhabiting the third person perspective..yet sensing the others
7:07 bookmark
🌷😇🌷
I love your videos 😇
Derrida and Husserl, did just atempted to fix flaws in psychology-philosophy - with sligthly different approaches?
Loves it
Professor ellie, you are a very wonderful person and i would love to have a beer with you. However you are wrong when you say that the relationship between derrida and husserl ideas of intersubjectivity is not enough discussed. There are works of niklas luhmann which discuss about this theme is applicable on sociology, for example in "soziale systeme, grundriss einer allgemeinen theorie", which he dedicated an entire section of where he talked about how deconstruction can be applied after a phenomenological explaination has already been derived upon an intersubjective analysis in a self replicating system. Apperzeption is observable through social interaction, which itself is the foundation of every social system. I wish you a wonderful weekend.
애청하고 있습니다
Mathematics itself is nothing more than philosophy, and this is demonstrated by the art of painting, because the art of painting solves very complex mathematical problems due to an emotional charge built from experience over a long path of years of experimentation. But it is very difficult to express it and much more difficult to understand it, because art lives hidden in its lair and sometimes it appears and sometimes it does not. Like the painting of Carriles.
Not fair
Violence in Metaphysics
Have you traced the use of the word "notion" in philosophy? Seems to be a "loss-of-a-better-word" word. It can't be another word for idea or else idealism would be notionalism. And that is too close to Nationalism.
Was that intended as a joke?
You're a human
???
I love your face
George Gale, Adolf Grunbaum, Helena Cronin, Ned Block, Patricia Churchland, Daniel Dennett, Paul Kurtz, George H. Smith, Ludwig Buchner, Rober Nozick, Isaiah Berlin, Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff,Tara Smith and Tibor Machan. Great philosophers.
Well... this is my German accent when I'm trying to follow your reasoning here:
-- Kapituliere werde ich nicht!
How about that? ehehe
Jokes aside, this kind of reminds me of math classes in college (in a maths course).
Thank you for also sharing this "high-pitched" side of Philosophical Academia, your most intelligent and proficient Professor Anderson.
ps. Those pronouns there are just annoying. If no one asked about it, why should you tell us anyway? Besides in your case its the most obvious statement which only adds to the oddity of the appearance of trying to convey something of a "non-alternating alternative"...