Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Presicely Baffled

Expand Messages
  • brian24bronx
    though, i followed the resonse for a time, the distinction b/w objective and subjective, afterwards i became lost when the answer to black sheep s question
    Message 1 of 1 , May 2, 2001
      though, i followed the resonse for a time, the
      distinction b/w objective and subjective, afterwards i became
      lost when the answer to black sheep's question
      wasanswered. perhaps it is because it wasn't answered
      properly, i.e in a somewhat apocryphal manner, or because
      it wasn'treally answered at all. The question was
      how we can study consciousness qua consciousness.
      though all may be subjectiv or objective it really
      doesn't matter. all that determines is the method not the
      actual study. we are able to study consciousness because
      alhough all may be subjective, we are still in a way able
      to dvorce ourselves from it in thery. this is one of
      the reasons why sartre called it the only
      transcendence in immanence, thatalthough it is immanent to us,
      present to us, right before us, it still transcends or
      goes byond us to the world. it is that going beyond
      that is studied, whether or not it is transparent is
      debateable, though i am pretty sure sartre would agree with
      you. or one migt do what husserl did and subject it to
      the epoike, or reduction. in this what is done isthe
      contents of consciousness are step by step striped away or
      reduced, and what is left is consciousness, though nothing
      my be left. plus there is that whole duality problem
      plus the problem of universals comes int play. i may
      have it wrong, i dont know, i hope i was some help,
      but i am only a student. suggested reading,
      "Transcendence of the Ego" by sartre
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.