Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Mercury]

Mercury wrote

I want out of this conversation. I think phenomenology is rubbish.

Fine, but why do you continue to write so much about something you know nothing about? Every time you speak, you don't respond to what has been said, and you throw out a lot of confrontational talk, and you haven't read anything, clearly, because you always get it sooo wrong.

I mean, what do we say about people who have a lot to say about things they don't understand? You have to take the time and do the work to understand. If you want out, then simply step out, and take up knitting or something you are better suited for, Mercury.

Sure, okay, but again, I asked for an explanation of one sentence regarding reconciling epistemology and ontology. And suddenly I'm reading A La Recherche du Temps Perdu. I was required to read Heidegger and Wittgenstein, and I hated it. For my money, science reconciles epistemology and ontology, and that's the point I wanted to make. Of course you think I'm sooo wrong. One cannot disillusion a person, speaking only in the terms in which they're illusioned. I spoke with Hereandnow at length about how jargon - in particular the phrase 'phenomenological reduction' - which means 'naivety of thought' cannot be understood from the words themselves, and this is how they draw you in. You're in a cult! I refuse to be inducted.