Quote Originally Posted by Binzhoubum
Ah! So you actually do know philosophy! :thumbsup:

BUT...I think the debate surrounding phenomenology is a little deeper than that. Most contemporarty analytic philosphy of mind circles view phenomenology in the Husserl-Heidegger-Sartre tradition as very often being trite and meaningless since they do not adhere to any strict, analytic, logical formula in their respective queries concerning issues of phenomena, consciousness, and qualia.

Wittgenstein is good for the analytic soul. A little Quine never hurt anyone either.

Nice quote by the way...:smokin:
Oh sure, but that would be like me holding up the corpse of logical positivism as an example of where the analytics can go wrong. These things tend to progress. It's probably just distinctions of the various places we choose to draw the boundaries of reality. I guess I'm more prone to agree in some ways with krishnamurti. And just hope to see the bigger picture afterall.

Wittgenstein is good for the soul because not even Wittgenstein knows how to explain himself.

As for Quine (and Davidson), absolutely we have this great shared language and no way to explain where it comes from. I just think that calls for a reexamination of phenomenology (perhaps in the context of existentialism or post-structualism) as a coming to terms with the precise spot in which we as subjective individuals plug ourselves into existence.

I think the more contemporary views in both analytic and continental philosophies are starting to re-integrate the two sides of the dualism between mental and physical. To create a role for the individual as the intersection between awareness of the world and awareness of the self. Which of course, is all very Kantian.