I think my excitement in philosophy basically has the following aspects:
1. To see how an excellent argument, a description, a theory can be clearly, powerfully presented.
2.To see how they can be right.
3. Also, it is very exciting to see how they are wrong.
The most painful thing in philosophical reading is that the text is so confusing that you cannot tell if it is right or wrong, despite my best effort.
I am reading Follesdals reinterpretation of Husserl's theory of intentionality, actulally, re-reading. I now believe no part of it, and I think I have found the mistakes in it, and I have a new interpretation to offer.
Strangely enough, I also find the person who is closet to Husserl is Tim Crane in the analytic tradition. I have read many (most) of Tim Crane's publications, and none of the central ideas are fundamentally different from Husserl's. Among which:
1. Intentional Object are just an Object which our thoughts direct. It has no substantial Nature. Therefore, this concept is an ontologically neutral concept.
2. The general structure of Intentionality.
3.The idea that the problem of intentionality is deeper than the problem of language. The order of explanation should be from intentionality to language, not other way around. This idea, I think, is also the idea of Searle. Philosophy of Language is a branch of Philosophy of Mind. Although, iterations can occur. Philosophy of Mind is a branch of philosophy of language, philosophy of language of mind. Yet, there can be other way around.
1. To see how an excellent argument, a description, a theory can be clearly, powerfully presented.
2.To see how they can be right.
3. Also, it is very exciting to see how they are wrong.
The most painful thing in philosophical reading is that the text is so confusing that you cannot tell if it is right or wrong, despite my best effort.
I am reading Follesdals reinterpretation of Husserl's theory of intentionality, actulally, re-reading. I now believe no part of it, and I think I have found the mistakes in it, and I have a new interpretation to offer.
Strangely enough, I also find the person who is closet to Husserl is Tim Crane in the analytic tradition. I have read many (most) of Tim Crane's publications, and none of the central ideas are fundamentally different from Husserl's. Among which:
1. Intentional Object are just an Object which our thoughts direct. It has no substantial Nature. Therefore, this concept is an ontologically neutral concept.
2. The general structure of Intentionality.
3.The idea that the problem of intentionality is deeper than the problem of language. The order of explanation should be from intentionality to language, not other way around. This idea, I think, is also the idea of Searle. Philosophy of Language is a branch of Philosophy of Mind. Although, iterations can occur. Philosophy of Mind is a branch of philosophy of language, philosophy of language of mind. Yet, there can be other way around.
No comments:
Post a Comment