What is a phenomenon?

[dwai]

I am tempted to not post this, but also tempted to post it. I am torn between wanting to hear what some intelligent people have to say and having to put up with garbage from self-important zealots and bigots (yeah...there are a few here).

 

Here's the question --

 

What is a phenomenon and what is the role of Phenomena in Phenomenological Inquiry?

 

This is very important to understand before anyone can venture into philosophy (at least of the phenomenological nature).

 

Answering this will clear a lot of concepts ... that is of course if one wishes to embark on such a journey.

 

Here's my take on it --

 

A phenomenon is something that is time and/or space bound and is an object of consciousness.

Edited June 3, 2009 by dwai

[Aetherous]

A phenomenon is anything that could be an object of consciousness.

[Sunya]

just events experienced, i wouldn't agree with objects because emotions are phenomena as well, same with thoughts. i'd say consciousness is a phenomena too, consciousness and events are inter-dependent. can't have one without the other, therfore both have to be phenomena

 

mind, form, inner world, outer world, perception, perceiver; all are interdependent, all are phenomena, all are empty since nothing is behind them, like a rainbow.

Edited June 3, 2009 by mikaelz

[Aetherous]

i'd say consciousness is a phenomena too

 

Good point. There is no duality.

[dwai]

i'd say consciousness is a phenomena too

 

You are wrong. Consciousness is not a phenomenon.

Just try explaining what Consciousness is.

[erdweir]

I am tempted to not post this, but also tempted to post it. I am torn between wanting to hear what some intelligent people have to say and having to put up with garbage from self-important zealots and bigots (yeah...there are a few here).

 

Here's the question --

 

What is a phenomenon and what is the role of Phenomena in Phenomenological Inquiry?

 

This is very important to understand before anyone can venture into philosophy (at least of the phenomenological nature).

 

Answering this will clear a lot of concepts ... that is of course if one wishes to embark on such a journey.

 

Phenomenon is a word that is best understood in relation to it's contrast, Noumenon. Kant, the german enlightenment giant, divided the things dealt with by the mind into objects inside the mind, Noumenon, and objects outside of it, Phenomenon. People often talk about this split as having been articulated by Descartes, but is actually goes back to the ancient Stoic Philosophers. Classical Hellenic Philosophy doesn't know this distinction, but it often read back into it by later commentators.

 

The Greeks Invented this Idea of the Mind as their classic period was coming apart. They used to think that humans were distinguished from animals by speech until someone pointed out that animals had speech too, so the answer to that was that humans had something else, a pre-uttered speech, which had to exist somewhere, let's call it the mind! See Bruno Snell's Discovery of the Mind for details of this story

 

Of course you can say they had to understand the concept of the mind before that, but actually they had no word for it, any more than the Homeric Greeks had a word for the body! weird, but true.. If you read a good translation of Homer, he always talks about parts of the body, they dont have a word for the whole thing, interesting, huh?

 

Ok back to Phenomenology. Hegel brought this word back into modern philosophy when he decided to consider the mind as a phenomenon instead of taking it for granted at the foundation if inquiry. A total reversal of the Cartesian/Kantian/Stoic mind body foundational split. He ended up in a position where he said the universe actually made of of thought, or mind/spirit (Geist?). No division between perception and perceived anymore, just like the good old days again. The Phenomenology of the Spirit is quite a book, very dense and also very fascinating if you like that sort of thing. It's allot of work to understand, but very rewarding for me to work through.

 

Modern Phenomenology takes after Hegel attempts to study the experience we have apart from our usual assumptions about it, but i dont think it's as profound. It's very much related to existentialism. You could say it's the German counterpart to French existentialism. I never found it that interesting personally, but allot of people in radical left wing circles, and art criticism are really obsessed with it. If you want to punish yourself, pick up some Heidegger or Husserl. Husserl was Heidegger's teacher, but Heidegger ended up being more influential.

Edited June 3, 2009 by erdweir

[dwai]

Phenomenon is a word that is best understood in relation to it's contrast, Noumenon. Kant, the german enlightenment giant, divided the things dealt with by the mind into objects inside the mind, Noumenon, and objects outside of it, Phenomenon. People often talk about this split as having been articulated by Descartes, but is actually goes back to the ancient Stoic Philosophers. Classical Hellenic Philosophy doesn't know this distinction, but it often read back into it by later commentators.

 

The Greeks Invented this Idea of the Mind as their classic period was coming apart. They used to think that humans were distinguished from animals by speech until someone pointed out that animals had speech too, so the answer to that was that humans had something else, a pre-uttered speech, which had to exist somewhere, let's call it the mind! See Bruno Snell's Discovery of the Mind for details of this story

 

Of course you can say they had to understand the concept of the mind before that, but actually they had no word for it, any more than the Homeric Greeks had a word for the body! weird, but true.. If you read a good translation of Homer, the always talk about parts of the body, they dont have a word for the whole thing, interesting, huh?

 

Ok back to Phenomenology. Hegel brought this word back into modern philosophy when he decided to consider the mind as a phenomenon instead of taking it for granted at the foundation if inquiry. A total reversal of the Cartesian/Kantian/Stoic mind body foundational split. He ended up in a position where he said the universe actually made of of thought, or mind/spirit (Geist?). No division between perception and perceived anymore, just like the good old days again. The Phenomenology of the Spirit is quite a book, very dense and also very fascinating if you like that sort of thing. It's allot of work to understand, but very rewarding for me to work through.

 

Modern Phenomenology takes after Hegel attempts to study the experience we have apart from our usual assumptions about it, but i dont think it's as profound. It's very much related to existentialism. You could say it's the German counterpart to French existentialism. I never found it that interesting personally, but allot of people in radical left wing circles, and art criticism are really obsessed with it. If you want to punish yourself, pick up some Heidegger or Husserl. Husserl was Heidegger's teacher, but Heidegger ended up being more influential.

 

Hi erdweir,

 

the first phenomenologists were probably the Vedantins and subsequently the Buddhists. But I am familiar with Kant and Hegel. Kant was right in his phenomena vs noumena stance according to Indic phenomenology (called Jnana Yoga), but he was wrong in assuming there are multiple noumena.

[erdweir]

Hi erdweir,

 

the first phenomenologists were probably the Vedantins and subsequently the Buddhists. But I am familiar with Kant and Hegel. Kant was right in his phenomena vs noumena stance according to Indic phenomenology (called Jnana Yoga), but he was wrong in assuming there are multiple noumena.

 

 

Yeah I prefer Hegel on this, but he is an aquired taste I guess, as is Kant. I dont like Kant nearly as well, I hate the whole split between the inside of the mind/outside of the mind, but it's very foundational to the western view of things. Probably why I dont like it very much.

[11:33]

Here's my offering:

 

A phenomena is anything that arises and then passes away.

[erdweir]

A phenomenon is anything that could be an object of consciousness.

 

I would equate this with the Kantian view. Hegel would say that anything which appears as an object of consciousness is actually part of consciousness, which has been split off of it and presented as being something different from itself. So a phenomenon to Hegel is a kind of trick consciousness plays on itself in order to discover what it really is.

Edited June 3, 2009 by erdweir

[Buddhayo]

You are wrong. Consciousness is not a phenomenon.

Just try explaining what Consciousness is.

 

Conscious illumination.

 

Interesting, I live in an area with lots of Hindu's and Indians. I am very nice to them and they are very nice to me, plus in my opinion. Indian food is the best food in the world, bar-none! The Indian market right down the street is a wonderful place to eat with great vegetarian Indian cooking!! YUM!

 

Anywords,

 

The Buddha described consciousness as part of the 12 links in dependent origination.

 

When Consciousness becomes aware of the links, it blossoms in progressive degree's according to how deeply it inquires into self nature and finally extinguishes self grasping of any sort by delving deeply into the unconscious, even to beyond time and thought, which Vedanta considers the Turiya state, but they consider this state a recognition of an eternal basis beyond time and thought. While the Buddhists consider this just consciousness becoming aware of it's basis for ignorance of the 12 links and one starts seeing past lives and illuminating lots of connections and subtle abilities, but does not reify as a final reality of any sort.

 

Consciousness is not inherent and a self of all according to the Buddha. Advaita would disagree with that, which is why they have a different definition of freedom from Samsara. To Buddhism it's not a non-conceptual view.

 

Buddhism has always considered Consciousness a phenomena and has treated it as a phenomena.

[solxyz]

Actually, I think phenomenology is quite profound in that it offers a complete healing and integration of the subject-object dichotomy in which neither pole is made dominant. As Erdweir says, phenomenology is strongly connected with existentialism, and existentialism begins with Kierkegaard's reaction to Hegel's idealism. Hegel's vision in which all is comprehended and harmonized seems untrue to the human situation. In phenomenology we are finding the meaning as we go.

 

To answer the question that we began with, what is a phenomenon and what is the phenomenological method of investigation: The phenomenological method is basically about understanding a phenomenon (whatever you want: a plant, a weather pattern, a feeling, a person) in its own terms. The important point is to avoid constructing a theory which explains the phenomenon - which is the basic approach of modern science, but rather to observe the phenomenon until its inherent meaning is recognized. In psychology, for example, one does not jump to theories about drives, repressions, or whatever else. One just experiences and explores a personality until it becomes apparent who that person is or what they are about. The idea that we see here is that the world and its phenomena are inherently meaningful, each thing speaking it own language that we have to come to understand. Heidegger attempts to use this method to approach an understanding of some of the major themes of human life.

 

Reading any serious philosopher will give you a headache until you get into the swing of their terminology and system. Once you do this you will generally be rewarded with an awe-inspiring view of the world and humanity. This is certainly true for Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty. I could never find the patience for Husserl.

[forestofclarity]

I think you can reduce space and time to phenomenon, for aren't they objects of consciousness?

 

Definitions are hard. Words and concepts involve choices, so something is always excluded.

 

For example: phenomenon is an object of consciousness. This may imply a difference between objects and consciousness.

 

Has anyone ever seen an object outside of consciousness? Where does consciousness end and the object begin?

 

So let us say that objects are consciousness. But as pointed out, object arise and pass away. (Pure) consciousness remains. If consciousness and objects were one, how would one tell the difference between the earth and the sky? Why can't we see consciousness?

 

Where can we take a position?

 

Here's my take on it --

 

A phenomenon is something that is time and/or space bound and is an object of consciousness.

[Aetherous]

Buddhayo,

 

Indian food is the best food in the world, bar-none!

 

You are totally right!

 

Forest of emptiness,

 

Your post is spot on. If consciousness can be separated from its objects, then it could be said that only objects are phenomenon. However:

 

It can't!

 

So I guess it'd be best to say "all is phenomenon."

[goldisheavy]

I am tempted to not post this, but also tempted to post it. I am torn between wanting to hear what some intelligent people have to say and having to put up with garbage from self-important zealots and bigots (yeah...there are a few here).

 

Here's the question --

 

What is a phenomenon and what is the role of Phenomena in Phenomenological Inquiry?

 

This is very important to understand before anyone can venture into philosophy (at least of the phenomenological nature).

 

Answering this will clear a lot of concepts ... that is of course if one wishes to embark on such a journey.

 

Here's my take on it --

 

A phenomenon is something that is time and/or space bound and is an object of consciousness.

 

I believe there is a fairly "standard" and well accepted definition for it. In any case, I myself like the definition I am about to give. I think it's simple, and it makes sense to me and I think it's a fairly well accepted one.

 

A phenomenon is a unit of experience. That's it.

 

It doesn't have to be space or time bound. It doesn't have to be compounded. It's very general and that's the whole point. The point is that in philosophy you want to be able to talk about any experience whatsoever, without limitations, and a word for a "chunk" of the experience is "phenomenon".

 

If you ever wonder how is it we can chunk our experience into chunks...I've wondered that myself too. It seems like the mind or the universe or whatever has a natural chunking ability. This chunking ability is the identity-making ability. It's what sees a wave as "something" rather than as not seeing it at all. If you look at the water in the ocean it doesn't move. It goes up and down. But to our mind there appears to be a moving wave that approaches the shore, even though the water is not moving anywhere. So this ability to mentally pick out a feature is that chunking ability and that's why we talk about phenomena.

[dwai]

Buddhayo,

You are totally right!

 

Forest of emptiness,

 

Your post is spot on. If consciousness can be separated from its objects, then it could be said that only objects are phenomenon. However:

 

It can't!

 

So I guess it'd be best to say "all is phenomenon."

 

You can also create the rift while observing objects. As soon as you become aware of observing objects and not getting affected by them as you observe, that is in a sense a differentiation between object and consciousness.

 

Actually you can separate consciousness from objects. That happens in meditation. This is the gap between thoughts rising and falling. When you have a complete cessation of objects, that is objectless or pure consciousness.

 

This also happens in deep sleep state. Indic traditions calls the state as the Turiya state, where consciousness stands bereft of all objects. Objects rise and fall, but consciousness remains unaffected.

 

So evidently pure consciousness is not a phenomenon. So it'd be wiser to say "all things that have a beginning and an end and are objects of consciousness are phenomena". Also, it would then beget the question, "if consciousness is not a phenomenon, then what is it?"

Edited June 4, 2009 by dwai

[goldisheavy]

Hi erdweir,

 

the first phenomenologists were probably the Vedantins and subsequently the Buddhists. But I am familiar with Kant and Hegel. Kant was right in his phenomena vs noumena stance according to Indic phenomenology (called Jnana Yoga), but he was wrong in assuming there are multiple noumena.

 

I don't think I buy the whole noumena thing. A unit of recognition is phenomenon. If noumena is something we can recognize, it is a phenomenon in and of itself. If we cannot recognize it, then we're not talking about it right now.

 

The problem I have with some thinkers is that they elevate certain abstractions above reality. That's very very wrong to my mind. Nothing is above or outside reality. There is no onlooker to reality. If the onlooker is real, the onlooker is part of reality and is not above it. Since the onlooker, if real, is part of reality, there is no WAY the onlooker can onlook onto the reality without affecting it. So looking means changing and being changed in my view. There is no such thing as passive observation. To be passive onlooker means to be outside reality, but if you're outside reality how can reality leave an imprint on you? What's the connection?

 

Over and out.

Edited June 4, 2009 by goldisheavy

[dwai]

I don't think I buy the whole noumena thing. A unit of recognition is phenomenon. If noumena is something we can recognize, it is a phenomenon in and of itself. If we cannot recognize it, then we're not talking about it right now.

 

The problem I have with some thinkers is that they elevate certain abstractions above reality. That's very very wrong to my mind. Nothing is above or outside reality. There is no onlooker to reality. If the onlooker is real, the onlooker is part of reality and is not above it. Since the onlooker, if real, is part of reality, there is no WAY the onlooker can onlook onto the reality without affecting it. So looking means changing and being changed in my view. There is no such thing as passive observation. To be passive onlooker means to be outside reality, but if you're outside reality how can reality leave an imprint on you? What's the connection?

 

Over and out.

 

That is the flaw with Kant's thesis. Noumenon stands as something that cannot be recognized, described or categorized. If something is an object of consciousness (a phenomenon), it can be recognized, described and/or categorized.

 

Remember, if Tao can be spoken it is not the real Tao? That's exactly what Lao Tzu meant by that aphorism in the Tao te Ching.

Edited June 4, 2009 by dwai

[Aetherous]

This also happens in deep sleep state. Indic traditions calls the state as the Turiya state, where consciousness stands bereft of all objects. Objects rise and fall, but consciousness remains unaffected.

 

And these people are aware of this consciousness?

 

If so then it's an object of awareness.

 

If they're unaware of it, can never be aware of it, and can only assume it exists...then it doesn't exist.

[dwai]

And these people are aware of this consciousness?

 

If so then it's an object of awareness.

 

If they're unaware of it, can never be aware of it, and can only assume it exists...then it doesn't exist.

 

Is it? It is awareness itself. This is an experiential state, cannot be described, except that it does happen. You can be too...if you haven't already. That is called meditation...

 

Consciousness is also not a phenomenon because it cannot be described. Any attempt to do so will lead to self-contradiction and absurdity. It can only be experienced.

Edited June 4, 2009 by dwai

[Aetherous]

If you are aware of awareness, it's not real awareness that you're aware of. There isn't an eternal witness that can be found. Phenomenon is all that is.

 

Sorry I can't debate too well. Too much thinking for me. So I will bow out...

 

Brain hurts!

[goldisheavy]

If you are aware of awareness, it's not real awareness that you're aware of.

 

And yet you are able to recognize awareness, right? You're making statements with regard to the true nature of awareness. You're saying what isn't real awareness. So since you're recognizing something, what is that something? Recognition is a phenomenon. Call it fake if you like. Whatever. Outside of the constantly churning soup of phenomena I don't see anything at all. Phenomena is all that can be referred to, pretty much by definition. You might try to say that you're not actually referring to awareness, but that just gets very squirmy very fast.

[Aetherous]

Didn't we just say the same thing???

[xenolith]

Mental masturbation thread...

 

Awareness is experience absent ego.

 

No idea what a phenomenon is.

[goldisheavy]

That is the flaw with Kant's thesis. Noumenon stands as something that cannot be recognized, described or categorized. If something is an object of consciousness (a phenomenon), it can be recognized, described and/or categorized.

 

Remember, if Tao can be spoken it is not the real Tao? That's exactly what Lao Tzu meant by that aphorism in the Tao te Ching.

 

Things get very subtle from here on out. The thing that Lao Tzu was talking about is a recognition of the indefinite as opposed to the definite. So the chunking in this case is between the concrete and abstract or between the well defined and the not-well-defined. Dao is both well-defined and not-well-defined as they are in wholeness, and simply because Dao includes the not-well-defined, it inherits the not-well-defined's property of mysteriousness, thus Dao is also mysterious, even though the non-mysterious is part of Dao too, you have say that on the whole Dao is mysterious for the reason that if a system consists of 1 million well understood elements, but even even ONE element of that system is mysterious, the entire system has to be called mysterious as well, simply due to dependency. In other words, mystery infects things that depend on it with its mysteriousness. Things get especially hairy if you discover that mysteriousness is not something adventitious, but is a fundamental and essential element of cognizance.

 

The problem is that most humans equate recognition with something concrete, but mysterious recognitions that are recognized to be distinct from concrete ones are (erroneously, in my view) not understood to be recognitions. This creates a feeling that something exists outside the mind, but in reality nothing is outside mind.

 

So discerning an apple from an orange is what everyone understands to be identity-making function. One concrete object is discerned from another concrete object, and everyone can agree that this is what recognition is. But an experience that is non-concrete (I call those abstract, because to me abstractions are real and not just some mental generalization, but rather, abstractions are real experiences/phenomena like anything else) is felt to be non-concrete in contradistinction with the concrete ones, so it is also a recognition and a phenomenon.

 

So a phenomenological study is not complete without examining the mysterious. How do we know that an apple is non-mysterious in the first place? Where do we get an idea of ordinariness from? I say it's because in the back of our mind we also know what the non-ordinariness is truly like, or in other words, we are all omniscient actually.