“Phenomenology” is an approach to philosophy that I have always greeted with enthusiasm. At the same time, phenomenology has become a professional cult, with its own formidable jargon, its own society(ies), its heroes, villains, subversives and traitors. What I like most about phenomenology, I am afraid, makes me one of the villains, if not one of the subversives or traitors. For one thing, I tend to reject cults — professional or otherwise — in philosophy. For another, I prefer the personal, subjective, concrete aspects of phenomenology to its more ambitious grasp of transcendental objectivity and noematic Sinne. I think that a good question in phenomenology should be appropriate conversation at an intimate dinner, not just a subject for a seminar. Worst of all, my own model of doing phenomenology is still Jean Paul Sartre, when I am told by my more au courrant orthodox and heterodox friends that it ought to be the new and improved Husserl, or better, the just dis-closed works of the later Heidegger.
KeywordsBusiness Ethic Good Question Meaning Structure Romantic Love Queen College
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.