[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Incompatability between phenomenology and CHAT

And I should add to your warning about the difference between Gadamer's Phenomenology and Husserl's that Heidegger's was also not Phenomenology in the same sense as Husserl's, but the only phenomenology which Vygotsky knew was that of Husserl and his Russian followers, not Heidegger or Gadamer, SFAIK. This was pointed out to me after I wrote that note, and it was only later that I read Heidegger and came to appreciate those differences. So I can see that there are reasons for a Vygotskyist to be interested in Heidegger. But the points made in the article remain true, in my view.

But I must stop one confusion in what you said Larry, before it goes any further, and that is the meaning of "being" in connection with introspection.

Larry Purss wrote:
... Scientific psychology posits social *being* as the root model that determines a persons consciousness. In contrast Phenomenology posits being as dasein [being-there] or Hegel's determinate being.
No. Vyvgotsky was a far more sophisticated Marxist than that. He knew the difference between "determining" and "being." See http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/crisis/psycri13.htm#p1363 and see how Vygotsky cites Fuerbach approvingly. The idea of "mental being" is very challenging for a lot of people. I have tried to explain it in my video talk: https://vimeo.com/groups/129320/videos/21966323 Also dasein in Husserl and Heidegger is not the same as Dasein in Hegel, which is closer to what Vygotsky would discuss in connection with Syncretic concepts.


xmca mailing list