The Phenomenology of the Social World

By -
I've just been back into the book with the above title, by Alfred Schutz, who was an attendee at the renowned Mises seminar in Vienna. It struck me that he could have boosted sales quite a bit by instead entitling his work, "The Social World -- It's Phenomenal!"

An opportunity lost.

Comments

  1. Wabulon2:33 PM

    Nonsense! Think "sequel."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous8:24 AM

    I thought that was a funny title Gene. Phillip Conti

    ReplyDelete
  3. Francisco C. Castro8:08 PM

    well, when one says "it's phenomenal" does she or he not tend to say that "it's extraordinary" or "it's a 'wow'"? That, at least, is what comes to my mind when I see the word "phenomenal". A "phenomenology" of the Social world is soemthing quite different.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous7:37 AM

    Great article! Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous1:22 PM

    Thanks for interesting article.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous3:17 AM

    Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous3:18 AM

    Here is the eve isk,
    eve online isk is the regular site.
    buy isk we supply the regular service.
    cheap eve isk
    buy eve online isk I hope I can help you.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more