Attention is first philosophy in the way that Husserl sees phenomenology as first philosophy. So the people who follow Husserl on that would already agree that attention is first philosophy. The Aristotle commenter from your post might like to read Robert Sokolowski’s paper “How Aristotle and Husserl Differ on First Philosophy” which can easily be found online.
That paper sounds great. I’m definitely going to look it up and check it out. Thanks for the reference.
And I think you’re right that Husserl’s view of phenomenology as first philosophy shares something with the claim that attention is first. But my orientation is closer to thinkers like Eric Voegelin and Eric Perl, and in some ways, even to Aristotle.
Husserl treats consciousness and the structures of intentionality as the ground for philosophy (as "first" and maybe also as "final"). But for Voegelin and Perl, Being isn’t constituted by consciousness but something that discloses itself, that addresses us, and that's what's "first" vis-a-vis our attention. Philosophy, in this sense I'm trying to describe, isn't the investigation of constituting mental acts alone but a receptive orientation toward what shows itself (i.e., Being and its orderings).
So, in some sense, I’m doing something that looks more like the philosophical starting points of Descartes, Husserl, or Merleau-Ponty, while still remaining open to the metaphysically realist entailments of philosophers like Aristotle.
That’s the difference between what I’m trying to do and what Husserl expresses in his works, at least as I see it. Maybe I'm actually closer to Husserl than what I've said here, but that's how it looks to me right now.
Sure, I see. I personally have deep affinities with the works of both Aristotle and Husserl, so I’m not trying to push one over the other, per se. I am more keen on what phenomenology offers us though. And Husserl, despite expressing the knowing subject and constituting acts of consciousness as first philosophy, ultimately saw his phenomenology as eidetics as universal ontology. Anyway, coming from both branches, Aristotle and Husserl, I personally resonate with your work as much closer to Husserl. But that’s just me. And regarding Sokolowski’s paper, while it is definitely worth reading, his recorded talk on first philosophy is even better. It’s a very moving and powerful talk. A playlist of it can be found here. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7A1540485DB86B61&si=5KCut1a9A-xaaXG0
Attention is first philosophy in the way that Husserl sees phenomenology as first philosophy. So the people who follow Husserl on that would already agree that attention is first philosophy. The Aristotle commenter from your post might like to read Robert Sokolowski’s paper “How Aristotle and Husserl Differ on First Philosophy” which can easily be found online.
That paper sounds great. I’m definitely going to look it up and check it out. Thanks for the reference.
And I think you’re right that Husserl’s view of phenomenology as first philosophy shares something with the claim that attention is first. But my orientation is closer to thinkers like Eric Voegelin and Eric Perl, and in some ways, even to Aristotle.
Husserl treats consciousness and the structures of intentionality as the ground for philosophy (as "first" and maybe also as "final"). But for Voegelin and Perl, Being isn’t constituted by consciousness but something that discloses itself, that addresses us, and that's what's "first" vis-a-vis our attention. Philosophy, in this sense I'm trying to describe, isn't the investigation of constituting mental acts alone but a receptive orientation toward what shows itself (i.e., Being and its orderings).
So, in some sense, I’m doing something that looks more like the philosophical starting points of Descartes, Husserl, or Merleau-Ponty, while still remaining open to the metaphysically realist entailments of philosophers like Aristotle.
That’s the difference between what I’m trying to do and what Husserl expresses in his works, at least as I see it. Maybe I'm actually closer to Husserl than what I've said here, but that's how it looks to me right now.
Sure, I see. I personally have deep affinities with the works of both Aristotle and Husserl, so I’m not trying to push one over the other, per se. I am more keen on what phenomenology offers us though. And Husserl, despite expressing the knowing subject and constituting acts of consciousness as first philosophy, ultimately saw his phenomenology as eidetics as universal ontology. Anyway, coming from both branches, Aristotle and Husserl, I personally resonate with your work as much closer to Husserl. But that’s just me. And regarding Sokolowski’s paper, while it is definitely worth reading, his recorded talk on first philosophy is even better. It’s a very moving and powerful talk. A playlist of it can be found here. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7A1540485DB86B61&si=5KCut1a9A-xaaXG0
This looks awesome. Thanks for putting it on my radar.