Search Our Essay Database

Essay Instructions: Phenomenology:

This paper is to be divided in two parts: Phenomenology part I and Phenomology part II. I have questions for each section and the questions should be answered based on the following:

answer broad questions related to the assigned readings. The essay answers should be a thoughtful, informed, and critically reflective discussion of the question. The answers shoud have an understanding of the relevance of the assigned readings and concerns in clinical psychology and the practice of psychotherapy. critical comprehension of the topic in the relevant texts and their appreciation of the value and relevance of the topic for theory and practice of clinical psychology.

I. Phenomenology: Part I (6 pages)

Questions to Be Answered
1. Phenomenology/existentalism/human science distinguishes different ways in which human beings can make sense of things.
2. Identify and discuss how Churchill & Wertz, May, Van den Berg, and Heidegger each identify two different kinds of thinking.
3. Make sure to explore how the distinctions made by one author relate to those of the others.
4. Critically analyze how these ways of thinking relate to psychology in general and then specifically to depth psychology.

II. Phenomenology: Part II (6 pages)

Questions to Be Answered
1. One of the distinctive features of a phenomenology/existential/human science perspective is the assertion of the worldly character of human existence.
2. Identify and discuss how Churchill & Wertz, May, Van den Berg, and Heidegger understand the Nature of the world.
3. Make sure to explore how the understanding articulated by one author relates to those of the others.
4. Critically analyze the implications of these understanding for psychological life in terms of both the theory and practice (clinical and reseach) of psychology.
5. How this clinical and research psychology relates to Depth psychology.


References to be used are:

Churchill, S. and Wertz, F. (2001) An introduction to phenomenological research in psychology: Historical, conceptual, and methodological foundations. In K. J. Schneider, J .F .T. Bugental, & J. F. Pierson (Eds.) The handbook of Humanistic psychology: Leading edges in theory, research, and practice (pp. 247-262). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Available on DOCUTEK digital reserve]

May, R. (1958). The origins and significance of the existential movement in psychology. and Contributions of existential psychotherapy. In R. May, E. Angel and H. Ellenberger (Eds.), Existence (pp. 3-36 & pp. 37-91). New York: Basic Books.
[Available on DOCUTEK digital reserve]

Heidegger, M. (1971). Building dwelling thinking, and The thing. In Poetry, language, thought (pp. 145-161 & pp. 165-186). (A. Hofstadter, Trans.). New York: Harper and Row.
[Available on DOCUTEK digital reserve]

Heidegger, M. (1966). Memorial address. In Discourse on thinking (pp. 43-57). (J. M. Anderson & E. H. Freund, Trans.). New York: Harper and Row.
[Available on DOCUTEK digital reserve]

Sipiora, M. (2008), Obligations beyond competency: Metabletics as a conscientious psychology. Janus Head Winter/Spring Issue 2008, 10.2.
[Available online at www.janushead.org/.]

Sipiora, M. (2000). The anima mundi and the fourfold: Hillman and Heidegger on the “idea” of the world. In R. Brooke (Ed.), Pathways into the Jungian world: Phenomenology and analytical psychology (pp. 67-83). New York: Routledge.
[Available on DOCUTEK digital reserve]

Sipiora, M. (1991). Heidegger and epideictic discourse: The rhetorical performance of meditative thinking. Philosophy Today, Vol. 4, pp. 239-253.
[Available on DOCUTEK digital reserve]

van den Berg, J. H. (1972). A different existence: Principles of phenomenological psychopathology. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press


H. Background Readings:

Boss, M. (1983). Existential foundations of medicine and psychology. (S. Conway and A. Cleaves, Trans.) New York: Jason Aronson.

Brooke, R. (2009) Jung and Phenomenology. Pittsburgh: Trivium Publishers.

Craig, E. (1988). Daseinsanalysis: A quest for essentials. In E. Craig (Ed.). Psychotherapy for freedom: The Daseinsanalytical way in psychology and psychoanalysis, Special issue of The Humanistic Psychologist, 16, (1). pp 1-21.
[Available on DOCUTEK digital reserve]

Guignon, C. (1993). Authenticity, moral values, and psychotherapy. In C. Guignon (ed.) The Cambridge companion to Heidegger (pp. 215-239) New York: Cambridge University Press.
[Available on DOCUTEK digital reserve]

Heidegger, M. (2001). Zollikon seminars. M. Boss, (Ed.). (F. Mayr and R. Askay, Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Heidegger, M. (1993). Basic Writings, Second revised and expanded edition. D. K. Krell (Ed.). New York: HarperCollins Publisher.

Hillman, J. (1992). Anima Mundi; Return of the soul to the world. In The thought of the heart and the soul of the world (pp. 89-130). Dallas: Spring Publications, Inc.

Hillman, J. (1976). Re-visioning psychology. New York: Harper and Row.

Martino, D. (Ed.) (2005). Daseinsanalysis: The twenty-second annual symposium of the Simon Silverman phenomenology center. Pittsburgh: Simon Silverman Phenomenology Center, Duquesne University.

Romanyshyn, R. (Ed.) (2008) J.H. van den Berg, Special Issue of Janus Head: Journal of Continental Philosophy, Literature, Phenomenological Psychology, and Art, Winter/Spring Issue, 10.2
[Available online at www.janushead.org/)

Sipiora, M. (2000). Psychology in the neighborhood of thought and poetry: The uncanny logos of the psyche. Janus Head, 3.1, pp. 40-61.
[Available online at www.janushead.org/)

Sipiora, M. (1993a). Miracles and the spiritual un-consciousness of technological culture. The Humanistic Psychologist, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 318-336.
[Available on DOCUTEK digital reserve]

This paper has to be written with great understanding of the material from the resources I have provided.








There are faxes for this order.

Essay Instructions: It should be about Emmanuel Levinas's Phenomenology
---
will communicate with writer regarding any future requirements. The paper is not due till end of fall semester but lets have the due date for Nov 15th just in case adjustments happens after the paper

Essay Instructions: For the part below about an actual lived event from your past use being held up at gun point, its ok to be creative. Use whatever is easier if that is not. thanks

Moral Phenomenology
Background information and context: Most of the philosophers in the West reduce morality to a matter of rational, dispassionate reflection and decision-making (Kantianism and U.ianism). Although Eastern (and other) philosophers tend to emphasize social cues and norms (Confucianism), intuition (Taoism), and relations/emotions (care ethic), the role of the physical world and our body?s perceptions of it (sound, smell, sight, touch, taste) have been relatively ignored. This is largely because this senses are thought to be animal instincts ( and not the part of us that primarily engages us in ethics), and unreliable (e.g. blood may be morally relevant in a homicide situation, but not in a surgery, or in a Shakespearean tragedy).
?Sensibility theory? is the name for the belief that the ?good? and ?evil? are metaphysical realities inherent in the physical world and that our bodies and senses are epistemological tools that help us gather ?moral data?. Sensibility theory raises many intriguing questions: Is the body a primary and reliable ?data-gathering mechanism? for distinguishing a situation as moral? Do some things in the physical world have inherent moral import?such as blood, a scream, a cry, a corpse, a baby, etc. Have our bodies evolved to distinguish between sense-datums with and without moral import (a baby?s ?just making noise cry? vs their ?something is very wrong? cry). Do these things have immediate (a priori) and instinctual moral importance for us (as opposed to ?a posteriori? reflection ?where we can achieve mind over matter, or tell ourselves ?It?s just a movie?, or ?this is really happening?). Can we and should we train our bodies to be more or less sensitive ?moral perceivers?? Are some people better moral perceivers than others? Do some practices and relationships enhance/diminish our capacity for moral perception? What are the strengths and weaknesses of positing that humans have ?moral sensibilities?? Can it be a mistake to use the language of ?perception? in describing ethics?

Assignment:
This assignment consists of two parts, an active and written part. The objective of this assignment is for you to gain experiences that allow you to become more critically aware of the various components of ethical phenomena and experiences, and how they relate. You must also develop an argument for how you understand the role of the body in moral experience, and how bodily sensations are ideally related to our other abilities.

Part 1: Activity: A Moral Internship: To prepare for this assignment you must place yourself in a position to observe an event that you consider to be morally ?charged?, that is, that you feel raises questions about right and wrong for you. You should plan to actively seek out such a situation by going to a place that will provide ?moral data? for you to observe?some obvious suggestions might be: a courtroom, a police ride along, an emergency room, a hospital, the humane society, etc. Some less obvious suggestions (for the very sensitive only) might be a zoo, a grocery store (or Wal-Mart), a dump, etc. As much as possible, this part of the assignment should involve the activity of you visiting a physical place, in person (as opposed to the passive activities of watching a film, surfing the net, reading a book, etc.) You may draw upon an actual lived event from your past ONLY if a) it happened recently, b) it had a very strong impact on you, and c) your memory and bodily reactions to it are fresh. If in doubt, check with me.

Part 2. Writing Assignment: (3 pages minimum) You should include the following four components in your paper:
1) Opening statement (1 paragraph): Briefly describe the event and your overall position as a result of this assignment. (Your hypothesis and introduction).
2) Description of event (1 paragraph, or may be combined with the above paragraph): Where did you go, what did you perceive?
3) Analysis (1 page) : Analyze your ?internship? in terms of the following categories:
i) Bodily sensations (What did you see, smell, hear, etc.? Did these perceptions have immediate moral relevance to you?) For this part you should also refer to your in-class reflection on the ?Never Forget? short for comparison.
ii) Spirited reaction?Emotions (What did you feel?)
iii) Intellectual reaction. (What did you think? What did you know or not know?)
iv) Social elements (how did others react? Did their reaction inform your own? How did your own socialization and prior experiences influence your perception?)
v) How did these three elements inform one another? Did your thoughts inform your perceptions of vice versa?
4) Evaluation (your hypothesis) : (1-1/2 page) As a result of your experiment, argue either in favor of the sensibility theory or against it. Be sure to identify at least two reasons (premises) in favor of your stance, and anticipate one possible objection. (For example, an argument in favor of sensibility theory might note that our moral inclinations often change if we are physically immersed in a situation?one may be more prone to ?see a wrong in the world? in the act of eating a cheeseburger if one visits a slaughterhouse vs. a McDonalds. OR, conversely, an argument against the role of the body might emphasize the cultural nature of perception*, the fallibility of the senses, or the possibility to train oneself to selectively perceive events so that right/wrong is not ?out there? to be perceived in the physical world by the body as we do trees and other objects, but merely a social or emotional projection onto the physical world.

* An experiment that involved children from Mexico and the United States reveals the cultural nature of perception?all children were shown pictures of football players and Matadors in quick succession. Not surprisingly, when asked to report what they saw (what was really there) Mexiacn children said a matador, while American children said a football player.

Essay Instructions: Discuss the topic below;

Alfred Schutz's meaning of social theory in the view of phenomenology.

(Please make this not so professionally written)