Phenomenology

The MIT Press Essential Knowledge

by Chad Engelland

A concise and accessible introduction to phenomenology, which investigates the experience of experience. This volume in the MIT Press Essential Knowledge series offers a concise and accessible introduction to phenomenology, a philosophical movement that investigates the experience of experience. Founded by Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) and expounded by Max Scheler, Martin Heidegger, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and others, phenomenology ventures forth into the field of experience so that truth might be met in the flesh. It investigates everything as experienced . It does not study mere appearance but the true appearances of things, holding that the unfolding of experience allows us to sort true appearances from mere appearance. The book unpacks a series of terms—world, flesh, speech, life, truth, love, and wonder—all of which are bound up with each other in experience. For example, world is where experience takes place; flesh names the way our experiential exploration is inscribed into the bearings of our bodily being; speech is instituted in bodily presence; truth concerns the way our claims about things are confirmed by our experience. A chapter on the phenomenological method describes it as a means of clarifying the modality of experience that is written into its very fabric; and a chapter on the phenomenological movement bridges its divisions while responding to criticisms from analytic philosophy and postmodernism.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction

264 pages, Paperback

Published August 4, 2020

About the author

Chad Engelland is Associate Professor of Philosophy and Chair of the Philosophy Department at the University of Dallas. He is the author of Heidegger's Shadow: Kant, Husserl, and the Transcendental Turn; The Way of Philosophy: An Introduction; and Ostension: Word Learning and the Embodied Mind (MIT Press).

Reviews

[Morgan Blackledge · Rating 5 out of 5]

Any of you trained philosophers out there.

Please bear with me on this.

I’m an untrained armchair philosophy neophyte.

But…

I’m currently conducting qualitative research. And as such, I’m trying to learn this stuff. Basically every other qualitative study names Husserrl, Heidegger, and Merleau-Ponty.

And…

Frankly.

I’m scared/exhausted by the idea of SLOGGING through source texts (particularly translations of French and German) without (at least ) an introduction (like this book) at MINIMUM, to get me up and running. Please feel free to correct me in the thread.

Assuming anyone ACTUALLY reads any of this.

Here goes.

Phenomenology is a philosophical movement initially developed by Edmund Husserl in the early 20th century, and later adopted and expanded on by the likes of Martin Heidegger (a Nazzi - for real - just sayin’), Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Jean-Paul Sartre.

Husserl sought a method to describe and analyze the essential structures of experience. He believed that careful introspection and analysis could uncover the fundamental nature of consciousness and the essence of things.

As such, phenomenology emphasizes the study of direct conscious experiences from the first-person point of perspective (first person-first person for all you Ken Wilber fans out there - all of the throngs of you out there - you know who you are 😜).

Key concepts in phenomenology include: intentionality (the notion that consciousness is always about something), intersubjectivity (the shared, communal nature of human experience), and the epoché (a method of suspending judgment about the natural world to focus purely on the experience itself).

I guess this is an obvious statement, but…

There’s a lot of overlap with Buddhism here.

Phenomenology continues to be a significant influence in contemporary philosophy, particularly in discussions about consciousness, perception, and the nature of experience.

Psychotherapy owes a HUGE debt to phenomenology.

5/5 stars ✨ for this cute lil’ intro 😍

All of the other reviews deducted points for various good reasons. But this thing is like barely 100 pages. So given the effort/payout ratio. I think it’s just fine for what it is.

[David Bjelland · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some ways in which Chad Engelland reminds me of a youth pastor who is very, very good at what he does, and his presentation of phenomenology reminiscent of The Good News:

1. Engelland projects a contentedness and casual, uncomplicated thoughtfulness that I think most reasonable people would envy. Like, envy enough to have their interest piqued – What belief system could possibly allow for such a likable, apparently well-adjusted person? Could it work for me? – even if he weren't evangelizing (which he definitely is).

2. He has a talent for mixing the mysterious, poetic language of Phenomenology with the totally mundane, without ever giving the impression that he's dumbing it down in order to give you a leg up: it really feels like these examples are what the mystery is about. Quick illustrative quote: "Pick up a stone in your hand. It's cold and smooth. Turn it over, grasp it. Note how it feels good to finger its rounded contours. Plunge it in water; feel the coolness of the water on your hand but also see how the wetness brings out vividly the stone's natural coloration; the light plays so beautifully off the glossy finish. Your own flesh allows this lifeless thing to be made manifest as it is" (emphasis mine)

3. Phenomenology is pitched less as a fixed body of fact or rigorous system than a process/path, which has a double benefit to his case. It dangles the implied promise of community and a sense of life-long purpose to the choice of pursuing it, and also conveniently preempts the justified skepticism of new-comers (since, like Scientology, the real juicy secrets are only revealed after you've committed too much of yourself to back out)

4. "Wait, I thought we were talking within the domain of the sacred and ineffable, why is this suddenly a diatribe against communism and sleeping around just for the fun of it?"

5. Another brilliant maneuver of salesmanship is that Phenomenology, at least as Engelland pitches it, is a totalizing system – whatever you already happen to believe can be either translated into the peculiar dialect of phenomenology and then improved upon, or, for the more tangible prescriptive stuff like Resisting Consumer Technology As Mediators of Experience, re-justified as inevitable implications of a phenomenological worldview. Because we're only given a tantalizing glimpse, and the internal logic seems so unpredictable and malleable to the uninitiated, it feels like a free lunch: a poster reading "New life-affirming insights, no ideological renunciation required!" in big font on a telephone pole, with a bunch of little strips cut into it at the bottom, each with a telephone number or url you can take rip off and take home with you like a raffle ticket.

Do I find any of this intrinsically bad? As the rating suggests: I don't. There were certain paragraphs so evocative yet down-to-earth I had to copy them down for future reference, fantasizing about delivering anything half as compelling to, say, a room of unengaged high school English students (he's a professor, btw, and it shows in the way each chapter reads like a structured but still mostly off-the-cuff lecture). I found lines of thinking I'm excited to follow up on at some point, and a few I'm content to let lie. And it's in a cute little package that looks good on a shelf and only took me maybe 4-6 hours spread across a month to finish!

Anyway, in a happy coincidence, the book I picked up after finishing this one in order to procrastinate on writing a review – Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity by Richard Rorty – has a line right in the first chapter that perfectly captures why I still enjoyed Engelland's approach:

Interesting philosophy is rarely an examination of the pros and cons of a thesis. Usually it is, implicitly or explicitly, a contest between an entrenched vocabulary which has become a nuissance and a half-formed new vocabulary which vaguely promises great things.

[Maxim · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book Phenomenology by Chad Engelland is a nicely written and accessible introduction to phenomenology. However, it does not provide enough theory, or argument , or really explain what phenomenology is for that matter. Rather, claims seem to follow each other on a framework structured around Engelland’s key terms with much focus on Husserl, some in Heidegger, but it contains mostly unsubstantiated opinions and definitions about what certain concepts are, what they mean and how they are relevant.

The language seems to be simplified in term of vocabulary for the common reader, but the sentence structure is quite convoluted. The author does not like to finish sentences, but rather opts to had commas, semi-columns and hyphens to punctuate the text. An example should illustrate all of what I just said: “Only on who can be alone without being lonely can love another no longer incidentally - as an antidote to loneliness - but specifically as a welcome presence.” (Engelland, 2020) This sentence is fairly simple to understand, but

Update: I just started reading chapter 8 and claims that appear to me as opinions are still being given as arguments to further a point which is unclear. He explains that play is an outward display and that it is always open to spectators. I almost stopped reading the book at this point, but as I kept reading this chapter, it started to peak my curiosity by becoming more concretely practical.

I just finished it. I did not learn much out of it. It did nit turn out to be practical or insightful. Just like the other books in the series, it is quite simple to read in less than a week and enjoyable to read. However, at many times I felt it was a pointless endeavour, which it may have been.

The book, altogether, looks like a self-referential advertisement for a product it does not describe well.

[olenius]

я тільки починаю свій путь в англомовній філософській літературі і добре не знаю правил гри, але як на американця - Чад Енґелланд непогано чуствує німецький феноменологічний сплін. І знову ж таки, завдяки тому що він американець, має сміливість пояснювати просто і доступно, так що є загроза справді щось зрозуміти. Чад не цурається життєвих прикладів про кетчуп, бо йому із-за океану не видно, що про Феноменологію можна говорити тільки німецькою і з фоновим трепетом перед безсиллям перекласти «Desein».

Книга дуже оглядова, але теж дала певні бенгери і впорядкувала структуру, дала відповідь на питання хто був першим феноменологія чи герменевтика, і як феноменологія перетекла у Францію (як і все інше - завдяки тихому єврею з останньої парти на парах у Гайдеґґера)

[Philip · Rating 3 out of 5]

I wanted this to be my introduction to Phenomenology (philosophy relating to experience) but it was all around a bad experience (ha!). I thought that Engelland’s writing was too jumpy to provide a linear and easy to follow explanation of the concepts.

[Liam Burns]

cute and good intro but it left me desiring more and also left me more cognizant of the insufficiency of the method. phenomenology is however a beautiful embrace of the threads of unity that disclose our being ‘with’ and ‘for’ other beings in our primordial relatedness.

(edit: by insufficiency in the method i mean in a particular kind of phenomenology that remains entirely too subject-oriented)

[Hadji Ammar · Rating 1 out of 5]

من أسوء الترجمات لأفضل العناوين. رداءة الترجمة تجعلك تكره الكتاب و تمل منه من اول فصوله
رغم اهمية العنوان و ما يناقشه الكتاب بخصوص مفهوم الظاهراتية كتيار فلسفي - و الذي يُختزل في نقطتين اساسيتين وهما؛ معايشة الخبرة، و كيف نختبر الخبرة ذاتها ( اي كيف ندرك الاشياء ثم كيف ندرك ادراكنا للاشياء) - الا ان للاسف، الترجمة افقدته حسه المميز.

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Engaging and well written entry into phenomenology.

[Seeker of Knowledge, may he never succeed · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Ya dood, how do we know if that chair in front of us is really there?"

"We can see it, can't we? Why wouldn't the chair be there?"

"But bro, what if we just SEE the chair, but there really ain't no chair there?"

"But don't we both see the chair?"

"DOOD, how do we know that the chair I'm seeing looks the same as the chair YOU see? I cant see through your eyes and mine broo."

"Damn, I guess you got a point"

"So like, what if the chair wasn't there? Hell, what if YOU'RE not even really there? How do I know you're really REAL?"

"But BRO, don't you trust me?"

"With my LIFE homie! But like, how do I know if you're really a person who sees shit like me, or if everyone else is just a hallucination of my own isolated miiiiind?"

"Bro, you're losing me. What does any of this shit matter if you can never prove it one way or the other, and there's no real reason to be so suspicious of a good thing? So what if the chair looks different to me than it does to you? Maybe the color or some shit changes, bit ain't it still really a chair at the end of the day that we can still sit in? Even if some of the details could be different inside of our own heads, for as long as we can both touch it, sit in it, and pull it out from under the bottoms of the nerds we dedicate our lives to tormenting, at the end of the day, isn't it still pretty much the same chair?"

"Damn, I guess you're right"


Essentially my takeaway

[Anthony O'Connor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Still not really sure what it is supposed to be or be about.

On this basis the book does not succeed. Or maybe I’m just not perceptive, intuitive, wondrous, authentic, non-trivial or open enough. Supposedly a new way of thinking/feeling, new methods - eidetic intuition, transcendental reduction, intentionality - the study of experience itself, consciousness/structure/relations, a new approach to essences and truths. Etc. etc. etc. Or just a splurge of words. Hard to tell. Need detailed examples not grandiose gushing claims. Luxuriating in subjectivity certainly has its place. Art, fiction, making movies ... self awareness, psychotherapy, .... but for ‘truth’ I think I’ll stick to physics and computation. Maybe there are no deep 'essences'. Maybe everything is basically 'trivial'. Terminal, transient and finite.

[Islam M Alhoseiny · Rating 3 out of 5]

I went into Phenomenology with genuine curiosity. I’ve read difficult philosophy before—Nietzsche, for instance, isn’t always easy, but his words are fire: sharp, urgent, and drenched in meaning. With him, the effort pays off. There are gems buried in the chaos, and they’re worth digging for.

Phenomenology? Not so much.

The language here isn’t just dense—it’s needlessly convoluted. It reads like someone twisting words for the sake of sounding profound, without actually saying anything. Phrases like “the letting show itself of the proper matter of thought” don’t open your mind to deeper truths—they make you feel like you’re stuck in a never-ending sentence trying to define itself.

I get that philosophy isn’t supposed to be spoon-fed, and I respect any attempt to explore the human experience on a deeper level. But if you have to deconstruct the entire English language just to make a point, maybe the point isn’t that deep to begin with. It’s not that the words are too difficult to understand—I understand them individually. It’s the way they’re assembled, the deliberate obscurity, that ends up feeling more like academic posturing than real thinking.

Instead of shedding light on existence, Phenomenology drowns it in murky waters. Instead of provoking insight, it provokes eye-rolls.

This book didn’t lead me to greater awareness—it just convinced me that phenomenology, at least in this form, is a dead-end. Philosophy should reveal, not obscure. And if this is what passes for meaningful reflection, I’d rather spend my time with thinkers who can actually speak truth with clarity, even when it cuts deep.


One extra star for the Author, for letting me know I don’t need phenomenology in my life.

[Hsandlin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great high level introduction to phenomenology. Multiple chapters were very confusing to read but I have the impression that’s more of a problem with the subject and not the way it was presented. Quite reassuringly, Engelland talks about the stages of becoming a phenomenologist and the first stage involves just figuring out it’s language. I wish this section came in earlier but it was nice to have it there to remind me it’s okay to not understand it on my first read.

Each chapter can more or less be read on its own, I might have enjoyed more of a through line but I think this format will make the book easier to return to. Given its form factor, I think that was intentional - it is almost meant to be a coffee table book. I would definitely recommend it to anyone interested in phenomenology or philosophy of the last century. It’s a great overview that talks about context you might not find in other books.

[Allie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very helpful overview of phenomenology for someone like me, who wants a basic overview of this branch of philosophy. It is a quick read that is a lot more understandable than a lot of philosophical texts.

I wanted the overview because I am learning about the connections between phenomenology and psychology, which have obvious connections.

I left out the fifth star because I feel that Heidegger’s stint as a Nazi was glossed over a little too quickly in this text, although I do understand where the author is coming from on this point, and appreciate that they took the time to address the stint.

[Myles Lynn · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a book I had started years ago, put away, and then decided to reread within the course of a day. The book was a short, concise look into the thoughts of phenomenologists. Engelland's text draws from Husserl, Scheler, Heidegger, and some others outside of the field to investigate concepts such as "flesh", "speech", "love", and "truth", and "wonder". The book was relatively easy to follow, which made it an accessible introduction to phenomenology. It was filled with examples from poetry, art, personal experiences, and some history of philosophy to provide a glimpse into what the philosophy consists of.

[Gavin Kierulf · Rating 3 out of 5]

A decent introduction to phenomenology guiding the reader through the philosophy by understanding things like love, wonder, speech, and life phenomenologically. Really helpful in this volume is the chapter on 'method' and 'movement' which, alongside the index, glossary, and bibliography, provide the novice reader with a great jumping-off point for further study.

[Lucas · Rating 3 out of 5]

At times extremely dense and difficult to follow. There were certainly passages that I couldn't grasp, but there were also many that were profoundly insightful. Chad Engelland's discussions on love were touching, and his contention that phenomenology allows us to more deeply appreciate experience is served greatly by them.

[livewugreactions · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although not as approachably written as other phenomenological introductions that I've read, still a good and concise overview of what the phenomenological method has to offer. Still don't like the jabs he throws at postmodernism though, I know we're like rival philosophical stances (the study of essences vs. the deconstruction of essences) but I'm like why can't we all just get along :(

[Victoria Higgs · Rating 2 out of 5]

Far more convoluted than any of my philosophy classes and overall unhelpful beyond offering a rather weak glimpse at the overall aims of phenomenology. Takes all profundity out of the pursuit thereof. I appreciate how much he likes Cézanne but just read Heidegger. It’s more fun and appropriately invigorating

[Angel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting read! I'm not going to lie it is kinda confusing at first but the more you read the more clear it gets. I learned to truly absorb the world around me and experience the little things in life once more.

[Devin Dedomenico · Rating 4 out of 5]

This short philosophical introduction to phenomenology is wonderfully clear and concise. Despite the complexity of the subject, the author breaks down its concepts in a way that’s easy for anyone to understand. It’s a great starting point for anyone curious about phenomenology.

[Cameron · Rating 2 out of 5]

I might need to read more philosophy for beginners before I can actually appreciate this book.

[Kieran Wood · Rating 3 out of 5]

Was a decent book, but it does repeat itself a lot

[Pat · Rating 3 out of 5]

Was like a pretty decent undergrad introduction to the concepts.

[Samantha Armstrong · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read for PHI248, was super dense and hard to get through but very valuable and a great pairing to the class.

[Mr T · Rating 5 out of 5]

V good introduction

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good modern overview

This was fun to read, full of aha moments. I appreciate how he captured what makes phenomenology important to him.

[Tia · Rating 1 out of 5]

Having an interest in feminist phenomenology, I wanted to get a better grasp of the movement as a whole. Engelland’s text is written engagingly and so I had high hopes that I would finish it with a good sense of different phenomenologists and their methods, theories, and contributions, as well as important debates in the field, but unfortunately, that was not the case. Engelland is mostly only interested in Husserl and Heidegger, and doesn’t tell us much about how they used phenomenology so much as how they bickered over it. The chapters on Love and Wonder were simultaneously overdone and absent of substantive information. There were also a lot of comparisons to the physical sciences, which I found strange from a contemporary perspective, where I would argue that phenomenology is mostly used in consort with performance, affect, psychology, literature, film, and social theory (seriously, Stephen Hawking is quoted more often than many key figures). What I was hoping for was a guide to thinkers like Merlau-Ponty and De Certau, but this was more of a casual defence of phenomenology and philosophy more generally. Also no mention at all of women or thinkers of colour who have used phenomenology, or how it has been deployed to think through race, sexuality, and gender.

[J S · Rating 3 out of 5]

(Wanted to give this 2.5 stars, but alas with the goodreads matrix)

This is a really effective overview of Husserl's and Heidegger's work, but honestly a kind of murky introduction to the concept of phenomenology. Maybe that's my mistake for thinking about it as an introduction, but that definitely seems like how it's posed to the world (as some of the stuff on the back cover says). The writing in the chapters themselves could have been a little more clear, too -- feel like there was a lot of really clear, definitive statements that only showed up at the ends of chapters rather than at the beginnings, where I think the reader could have maybe used them more