Podcast appearances and mentions of dan zahavi

I dag stiller jeg vildt store filosofiske spørgsmål til en af Danmarks mest anerkendte filosoffer. Vi skal blandt andet finde ud af, hvorfor man siger VI om eksempelvis det fodboldhold, man holder med, men som man jo ikke er en del af. Vært: Svend Brinkmann. Gæst: Dan Zahavi, professor i filosofi ved Københavns Universitet og leder af Center for subjektivitetsforskning. Glæd dig til dagens episode, som du nu kan høre i DR Lyd.

Kan man være imod empati? Eller er det at møde andre med empati det bedste, man kan gøre, i en kompleks verden?    De fleste mennesker er enige om, at verden ville være et bedre sted, hvis folk var mere empatiske. Men siden psykologen Paul Bloom i 2016 udgav bogen ‘Against Empathy' er forskere inden for alt fra psykologi og filosofi til neurovidenskab og antropologi begyndt at diskutere, hvorvidt empati udelukkende er for det gode.   I denne samtale fra Bloom festival 2022 tages empatien til eftersyn, når filosoffen Dan Zahavi, psykologen Signe Vangkilde og antropolog og biolog Andreas Roepstorff diskuterer empatiens fordele og ulemper – og hvad empati dybest set er.   Carlsbergfondet støtter Bloom, der er gratis og i år afholdes den 26.-28. maj. Læs mere om festivallen og årets navne på Bloom.ooo

This episode sees Dimes and Judas exploring what it is like to be an elite, what it takes to become one, and how to effectively marry your daughter off to crowbar your way into the higher echelons of society while behaving like the Addams Family. Afterward they discuss the slow-motion breakdown of Jordan Peterson and the path he took to becoming Israel's Top Anonymity Abuser, and get excited about Brendan Fraser's comeback in The Whale, a movie that seeks to fulfill the classic B$ premise: "what if a fat idiot was also gay?" Then Dimes takes a heroic swing at exploring Phenomenology, citing the book "Husserl's Phenomenology" by Dan Zahavi, explaining what this holistic philosophical framework is, what it isn't, and how it is applicable to how you interact with the world. Finally, this edition of Copepranos Society will be the most recent appearance on Millenniyule where Dimes and Judas explain the history of the show, Canadian politics, and Millennial Woes utterly mogs Dimes by dismissing a Radiohead conversation. It's great fun and by listening you are investing in yourself.

COVID-19 krisen kan opfattes som et stort vindue ind i en dybere forståelse af, hvad der sker, når vores naturlige og kropslige måde at være i verden på ikke længere er mulig, og at alle vores sociale interaktioner bliver teknologi-medieret. Det gør sundhedsmyndigheder, epidemiologer og historikere nu refleksioner over. Og det gør den gren af filosofien, der kaldes for fænomenologien, også. Hvordan udfordrer teknologien den måde, vi mennesker er tilstede i verden på som sociale væsner? Hvad gør det digitale ved vores interaktioner og den måde, vi forstår hinanden og vores intentioner ved at dele opmærksomhed og handlinger? Hvad er humanioras rolle i den debat? Hvad er det menneskevidenskaben bidrager med? Det er spørgsmålene for denne episode, som handler om samspillet mellem krop, digitale teknologier og sociale interaktioner. Til at bringe os en dybere forståelse for det og ikke mindst konsekvenserne i forhold til menneskelig adfærd taler Henrik Dresbøll i denne episode med professor Dan Zahavi. Dan er professor og leder ved Center for Subjektivitetsforskning ved Københavns Universitet.

One of the fifty most influential living philosophers, a “self-promoting charlatan” (Brian Leiter), and the orchestrator of an “online orgy of stupidity” (Ray Brassier). In Skirmishes: With Friends, Enemies, and Neutrals (Punctum Books, 2020), Graham Harman responds with flair and wit to some of his best-known critics and fellow travelers. Pulling no punches, Harman gives a masterclass in philosophical argumentation by dissecting, analyzing, and countering their criticism, be it from the Husserlian, Heideggerian, or Derridean corner. At the same time, Skirmishes provides an excellent introduction to the hottest debates in Speculative Realism and Object-Oriented Ontology, a speculative style of philosophy long foreclosed by the biases of mainstream continental thought, but which has turned in recent years into one of the most encompassing philosophies of our time, with a major impact on the arts, humanities, and architecture. Part One considers four prominent books on speculative realism. In dialogue with Tom Sparrow's The End of Phenomenology, Harman expresses agreement with Sparrow's critique while taking issue with Lee Braver's “transgressive realism” as not realist enough. Turning to Steven Shaviro's The Universe of Things, Harman defends his own object-oriented model against Shaviro's brand of process philosophy, while also engaging in side-debate with Levi R. Bryant's distinction between virtual proper being and local manifestations. In the third chapter, on Peter Gratton's Speculative Realism: Problems and Prospects, Harman opposes the author's attempt to use Derridean notions of time and difference against Speculative Realism, in what amounts to his most extensive engagement with Derrida to date. Chapter Four gives us Harman's response to Peter Wolfendale's massive polemic in Object-Oriented Philosophy, which he shows is based on a failed criticism of Harman's reading of Heidegger and a grumpy commitment to rationalist kitsch. Part Two responds to a series of briefer criticisms of object-oriented ontology. When Alberto Toscano accuses Harman and Bruno Latour of “neo-monadological” and anti-scientific thinking, Harman responds that the philosophical factors pushing Leibniz into monadology are still valid today. When Christopher Norris mocks Harman for seeing merit in the occasionalist school, he shows why Norris's middle-of-the-road scientific realism misses the point. In response to Dan Zahavi's contention that phenomenology has little to learn from speculative realism, Harman exposes the holes in Zahavi's reasoning. In a final response, Harman gives a point-by-point answer to Stephen Mulhall's critical foray in the London Review of Books. Amidst these lively debates, Harman sheds new light on what he regards as the central bias of philosophical modernism, which he terms the taxonomical standpoint. It is a book sure to provoke lively controversy among both friends and foes of object-oriented thought. Adam Bobeck is a PhD candidate in Cultural Anthropology at the University of Leipzig. His PhD is entitled “Object-Oriented Azadari: Shi'i Muslim Rituals and Ontology”. For more about his work, see www.adambobeck.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

One of the fifty most influential living philosophers, a “self-promoting charlatan” (Brian Leiter), and the orchestrator of an “online orgy of stupidity” (Ray Brassier). In Skirmishes: With Friends, Enemies, and Neutrals (Punctum Books, 2020), Graham Harman responds with flair and wit to some of his best-known critics and fellow travelers. Pulling no punches, Harman gives a masterclass in philosophical argumentation by dissecting, analyzing, and countering their criticism, be it from the Husserlian, Heideggerian, or Derridean corner. At the same time, Skirmishes provides an excellent introduction to the hottest debates in Speculative Realism and Object-Oriented Ontology, a speculative style of philosophy long foreclosed by the biases of mainstream continental thought, but which has turned in recent years into one of the most encompassing philosophies of our time, with a major impact on the arts, humanities, and architecture. Part One considers four prominent books on speculative realism. In dialogue with Tom Sparrow's The End of Phenomenology, Harman expresses agreement with Sparrow's critique while taking issue with Lee Braver's “transgressive realism” as not realist enough. Turning to Steven Shaviro's The Universe of Things, Harman defends his own object-oriented model against Shaviro's brand of process philosophy, while also engaging in side-debate with Levi R. Bryant's distinction between virtual proper being and local manifestations. In the third chapter, on Peter Gratton's Speculative Realism: Problems and Prospects, Harman opposes the author's attempt to use Derridean notions of time and difference against Speculative Realism, in what amounts to his most extensive engagement with Derrida to date. Chapter Four gives us Harman's response to Peter Wolfendale's massive polemic in Object-Oriented Philosophy, which he shows is based on a failed criticism of Harman's reading of Heidegger and a grumpy commitment to rationalist kitsch. Part Two responds to a series of briefer criticisms of object-oriented ontology. When Alberto Toscano accuses Harman and Bruno Latour of “neo-monadological” and anti-scientific thinking, Harman responds that the philosophical factors pushing Leibniz into monadology are still valid today. When Christopher Norris mocks Harman for seeing merit in the occasionalist school, he shows why Norris's middle-of-the-road scientific realism misses the point. In response to Dan Zahavi's contention that phenomenology has little to learn from speculative realism, Harman exposes the holes in Zahavi's reasoning. In a final response, Harman gives a point-by-point answer to Stephen Mulhall's critical foray in the London Review of Books. Amidst these lively debates, Harman sheds new light on what he regards as the central bias of philosophical modernism, which he terms the taxonomical standpoint. It is a book sure to provoke lively controversy among both friends and foes of object-oriented thought. Adam Bobeck is a PhD candidate in Cultural Anthropology at the University of Leipzig. His PhD is entitled “Object-Oriented Azadari: Shi'i Muslim Rituals and Ontology”. For more about his work, see www.adambobeck.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

One of the fifty most influential living philosophers, a “self-promoting charlatan” (Brian Leiter), and the orchestrator of an “online orgy of stupidity” (Ray Brassier). In Skirmishes: With Friends, Enemies, and Neutrals (Punctum Books, 2020), Graham Harman responds with flair and wit to some of his best-known critics and fellow travelers. Pulling no punches, Harman gives a masterclass in philosophical argumentation by dissecting, analyzing, and countering their criticism, be it from the Husserlian, Heideggerian, or Derridean corner. At the same time, Skirmishes provides an excellent introduction to the hottest debates in Speculative Realism and Object-Oriented Ontology, a speculative style of philosophy long foreclosed by the biases of mainstream continental thought, but which has turned in recent years into one of the most encompassing philosophies of our time, with a major impact on the arts, humanities, and architecture. Part One considers four prominent books on speculative realism. In dialogue with Tom Sparrow's The End of Phenomenology, Harman expresses agreement with Sparrow's critique while taking issue with Lee Braver's “transgressive realism” as not realist enough. Turning to Steven Shaviro's The Universe of Things, Harman defends his own object-oriented model against Shaviro's brand of process philosophy, while also engaging in side-debate with Levi R. Bryant's distinction between virtual proper being and local manifestations. In the third chapter, on Peter Gratton's Speculative Realism: Problems and Prospects, Harman opposes the author's attempt to use Derridean notions of time and difference against Speculative Realism, in what amounts to his most extensive engagement with Derrida to date. Chapter Four gives us Harman's response to Peter Wolfendale's massive polemic in Object-Oriented Philosophy, which he shows is based on a failed criticism of Harman's reading of Heidegger and a grumpy commitment to rationalist kitsch. Part Two responds to a series of briefer criticisms of object-oriented ontology. When Alberto Toscano accuses Harman and Bruno Latour of “neo-monadological” and anti-scientific thinking, Harman responds that the philosophical factors pushing Leibniz into monadology are still valid today. When Christopher Norris mocks Harman for seeing merit in the occasionalist school, he shows why Norris's middle-of-the-road scientific realism misses the point. In response to Dan Zahavi's contention that phenomenology has little to learn from speculative realism, Harman exposes the holes in Zahavi's reasoning. In a final response, Harman gives a point-by-point answer to Stephen Mulhall's critical foray in the London Review of Books. Amidst these lively debates, Harman sheds new light on what he regards as the central bias of philosophical modernism, which he terms the taxonomical standpoint. It is a book sure to provoke lively controversy among both friends and foes of object-oriented thought. Adam Bobeck is a PhD candidate in Cultural Anthropology at the University of Leipzig. His PhD is entitled “Object-Oriented Azadari: Shi'i Muslim Rituals and Ontology”. For more about his work, see www.adambobeck.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

One of the fifty most influential living philosophers, a “self-promoting charlatan” (Brian Leiter), and the orchestrator of an “online orgy of stupidity” (Ray Brassier). In Skirmishes: With Friends, Enemies, and Neutrals (Punctum Books, 2020), Graham Harman responds with flair and wit to some of his best-known critics and fellow travelers. Pulling no punches, Harman gives a masterclass in philosophical argumentation by dissecting, analyzing, and countering their criticism, be it from the Husserlian, Heideggerian, or Derridean corner. At the same time, Skirmishes provides an excellent introduction to the hottest debates in Speculative Realism and Object-Oriented Ontology, a speculative style of philosophy long foreclosed by the biases of mainstream continental thought, but which has turned in recent years into one of the most encompassing philosophies of our time, with a major impact on the arts, humanities, and architecture. Part One considers four prominent books on speculative realism. In dialogue with Tom Sparrow's The End of Phenomenology, Harman expresses agreement with Sparrow's critique while taking issue with Lee Braver's “transgressive realism” as not realist enough. Turning to Steven Shaviro's The Universe of Things, Harman defends his own object-oriented model against Shaviro's brand of process philosophy, while also engaging in side-debate with Levi R. Bryant's distinction between virtual proper being and local manifestations. In the third chapter, on Peter Gratton's Speculative Realism: Problems and Prospects, Harman opposes the author's attempt to use Derridean notions of time and difference against Speculative Realism, in what amounts to his most extensive engagement with Derrida to date. Chapter Four gives us Harman's response to Peter Wolfendale's massive polemic in Object-Oriented Philosophy, which he shows is based on a failed criticism of Harman's reading of Heidegger and a grumpy commitment to rationalist kitsch. Part Two responds to a series of briefer criticisms of object-oriented ontology. When Alberto Toscano accuses Harman and Bruno Latour of “neo-monadological” and anti-scientific thinking, Harman responds that the philosophical factors pushing Leibniz into monadology are still valid today. When Christopher Norris mocks Harman for seeing merit in the occasionalist school, he shows why Norris's middle-of-the-road scientific realism misses the point. In response to Dan Zahavi's contention that phenomenology has little to learn from speculative realism, Harman exposes the holes in Zahavi's reasoning. In a final response, Harman gives a point-by-point answer to Stephen Mulhall's critical foray in the London Review of Books. Amidst these lively debates, Harman sheds new light on what he regards as the central bias of philosophical modernism, which he terms the taxonomical standpoint. It is a book sure to provoke lively controversy among both friends and foes of object-oriented thought. Adam Bobeck is a PhD candidate in Cultural Anthropology at the University of Leipzig. His PhD is entitled “Object-Oriented Azadari: Shi'i Muslim Rituals and Ontology”. For more about his work, see www.adambobeck.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Have you considered that you might be a brain in a vat of liquid floating in a laboratory somewhere? How can you know that the world around you is real, not just a simulation being piped directly to your brain? In episode 30, Ellie and David unpack one of philosophy's favorite thought experiments: the brain in a vat.  They also analyze our cultural obsession with the brain, common criticisms of this thought experiment from consciousness studies, and precursors in Descartes and science fiction. Also--what's with the Italian neuroscientist who keeps trying to do head transplants?Works discussed:Daniel Dennett, "Where Am I?"Gilbert Harman, ThoughtAlva Noë, Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your BrainEvan Thompson and Diego Cosmelli, "Brain in a Vat or Body in a World? Brainbound Versus Enactive Views of Experience"Shaun Gallagher and Dan Zahavi, The Phenomenological MindBronwyn Parry, "Technologies of Immortality: The Brain on Ice"John Desmond Bernal, The World, the Flesh and the DevilRaymond Roussel, Locus SolusJohn Tresch, "In a solitary place: Raymond Roussel's brain and the French cult of unreason"Harry Smit and Peter M. S. Hacker, "Seven Misconceptions About the Mereological Fallacy: A Compilation for the Perplexed"Bessel van der Kolk, The Body Keeps the ScoreWebsite | overthinkpodcast.comInstagram & Twitter | @overthink_podEmail |  Dearoverthink@gmail.comYouTube | Overthink podcast

Skam er en af de stærkeste følelser, vi har. Det føles som om, et stort projektørlys belyser vores fejl og mangler til skue for alle andre - og følelsen kan vare ved i lang tid. Det er ganske ubehageligt - men hvorfor føler vi egentlig skam? Og hvad gør skammen ved os? I ugens episode dykker vi ned i skam-forskningen og kigger på, om ikke også skammen kan være godt for noget. Asbjørn fortæller, at ens af hans allerførste minder var en skamfuld oplevelse, mens Jais må tilstå, at han nok er rimelig skamløs. Heldigvis er de to værter i kyndige hænder, og Dan Zahavi og Carsten Stage fortæller, hvordan skam adskiller sig fra vores andre følelser, og hvordan skammen tydeliggør, at vi mennesker er i stand til at se på os selv udefra.Og så kommer de med hvert deres bud på, hvordan skammen også kan være positiv. Til sidst udruller Albert Gjedde et vildt studie, der viser, at amøber, som er blevet skåret i stykker, kan samle sig igen - og finde den korteste rute gennem en labyrint! Alt det og meget mere får du i denne udgave af Brainstorm. Medvirkende:  Dan Zahavi, professor på Center for Subjektivitetsforskning, Københavns Universitet Carsten Stage, lektor på Institut for Kommunikation og Kultur, Aarhus Universitet. Studier, der omtales i episoden: Neurobiological underpinnings of shame and guilt: a pilot fMRI study, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2014. On the Origin of Shame: Does Shame Emerge From an Evolved Disease-Avoidance Architecture? Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 2020. Brainstorm er på Instagram!  Brainstorm er Videnskab.dk's podcast om hjernen - støttet af Lundbeckfonden Redaktion: Jais Baggestrøm Koch, Asbjørn Mølgaard Sørensen, Anette Lilleøre, Jeppe Øvig og Mathilde Valsgaard Hansen

https://www.phi-psy.de​​​Die vierte Folge des Podcasts Fipsi, der als erster seiner Art den Dialog zwischen Philosophie und Psychologie anstrebt. Mit ihrem Gast Andrea Lailach-Hennrich unterhalten sich Hannes Wendler und Alexander Wendt in dieser Folge über die Philosophie und Psychologie der Intersubjektivität. Dabei kommen sie auf Dan Zahavi zu sprechen.Melden Sie sich mit Rückmeldungen und Anmerkungen gerne unter fipsi@phi-psy.deFür das Intro bedanken wir uns bei Estella und Peter: https://www.instagram.com/elpetera​

Season five of our podcast features presentations from our 2020 annual conference: ‘Engaged Phenomenology’ Online. In this episode we release one of our keynote talks, that of Professor Dan Zahavi. Zahavi is Professor of Philosophy, University of Copenhagen, Professor of Philosophy, University of Oxford, and Director of the Center for Subjectivity Research (CFS).   ABSTRACT: At its core, phenomenology is a philosophical endeavour. Given its distinctly philosophical nature, one might reasonably wonder whether it can offer anything of value to positive science. Can it at all inform empirical work? There can, however, be no doubt about the answer to these questions. For more than a century, phenomenology has provided crucial inputs to a variety of disciplines in the social sciences and the humanities, including psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Within the last few decades, phenomenology has also been an important source of inspiration, not only for theoretical debates within qualitative research but also for ongoing research within the cognitive sciences. But what is the best way to practice, use and apply phenomenology in a non‐philosophical context? How deeply rooted in phenomenological philosophy must the empirical research be in order to qualify as phenomenological? How many of the core commitments of phenomenology must it accept? In my talk, I will discuss and assess some different answers to these questions.   BIO: Dan Zahavi is Professor of Philosophy at University of Copenhagen and University of Oxford, and director of the Center for Subjectivity Research in Copenhagen. In addition to a number of scholarly works on the phenomenology of Husserl, Zahavi has mainly written on the nature of selfhood, self-consciousness, intersubjectivity, and social cognition. His most important publications include Self-awareness and Alterity (1999), Husserl’s Phenomenology (2003), Subjectivity and Selfhood (2005), The Phenomenological Mind (together with Shaun Gallagher) (2008/2012), Self and Other (2014), Husserl’s Legacy (2017), and Phenomenology: The Basics (2019). Zahavi also serves as the co-editor in chief of the journal Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences.   This recording is taken from the BSP Annual Conference 2020 Online: 'Engaged Phenomenology'. Organised with the University of Exeter and sponsored by Egenis and the Wellcome Centre for Cultures and Environments of Health. BSP2020AC was held online this year due to global concerns about the Coronavirus pandemic. For the conference our speakers recorded videos, our keynotes presented live over Zoom, and we also recorded some interviews online as well. Podcast episodes from BSP2020AC are soundtracks of those videos where we and the presenters feel the audio works as a standalone: https://www.britishphenomenology.org.uk/bsp-annual-conference-2020/   You can check out our forthcoming events here: https://www.britishphenomenology.org.uk/events/   The British Society for Phenomenology is a not-for-profit organisation set up with the intention of promoting research and awareness in the field of Phenomenology and other cognate arms of philosophical thought. Currently, the society accomplishes these aims through its journal, events, and podcast. Why not find out more, join the society, and subscribe to our journal the JBSP? https://www.britishphenomenology.org.uk/  

I 1637 sagde René Descartes: "Jeg tænker, derfor er jeg." Jeg har en bevidsthed, derfor oplever jeg at være. Siden er der tænkt meget over og forsket i, hvad bevidsthed er, og hvor og hvordan den opstår. Vi er ikke i tvivl om, at mange dyr har en bevidsthed, men gælder det alle dyr? Og de senere år er de såkaldte panpsykister begyndt at spørge om også et træ, en stol eller en sten har en oplevelse af at være. Supertanker kaster sig over bevidsthed om og erkendelse af at være. Medvirkende: Benjamin Christensen, phd.-studerende på filosofi, Aarhus Universitet. Dan Zahavi, professor i filosofi på Københavns Universitet og Oxford Universitet, leder af Center for Subjektivitetsforskning. Carsten Ortmann, tilrettelægger og vært.

I det andet program om Husserls filosofi fortæller professor Dan Zahavi fra Københavns Universitet om forholdet mellem intentionalitet og tidslighed og om Husserls forståelse af, hvad det vil sige at være selvbevidst.  

I det andet program om Husserls filosofi fortæller professor Dan Zahavi fra Københavns Universitet om forholdet mellem intentionalitet og tidslighed og om Husserls forståelse af, hvad det vil sige at være selvbevidst.  

Dan Zahavi og Jeanette Ehlers Den stigende globalisering synes langt fra at mindske behovet for at definere kulturelle tilhørsforhold. Men hvad er det, der gør, at vi skelner mellem ”os” og ”de andre”? Det forsøger professor og filosof Dan Zahavi og billedkunstner Jeanette Ehlers at besvare i en samtale med journalist Nynne Bjerre Christensen. Med Videnskab|Lidenskab undersøger Carlsbergfondet, hvad der sker, når en kunstner og en forsker sættes over for hinanden for at tale om samme emne ud fra deres respektive faglighed.

Dan Zahavi og Jeannette Ehlers På trods af den udbredte globalisering definerer vi os i høj grad stadig efter i et Vi og Dem. Det store globale 'vi' fortrænges flere og flere steder af mindre fællesskaber defineret ud fra nationale- og kulturelle tilhørsforhold eller identitet. Men hvad er det for mekanismer, der gør, at vi er så tilbøjelige til at skelne mellem ”vi” og ”de andre”? Med Videnskab|Lidenskab undersøger Ny Carlsbergfondet, hvad der sker, når en kunstner og en forsker sættes over for hinanden for at tale om samme emne ud fra deres respektive faglighed.

Hvad er skam egentlig for en følelse?Vi kan se Skam i tv, læse om Skammerens datter, opføre os skamløst og ikke mindst skamme os, men hvordan adskiller følelsen af skam sig fra tilsvarende følelser som forlegenhed, pinlighed, flovhed og ydmygelse? Det diskuterer professor i filosofi Dan Zahavi, der har skrevet flere bøger om skam, med Thomas Brudholm, der er lektor i filosofi.

What you're about to hear is a live episode of the podcast that we recorded on October 4 in San Francisco. This event coincided with the launch of The Side View website and it gave me a chance to describe the TSV vision in front of a few friends and colleagues. In the first 30 or 40 minutes of the episode, I take a deeper dive into some of the philosophical influences that went into creating The Side View. I talk about the French philosopher Pierre Hadot and his conception of philosophy as a mode of existential training or exercise, I get into a little bit of phenomenology through the work of Francisco Varela, Evan Thompson, and Dan Zahavi, and I talk about the role of media ecology and affordance environments in The Side View's general philosophy. As I mention at the start of the talk, you can also find a shorter four-minute version of these ideas on the About page of our website, but if you want the full back story on TSV and its inspirations, this episode is a great place to start. As always, feel free to drop us a line if these lines of thought spark any new questions or ideas for you. I hope you enjoy the episode.

This is one of the papers from our 2017 Annual Conference, the Future of Phenomenology. Information and the full conference booklet can be found at www.britishphenomenology.org.uk Abstract I shall contribute to the discussion of post-traumatic pathologies of the self from a phenomenological perspective. Does the self remain constant in severe post-traumatic pathologies, or is it impacted? I will employ a very thin notion of minimal selfhood, in line with Dan Zahavi. I am drawing on the works of Husserl, Sartre, and Merleau-Ponty and shall argue that the minimal self is to be understood in a basic, prereflective sense. As the subjectivity inhabiting the point of view of experience it is intrinsic to experiential life and neither arratively nor socially constructed. Many authors amend the definition of minimal selfhood, making it more complex in order to proceed with arguments that subsequently make it vulnerable to shattering (Sass & Pienkos; Ataria & Somer). When applying these modified definitions, trauma appears to pose a significant threat to the minimal self. I will argue, on the contrary, that minimal selfhood is ubiquitous to experiential life and remains constant. However, that the minimal self is not threatened does not make post-traumatic pathologies of other dimensions of selfhood less severe. Disturbances in the sense of self, personal ownership, and experiential temporality can leave the traumatised individual devastated. A case study illustrates this. I consequently argue for a multidimensional account of selfhood that acknowledges the compatibility of different notions of the self such as narrative (Dennett) and social (Kyselo) accounts. It is the more complex notions of the self that are vulnerable to shattering. The evidence provided by trauma research thus encourages us to adopt a more complex conception of the self in order to account for its diachronicity, illuminates its fundamental fragility, and highlights the significance of the minimal self as a condition of possibility.

I det 3. og sidste program om Husserls filosofi fortæller professor Dan Zahavi om Husserls syn på kroppen, hvad der nærmere skal forstås ved intersubjektivitet og livsverden, samt om Husserls forhold til Heidegger.

I det andet program om Husserls filosofi fortæller professor Dan Zahavi fra Københavns Universitet om forholdet mellem intentionalitet og tidslighed og om Husserls forståelse af, hvad det vil sige at være selvbevidst.  

Edmund Gustav Albrecht Husserl var en tysk filosof, der levede fra 1859 – 1938. Han var  grundlægger af fænomenologien, hvilket  gjorde ham til en af det 20. århundredes største tænkere. I dette program fortæller professor Dan Zahavi fra Københavns Universitet om Husserls liv og om intentionalitetsbegrebets betydning for Husserls filosofi. 

I dette afsnit af Filosofikum undersøger vi muligheden for at naturalisere fænomenologien og fænomenologisere naturvidenskaben. Skal vi tro sidste måneds gæster kan hjerneforskningen trods dens imponerende og vigtige resultater egentlig ikke fortælle os særligt meget om, hvordan vi som mennesker oplever verden. Den filosofiske retning fænomenologi kan derfor med sine indgående analyser af subjektiviteten og verden sådan som den opleves fra et førstepersonsperspektiv, synes en oplagt samtalepartner. Og det er lige netop i dette krydsfelt, at det tværfaglige forskningscenter Center for Subjektivitetsforskning arbejder.I selskab med leder og medgrundlægger af Center for Subjektivitetsforskning professor Dan Zahavi og post. doc. fra samme sted Kristian Moltke Martiny kigger vi nærmere på, hvad det er fænomenologien kan tilbyde naturvidenskaben, og hvad naturvidenskaben omvendt kan tilbyde fænomenologien.