Talk:Lifeworld

message: I suggest we shouldn´t use this expression - Lifeworld. It makes no sense to me in English. Husserls Lebenswelt is the world of everyday experience, everyday world would be much better translation or something else - one should look research english philosophical translation of phenomenologicl works - but Lifeworld is definitely stupid. And it is philosophical not sociological term.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitvok (talk • contribs) 22:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

message: This page is a prime example of why some people (philosophers and those who read nothing but) should not be allowed to write.
"This collective inter-subjective pool of perceiving, Husserl explains, is ... capable of arriving at ‘objective truth,’ or at least as close to objectivity as possible."
'Can man fly?' he asked.
'He can!' I said. 'Or, at least, he can come as close as possible.'
Riselikehelium (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  yawn 

message: The sense of lifeworld in this article is basically Habermasian, which, I think, is appropriate, since he's the outstanding philosopher who has done most with the originally-Heideggerian/Husserlian notion. The external link, "lifeworld and Habermas," is a reliable contextualization of Habermas' sense of lifeworld. I've been a "student" of Habermas' work for several decades, including time spent with him while he was writing the German version of Theory of Communicative Action.  I'm disappointed that betacommand thought (March 21, 2007) that linking to the scholarly Habermas discussion group was inappropriate. Gedavis 21:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lifeworld and Habermas 

message: I've changed the indication of Cartestian Meditations because the notion of lifeworld (translation of 'Lebenswelt') comes from Husserl's Krisis... lectures, not CM. Though Dilthey had a notion of life experience, the specific notion of lifeworld refers to a Husserlian concept that Husserl didn't coin until the Krisis lectures. Gedavis 00:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'lifeworld' is late Husserlian

message: One part of the article describes the Husserlian epoche and the historical influences on Husserl concerning this method. I personally find this information redundant to this article. The user of the encyclopedia does not want to be bothered with historical details regarding a different concept. I suggest this part be taken out of the article and that the lifeworld, as a pre-epistemological and intersubjective state (of affairs or being), be highlighted. When there are different ways to portray the lifeworld, they should follow in sequence, preferably with the oldest of origin first. The rest may follow in chronological order or otherwise as ye seem fit. Or what do ye think?Ostracon (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ye? Wophi (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Status of the Article 

message: I'm taking as a given that the term can be traced to Husserl and phenomenology, and taking the initial statements about it at face value. I was heartened to see the mention of biology in the initial paragraph, but then no further mention. This comment is about the missing link to biology.
I believe there is conceptual value in exploring the connection between Husserl's "lifeworld" and the non-verbal, baseline environment manifested by the organism's innate biology, an environment that will be objectively different for different organisms due to each one's perceptual equipment, e.g., what color spectrum is available to the organism? what is the scale of that part of the environment co-incident with the scale of the organism itself? how many sensory modalities are providing experiential signals without the organism doing anything to investigate a particular patch for it's food signs or mating potential? 
The name that comes to mind is Jakob von Uexküll [I don't know how to link to the Wikipedia article on him] and his concept of the umwelt.
 
I'm not in a position to examine the degree to which there is an underlying concept to which both concepts can be seen as related, which would bring lifeworld more sharply into focus.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.193.102 (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biology was Mentioned Initially but not Followed Up 

message: The section Lebenswelt#The_sociological_concept gives
* very few place, actually a single sentence, to Albert Schütz, however he is the one who imported the notion of lifeworld in sociology a gave it corresponding (and sensible) meaning
* much too much place to Habermas, even elaborating on concepts of his which are not directly related (colonisation, instrumental rationality...)
I cannot balance myself, sorry.
PS : Like Calrad above, I would relate lifeworld to the notion of Umwelt by Jakob von Uexküll. However, I don't know how to make the relation in WP --and source it-- if no published author have made the relation. denis 'spir' (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  balance in part "The_sociological_concept"