Talk:Bracketing (phenomenology)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 September 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Travisreed37.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

definition of "suspending judgment"

I don't understand this article. In particular I need a seriously explicit definition of "suspending judgment" and "phenomenological analysis." Please do not ask me to read more Husserl to find out. This whole process is circular unless I can get a clear idea of what certain basic terms - including "phenomenological reduction" and these others are saying. That is why I came to Wikipedia. -- 76.109.152.93 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.187.124 (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I stumble on this article 1nov11 and find it well-written and intriguing. To suspend judgement is to put aside questions of whether something is "real", to take something at face value; to pretend something is or might be real while you contemplate it directly. This is the same as reading a fiction story or watching a movie; in order to have the full experience, you must pretend it is true, to accept it, for a while.-96.237.13.111 (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Expanding the Lead Paragraph and Overview

I found the introduction to this article to be a bit sparse. Perhaps we could include more about how Husserl used the term and the way it has been used in contemporary philosophy. The overview could be expanded as well to include the first use of the term and how philosophers view the concept in contemporary literature. I feel there is a lot more that can be added to this rich topic. --Travisreed37 (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Article Content

Article focus heavily on history of bracketing but it does not discuss the practicality of it. A lot of the sources are out of date and need to be updated. Because of this, a lot of information is missing.Stopsigns (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Stopsigns

Needs Work

This article needs a lot of love. There are some missing definitions as well as sections that need some further elaboration. The majority of the article leaves me with questions regarding the information provided. There are also not a lot of great citations and resources to verify the article. Kv.atwood (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Kaitlyn Atwood

I would agree that this article could use a little extra work. Some more contemporary views and use of bracketing would add to readers' understanding and show more of the history. Overall, more description and explanation would do a lot to improve this article. --Mgill161 (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)