Talk:Phenomenology (psychology)

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Continental Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Continental philosophy

Altered States of Consciousness High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Altered States of Consciousness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of altered states of consciousness on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Altered States of ConsciousnessWikipedia:WikiProject Altered States of ConsciousnessTemplate:WikiProject Altered States of ConsciousnessAltered States of Consciousness articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is there anything of substance in this article?

Does Carl Rogers use the word "phenomenology"? Has anyone used the word to apply to Carl Rogers' thought? DCDuring 15:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The now-scorned philosophical psychology prevalent before the end of the nineteenth century" -- now-scorned, is this not an example of weasel words? (Also, I believe a lot of philosophers are of the opinion that two people with shared genetics and experiences will have the same qualia, the problem is that it can't be proven or even shown in a single case) --Kiwibird 13:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a lot of work. Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences has a request for psychiatric phenomenology, which could perhaps be merged with this, with some reference to Karl Jaspers and also to phenomenological psychotherapy -- see Existential therapy--Anonymaus (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Comments from ten years ago which are still true. So poor the article would be better if deleted perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:15A1:A700:25B1:3B08:C352:91A9 (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article may need to be looked at more thoroughly than I have. The information in the lead section could probably be used in different sections of the article as well. Also, there are many areas that have missing sources. I agree that it seems like the article may need more substance. It has been over a decade, and it does not seem like it has changed much in substance. Taa522 (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article could be significantly improved if some of the information in the article was cut, summarized, and then used to formulate other main points throughout the content. As well, more citations would have to be added. NoahStubbs (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there more known about phenomenology since the article was written? I think that the article does need expansion by way of sources, the history, and the sections already created. It is a beginning that can grow.J1s2f1 (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Structure to the Article

This article is in its beginning/initial stages. It has some fundamental information about phenomenology but lacks any structure or organization. For example, the "Difficulties in considering subjective phenomena" could be split up into different sub-sections. The title of the section would be better worded as "Criticisms of Subjective Phenomena".

There are two great starting places to work on completing this article. One of them being the Lead. It is well-written; however, it lacks a description of what to expect from the article as a whole. What is the purpose? What are the major article sections?

The next best course of action is to find more reputable and quality sources. This will enhance the content and provide better knowledge of what sections to add. Aheuer15 (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

written or spoken word

should that be words?... ELSchissel (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to its usage in the first paragraph. I agree and have changed it. "spoken word" or "written word" can be a collective noun phrase that in American English would not be plural. (See the spoken word article where it is never pluralized.) But in this case it is an individual's communications and so not really collective. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]