Sorted by date | |||
page108from Building Ideas
This
quest for the heart of things has been phenomenology’s major objective, ever
since Husserl first set out his method of achieving a definition of “ideal”
essences. This highlights the persistent problem of conceiving the relationship
between the mind and the world, just as Kant had discovered in the eighteenth
century, in trying to resolve the argument between rationalism and empiricism.
As Kant concluded, our human faculties impose a set of limits on our potential
knowledge and in attempting to define these limits the search has since shifted
to the experience of the individual “embodied” subject. The problem for
phenomenology has been the extension of these individual insights, to apply to
other individual subjects as part of an “inter-subjective” realm. Like Kant’s
definition of beauty as something experienced subjectively, there is still a
huge leap of faith required to accept that judgements are agreed upon
universally. This rift between the individual and the diverse experience of the
larger society is a persistent problem in phenomenology which many critics have
been quick to point out.
In
architecture there lies the possibility that this problem might be alleviated
through the study of phenomenology’s insights as part of the wider cultural
world. This hope that phenomenology offers possibilities for resisting the
reductive ideology of modern science has been expressed by various writers as
part of a general disillusionment with the state of architecture in the
twentieth century. As the architectural historian Alberto Perez-Gomez pointed
out, in the introduction to his important work on the “crisis” in modern
architecture:
The
problem that determines most explicitly our crisis, therefore, is that the
conceptual framework of the sciences is not compatible with reality. The atomic
theory of the universe may be true but it hardly explained real issues of human
behavior. The fundamental axiom of the sciences since 1800 has been ‘invariance’,
which rejects, or at least is unable to cope with, the richness and ambiguity
of symbolic thought.15
|
|||
|
|||
|