Old Style Evie/Why "gods" are bullshit.

[Edwardo Piet]

I find phenomenology one of the most, if not the most, profound subfield of philosophy of all.... because it's not just abstract and conceptual like most of philosophy, it's about studying experience (but the subjectivity of itself) and thereby kind of combines both ontology and the more scientific "natural philosophy", also known nowadays simply as "science".

Example of phenomenology: generally the study of chess would of course be all about the game chess, and how it works.

Whereas the phenomenology off chess would be the study of what it's like to experience playing a game of chess itself, the sights, the sensations, the thoughts the players experience in their minds, as opposed to any of the actual game rules or anything to do with chess itself as game, it would just be the study of the subjective experience of chess.

Phenonmenolgy is the attempt to study the ontologically objective existence of subjective qualias objectively in an epistemic way.

See more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenol...hilosophy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Are we talking about epistemic or ontological objectivity?

More on this point:

From page 25 of The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris:

Many people are also confused about what it means to speak with scientific
“objectivity” about the human condition. As the philosopher John Searle once pointed
out, there are two very different senses of the terms “objective” and “subjective.”
The first sense relates to how we know (i.e., epistemology), the second to what there is to
know (i.e., ontology). When we say that we are reasoning or speaking “objectively,” we
generally mean that we are free of obvious bias, open to counterarguments, cognizant of
the relevant facts, and so on. This is to make a claim about how we are thinking. In this
sense, there is no impediment to our studying subjective (i.e., first-person) facts
“objectively.”

ETA: Again, it's all about equivocation. There are two senses of "objective".