1. What are some of the ambiguities of "understanding of the other self"? How do you think Schutz' observations and thoughts on "understanding of the other self" leads to his theory of the phenomenological descriptions of the formal structures of the social world?
As specified by Schutz, some of the ambiguities of "understanding of the other self" refers to a subjective experience in which we put ourselves in the place of the actor (other person) and to identify our lived experience with theirs. If we have already have a genuine understanding of the other person as the observer, we would have a better comprehension of the meanings the "actor" is trying to imply. Schutz uses Weber's model example of the "woodcutter's mind". With this model Schutz thought that without communications or comprehensions we observe the woodcutter's actions and with these actions we interpret them as signs, those signs subject our own perceptions to the interpretation of what we know of a human being cutting wood. " We place ourselves in the woodcutters mind and project that person's goal and where his train of thinking is going through his own perception. But we know with certainty that the other person's subjective experience of his own actions is in principle different from our own imagined picture of what we would do in the same situation (pg. 33)." What he is basically trying to point out is the "intended meaning of an action is always in principle subjective and accessible only to the actor (pg. 33)." The person who observes the woodcutter would have a lot of assumptions running through their mind about the woodcutter while cutting woods. They would probably assume that maybe it's his job? possibly a hobby of his? or maybe he physically exercising? It's the subject's actions that give off signs to the observer in which the signs are interpreted into ones to create their own perception that reaches to a conclusion.
2. Are there similarities between Schutz' phenomenology and Weber's verstehen? Elaborate please.
From my understanding I think there are similarities between verstehen and phenomenology because verstehen refers to understanding the meaning and actions from the actors point of view meaning by entering into the shoes of the other and adopting and organizing their own understanding of it and giving it meaning in which it is seen more as a subject. Verstehen is a deeper understanding of meanings. It is used to analyze important element of culture and society. Therefore we can understand human action by penetrating to the subjective meanings that actors attach to their own behavior and to the behaviors of others. Phenomenology is seen more as an object because it appears as an act of consciousness in which sees things as objects, it is an act as intentional consciousness. Phenomenology tends to recognize the role of description. I think that the similarities they both may have are the mental consciousness that they develop in order to be in the other person's shoes. Overall a deeper understanding of things. Even though I see that the subjects and objects are taken in different approaches'.