But Natorp's objection is methodological, not merely anti-naturalist, and reflective intuition survives the reduction intact.

But Natorp's objection is methodological, not merely anti-naturalist, and reflective intuition survives the reduction intact.

• Husserl: this holds only if subjectivity is taken as a natural object; epoché and reduction de-naturalize it.
  Evidence for this premise (1)

  How to return to subjectivity? Natorp, Husserl, and Lacan on the limits of reflection — Husserl: Reflection Brought to Evidence

  a sphere of pure and possibly perfectly clear data.

  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354315611263
• De-naturalizing removes the naturalistic objection only.
• The methodological objection targets reflective intuition, which survives.

These are challenges this argument’s reasoning pattern must still withstand. Answering them on Isonomia strengthens the argument.

• Do all parts have F, or only some?Open
• Are there specific parts that are exceptions?Open
• Are there properties of the whole that do not distribute to the parts?Open
• Is F the kind of property that transfers from wholes to parts?Open
• Does the whole really have property F?Open

Cited by 1 · 0 contests