Natorp's reconstruction is itself a form of objectivating construction, so it falls to the very critique Natorp leveled at reflective phenomenology; no method escapes objectification.

Natorp's reconstruction is itself a form of objectivating construction, so it falls to the very critique Natorp leveled at reflective phenomenology; no method escapes objectification.

• A method that objectifies cannot deliver non-objectifying access to subjectivity, by Natorp's own standard.
• Reconstruction reverses objectification only by producing another construction: a methodical, objectivating re-presentation of the immediate.

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

• Does D actually deny or entail the denial of C, or only under an uncharitable reading of D?Open
• Is C presupposed by every way of maintaining D, or only by this particular formulation or speech act? (absolute vs. merely pragmatic self-refutation)Open
• Do the denial and the presupposition concern C at the same level and scope (use vs. mention, type vs. token, the act of asserting vs. the content asserted)? If the levels differ, the refutation trades on equivocation.Open
• Does maintaining D genuinely presuppose or instantiate C, or is the alleged presupposition spurious?Open
• Can D be weakened or reformulated so as to keep its point while avoiding the presupposition of C?Open
• Even granting that D cannot be consistently asserted, does that warrant rejecting D as false rather than merely as unassertable?Open

No one has cited this argument yet.

No arguments cite this one yet — no one has built on or contested it. That is an absence of engagement, not a finding of soundness. Build on or contest it on Isonomia to change that.