Therefore reflection structurally splits the subject (subject of reflection / reflected subject); reconstruction objectifies too, so no method escapes.

Therefore reflection structurally splits the subject (subject of reflection / reflected subject); reconstruction objectifies too, so no method escapes.

• The alternative — that reflection leaves the pre-reflexive intact — is self-defeating, since such reflection would be superfluous.
• Therefore self-fission is structural; reconstruction (Natorp's exit) also objectifies (Heidegger).
• Option B: reflection splits the subject-pole — confirmed by Husserl's "anonymous" ego.

Typed, anchored challenges filed against this argument on the graph, with the responses defending or conceding them. A Proposed attack is filed and awaiting human sign-off — it has not yet defeated anything.

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

• Is the property F genuinely causally or evidentially connected to property G?Open
• Are there other relevant examples that would support a different conclusion?Open
• Is the example cited representative of the population?Open
• Are there relevant differences between the cited example and the case to which the conclusion is being applied?Open
• Is the number of examples sufficient to support the generalization?Open

Cited by 5 · 4 contests