Therefore reflection structurally splits the subject (subject of reflection / reflected subject); reconstruction objectifies too, so no method escapes.
Evidence (1)
Dialectical view
Public arguments concluding to this claim, and structural counter-arguments that contest it. Each side may be empty — that is honest, not absent.
Arguments for (1)
Arguments against (2)
- 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.untested-default
- Reflection leaves the pre-reflexive Ego intact: it is a consummation or disclosing intensification of what is already lived, not a falsifying mirror, so no structural split follows from reflective seltested-undermined
Respond to this claim on Isonomia
Build or challenge arguments with structured reasoning in the Digital Agora.