Claim8455e371ff1200d05e004bdd60de557dbb6608d06c31917379d8f54af576cf95·Paper reconstruction — Feyaerts & Vanheule (2015), How to return to subjectivity?
Claim
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.
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
Embed this claim
<iframe src="https://www.isonomia.app/embed/claim/8455e371ff1200d05e004bdd60de557dbb6608d06c31917379d8f54af576cf95" width="600" height="280" frameborder="0" style="border: 1px solid #e5e7eb; border-radius: 8px;" title="Isonomia Claim" loading="lazy" ></iframe>
Copy and paste into any website or forum that supports HTML.
Respond to this claim on Isonomia
Build or challenge arguments with structured reasoning in the Digital Agora.