Husserl's own pure/empirical-Ego distinction concedes that the transcendental Ego splits into objectified and not-objectified.

Husserl's own pure/empirical-Ego distinction concedes that the transcendental Ego splits into objectified and not-objectified.

• But Natorp's objection is methodological, not merely anti-naturalist, and reflective intuition survives the reduction intact.
• (Zahavi) To deny that transcendental subjectivity manifests is to deny transcendental phenomenology altogether — so the subject-pole must be able to appear.
• Husserl agrees with Natorp's critique of psychology: it is "psychology which seeks to convince itself that it is not psychology."
  Evidence for this premise (2)

  How to return to subjectivity? Natorp, Husserl, and Lacan on the limits of reflection — Natorp and Husserl Reconsidered: The Split Within Reflection

  psychology which seeks to convince itself that it is not psychology.

  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354315611263

  How to return to subjectivity? Natorp, Husserl, and Lacan on the limits of reflection — Natorp and Husserl Reconsidered: The Split Within Reflection

  psychology which seeks to convince itself that it is not psychology.

  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354315611263#unit-6-p1
• Husserl himself must split the Ego into objectified / not-objectified.

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

• Is there a plausible alternative reading of R under which a is not committed to A?Open
• Has a retracted, revised, or superseded the commitment to A (a later move, edition, or passage)?Open
• What record shows that a actually incurred the commitment to A — is the quotation or move accurate, complete, and in context?Open
• Was the commitment incurred in a context (dialogue type, work, period, supposition, or bracketed attitude) from which it cannot legitimately be carried to the present issue?Open
• Does a hold stronger explicit commitments to the contrary that outweigh the attributed one within a's position?Open
• Is B really the same proposition as A, or genuinely entailed by it — or does the attribution trade on paraphrase, translation, or equivocation?Open

Cited by 1 · 0 contests