Titlebook: Who One Is; Book 1: Meontology James G. Hart Book 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 Husserl.Religion.experience.knowledge.pe

hypnogram

,Ipseity’s Ownness and Uniqueness, and personal style. Following especially Erich Klawonn we hold the answer to the question of whether what “I” refers to may have an ontological clone to be different in the first-person and third-person. All this is connected to the question of how the transcendental “pure” I is the same and differs from “the myself.”

譏諷

Ontology and Meontology of I-ness, an individual essence or haecceity, and the thesis that there is a coincidence of the bare particular substrate I and the concretum or eidetic singularity (definite description). If we take numerical identity to mean that it is meaningful to say that something is not two, then what “I” refers to is . a numerical identity (H?nigswald).

Nomadic

固執(zhí)點(diǎn)好

The First Person and the Transcendental I, self-awareness is non-reflective and always pervaded by an at least anonymous I-ness. We address opponents such as Humeans, Buddhists and even Casta?eda. Inseparable from this discussion is the analysis of what a “perspective” is, what “first-person perspective” means, and the relation of reflection to first-person perspective.

HERTZ

借喻

使成波狀

共同時(shí)代

Conducive

The Afterlife and the Transcendental I, basic distinction between the non-criterial/non-identifiable identity of one’s unique essence and one’s personal identity. We side with the view that all senses of identity of the self are not to be tied to memory. We discuss the difficulties for phenomenology raised by Shoemaker’s theory of “quasi

bibliophile

Book 2009iptive forms as well as in its property-ascribing forms. Love properly has for its referent the Other as present through but beyond her properties...Transcendental-phenomenological reflections move us to consider paradoxes of the “transcendental person”. For example, we contend with the unpresentabi