Final-Fan said:
I honestly can't remember the last time a poster used an English word I was totally unfamiliar with. (W3NID) noema (noun) in Husserlian philosophy: the objective aspect of or the content within an intentional experience -- distinguished from noesis That seems kinda ... obscurely hyperspecific for this discussion. Also, I don't understand what exactly the "intentional experience" is. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by an "a priori noema"? On a related note, is there any specific reason that that one sentence had such an abundance of 'college words'? |
Husserl thought that the way we talked about comparisons was important and should be very specific. The intentional experience is the active one and may exist before hand, in principle, a priori. Specifying the noema keeps this in the objective vice the subjective realm. The analysis is a little like Kant's in the Critique of Judgment. So in the comparion you might find an element that is common to both SMG and NSMB is used to different ends and in an apparently not ironic sense. When you compare them their will still be tension between the modality of both uses.
Anyway, sorry for geeking out like that. All my graduate and post-graduate studies were in Philosophy, Greek Philosophy and the Early Church Fathers like Augustine up to Aquinas.
The sentence in question was what it was to very narrowly define what type of comparison could yield grist for discussion.








