So,
It seems, then, that it comes all down to epistemology getting confused with ontology. This fact is so ridiculously unsurprising to me that I sometimes laugh out loud. If you've ever studied Kant then you know what kind of shit happens when you start confusing words that simply denote a concept with words that denote a thing. If I say anything about the thing in itself, then does that mean that a thing in itself must exist? Hardly.
The more interesting thing going on in this passed reading is that it brings out Husserl's little teleological preoccupation. It comes and goes like women with their michaelangeloes. The reason for Husserl to be concerned with this goddamn teleology, I mean. I think it has something to do with transcendentalism, intersubjectivity and culture. But Husserl is a little intransigent about subjectivity, isnt he? I'm not sure that he's not trying to grab everything too fast with both hands. He should slow down a little. Stupid philosophers with their wanting rigorous sciences.
Brian
