-
1.
- Pick an issue which Husserl discusses in our readings from the Logical
Investigations and explain how and why his view has changed, and how
it hasn’t, by the time of the Ideas. Are there subtle changes one might
miss? Or: are there hidden continuities? (Either of those would be especially
interesting.) Do changes in terminology obscure the issue? If so try to
untangle them.
-
2.
- Pick some aspect of Husserl’s views (in the Logical Investigations, the
Ideas, or both) which seems to be wrong or confused. Explain why it seems
wrong or confused. Then, explain how Husserl would defend it. (Note: there
obviously might be objections against which Husserl would have no defense,
or no good defense. This topic suggests not writing about those, but rather
about the ones Husserl could meet. On the other hand, the objection had
better be serious, or Husserl’s response will not be interesting.)
-
3.
- Pick an outstanding contemporary and/or traditional epistemological
problem and explain how Husserl intends to solve (or dissolve) it. If you
are familiar with a historical figure who is also on Husserl’s mind — for
example: Descartes, Hume, Kant — you might do this by explaining how
they frame a certain problem (based on the way Husserl likely interprets
them), and then saying what Husserl thinks is correct in their statement and
where he thinks they go wrong. (If you are not familiar with one of these, but
would like to be, I can suggest readings.) Otherwise you can pick a problem
you are familiar with from other literature or that you just vaguely know
people tend to worry about, then make a case that Husserl is aware of that
problem and show how he intends to address it. “Epistemological problem”
should be taken broadly here to include problems about knowledge, certainty,
justification, demonstrability, referntiality/intentionality, or anything else
that seems closely related to those.