Note: this assignment is for students in Group IV only.
The assignment is due, as an attachment, via the “Assignments” tool on
eCommons, by midnight Thursday, October 29 (in PDF or any format easily
converted to PDF, e.g. MSWord, LATEX, RTF, plain text).
Please respond to the following question in approximately two pages (double
spaced). (Needless to say this should be your own original work.)
In the third paragraph of §20 of the Fifth Logical Investigation (in last week’s
reading), Husserl says that it is not exactly the same for two acts to have the
“same content” — that is, the same matter — as it is for them to have
the same “intentional object”: sometimes two acts will have the same
intentional object, but nevertheless differ in content/matter. Based on the
reason he gives there, how might he have wanted to modify that conclusion
later? See especially Ideas §§88 and 89. In what sense does having the
same “noematic” object indeed mean having the same content (same
“matter,” in the sense of the Logical Investigations)? What has changed in
between?