{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/87614"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/87614","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"Eidos and Facticity in Husserl's Phenomenology of Judgment","abstract":"\"The study concludes that Husserl's attempt, as well as Heidegger's, falls short. Husserl's fails because in both his \"\"static\"\" and \"\"genetic\"\" analyses of judgment he is compelled to cite an irremediably factical element as a transcendental explanatory factor, \"\"pure matter\"\" in the former case and the \"\"absolute now\"\" in the latter. Heidegger's account fails insofar as: (1) he accounts for the satisfaction of objectively warranted judgment's general necessary conditions in Dasein's Being in what amount to a priori, eidetic terms; and (2) he makes a necessary condition an irremediably non-eidetic factor, namely Dasein's pre-understanding of Being's general meaning. Despite their outward differences, then, both Husserl's and Heidegger's phenomenologies in their analyses of judgment fail for the ways in which eidos and facticity become related to one another.\"","abstract_html":""The study concludes that Husserl's attempt, as well as Heidegger's, falls short. Husserl's fails because in both his ""static"" and ""genetic"" analyses of judgment he is compelled to cite an irremediably factical element as a transcendental explanatory factor, ""pure matter"" in the former case and the ""absolute now"" in the latter. Heidegger's account fails insofar as: (1) he accounts for the satisfaction of objectively warranted judgment's general necessary conditions in Dasein's Being in what amount to a priori, eidetic terms; and (2) he makes a necessary condition an irremediably non-eidetic factor, namely Dasein's pre-understanding of Being's general meaning. Despite their outward differences, then, both Husserl's and Heidegger's phenomenologies in their analyses of judgment fail for the ways in which eidos and facticity become related to one another."","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Dickens, William Allen, Jr"],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Philosophy","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Melnick, Arthur"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2015,"date_issued":"2015-09-28T16:20:57Z","date_published":"2015-09-28T16:20:57Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:26:30Z","subjects":["Philosophy"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["(MiAaPQ)AAI9989979"],"render_values":[{"text":"(MiAaPQ)AAI9989979","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/87614","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Melnick, Arthur"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Dickens, William Allen, Jr"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2015-09-28T16:20:57Z","10000-01-01","2000"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Philosophy"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Philosophy"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["eng"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/87614","(MiAaPQ)AAI9989979"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["\"The study concludes that Husserl's attempt, as well as Heidegger's, falls short. Husserl's fails because in both his \"\"static\"\" and \"\"genetic\"\" analyses of judgment he is compelled to cite an irremediably factical element as a transcendental explanatory factor, \"\"pure matter\"\" in the former case and the \"\"absolute now\"\" in the latter. Heidegger's account fails insofar as: (1) he accounts for the satisfaction of objectively warranted judgment's general necessary conditions in Dasein's Being in what amount to a priori, eidetic terms; and (2) he makes a necessary condition an irremediably non-eidetic factor, namely Dasein's pre-understanding of Being's general meaning. Despite their outward differences, then, both Husserl's and Heidegger's phenomenologies in their analyses of judgment fail for the ways in which eidos and facticity become related to one another.\"","Made available in DSpace on 2015-09-28T16:20:57Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4848 bytes, checksum: 96035ab3f5e1c23cc7138a224ce498bd (MD5) 9989979.pdf: 8555353 bytes, checksum: 9fb869fdda18b149bb042e6ae400a271 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2000","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 88895 Lift date: Forever Reason: Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","U of I Only","138 p.","Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2000."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Eidos and Facticity in Husserl's Phenomenology of Judgment"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Melnick, Arthur"],"dc:creator":["Dickens, William Allen, Jr"],"dc:date":["2015-09-28T16:20:57Z","10000-01-01","2000"],"dc:description":["\"The study concludes that Husserl's attempt, as well as Heidegger's, falls short. Husserl's fails because in both his \"\"static\"\" and \"\"genetic\"\" analyses of judgment he is compelled to cite an irremediably factical element as a transcendental explanatory factor, \"\"pure matter\"\" in the former case and the \"\"absolute now\"\" in the latter. Heidegger's account fails insofar as: (1) he accounts for the satisfaction of objectively warranted judgment's general necessary conditions in Dasein's Being in what amount to a priori, eidetic terms; and (2) he makes a necessary condition an irremediably non-eidetic factor, namely Dasein's pre-understanding of Being's general meaning. Despite their outward differences, then, both Husserl's and Heidegger's phenomenologies in their analyses of judgment fail for the ways in which eidos and facticity become related to one another.\"","Made available in DSpace on 2015-09-28T16:20:57Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4848 bytes, checksum: 96035ab3f5e1c23cc7138a224ce498bd (MD5) 9989979.pdf: 8555353 bytes, checksum: 9fb869fdda18b149bb042e6ae400a271 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2000","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 88895 Lift date: Forever Reason: Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","U of I Only","138 p.","Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2000."],"dc:identifier":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/87614","(MiAaPQ)AAI9989979"],"dc:language":["eng"],"dc:subject":["Philosophy"],"dc:title":["Eidos and Facticity in Husserl's Phenomenology of Judgment"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Philosophy"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:26:30Z"}