1. The ‘Analogies’ and After
2. I consulted the German text,Philosophie als strenge Wissenschaft, ed. by W. Szilasi, Frankfurt 1965; an English translation was not available to me.
3. My way of referring to The Idea of Phenomenology of 1907. I have consulted the Alston & Nakhnikian translation.
4. Full title in the original: Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie of 1913, subsequently volume I. I have consulted the Boyce Gibson translation, Collier Books, New York 1962.
5. A problem that comes to mind is how eidetic accounts of noeses relate to eidetic accounts of the contents of noeses or noemata. Should we say that a noetic essence is specified by the various noematic contents? In views of the multifariousness of noematic content, that would make havoc of rational genus/species relationships. Should we say then, in order to avoid this impasse, that eidetic accounts of noeses will render noematic essences as well? But this is tantamount to invoking direct attention to noemata without a detour via an eidetic account of noeses. Husserl of course wants a parallelism of noetic and noematic essences as, e.g., in the case of the essence of a perception of a physical object in genere (cf.Ideas, §75), but there is a sense of paradox in having eideticism addressed to noeses in the first place do double duty.