Thesis advisor: Richard Kearney / The argument of this dissertation is that futurity is a central theme of phenomenology, because it is central to a proper understanding of two pillars of the phenomenological method, namely, constituting consciousness and intentionality. The centrality of futurity to phenomenology first manifests itself in all three levels of Husserl's constituting consciousness via the three-fold distinction within futurity between protention, expectation, and anticipation. This analysis of futurity within constituting consciousness reveals that the object of futurity must bear a necessary relation to our horizons of constitution, but an analysis of anticipation itself suggests that futurity cannot be solely contained within those horizons. In turning to that which opens the subject to what is beyond its own horizons of constitution, we see that futurity enables Levinas to insert a level of passive-ication into intentionality, and thereby into ethics and constituting consciousness as well. The consequences of this for phenomenology manifest themselves most clearly in Derrida's parallel analyses of futurity (via the notions of differance and the messianic) and the promise. Through this latter we see the fundamental necessity of both constituting consciousness and intentionality for the phenomenological subject. The dissertation concludes with a brief examination of how these conclusions might apply to the philosophy of religion via an analysis of the question of the possibility or impossibility of the divine. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2009. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Philosophy.

Thesis advisor: Arthur Madigan / Since at least Galileo, not only the technological abilities of natural science but the meaning of science's claims have been shaken to their very foundations, according to Edmund Husserl. We know what scientists say, but we do not know what they mean. Nor, Husserl claims, do they know what they mean. They do what works. They measure, they tabulate, they calculate. But they do not thereby really know the world. And since they are the standing authorities of knowledge in our culture, we do not have a reliable referent to which we can turn for an appropriate standard of meaning. At some level we realize that this piece of paper in my hand is not precisely a geometrical rectangle, in which all four angles are exactly ninety degrees and both sets of sides are exactly parallel to each other, but for the most part we simply identify it as a rectangle and move on. In our everyday experience, Husserl would say, we tend to conflate geometrical space and experiential space. We do not, however, have any real idea why we can do so effectively, even if we are engineers or physicists. Geometrical shapes are categorically different from the shapes we daily experience in our interactions with the world. No matter how carefully I draw lines or cut edges, I can never make a piece of paper (or, for that matter, a cow) that exactly meets the requirements of a geometrical rectangle. Even the fact that geometrical rectangles are, by definition, plane figures, which means they only have two dimensions, rather than the (at least) three that structure any perceptible thing, prevents perceptible things from ever meeting the strict requirements of geometrical figures. Given this basic disparity, what is it that justifies our using these geometrical figures to describe the perceptible world in which we live? If we want to know the world, Husserl tells us, we need to know what our scientific claims mean. This, he claims, is the only way we can meaningfully ground our increasingly science-governed lives. Plan of the Dissertation In this dissertation, then, I undertake the project of identifying more precisely what this problem is and offering some solution to it. My argument will have three steps. I shall argue first that to solve the problem Husserl so helpfully lays out, we need to go back to Aristotle's Metaphysics; second, that although Aristotle proposes a solution for the metaphysical problems implied by using mathematics to know perceptible things, this solution fails to answer the questions as he presents them, even if it is broadly interpreted; and, finally, that there are within Aristotle's metaphysical thought implicit resources for constructing this missing metaphysical justification, and that these can be found explicitly in his way of thinking about the distinction between actuality and potency, in his discussion of the metaphysical implications of knowing, and in his discussion of material causality. The basic problem is that mathematical objects and perceptible things are different kinds of things. We would not say that `Joe's idea is hungry' in anything other than a very metaphorical way, because we recognize that ideas are not the kinds of things that get hungry. Hunger is the province of animals. Ideas are not animals. Ideas, then, cannot be hungry. Mathematical objects and perceptible things, though, while also different kinds of things, are regularly combined. We do say, `This piece of paper is rectangular', although it would seem that pieces of paper (or cows) are not the kinds of things that could be rectangles. In this dissertation, I begin in chapter one with a careful recapitulation of Husserl's articulation of this problem of thoughtlessly conflating mathematical and experiential things. Husserl takes this to be the root of the crisis, not only of the meaning of the sciences, but also of all human meaning. I use Husserl's articulation, rather than simply explaining the problem as I understand it and moving directly to Aristotle's Metaphysics, where I see the roots of its solution, in part because Husserl's work was so influential in shaping my own understanding of the problem. More importantly, though not unrelatedly, Husserl helpfully contextualizes the problem both culturally and historically. He tells us why this matters, and he tells us how it seems to have happened. Both of these seem to me to be crucial to any ultimately successful resolution to the problem. In Husserl's articulation of the problem, he identifies Galileo as responsible for taking it as `obvious' that the `universally valid' shapes of geometry constituted the objectively real component of all things. He argues that Galileo inherits a tradition in which our approximations to `limit shapes' and the increased precision in replicating these made possible by technological advances gradually meld together, such that we learn to take the world to be fundamentally a mathematical manifold. In taking over this tradition, Galileo simply presumes that the world is fundamentally mathematizable and sets about developing methods by which even the concrete sensory plena through which any experienced shape is necessarily presented can be mathematized. Since we take as `given' these assumptions, whose origin Husserl attributes to Galileo, and which remain unjustified metaphysically, Husserl's tracing of the development of these assumptions can help us notice and evaluate them. This will be helpful in recovering the meaning of our mathematical scientific claims, and, ultimately, in recovering the meaning of our non-scientific claims. While Husserl helpfully identifies the problem and begins the historical tracing he proposes with his analysis of Galileo's assumptions, he does not complete the latter project, in part because he died so soon after beginning it. His project in the Crisis, as with many of the projects he undertook as a scholar, gets developed in many different directions, without any of these being completed. He proposes a philosophical-historical retracing of the assumptions of geometry, from its earliest inception through the present. He proposes a simultaneous careful consideration of the metaphysical assumptions at work in mathematical science and the justification necessary for it. He proposes transcendental phenomenology as the way to correctly understand the correlation between mathematical claims and the perceptible world they describe. While the development of transcendental phenomenology and the ways that it can help us come to understand more correctly our interaction with the world are fascinating, in this dissertation I want to focus on Husserl's other proposals toward a solution, namely the philosophical-historical retracing of assumptions and the metaphysical analysis. Specifically, I want to focus on the metaphysical analysis that Aristotle performs on the problems generated by presuming that one can use mathematical objects to know perceptible things. In chapter two, then, I explain more thoroughly the first two proposals toward a solution that Husserl proposes, and defend my claim that this metaphysical analysis in Aristotle is an appropriate continuation of Husserl's project. For completeness, Husserl's project needs, in addition to his tracing of the historical sources of lazy assumptions, an Aristotelian metaphysical analysis of what material and mathematical things are, to clarify whether and how mathematics could be appropriately (or inappropriately) applied to material things. In chapter three, I turn to Aristotle's Metaphysics and cull from its pages, primarily from Books III and XIII, the basic metaphysical questions and problems that arise in Aristotle's discussion of the use of mathematical objects to know perceptible things. I organize these into six central questions: 1) What exactly are the mathematical objects Aristotle discusses? 2) Are these mathematical objects substances? 3) Are these mathematical objects separable from perceptible things? 4) Are these mathematical objects constituents of perceptible things? 5) Are these mathematical objects principles or causes of perceptible things? 6) Is knowledge of these mathematical objects somehow knowledge of perceptible things? From these six questions, the basic problem that emerges is that knowledge of mathematical objects requires these objects to be exact, unchangeable, and indivisible, whereas the perceptible things of which they are supposed to provide knowledge are less determinate, changeable, and divisible. It seems like the mathematical objects would have to be separate from these perceptible things to be objects of mathematical knowledge, but if they were so, it is unclear how knowledge of them could be taken to also be knowledge of the perceptible things. These mathematical objects would have to somehow be part of the causal structure of these perceptible things for knowledge of them to be knowledge of these perceptible things. In chapter four, I take up the solution that Aristotle proposes for these difficulties, the `insofar as'/ `qua' (hêi) structure of knowing. Various attributes belong to a given perceptible thing in virtue of various ways of its being. Being green belongs to a plant, for example, insofar as it is a surface. The method of abstraction (aphairesis) allows us to separate out in thought the relevant way of being of the thing, so as to make the appropriate attribution to it. We can know a thing as something, even if that `something' is not itself actually separable. This proposal of Aristotle's begins to resolve some of the metaphysical problems that chapter three articulated. It is not itself, however, metaphysically justified. While it seems that we do regularly make these kinds of claims about perceptible things, it is not clear what justifies us in separating in thought what is not separate in fact, nor just how these various ways of being belong to the unified perceptible thing such that knowledge of them provides knowledge of the thing. This difficulty in giving a metaphysically coherent account of Aristotle's model of abstraction pervades the scholarly literature. Aristotle, it seems, does not have a satisfactory solution to the troubling metaphysical problems he raises about using mathematical objects to know perceptible things. In my fifth, and final, chapter, I undertake to construct from other texts in Aristotle's corpus a metaphysical justification for his model of abstraction that can, in fact, resolve the metaphysical problems that he and Husserl have raised. I find this metaphysical justification in an implicit claim of Aristotle's, to be found in the same section where he proposes his model of abstraction as a solution (Met XIII.3): the claim that mathematical objects are potential substances. I examine what these potential substances are, how they are related to their own actualizations and how they are related to the perceptible things of which they are supposed to provide knowledge, relying primarily on Metaphysics VIII and IX. I consider how knowledge of these could be possible, using texts from De Anima III, and then explore a connection between these potencies and the material cause of perceptible things in Physics II.9. I conclude at last that we are, in fact, justified in using mathematical objects to describe perceptible things. These objects, however, are mathematically describable only insofar as they are material, by which Aristotle means, insofar as they are potential, rather than actual. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2010. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Philosophy.

Thesis advisor: Jeffrey Bloechl / In my dissertation I aim to reconstruct the basic principles of Heidegger’s fledgling attempt at a phenomenology of religion in his 1920 and 1921 courses on St. Paul and St. Augustine. In order to understand the parameters and the stakes of that project I consider it light of Husserlian phenomenology as well as broader German trends in “scientific” [Wissenschaftliche] philosophy, theology, and history of religions. The measure of Heidegger’s success is his account of “formal indication,” which endeavors to provide a reflective (i.e. philosophical) articulation of life without privileging a particular theoretical standpoint. This attempt leads him to reconceive phenomenology as a hermeneutics of factical life and to shift his emphasis from a phenomenology of religious consciousness to a phenomenology of religious life. What distinguishes this account is its focus on the “motivated” or “enacted” nature of meaning from out of life. After reconstructing and elaborating Heidegger’s account I note a problematic tendency toward over-formalization that focuses exclusively on the enactment sense (Vollzugsinn) at the expense of the content sense (Gehaltsinn). I enlist the aid of Kierkegaard, whom Heidegger is reading carefully at this point in time, to show why a focus on the appropriative nature of meaning does not require one to ignore its content. I conclude by suggesting some ways that a modified version of Heidegger’s formally indicative philosophy of religion still may prove useful to us today. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2016. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Philosophy.

Zhu, Xinqu. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2013. / Includes bibliographical references. / Electronic reproduction. Hong Kong : Chinese University of Hong Kong, [2012] System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. Available via World Wide Web. / Abstracts also in Chinese.

本研究有兩個面向。首先，梳理胡塞爾1893-1917 時期的時間觀，把握其對兩個疑難的思考，分別是時間客體如何被感知和內時間意識流如何被建構。其次，藉胡塞爾的內時間意識現象學示範兩種現象學還原的動機──實事的豐富性和認識的嚴謹性──之張力，從而揭示出「諸原則的原則」與第一身觀點的有效界域，此有效界域逼使胡塞爾在1917 後提出「靜態現象學」和「生成現象學」兩種研究方向。這兩種研究方向意味著胡塞爾在1983-1917 的時間意識分析只是他思考時間問題的中途站。然而，這卻是西方哲學史上對時間思考的承先啟後的里程碑。胡塞爾的內時間意識現象學有三個貢獻：(1). 現象學還原方法的準備。(2). 從認識論上追問時間的本原。(3). 對內時間意識流的仔細分析消解了一些哲學疑難。然而，胡塞爾這一研究遺留了兩個疑難：(1). 胡塞爾的內在時間分析難以說明「壓抑」(repression)這一心靈現象。(2). 在追問意識流如何被建構時，所得出的「匿名」主體性之答案，應該如何被理解？不過，這正正顯示著，胡塞爾忠於還原方法及事實的描述，不止息地回應疑難的態度促使現象學成為一門「無窮」的運動。 / This research has a double objective. Firstly, it relocates Husserl’s internal time analysis from 1893 to 1917 in order to understand his two fundamental inquiries, namely how temporal object appears towards consciousness and how consciousness of internal time is constituted. Secondly, it pinpoints the challenge of striking a balance between two motivations of transcendental reduction, that is, attending to the richness of things and securing the evidence of understanding. The study of different ways to transcendental reduction shows the limitation of “Principle of all Principles and the first person perspective. Through the analysis of consciousness of internal time, Husserl came to the awareness that the perspective of static phenomenology he was hitherto pursuing needs to be complemented by the perspective of “genetic phenomenology after 1917. These two perspectives prove that Husserl’s restless analysis of internal time consciousness is a stepping stone which is not only the middle stage throughout his entire philosophical career in his thought, but also a landmark in the history of western philosophy. Husserl’s phenomenology of internal time consciousness has important contribution in the following three issues: (1). The introduction of phenomenological reduction. (2). The question of time origin from a strictly epistemological perspective. (3). Solve some philosophical difficulties in his detailed analysis of the stream of consciousness of internal time. However, Husserl’s analyses leave behind two major puzzles: (1).His doctrine of the spontaneous continuing of internal time consciousness renders difficult comprehension of the psychic phenomenon of repression. (2). The difficulties of understanding the status of the “anonymous subjectivity as the ultimate constitutive origin or the stream of internal time consciousness. Yet, Husserl’s faithfulness to the method of reduction and the description of the things underlines his relentless effort to face every difficulty from the phenomenological attitude, rendering it an “infinite phenomenological movement. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / 鄧文韜. / "2012年9月". / "2012 nian 9 yue". / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2012. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 134-139). / Abstract in Chinese and English. / Deng Wentao. / 導論 / 第一章 / Chapter 1. --- 時間客體如何被感知或向意識呈現? --- p.2 / Chapter 1.1 --- 對客觀時間的懸擱－－回到時間經驗本身 --- p.3 / Chapter 1.2 --- 邁農的「絶對現在論」時間觀及胡塞爾對其批判 --- p.5 / Chapter 1.3 --- 布倫塔諾的「過去想像論」時間觀及胡塞爾對其批判 --- p.9 / Chapter 2. --- 時間客體與其呈現模態 --- p.14 / Chapter 2.1 --- 「立義內容－立義」的圖式詮釋 --- p.15 / Chapter 2.1.1 --- 「呈現」的兩個面向──呈現活動和被呈現物 --- p.15 / Chapter 2.1.2 --- 三種「時段」 --- p.17 / Chapter 2.1.3 --- 三種「時段」和「立義模式」 --- p.19 / Chapter 2.2 --- 「現在」作為所有時間位置的「來源點」(source-point) --- p.21 / Chapter 2.3 --- 流動或連續的直觀──新鮮/原初與派生的回憶和顯在與再現的感知 --- p.22 / 小結 --- p.25 / 第二章 / Chapter 1. --- 內時間意識的時間流/意識流(stream of consciousness)結構如何被建構 --- p.27 / Chapter 1.1 --- 連續的意識流與時間的同一性 --- p.28 / Chapter 1.1.1 --- 「立義模式」和意識的流動性 --- p.28 / Chapter 1.1.2 --- 「立義模式」說明意識流的基礎──意識的三種模態 --- p.30 / Chapter 1.1.3 --- 意識的三層層次立義模式」 --- p.35 / Chapter 2.2 --- 立義模式所導致的無限後退理論困難 --- p.36 / Chapter 2.3 --- 無限後退的補救－絶對意識(the absolute consciousness)的引入 --- p.38 / Chapter 2.3.1 --- 絶對意識所衍生的弔詭(1)－「個體」與「流」 --- p.40 / Chapter 2.3.2 --- 絶對意識所衍生的弔詭(2)－「匿名性」 --- p.44 / 小結 --- p.45 / 第三章 / Chapter 1. --- 時間意識與意向性 --- p.48 / Chapter 1.1 --- 新的時間意識建構(1)──三個「意識」的概念 --- p.48 / Chapter 1.2 --- 新的時間意識建構(2)──意向性與「內在的」、「超越的」的三重意義 --- p.55 / Chapter 1.3 --- 新的時間意識建構(3)──內時間意識的「內」 --- p.60 / Chapter 1.4 --- 新的時間意識建構(4)──縱向和橫向意向性 --- p.61 / Chapter 2. --- 時間意識與意向性「對象化的內在反思」的把握與「非對象化的內時間意識」的把握 --- p.64 / 小結 --- p.70 / 第四章 / Chapter 1. --- 現象學還原在1893-1917 時期的擴充和作用 --- p.73 / Chapter 1.1 --- 前《邏輯研究》時期 --- p.75 / Chapter 1.2 --- 《邏輯研究》A 版時期 --- p.76 / Chapter 1.3 --- 《現象學的觀念》時期 --- p.76 / Chapter 1.4 --- 《現象學的基本問題》時期 --- p.79 / Chapter 1.5 --- 《觀念I》時期和《邏輯研究》B版 --- p.81 / Chapter 1.6 --- 《文章與講演》 --- p.85 / Chapter 2. --- 《內時間意識現象學》所顯現的現象學還原 --- p.85 / Chapter 2.1 --- 從《第一哲學》看成熟時期的現象學還原 --- p.86 / Chapter 2.2 --- 從成熟時期的現象學還原看現象學還原在1893-1917 時期的擴充 --- p.89 / Chapter 3. --- 還原的動機問題與道路 --- p.90 / 小結 --- p.97 / 第五章 / Chapter 1. --- 對海德格和德里達批判的回應 --- p.100 / Chapter 1.1 --- 對海德格的回應－－庸俗的時間概念 --- p.100 / Chapter 1.1.1 --- 黑格爾的時間概念，及其與精神的關係 --- p.101 / Chapter 1.1.2 --- 本原的原初現象和本己時態性 --- p.103 / Chapter 1.1.3 --- 黑格爾對時間的理解是庸俗的時間概念 --- p.104 / Chapter 1.1.4 --- 《存在與時間》中對黑格爾的批判－－對胡塞爾的批判 --- p.105 / Chapter 1.2 --- 胡塞爾的時間理解是否庸俗的時間概念? --- p.107 / Chapter 2.1 --- 對德里達的回應－現在/顯在形上學 --- p.110 / Chapter 2.1.1 --- 「真正的形上學」和「習慣意義上的形上學」的區分 --- p.110 / Chapter 2.1.2 --- 德里達所理解的現象學作為「真正的形上學」──「諸原則的原則」要求 --- p.111 / Chapter 2.1.3 --- 現象學作為「真正的形上學」的困難(1)──溝通與獨白 --- p.115 / Chapter 2.1.4 --- 現象學作為「真正的形上學」的困難(2)──顯在不是本原 --- p.116 / Chapter 2.1.5 --- 「延異」作為本原的補充 --- p.118 / Chapter 2.2 --- 胡塞爾是否「現在/顯在形上學」? --- p.121 / Chapter 3. --- 胡塞爾現象學的界限──諸原則的原則與第一身觀點的有效界域 --- p.124 / 小結 --- p.126 / 總結 --- p.128 / 參考書目 --- p.134 / 詞彙表 --- p.140

戴遠雄. / "2007年9月". / 論文(哲學碩士)--香港中文大學, 2007. / 參考文獻(leaves 134-142). / "2007 nian 9 yue". / Abstract also in English. / Dai Yuanxiong. / Lun wen (zhe xue shuo shi)--Xianggang Zhong wen da xue, 2007. / Can kao wen xian (leaves 134-142). / 目錄 --- p.1 / Abstract --- p.4 / 摘要 --- p.5 / 胡塞爾著作簡表 --- p.6 / 緒論 --- p.9 / Chapter 1. --- 現象學的基本問題 --- p.9 / Chapter 2. --- 現象學進路的特色 --- p.12 / Chapter 3. --- 歷史經驗之意義 --- p.14 / Chapter 3.1 --- 方法論 / Chapter 3.2 --- 硏究課題 / Chapter 3.3 --- 哲學的文化使命 / Chapter 4. --- 全文綱要 --- p.16 / Chapter 4.1 --- 現象學方法 / Chapter 4.2 --- 危機與歷史性 / Chapter 4.3 --- 生活世界與其歷史性格 / Chapter 4.4 --- 歷史性與文化傳統 / Chapter 4.5 --- 結論 / Chapter 第一章 --- 現象學方法 --- p.18 / Chapter 1.1 --- 回到直觀 --- p.19 / Chapter 1.2 --- 現象學懸擱 --- p.22 / Chapter 1.3 --- 現象學還原 --- p.26 / Chapter 1.4 --- 意識現象學 --- p.28 / Chapter 1.4.1 --- 意向性分析 / Chapter 1.4.2 --- 知覺活動的本質結構 / Chapter 1.4.3 --- 意向活動的層次 / Chapter 1.4.4 --- 經驗的可錯性 / Chapter 1.4.5 --- 意識和感性事物的存在 / Chapter 1.4.6 --- 現象 / Chapter 1.5 --- 現象學對自然主義和歷史主義的批判 --- p.36 / Chapter 1.5.1 --- 對自然主義的批判 / Chapter 1.5.2 --- 對歷史主義的批判 / Chapter 1.5.3 --- 自然主義和歷史主義導致懷疑主義 / Chapter 1.6 --- 總結 --- p.42 / Chapter 第二章 --- 危機與歷史性 --- p.44 / Chapter 2.1 --- 西方科學傳統的危機 --- p.44 / Chapter 2.1.1 --- 歐洲人文作爲現象 / Chapter 2.1.2 --- 歐洲人文的歷史性和目的論 / Chapter 2.1.3 --- 哲學理念的誕生 / Chapter 2.1.4 --- 歐洲人文的理性 / Chapter 2.2 --- 現象學方法的修訂 --- p.60 / Chapter 2.2.1 --- 目的論式歷史反省 / Chapter 2.2.2 --- 超越論現象學 / Chapter 第三章 --- 生活世界與其歷史性格 --- p.67 / Chapter 3.1 --- 對自然的數學化 --- p.68 / Chapter 3.1.1 --- 幾何學方法 / Chapter 3.1.2 --- 間接數學化 / Chapter 3.1.3 --- 物理學的世界 / Chapter 3.1.3 --- 意義掏空 / Chapter 3.2 --- 現代哲學的二元論 --- p.78 / Chapter 3.2.1 --- 笛卡兒的二元論 / Chapter 3.2.2 --- 康德哲學的隱蔽基礎 / Chapter 3.3 --- 生活世界 --- p.83 / Chapter 3.3.1 --- 懸擱和還原的重新陳構 / Chapter 3.3.2 --- 世界界域 / Chapter 3.3.3 --- 生活世界作爲普遍結構 / Chapter 3.3.4 --- 意義的土壤 / Chapter 3.3.5 --- 交互主體性 / Chapter 3.3.6 --- 時態化和歷史性 / Chapter 3.4 --- 總結 --- p.98 / Chapter 第四章 --- 歷史性與創生現象學 --- p.99 / Chapter 4..1 --- 普遍的歷史先驗 --- p.99 / Chapter 4.1.1 --- 起源的意義 / Chapter 4.1.2 --- 歷史界域 / Chapter 4.1.3 --- 語言 / Chapter 4.1.4 --- 書寫和傳統 / Chapter 4.1.5 --- 總結 / Chapter 4.2 --- 創生現象學 --- p.113 / Chapter 4.2.1 --- 被動和主動創生 / Chapter 4.2.2 --- 現象學的發展階段 / Chapter 4.3 --- 總結 --- p.117 / Chapter 第五章 --- 結論 --- p.118 / Chapter 5.1 --- 上述四章的探討結果 --- p.118 / Chapter 5.2 --- 胡塞爾現象學的整體刻劃 --- p.119 / Chapter 5.3 --- 海德格論歷史性的初步檢視 --- p.121 / Chapter 5.4 --- 本文的局限 --- p.124 / 現象學詞彙翻譯對照表（德英中） --- p.126 / 參考書目 --- p.134

Although there are both common and specialised senses of the term variation, (the OED lists dozens) there seems to be no well defined use of this term in philosophy. The main task of my thesis is to demonstrate that variation can be defined as a cognitive technique. I suggest that variation has been frequently used by philosophers, although not always in an overt manner. Moreover, I attempt to show that it is reasonable to talk about the relative importance of variation by examining the role of variation in Locke's Essay, Husserl's and Reinach's phenomenology, cognitive science, and thought experiments.

Proefschrift--Leiden--Universiteit, 2005. / Résumé en anglais. Bibliogr. p. 215-217.

Texte remanié de: Thèse de doctorat--Philosophie--Nice, 2002.

Inaug.-diss.--Giessen. / Lebenslauf. "Literaturverzeichnis": p. [82].