Books on Amazon
DummettVsHusserl: noema not linguistically deducible.
Husserl, noema, means of perception: Vs Direct perception of "uninterpreted given conditions"
Noema: he perceives by means of the noema, but does not perceive it himself nor does he capture it in any other way.
DummettVsHusserl: His assertion that slipping into idealism will be prevented by the distinction between noema and object is not easily understandable. We cannot say that the subject only perceives the object indirectly, as it is mediated by the noema. because there is no concept of direct perception which we could expose to this.
There can be no vocabulary of characteristics of sensations if one considers them as something that is not affected by their interpretation as perception of an external reality. And if such a vocabulary were be possible, we could not use it.
Husserl, perception is not the act in which the meaning lies - same perception, different statement (sense) - same statement (sense), different perception
Def noema: generalization of the concept of meaning "nothing more than a generalization of the idea of the meaning to all the acts.
Dummett: what exactly is the noema of sensory perception? Misses: identify the noema with sensations.
Def Hyle: sensations are described by Husserl collectively as Hyle. He understands them just like Frege. Only through the noema the act of perception gets an object. Therefore noema and meaning are something that refers to an object in the external world beyond itself.
Sensations, however, do not refer to anything, we just have them.
Ursprünge der analytischen Philosophie Frankfurt 1992
Wahrheit Stuttgart 1982