Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Husserl's retentional model shows that each phase of experience retains the entire preceding temporal arc, not merely a shared middle segment.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Full retention of entire arc at each phase would require exponential memory growth, making the model empirically implausible psychologically.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Husserlian texts suggest primal impression anchors retention; this implies hierarchy, not equal access to all preceding phases.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If each phase retains everything, the distinction between vivid present content and fading past becomes theoretically mysterious.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Consciousness of melody requires access to prior notes; retention of entire arc explains unified perception without external memory.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Husserlian retention prevents infinite regress: each phase carries full history, so no new retentional act is needed for earlier content.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Phenomenological evidence shows we experience temporal wholes (e.g., a sentence's meaning), not discrete instants, supporting comprehensive retention.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.