If the ego doesn't exist in non-reflective consciousness but upon reflection it appears, how can non-reflective consciousness ever be analysed? Reflection, by implying the presence of an ego, is surely providing a false representation of non-reflective consciousness, yet surely reflection is also our only way of accessing it?
From what I recall, Sartre suggested something like the recreation of non-reflective consciousness from memory. So for example if I've been immersed in the study of a table, upon reflection an ego is posited as that which was immersed in the studying, but I can nonetheless still know that at the time the ego was not present in non-reflective consciousness. Whilst this solves one problem it seems to bring up other problems, for example how are we supposed to know that our recreation is faithful to the original experience. It seems to defy phenomenology's founding principles to be so dependent on memory.
Probably an old question with old answers - I'm hardly massively familiar with phenomenology (hence my no doubt dodgy terminology), but I'm interested in people's thoughts.
From what I recall, Sartre suggested something like the recreation of non-reflective consciousness from memory. So for example if I've been immersed in the study of a table, upon reflection an ego is posited as that which was immersed in the studying, but I can nonetheless still know that at the time the ego was not present in non-reflective consciousness. Whilst this solves one problem it seems to bring up other problems, for example how are we supposed to know that our recreation is faithful to the original experience. It seems to defy phenomenology's founding principles to be so dependent on memory.
Probably an old question with old answers - I'm hardly massively familiar with phenomenology (hence my no doubt dodgy terminology), but I'm interested in people's thoughts.
