evidenz

is a full certainty which could easily subsequently become doubtful. The definite blue tone of that revolver could easily become a red tone when brought under a different light.

But it does not follow that full certainty excludes the conceivability that what is evident could subsequently become doubtful, or the conceivability that being could prove to be illusion indeed, sensuous experience furnishes us with cases where that happens. Moreover, this open possibility of becoming doubtful, or of non-being, in spite of evidence, can always be recognized in advance by critical reflection on what the evidence in question does. An apodictic evidence, however, is not merely certainty of the affairs or affair-complexes (states-of-affairs) evident in it... rather it discloses itself, to a critical reflection, as having the signal peculiarity of being at the same time the unimaginableness (inconceivability) of their non-being, and thus excluding in advance every doubt as 'objectless,' empty. Furthermore the evidence of that critical reflection likewise has the dignity of being apodictic, as does therefore the evidence of the unimaginableness of what is presented with (apodictically) evident certainty. (Husserl in Natanson 1998 : 24)

is a grasping of something itself that is, or is thus, a grasping in the mode 'it itself' with full certainty of its being that excludes every doubt.

Any evidence is a grasping of something itself that is, or is thus, a grasping in the mode 'it itself,' with full certainty of its being, a certainty that accordingly excludes every doubt. (Natanson 1998 : 24)

is a perceptual object or state of affairs that is experienced as 'being given with certitude'.

With the experiencing of a perceptual object or state of affairs as being given with certitude as this object or this state of affairs, we come to the phenomenological concept of evidence. (Natanson 1998 : 23)

is non-derivative: It presents itself directly to intentional consciousness.It is absolute, 'the blue tone of that revolver as perceived insofar as it was perceived'.

Meanwhile, we are trying to understand Husserl's concept of Evidenz. And the first thing about it is that evidence is nonderivative... it presents itself directly to intentional consciousness: it is the blue tone of that revolver as meant, that is, as perceived, insofar as it was perceived, and no more and no less. In this way, we come to the absolutivity of evidence, the 'itselfgiven' quality of evidence. Husserl writes: (Natanson 1998 : 24)

is not a psychological sense of certitude but rather an absoluteiveity which presents itself in person to consciousness.

The second thing about Evidenz is that no ontological claim attends the recognition of apodictic evidence 'apodictic' meaning not a psychological sense of certitude but rather an absolutivity which presents itself in person to consciousness. In plane Euclidean geometry, there are three kinds of triangles: equilateral triangles, isoceles triangles, and scalene triangles. It is apodictically evident that there are these three possibilities. It is not a logical proof which provides conviction to this evidence, nor is it some order of psychological determinacy which does the trick. 'In person' givenness signifies the apodicticity of an intuition of certitude which rests on neither logical proof nor psychological inevitability. What is meant in this case is the 'state of affairs': precisely three kinds of triangles are possible, every other specimen being either a repetition of one of the three or not a plane triangle at all . (Natanson 1998 : 23)

evidenz, n.Definitions

evidenz