Abstract

My aim in this paper is to examine two related issues in the debate surrounding the work of Edmund Husserl. I wish to clarify his theories of meaning and noema, and also to challenge the assumption that Husserl's Logical Investigations is inconsistent with the first book of his Ideas with respect to meaning. I also suggest that misunderstandings in these areas are in part responsible for a misunderstanding of the relationship between Husserl and Frege. Commentators have noted Husserl's claim that meaning is a universal which is instantiated by particular acts of meaning, yet characteristically they fail to provide any account of what Husserl takes a universal to be. Here I will provide such an account which will allow me to clarify the relevant issues.