Barber, M. (2008). “Holism and Horizon: Husserl and McDowell on Non-conceptual Content,” Husserl Studies 24(2): 79–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barber, M. (2011). The Intentional Spectrum and Intersubjectivity: Phenomenology and the Pittsburgh Neo-Hegelians. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Behnke, E. (2009). “Bodily Protentionality,” Husserl Studies 25(3): 185–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blattner, W. (1994). “The Concept of Death in Being and Time,” Man and World 27(1): 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blattner, W. (2009). “Transcendental Conscience.” Paper presented at the conference on “Conditions of Experience,” University of Aarhus, Denmark.

Brainard, M. (2002). Belief and its Neutralization: Husserl’s System of Phenomenology in Ideas I. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar

Brandom, R. (1994). Making it Explicit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Brandom, R. (2000). Articulating Reasons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Brelage, M. (1965). Studien zur Transzendentalphilosophie. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brentano, F. (1995). Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint, trans. Rancurello, A. C., Terrell, D. B., and McAlister, L. L.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Brough, J. (1972). “The Emergence of an Absolute Consciousness in Husserl’s Early Writings on Time-Consciousness,” Man and World 5(3): 298–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buber, M. (2002). Between Man and Man, trans. Smith, R. G.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bubner, R. (1975). “Kant, Transcendental Arguments, and the Problem of the Deduction,” Review of Metaphysics 28(3): 453–67.Google Scholar

Buckley, P. (1992). Husserl, Heidegger, and the Crisis of Philosophical Responsibility. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burch, M. (2008). “Estrangement and Responsibility: Heidegger’s Account of Selfhood.” Ph.D. thesis, Rice University.

Burge, T. (1979). “Individualism and the Mental.” In Midwest Studies in Philosophy 10, Studies in the Philosophy of Mind (pp. 73–121), ed. French, P. A., Uehling, T. E., and Wettstein, H. K.. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Carman, T. (1994). “On Being Social: A Reply to Olafson,” Inquiry 37(2): 203–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carman, T. (2002). “Was Heidegger a Linguistic Idealist?” Inquiry 45(2): 205–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carman, T. (2003). Heidegger’s Analytic: Interpretation, Discourse, and Authenticity in Being and Time. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carr, D. (1999). The Paradox of Subjectivity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Chalmers, D. (1996). The Conscious Mind. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Crowell, S. (1999). “The Project of Ultimate Grounding and the Appeal to Intersubjectivity in Recent Transcendental Philosophy,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 7(1): 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crowell, S. (2001). Husserl, Heidegger, and the Space of Meaning: Paths toward Transcendental Phenomenology. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar

Crowell, S. (2002a). “The Cartesianism of Phenomenology,” Continental Philosophy Review 35(4): 433–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crowell, S. (2002b). “Is There a Phenomenological Research Program?” Synthese 131(3): 419–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crowell, S. (2002c). “Facticity and Transcendental Philosophy.” In From Kant to Davidson: Philosophy and the Idea of the Transcendental (pp. 100–21), ed. J. Malpas. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Crowell, S. (2002d). “Does the Husserl/Heidegger Feud Rest on a Mistake? An Essay on Psychological and Transcendental Phenomenology,” Husserl Studies 18(2): 123–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crowell, S. (2004). “Authentic Historicality.” In Space, Time, and Culture (pp. 57–71), ed. Carr, D. and Cheung, C.-F.. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Crowell, S. (2005). “Phenomenology, Value Theory, and Nihilism.” In Husserl: Critical Essays, vol. V, Horizons: Lifeworld, Ethics, History, and Metaphysics (pp. 99–118), ed. Bernet, R., Welton, D., and Zavota, G.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Crowell, S. (2010). “Transcendental Logic and ‘Minimal Empiricism’: Lask and McDowell on the Unboundedness of the Conceptual.” In Neo-Kantianism in Contemporary Philosophy (pp. 150–174), ed. Makkreel, R. and Luft, S.. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Crowell, S. (2012). “Transcendental Phenomenology and the Seductions of Naturalism: Subjectivity, Consciousness, and Meaning.” In The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Phenomenology (pp. 25–47), ed. Zahavi, D.. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Crowell, S. and Malpas, J., eds. (2007). Transcendental Heidegger. Stanford University Press.

Dahlstrom, D. O. (2007). “The Intentionality of Passive Experience: Husserl and a Contemporary Debate,” New Yearbook for Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy 7: 1–18.Google Scholar

Darwall, S. (2011). “Being With,” Southern Journal of Philosophy 49(1): 4–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davidson, D. (2001). “On Knowing One’s Own Mind.” In Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective (pp. 15–38). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

de Boer, T. (1978). The Development of Husserl’s Thought, trans. Plantinga, T.. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

De Caro, M. and Macarthur, D., eds. (2004). Naturalism in Question. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

De Caro, M. (2010). Naturalism and Normativity. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Dennett, D. C. (1989). The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Dreyfus, H. (1982). “Husserl’s Perceptual Noema.” In Husserl, Intentionality, and Cognitive Science (pp. 97–123), ed. Dreyfus, H. and Hall, H.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Dreyfus, H. (1991). Being-in-the-World, A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time, Division I. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Dreyfus, H. (1999). “The Primacy of Phenomenology Over Logical Analysis,” Philosophical Topics 27(2): 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dreyfus, H. (2000). “Reply to John Searle.” In Heidegger, Coping, and Cognitive Science: Essays in Honor of Hubert L. Dreyfus, vol. II (pp. 323–37), ed. Wrathall, M. and Malpas, J.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Dreyfus, H. (2004). “What Could be More Intelligible than Everyday Intelligibility? Reinterpreting Division I of Being and Time in Light of Division II,” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 24(3): 265–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dreyfus, H. (2005). “Overcoming the Myth of the Mental: How Philosophers Can Profit from the Phenomenology of Everyday Expertise.” APA Pacific Division Presidential Address, March 23, San Francisco.

Dreyfus, H. (2007a). “The Return of the Myth of the Mental,” Inquiry 50(4): 352–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dreyfus, H. (2007b). “Response to McDowell,” Inquiry 50(4): 371–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dreyfus, H. (2007c). “Why Heideggerian AI Failed and How Fixing It Would Require Making It More Heideggerian,” Philosophical Psychology 20(2): 247–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dreyfus, H. and Hall, H., eds. (1982). Husserl, Intentionality, and Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Drummond, J. (1979–80). “On Seeing a Material Thing in Space: The Role of Kinaesthesis in Visual Perception,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 40(1): 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drummond, J. (1990). Husserlian Intentionality and Non-foundational Realism. Noema and Object. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drummond, J. (1995). “Moral Objectivity: Husserl’s Sentiments of the Understanding,” Husserl Studies 12(2): 165–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drummond, J. (2006). “Respect as a Moral Emotion: A Phenomenological Approach,” Husserl Studies 22(1): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drummond, J. (2008). “Moral Phenomenology and Moral Intentionality,” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 7(1): 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fink, E. (1995). Sixth Cartesian Meditation: The Idea of a Transcendental Theory of Method, trans. Bruzina, R.. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. (1982). “Methodological Solipsism Considered as a Research Strategy in Cognitive Psychology.” In Husserl, Intentionality, and Cognitive Science (pp. 277–303), ed. Dreyfus, H. and Hall, H.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Føllesdal, D. (1969). “Husserl’s Notion of Noema,” Journal of Philosophy 66(20): 680–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Funke, G. (1987). “Wissen und Wissenschaft in transzendentalphänomenologischer Begründung.” In Zur Selbstbegründung der Philosophie seit Kant (pp. 131–56), ed. Marx, W.. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann.Google Scholar

Gadamer, H.-G. (1976). “Martin Heidegger and Marburg Theology.” In Philosophical Hermeneutics (pp. 198–212), ed. Linge, D. E.. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Gadamer, H.-G. (1991). Truth and Method, trans. Weinsheimer, J. and Marshall, E. G.. New York: Crossroad.Google Scholar

Genova, A. C. (1984). “Good Transcendental Arguments,” Kantstudien 75(4): 469–95.Google Scholar

Gethmann, C.-F. (1974). Verstehen und Auslegung: Das Methodenproblem in der Philosophie Martin Heideggers. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag.Google Scholar

Ginsborg, H. (2006). “Aesthetic Judgment and Perceptual Normativity,” Inquiry 49(5): 403–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gordon, P. E. (2010). Continental Divide. Heidegger, Cassirer, Davos. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Grush, R. (2006). “How to, and How Not to, Bridge Computational Cognitive Neuroscience and Husserlian Phenomenology of Time Consciousness,” Synthese 153(3): 417–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Guignon, Ch. (2011). “Heidegger’s Concept of Freedom, 1927–1930.” In Interpreting Heidegger: Critical Essays (pp. 79–105), ed. Dahlstrom, D. O.. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (1987). The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, trans. Lawrence, F.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (1999). “Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Program of Philosophical Justification.” In Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (pp. 42–115), trans. Lenhardt, Ch. and Nicholsen, S. W.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hart, J. (1999). “Castañeda: A Continental Philosophical Guise.” In The Phenomeno-Logic of the I: Essays on Self-Consciousness (pp. 17–31), ed. Hart, J. and Kapitan, T.. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Hartmann, K. (1988a). “Hegel: A Non-metaphysical View.” In Studies in Foundational Philosophy (pp. 267–87). Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi.Google Scholar

Hartmann, K. (1988b). “On Taking the Transcendental Turn.” In Studies in Foundational Philosophy (pp. 193–219). Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi.Google Scholar

Hartmann, K. (1988c). “Transcendental Argumentation – Options and Preferences.” In Studies in Foundational Philosophy (pp. 237–64). Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi.Google Scholar

Hatab, L. (2000). Ethics and Finitude: Heideggerian Contributions to Moral Philosophy. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar

Haugeland, J. (1998a). “Truth and Rule Following.” In Having Thought: Essays in the Metaphysics of Mind (pp. 305–61). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Haugeland, J. (1998b). “Understanding: Dennett and Searle.” In Having Thought: Essays in the Metaphysics of Mind (pp. 291–304). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Haugeland, J. (1998c). “The Intentionality All-Stars.” In Having Thought: Essays in the Metaphysics of Mind (pp. 127–70). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Haugeland, J. (2000). “Truth and Finitude: Heidegger’s Transcendental Existentialism.” In Heidegger, Authenticity, and Modernity: Essays in Honor of Hubert Dreyfus, vol. I (pp. 43–78), ed. Wrathall, M. and Malpas, J.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Heidegger, M. (1977). “The Question Concerning Technology.” In The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays (pp. 3–35), trans. Lovitt, W.. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Heidegger, M. (1990). Martin Heidegger/Karl Jaspers Briefwechsel 1920–1963, ed. Biemel, W. and Saner, H.. Frankfurt: Klostermann.Google Scholar

Henrich, D. (1994). “Identity and Objectivity: An Inquiry into Kant’s Transcendental Deduction.” In The Unity of Reason: Essays on Kant’s Philosophy (pp. 123–208), ed. Velkley, R.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Hodge, J. (1995). Heidegger and Ethics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hopkins, B. (2003). “The Phenomenological Project of Desedimenting the Formalization of Meaning: Jacob Klein’s Contribution,” Philosophy Today 46(5):168–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hopkins, B. (2011). The Origin of the Logic of Symbolic Mathematics: Edmund Husserl and Jacob Klein. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Hopp, W. (2011). Perception and Knowledge. A Phenomenological Account. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Husserl, E. (1968). Briefe an Roman Ingarden. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Husserl, E. (1973). Experience and Judgment, trans. Churchill, J. S. and Ameriks, K.. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar

Husserl, E. (1989). Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy, Second Book, trans. Rojcewicz, R. and Schuwer, A.. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Husserl, E. (1997). Psychological and Transcendental Phenomenology and the Confrontation with Heidegger (1927–1931), trans. and ed. Sheehan, Th. and Palmer, R.. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kant, I. (1964). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. Paton, H. J.. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Kant, I. (1968). Critique of Pure Reason, trans. Smith, N. K.. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Kant, I. (1996). The Metaphysics of Morals, trans. Gregor, M.. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kapitan, T. (1999). “First-Person Reference.” In The Phenomeno-Logic of the I: Essays on Self-Consciousness (pp. 3–16), ed. Hart, J. and Kapitan, T.. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Keller, P. (1999). Husserl and Heidegger on Human Experience. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kelly, S. (2000). The Relevance of Phenomenology to the Philosophy of Language and Mind. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kelly, S. (2005). “Seeing Things in Merleau-Ponty.” In The Cambridge Companion to Merleau-Ponty (pp. 74–110), ed. Carman, T. and Hansen, M. B. N.. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kern, I. (1964). Husserl und Kant: Eine Untersuchung über Husserls Verhältnis zu Kant und zum Neukantianismus. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kern, I. (1977). “The Three Ways to the Transcendental Phenomenological Reduction in the Philosophy of Edmund Husserl.” In Husserl: Expositions and Appraisals (pp. 126–49), ed. Elliston, F. and McCormick, P.. University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar

Kierkegaard, S. (1971). Concluding Unscientific Postscript, trans. Swenson, D. F. and Lowrie, W.. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Kisiel, T. (1993). The Genesis of Heidegger’s Being and Time. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Kitcher, P. (1990). Kant’s Transcendental Psychology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Knies, K. (2011). “The Practical Obscurity of Philosophy: Husserl’s ‘Arbeit der Probleme der letzten Voraussetzungen’,” Husserl Studies 27(2): 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Köhnke, K. C. (1991). The Rise of Neo-Kantianism: German Academic Philosophy between Idealism and Positivism, trans. Hollingdale, R. J.. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Korsgaard, C. (1996a). “Kant’s Analysis of Obligation: The Argument of Groundwork I.” In Creating the Kingdom of Ends (pp. 43–76). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Korsgaard, C. (1996b). The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Korsgaard, C. (1996c). “Personality and the Unity of Agency: A Kantian Response to Parfit.” In Creating the Kingdom of Ends (pp. 363–97). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Korsgaard, C. (1996d). “The Authority of Reflection.” In The Sources of Normativity (pp. 90–130). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Korsgaard, C. (2009). Self-Constitution. Agency, Identity, and Integrity. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kripke, S. (1972). Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lafont, C. (2000). Heidegger, Language, and World-Disclosure. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lafont, C. (2002a). “Précis of Heidegger, Language, and World-Disclosure,” Inquiry 45(2): 185–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lafont, C. (2002b). “Replies,” Inquiry 45(2): 229–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lafont, C. (2005). “Was Heidegger an Externalist?” Inquiry 48(6): 507–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lask, E. (1923). Gesammelte Schriften, Bd. II, ed. Herrigel, E.. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.Google Scholar

Lask, E. (2003a). Die Lehre vom Urteil. In Sämtliche Werke, Zweiter Band. Jena: Dietrich Scheglmann Reprintverlag.Google Scholar

Lask, E. (2003b). Die Logik der Philosophie und die Kategorienlehre. In Sämtliche Werke, Zweiter Band. Jena: Dietrich Scheglmann Reprintverlag.Google Scholar

Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and Infinity, trans. Lingis, A.. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar

Leung, K. W. (2011). “Meaning and Intuitive Act in the Logical Investigations,” Husserl Studies 27(2): 125–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lohmar, D. (2008). Phänomenologie der schwachen Phantasie. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McDowell, J. (1996). Mind and World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

McDowell, J. (2007a). “What Myth?” Inquiry 50(4): 338–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McDowell, J. (2007b). “Response to Dreyfus,” Inquiry 50(4): 366–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McDowell, J. (2009). “Avoiding the Myth of the Given.” In Having the World in View: Essays on Kant, Hegel, and Sellars (pp. 256–72). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

McKeon, R., ed. (1941). The Basic Works of Aristotle. New York: Random House.

Margolis, E. and Laurence, S. (1999). “Concepts and Cognitive Science.” In Concepts: Core Readings (pp. 3–81), ed. Margolis, E. and Laurence, S.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Martin, W. (2006). Theories of Judgment: Psychology, Logic, Phenomenology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marx, W. (1987). Is There a Measure on Earth: Foundations for a Non-metaphysical Ethics, trans. Nenon, T. and Lilly, R.. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Melle, U. (1992). “Husserls Phänomenologie des Willens,” Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 54(2): 280–305.Google Scholar

Melle, U. (2002). “Edmund Husserl: From Reason to Love.” In Phenomenological Approaches to Moral Philosophy: A Handbook (pp. 229–48), ed. Drummond, J. and Embree, L.. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). The Phenomenology of Perception, trans. Smith, C.. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968). The Visible and the Invisible, trans. Lingis, A.. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar

Mertens, K. (1998). “Husserl’s Phenomenology of the Will in his Reflections on Ethics.” In Alterity and Facticity: New Perspectives on Husserl (pp. 121–38), ed. Depraz, N. and Zahavi, D.. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Mohanty, J. N. (1985). The Possibility of Transcendental Philosophy. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mooney, T. (2010). “Understanding and Simple Seeing in Husserl,” Husserl Studies 26(1): 19–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moran, D. (2000). Introduction to Phenomenology. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moran, R. (2001). Authority and Estrangement: An Essay on Self-Knowledge. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Murata, J. (1992). “Colors in the Lifeworld,” Continental Philosophy Review 31(3): 293–305.Google Scholar

Murchada, F. O. (2003). “Review of Pierre Keller,Husserl and Heidegger on Human Experience,” Husserl Studies 19(1): 93–100.Google Scholar

Natanson, M. (1973). Edmund Husserl: Philosopher of Infinite Tasks. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar

Natorp, P. (1901). “Zur Frage nach der logischen Methode, mit Bezug auf E. Husserls ‘Prolegomena zur reinen Logik’,” Kantstudien 6: 270–83.Google Scholar

Nenon, T. (2002). “Freedom, Responsibility, and Self-Awareness,” New Yearbook for Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy 2: 1–21.Google Scholar

Nietzsche, F. (1969). On the Genealogy of Morals, trans. Kaufmann, W.. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar

Noë, A. (2004). Action in Perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Noë, A. (2006). “Experience of the World in Time,” Analysis 66(1): 26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Okrent, M. (1988). Heidegger’s Pragmatism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Okrent, M. (1999). “Heidegger and Korsgaard on Human Reflection,” Philosophical Topics 27(2): 47–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Okrent, M. (2002). “Equipment, World, and Language,” Inquiry 45(2): 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Okrent, M. (2007). Rational Animals: The Teleological Roots of Intentionality. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.Google Scholar

Olafson, F. (1987). Heidegger and the Philosophy of Mind. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Olafson, F. (1994a). “Heidegger à la Wittgenstein, or ‘Coping’ with Professor Dreyfus,” Inquiry 37(1): 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Olafson, F. (1994b). “Individualism, Subjectivity, and Presence: A Reply to Taylor Carman,” Inquiry 37(3): 331–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Olafson, F. (1998). Heidegger and the Ground of Ethics: A Study of Mitsein. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Øverenget, E. (1998). Seeing the Self: Heidegger on Subjectivity. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Petitot, J., Varela, F. J., Pachoud, B., and Roy, J.-M., eds. (1999). Naturalizing Phenomenology. Issues in Contemporary Phenomenology and Cognitive Science. Stanford University Press.

Philipse, H. (1995). “Transcendental Idealism.” In The Cambridge Companion to Husserl (pp. 239–322), ed. Smith, B. and Smith, D. W.. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pippin, R. (1989). Hegel’s Idealism: The Satisfactions of Self-Consciousness. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pippin, R. (1997a). “Heideggerian Historicity and Metaphysical Politics.” In Idealism as Modernism (pp. 395–414). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pippin, R. (1997b). “On Being Anti-Cartesian: Hegel, Heidegger, Subjectivity and Sociality.” In Idealism as Modernism (pp. 375–394). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pippin, R. (2003). “Über Selbstgesetzgebung,” Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 51(6): 905–26.Google Scholar

Putnam, H. (1975a). “Is Semantics Possible?” In Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers Volume 2 (pp. 139–52). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Putnam, H. (1975b). “The Meaning of ‘Meaning’.” In Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers Volume 2 (pp. 215–71). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rickert, H. (1909). “Zwei Wege der Erkenntnistheorie. Transscendentalpsychologie und Transscendentallogik,” Kantstudien 14: 189–93.Google Scholar

Rickert, H. (1922). Die Philosophie des Lebens: Darstellung und Kritik der philosophischen Modeströmmungen unserer Zeit. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.Google Scholar

Ricoeur, P. (1967). Husserl: An Analysis of his Phenomenology, trans. Ballard, E. G. and Embree, L. E.. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar

Rouse, J. (2002). How Scientific Practices Matter: Reclaiming Philosophical Naturalism. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Rouse, J. (2005). “Mind, Body, and World: Todes and McDowell on Bodies and Language,” Inquiry 48(1): 38–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sacks, M. (2000). Objectivity and Insight. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sacks, M. (2005). “The Nature of Transcendental Arguments,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 13(4): 434–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schalow, F. (1992). The Renewal of the Kant–Heidegger Dialogue. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Searle, J. (2002). Consciousness and Language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Segal, G. M. A. (2000). A Slim Book about Narrow Content. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Sheets-Johnstone, M. (1990). The Roots of Thinking. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar

Sher, G. (2001). “Blame for Traits,”Noûs 35(1): 146–61.Google Scholar

Sher, G. (2006). “Out of Control,”Ethics 116(1): 285–301.Google Scholar

Shockey, M. (2012). “Heidegger’s Descartes and Heidegger’s Cartesianism,” European Journal of Philosophy 20(2): 285–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Siewert, C. (1998). The Significance of Consciousness. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Siewert, C. (2006). “Is the Appearance of Shape Protean?,” Psyche 12(3):1–16; .Google Scholar

Siewert, C. (forthcoming). “Intellectualism, Experience, and Motor Understanding.” In Mind, Reason, and Being-in-the-World: The McDowell–Dreyfus Debate, ed. J. Schear. Abingdon: Routledge.

Smith, A. D. (2003). Husserl and the Cartesian Meditations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Smith, D. W. and McIntyre, R. (1982). Husserl and Intentionality. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sokolowski, R. (1974). Husserlian Meditations. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar

Sokolowski, R. (2000). Introduction to Phenomenology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Spiegelberg, H. (1984). The Phenomenological Movement: A Historical Introduction, 3rd revised and enlarged edn. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar

Steinbock, A. (1995). Home and Beyond: Generative Phenomenology after Husserl. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar

Ströker, E. (1987). “Zur Problem der Letztbegründung in Husserls Phänomenologie.” In Zur Selbstbegründung der Philosophie seit Kant (pp. 107–30), ed. Marx, W.. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann.Google Scholar

Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Tugendhat, E. (1970). Der Wahrheitsbegriff bei Husserl und Heidegger. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tugendhat, E. (1986). Self-Consciousness and Self-Determination, trans. Stern, P.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Tugendhat, E. (2001). “Wir sind nicht fest gedrahtet: Heideggers ‘Man’ und die Tiefdimension der Gründe.” In Aufsätze 1992–2000 (pp. 138–62). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

van Buren, J. (1994). The Young Heidegger: Rumor of the Hidden King. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Vigo, A. (2008). “Phrónesis aristotélica y Verstehen heideggeriano.” In Arqueología y Aleteiología y otros estudios heideggerianos (pp. 213–30). Buenos Aires:Editorial Biblios.Google Scholar

Volpi, F. (1988). “Dasein comme praxis: L’assimilation et la radicalisation heideggerienne de la philosophie pratique d’Aristote.” In Heidegger et l’idée de la phénoménologie (pp. 1–42), by Volpi, F., Mattéi, J.-F., Sheehan, T. et al. Dordrecht: KluwerGoogle Scholar

Volpi, F. (1994). “Being and Time: A ‘Translation’ of the Nicomachean Ethics?” In Reading Heidegger from the Start: Essays in his Earliest Thought (pp. 195–212), ed. Kisiel, T. and van Buren, J.. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar

Volpi, F. (2007). “In Whose Name? Heidegger and ‘Practical Philosophy’,” European Journal of Political Theory 6(1): 31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

von Herrmann, F.-W. (1974). Subjekt und Dasein. Frankfurt: Klostermann.Google Scholar

Wakefield, J. and Dreyfus, H. (1993). “Intentionality and the Phenomenology of Action.” In John Searle and his Critics (pp. 259–70), ed. Lepore, E. and van Gulick, R.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Welton, D. (2000). The Other Husserl. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Williams, B. (1985). Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Wolin, R. (1990). The Politics of Being. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Wrathall, M. (2002). “Heidegger, Truth, and Reference,” Inquiry 45(2): 217–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wrathall, M. (2011). Heidegger and Unconcealment: Truth, Language, and History. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Zahavi, D. (1999). Self-Awareness and Alterity. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar

Zahavi, D. (2003). Husserl’s Phenomenology. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Zahavi, D. (2004). “Husserl’s Noema and the Internalism-Externalism Debate,” Inquiry 47(1): 42–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zahavi, D. (2005). Subjectivity and Selfhood: Investigating the First-Person Perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar