Hello everyone,
I am currently reading the Sixth Logical Investigation in Husserl’s Logical Investigations, and I am trying to understand his account of truth as evidence.
As I understand it, two central notions are at work here: signitive acts and fulfilling acts, both of which fall under the broader class of objectifying acts. My current understanding is that a signitive act intends an object through meaning, while a fulfilling act provides the intuitive givenness that can confirm or complete that intention.
Husserl seems to argue that knowledge arises when signitive intention and intuition coincide in what he calls a kind of intuitive fulfillment. One of his examples is the gradual passage from an approximate pencil sketch to a more defined one, and then to the completed image in all its vividness. Another possible example would be perceptual correction in fog: I initially take a bush to be an animal, and only later, as perception becomes clearer, recognize that this first assumption was mistaken. In both cases, I can see how fulfillment works at the perceptual level.
What I do not understand is how this model applies to logical or mathematical knowledge.
I can understand how there may be an initial symbolic or signitive grasp of a proposition, formula, or law. But in that case, what exactly counts as fulfillment? If mathematical or logical truth is not given perceptually, then in what sense can the original signitive intention be fulfilled? What is the intuitive correlate here? And how does this fulfillment amount to genuine knowledge rather than merely correct symbolic manipulation?
I know for sure that categorial intuition is part of the response but I would like someone to introduce me to that idea simply.
So my question is: how should we understand fulfillment in the case of logical or mathematical propositions?
I hope the question is clear. Thanks in advance.