Edith Stein her student asked the question , letting it open in her book :  Finity and Eternity being. In her later texts she did'nt refer anymore to the "pure" I but to the I.

-Husserl in Ideen zu einer phänomenologie un phänomenologischen Philosophie, Halle, 1913, p 160 says thhat the pure I hasn't  content  and can't be described. But on a other way he uses this notion "pure I" frequently trying to say something else or more than when he uses "I" -

Similar questions and discussions