Abstract

Early twentieth century, despite the intention of philosophy, philosophy objectives and style, philosophy, consistency between the topics and methods, stone wrapped in grams, between Wittgenstein and Husserl still occurred in a debate, or even is a direct conflict: the problems are mainly related to the nature of intuitive understanding. It first stone wrapped in grams and by mutual criticism between Husserl and show it, then wrapped again in stone grams and Wittgenstein's remarks get to proceed. This paper is a review of this conflict, but the basic intent of this article is not only up to this point has been overlooked historical fact of the discovery and reproduction - only constitute the subject of this section. The main problem lies in the reiterated arguments and analysis: What is the concept of existence? What is its concept and intuitive? - This is the second article, three of the discussion. Although at the end of the third quarter has been given a Wittgenstein of Husserl and a summary of their respective positions, the fourth quarter remains in the form of summary, but the vision has been open, has been extended to the spirit of the times of the two observation: the doctrine of ideas and language of Marxism. At the beginning of the 20th. Century, although consistencies in regard to philosophical intention, aim, style, thesis and method, it has happened a controversy, indeed a conflict, between Schlick, Wittgenstein on the one side, and Husserl on the other side . The problem refers mostly to the understanding of Wesensschau . It first emerges from the mutual criticism between Schlick and Husserl, hereafter is continued in Schlick's and Wittgenstein's conversation. This text is firstly a review of this conflict, however, its basic intention lies not in to disinter and represent this always being neglected historical fact, which only constitutes the subject of the first section, but mainly in to reiterate and analyze the question: Whether the ideal being is possible? Whether the ideation of it is possible? This constitutes the contents of discussion in the second and third section. Although a brief account of Husserl's and Wittgenstein's standpoints has already been given at the end of the third section, the fourth section still maintains the form of summarizing, but the visual angle is expanded as far as possible to observe the both kinds of the Zeitgeist: the idealism and the lingualism.