How about you write it here and give us the definition of Wesenschau since your avatar is that of om the single universal intelligence that creates and dissolves the universe, so you must know everything
To make the things more interesting I am going to give free hosting for life (my virtual life:-) on any of the domains listed in my signature in the form yourphilosophyproject.mydomain.com to the first ILP member who writes down the correct answer. The winning answer is one and only one. It is written and universally accessible on the forums of one of my other sites, not listed in the sig.
“The things as they are” are “die Sache selbst” rather than the corporeal or otherwise existierende Dinge. So we are talking about the Sachen qua Wesensheiten and Washeiten, rather than about the Ding als Gegenstand.
On the other hand, if we consider the Ding an sich, isn’t it the Wesen des Dinges beyond the reach of our cognitive powers (according to Kant)?!
As for the Kant’s and Husserl’s understanding of Wesenschau, they radically differ on the question of Wesenschau’s availability. While Kant is denying this faculty to man and reserving it only to the (useful hypothesis called) God, Husserl takes the apriorism to the new heights of material a priori and substantiates the transcendental application of the direct apprehension of truth (Soseinheiten).
The phenomenalism of Kant is the direct opposite to the phenomenologism of Husserl.
Greetings, in the hope that our Canadian BeenaJain will be able to produce at least a simile of mindful reflexion using some generally accepted philosophical terms.