Claude Romano (2012) and Andrea Staiti (2015) have recently discussed Husserl’s account of perception in relation to debates in current analytic philosophy between so-called “conjunctivists” and “disjunctivists”. Romano and Staiti offer strikingly different accounts of the nature of illusion and hallucination, and opposing readings of Husserl. Romano thinks hallucinations and illusions are fleeting, fragile phenomena, while Staiti claims they are inherently retrospective phenomena. Romano reads Husserl as being committed to a form of conjunctivism that Romano rejects in favour of a version of disjunctivism. Staiti, by contrast, claims that, from a Husserlian viewpoint, conjunctivism and disjunctivism are equally untenable. I suggest that both Romano and Staiti offer implausible accounts of illusions and hallucinations, and deliver premature verdicts on Husserl in relation to the analytic debates on perception.

中文翻译：

---

知觉错误、联合主义和胡塞尔

Claude Romano (2012) 和 Andrea Staiti (2015) 最近讨论了胡塞尔关于感知与当前分析哲学中所谓的“联合论者”和“分离论者”之间的争论的解释。Romano 和 Staiti 对幻觉和幻觉的本质以及对胡塞尔的相反解读提供了截然不同的描述。Romano 认为幻觉和幻觉是转瞬即逝的脆弱现象，而 Staiti 则声称它们本质上是回顾性的现象。罗马诺将胡塞尔解读为致力于一种形式的结合主义，罗马诺拒绝支持一种形式的分离主义。相反，斯泰蒂声称，从胡塞尔的观点来看，结合主义和分离主义同样站不住脚。我建议罗马诺和斯泰蒂都提供了令人难以置信的幻觉和幻觉描述，