بررسی من استعلاییِ کانت از نگاه سلبی

Negative attitude on Transcendental Ego in Kant

Masoud Omid¹, Behzad Hassanpour²

1. 1.   Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Tabriz, (correspondent author) E-mail: masoud_omid1345@yahoo.com
2. 2.   Ph.D. Candidate of Philosophy, University of Tabriz, E-mail: behzadhassanpour1@gmail.com

Abstract

Transcendental ego is not only one of the essential elements in Kant’s philosophical system, but also is the supreme principle in it. One way of deliberating the Problem of Transcendental is to investigate and analyze it from the negative point of view because a negative approach to some problems is an appropriate guide to the affirmative approach. In this article, first, we have compared the transcendental ego with the other cases such as metaphysical ego, empirical ego, mystical ego, physiological ego, and pragmatic ego. In this comparison, we showed that the transcendental ego is not similar to them. Second, we have pointed to some negative characteristics of transcendental ego as follows: 1- Transcendental ego is not an empirical subject. 2- It is not a concept. 3- It is not a representation. 4- It is not intuition. 5- It is not a category. 6- It has not any content. It lacks an ontological aspect.

Keywords: ego, theories, transcendental ego, negative approach, the negation of non-transcendental selves, the negation of non-transcendental characteristics.

Introduction

This article tries to present a report and analysis of the transcendental ego from a negative point of view. By negative approach toward transcendental ego we mean what characteristics of transcendental ego are, and in a word, what transcendental ego is not. First, we have compared transcendental ego with the other cases such as metaphysical, empirical, mystical, physiological and pragmatic ego. Second, we have pointed to some important negative characteristics of the transcendental ego.

1. Transcendental ego in comparison with other cases

1- 1- Transcendental ego is not similar to the metaphysical ego.

We mean by the metaphysical I what is called a "soul" as a substance. According to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and some Scholastic and Islamic philosophers, and some pre-Kantian rationalists such as Descartes and Spinoza "soul" or "ego" is a substance. This substance is a thinking substance. Kant’s transcendental ego is not a substance, because the apprehension and cognition of substance depend on transcendental ego. Soul or metaphysical ego as a substance has a content, but transcendental ego lacks content and is merely formal. Soul or metaphysical ego belongs to the category of substance, but to perceive categories depends on transcendental ego.

2- 1- Transcendental ego is not similar to the empirical ego.

To be Conscious of self-according to the determinations of our state in inner perception is merely empirical, and always changing. This is called empirical I. To perceive this ego depends on transcendental I which is an unchangeable consciousness. Empirical ego contains content, but the transcendental ego lacks content.

3- 1- Transcendental ego is not similar to the mystical ego.

Mystical ego is not exactly similar to the transcendental ego as transcendental unity of apperception just as some thinkers like W.T. Stace suppose it. Transcendental ego has only epistemological aspect and is the pre-condition of experience and empirical knowledge, but mystical ego is the consequence of individual experience which is called mystical experience. Transcendental ego is condition and pre-requisite of sensual intuition, understanding, and reason, but mystical ego is beyond all of them and has no relationship with them. According to the claim of some gnostic, mystical ego can unify with the general or universal soul, but transcendental ego has not any connection to the trans-physical world.  

4- 1- Transcendental ego is not similar to the physiological ego.

Physiological ego is a human being which is composed of a series of cells, tissues, organs, and systems doing mental and physiological activities. Physiological ego is the subject matter of the science of human physiology and it is an empirical problem. Transcendental ego has not any connection with the physical structure of mankind. It has not any physiological and organic nature.

5- 1- Transcendental ego is not similar to the pragmatic ego.

According to Kant, pragmatic ego as a human being is a being who acts freely and independently. Pragmatic ego is studied in the realm of moral, social and political science, but transcendental ego belongs to the realm of epistemology.

2- Some Negative Characteristics of Transcendental ego.

1- 2- Transcendental ego is not an empirical subject.

Transcendental ego is not only the pre-condition of empirical I but also is its necessary base. Transcendental ego validates experience and empirical subject, so it is not an empirical subject.

2- 2- Transcendental ego is not a concept.

Transcendental ego as the absolutely transcendental condition of using any concept cannot be a concept. It is a pure self-consciousness and accompanies all concepts.

3- 2- Transcendental ego is not a representation.

Since the transcendental ego is not the object of any intuition, we cannot have any representation a priori.

4- 2- Transcendental ego is not intuition.

Transcendental ego as a thinking and the primary condition of intuition accompanies any intuition.

5- 2- Transcendental ego is not a category.

Transcendental ego as a meta-categorical subject is not a category, but a vehicle of all kinds of category.

6- 2- Transcendental ego lacks content.

Transcendental ego as the transcendental unity of apperception and as the formal principle of all consciousness and cognition lacks content.

7- 2- Transcendental ego lacks the ontological aspect.

Since transcendental ego belongs only to the realm of epistemology, and since it is neither an appearance nor a thing-in-itself, it is not an ontological case. It is not a substance as well.

Conclusion

Transcendental ego as the philosophical I is not a metaphysical or non-metaphysical ego. We may call it an epistemological- transcendental ego. We can classify any kinds of ego with respect to content and form, so transcendental ego is a formal one.

References

-        Aristotle. (1995) The Complete Works, vol. 1-2, edited by Jonathan Barnes, Princeton University Press.

-        Brook, Andrew. (1994) Kant and the Mind,Cambridge University Press.

-        Caygill, Haward. (1994) A Kant Dictionary, Blackwell Reference.

-        Descartes, Rene. (2002) The Principle of Philosophytranslated by John Veitch, L.L.D, Blackmask Online.

-        Descartes, Rene. (2005) The Philosophical Writings, vol. 1-2, translated by John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch, Cambridge University Press.

-        Guyer, Paul. (2006) Kant,Routledge and Kiganpoul, London.

-        Hume, David. (1989) A Treatise of Human Nature. Analytical Index by L.A. Selby- Bigge, Oxford University Press.

-        Kant, Immanuel. (1964)Critique of Pure Reason, translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan.

-        Kant, Immanuel. (2009) Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, New York, Cambridge.

-        Kemp Smith, Norman. (2003) A Commentary to Kantʼs Critique of Pure Reason,Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.