Ok, I know that I have to be wrong about this, but for the life of me I can't seem to sort through my own mess. Maybe someone can help me!
We touched on this topic in class a bit. I am having trouble figuring out the logical necessity for the "I", or what seems to be something of a transcendental ego, coming before the transcendental aesthetic. My confusion is this:
1. The transcendental aesthetic is the condition for the possibility of experience.
2. The transcendental ego is the condition for the possibility of experiencing the transcendental aesthetic.
3. We have an intuition of the transcendental ego as a focal point for all experience. (this an intuition through time and space)
4. isnt the intuition of our transcendental ego the condition for having a focal point?
5. if so, isnt the transcendental aesthetic the condition for the possibility of the intuition of the transcendental ego?
So if we are only aware of our centrality (focal point) through time and space, doesn't that give logical priority to the aesthetic as before the ego? musn't there be a transcendental aesthetic in order for our focal point to exist? and also musn't there also be an ego for our intuition of space and time to exist?
Ok, now i am repeating myself. The logical priority of one of these coming before the other is unclear to me. It seems like they both must necissarily exist prior to the existance, or at least the experience of the other; or perhaps the aesthetic must exist for the ego to exist, but the ego must only exist for us to have access to the aesthetic. By that I'm simply trying to avoid "experience the aescthetic" because I don't want to imply they are things in themselves...even though the aesthetic must exist in order for the ego to exist...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I just realized that it might have been better to use "real" instead of "exists". But I am unsure about that.
ReplyDeletethe transcendental ego is not an intuition in this sense. it is certainly not an appearance or an experience.
ReplyDeletethe logical priority of the "I" follows directly from Kant's gambit at the beginning to treat objects insofar as they conform to knowledge. Once knowability becomes the standard for objectness Kant can show the "I" as the ground of all knowledge since all knowledge must, first of all, be *mine*.
ReplyDelete