9

After reading about transcendental Aesthetics and transcendental logic, I perceive three kinds of unity in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason:

  1. Unity of properties of an object which is sensed through apperception, followed by combination/unification

  2. Unity of empirical ego which enables the first unity and reflection

  3. Unity of pure ego (transcendental ego) which exists in every situation and basically enables reflection and any other unification

Are these categorizations right? Or did I misunderstand anything fundamental?

  • 2
    You have identified one of the stable triads of Alchemy: Fixed. Mutable and Cardinal -- Body, Mind and Spirit. It appears to be a common intuition that people map onto all kinds of things from modal verbs, to the parts of Freud's mind, to the abstract virtues, to the Persons of God. It is not at all odd that it should be possible to map it onto several aspects of Kant's system. It may help with organizing your thinking, but what philosophical content do you think this triad has? – jobermark May 20 '15 at 16:15
  • 2
    Hello. How do you understand the term 'unity'? – Ram Tobolski May 20 '15 at 20:02
  • Very timely post for me, I was just doing a deep read of this section in Kant's 1st Critique this morning. Like @ramtobolski I need help with intended use of 'unity' here but also 'unification' and 'ego'. Can be very helpful to look at a conceptual framework in multiple contexts. Was thrilled to see Kant actually invites this. – sourcepov Dec 5 '15 at 19:16
  • 1
    @jobermark Hegel's dialectic: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Lacan's three psychoanalytic orders: Symbolic, Real, Imaginary. Peirce's cenopythagorean categories: firstness, secondness, thirdness. Kant's tables of judgments and categories run through with triads :) – igravious May 19 '16 at 23:52
  • 1
    @jobemark I did an internet search on the triad: cardinal/fixed/mutable. they are categories of astrology. while i can see how these categories were stumbled upon in astrology (hey, if you throw enough mud at a wall some of it's going to stick, right?) they have no place in a philosophical discussion. the thing is, people think that philosophy is a moveable feast of signs and signification. it really isn't. i'm happy to engage you but you have to acknowledge that you're posting in a philosophy forum so the onus is on you to translate your thoughts into philosophical terms. – igravious May 22 '16 at 1:46
-1

You misunderstood when you thought you can be right or wrong, the unity can't have that, so it does not matter the kinds of unity, they are just a way to explain it, you have to understand that every logic created is not the unity, it is a dualistic ilusion.

So if it is rational, words saying something inside, it is not unity, it is "wrong", and the truth is beyong inner words to describe it, because words can only bring keys to your own inner doors to reach that metaphysical unity, not making the realization of it, only by practicing the "critica total da razão" you cant reach it.

The thing is that Kant is studied by people (not saying it about you, but maybe your teachers) so that they can say: "look at how smart I am, I read Kant", but Kant is keys to self understanding, for later on understanding the world with the eyes of unity. And people just looking for intelectual fame just "Kan't" understand that. Peace!

  • The two paragraphs would be more clear if they were separated into three or four sentences. – Mark Andrews Dec 25 '17 at 18:55
  • This does not provide an answer to the question as stated, which is obviously exegetical. This is no question about "the unity" or Indian Idealism, but the categories/concepts Kant himself wrote about. How you think about such endeavour is completely irrelevant here and I, personally, become increasingly impatient with people arguing from inside their box (non-dualistic Idealism, religious dogma, whatever), completely dismissing the core and intent of the question. Enlightenment is not what StackExchange is made for. – Philip Klöcking Feb 13 '18 at 18:22

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.