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? – user9166 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

I think one could distinguish :

  • unity as a special category ( unity, plurality, totality)

  • unity as " originally synthetic unity of aperception"; this unity is " transcendental" in the original sense, that is, above all categories

  • unity as Idea of Reason ( imaginary focus at which Reason is aiming in its effort directed at the " unconditionned " or "absolute")

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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