section 1
- Descartesian philosophy was dismissed by Kant as dogmatic and [metaphysical
- Modern philosophy is critical and epistemological, and the investigation of reality is neglected.
- practice and reality are closely related, but reality is limited to [subjective perception
- self-recognition is the basis of object recognition, there is no doubt about the existence of the self
- The act of knowing is a being that transcends time and space, the self is an expression of the world.
- Philosophy is the study of reality (ontology) and questions the foundations of knowledge.
- The method of philosophy must be negative awareness and conscious analysis
- Spinoza’s view presents a conflict between reason and thing, essence and [existence
- Knowledge must include intuition, and intuition is an infinite process.
- Self-limitation of true existence is the foundation of truth-seeking.
- Philosophy should be understood as the self-expression of a reality that truly exists by itself and limits itself
- It is the metaphysics of seeking an external reality that was rejected by Kant.
- Philosophy has a different reason for existence than science and is a science of self-evidence
- The self-expressive world of historical reality is the starting point of a new philosophy.
- Kant’s practical philosophy is only formal norms, not the world of concrete reality.
- Modern times call for a new philosophical starting point and practical principles.
- Since [[Kantian philosophy]], [[Descartesian philosophy]] has been abandoned. It was considered dogmatic and [[metaphysical]]. Philosophy is supposed to be critical and epistemological. It is no longer considered to be a matter of investigating what true reality is and thinking about all problems from that point of view. Today, people consider practice to be the starting point. There is no existence apart from practice. What is merely conceived is not real. But also, true practice must be in the realm of true reality. If not, it is nothing more than a dream. Even if the form of morality is clarified from the standpoint of so-called practical reason, such as the existence of the actual before existence, true practice is not simply determined by form. Here, too, form without content is empty. One might say that true existence is agnostic. If this is the case, then our life is simply phenomenal and dreamlike. No sincere belief that life and death are at stake can emerge from this. Reality is not separate from our own existence. That being the case, the world that is considered to be established through the synthesis and unification of subjectivity, even if it is consciousness in general, is to all intents and purposes a world conceived by the self, the world of the object of perception. Needless to say, no practical action can emerge from such a world of object reality. Like Descartes, we can doubt the existence of all things. But we cannot doubt our own existence. If anything, it is the self that is in doubt.
-
One says that the self cannot know itself. In this case, he is referring to knowing in the sense of object recognition. In this sense, it goes without saying that the self cannot know itself. The self cannot be the object of the self. The object of the self is not the self. Is the self, then, simply unintelligible? The merely unintelligible has no choice but to be nothing. Is the self simply nothing? What is that which calls itself unintelligible? The self that is objectively unknowable must be the most effectively known to itself. On the other hand, when we think that the self knows itself, what does it mean to know in this sense? Knowing in this sense must be the first question. Object recognition must start from there. Those who stand from the standpoint of object recognition also think of the existence of the self itself as an object by applying it to the form of time and space. As a psychological self, our self can only be thought of as such. But it is a thought self, not a thinking self. It is a self that can be any person’s self. It is not the self-existent form of the subjective self.
-
- After Kant's philosophy, Cartesian philosophy was dismissed as dogmatic and metaphysical. - Modern philosophy must be critical and epistemological, and the investigation of true reality has been neglected. - Practice is closely related to reality, and metaphysical ideas are considered to be nothing more than a pipe dream. - Although existence is limited to the scope of subjective perception, there is no doubt about the existence of the self. - The self is not objectively knowable, but it has the most certain knowledge of itself. - Self-awareness is the foundation of object awareness, and the distinction between the object self and the subjective self is important.
-
-
Knowing is a fact, but knowing cannot be thought of as simply a time-space fact. Knowing must be both in and beyond the world of time and space. How is it possible to be in and beyond the world of time and space? This must be thought of in terms of expressive relations. The self expresses the world and is a standpoint of the world’s self-expression. It is through this contradictory form of self-identification that we can conceive of our self-aware existence. We are within the world and always beyond the world. This form of immanence-transcendence, transcendence-immanence allows us to conceive of the one and only self as once and for all, the historical self. The self-aware self must have a history. The form of time and space is also logically conceivable as a form of self-formation in the self-expressive world. Such a world is temporal as the self-negating one of many, and spatial as the self-negating many of one. Knowing is knowing that what expresses is what is expressed, and in awareness, knowing and being known are one. Therefore, to be is to know, and to know is to be. Therefore, in consciousness, existence is essence and essence is existence (essentia = existence). From this existential standpoint, the infinite actuality emerges. The more uniquely individual our self becomes, the more it is limited to itself, and the more it collides with the absolute ideal. It may be said that there is also the mere knowledge of things and the mere existence of things apart from the awareness of our self. But the deeper we think about these foundations, the more we must start from consciousness, as Descartes once tried to do.
-
The problem of philosophy does not begin with how pure mathematics or pure physics is possible, nor does it begin with simply having knowledge or how knowledge is possible. Science, too, is something that has developed in the historical world. When epistemologists speak of knowing, they are already limiting themselves to the meaning of object recognition. The knower itself has already been eliminated. But without knowing, knowing is unthinkable. Herein lies the deep contradiction, the problem. Moreover, once we have taken the standpoint of object recognition, we cannot see the world without knowing. The real world is only that which fits into the so-called cognitive form. It is what is known, not what is known. I believe, as has been the tradition since ancient times, that philosophy is the study of the real world. It is the study of ontos-on, ontology.
ontology.
- Therein lies the essence of philosophy. Philosophy considers various problems from that standpoint. The philosophy of knowledge discusses knowledge, and the philosophy of morality discusses morality. Critical philosophy is a deep reflection on knowledge. For this reason it is a philosophy. It is a serious confrontation between knowledge and truth. But the problem of truth is discarded as the problem of the unintelligent thing itself. If the problem is dismissed, that is the end of the matter, but it must be said that many problems remain there. Philosophy has become subjectivist. Of course, this is not to say that it is psychological, but even the objectivity of knowledge stands in the realm of cognitive subjectivity. Those who argue for the existence of truth have been rejected as metaphysical.
-
-
What, then, is true existence? It must first be something in itself, something that requires nothing else for its own existence (the substance of Descartes’ philosophy). But what is truly by itself must include the other in itself, must include self-denial. It must contain the infinite many in itself, that is, it must work by itself. If not, it cannot be said to be by itself. That which moves by itself, that is, that which works by itself, must contain within itself an absolute self-denial. If not, it is not truly working by itself. As long as something fundamental in some sense is considered, it does not work by itself. Self-negation must be enshrouded in another. It must contain self-denial within itself to any extent, and what works through the medium of self-denial must work by objectifying itself. That which expresses is that which is expressed, and that which works in a self-expressive manner, that is, that which works by knowing, is that which truly contains within itself an infinite number of negations, that which moves itself, and that which works itself.
-
I believe that this is where the philosophical method of how we can find true existence naturally emerges. It is “awareness through skepticism,” or meditari, as Descartes used it in his “Memoirs” (Matao Noda, Descartes). It must be a thorough negative analysis. In his second defense of the “Méthologie,” he says that there are two ways to démontrer proof. One is analyse ou résolution, and the other is synthèse ou composition. Analysis is the way in which things are found out methodically and how fruits are caused by causes. It is a method that, if the reader follows it carefully and pays attention to all that it contains, he will be able to fully prove and understand it as if he had found it himself. Synthesis, on the contrary, is the so-called geometric method, which proves its conclusions by a process of definitions, requirements, axioms, and the like. However, in his “Reflections,” he exclusively uses the analytical method. For, in geometry, the fundamental concept is consistent with sensory intuition and can be accepted by anyone, but in metaphysical problems, it is difficult to grasp the most primitive fundamental concept clearly and intelligibly. By its very nature, it is more lucid than geometry, but it can be understood only by those who are very careful and strive to separate their minds as much as possible from the various preconceptions that we have acquired from our senses and that we have been accustomed to since childhood, which seem to be inconsistent with them. If one insists only on this, he will easily be rejected by those who love to oppose everything. Descartes seems to have been thinking primarily of this as a means of persuasion, but thorough skeptical awareness and negative analysis must be inherent in philosophy itself, and must be the method of the discipline of philosophy itself. I consider the method of philosophy to be negative consciousness and conscious analysis.
-
-
-
The true existence, which is by itself and requires nothing else for its own existence, must understand itself and be aware of itself. Even if it is understood by itself, as in the case of Spinoza, it is already two things, reason and matter, essence and existence, which are in opposition. That which is simply understood by itself is an attribute, not an entity. God, as the substrate of infinite attributes, must be the subject of the world of composibles, the subject of the world of things. What is truly by itself and understood by itself must be a pure fact, a thing limiting itself to a thing. Pure action is already secondary. For such a reality to be revealed, or for such a reality to reveal itself, it must be through absolute negative consciousness. In this, philosophy has something in common with religion. [Philosophy, in this position, is the fundamental source of knowledge. From this standpoint, philosophy grasps the fundamental principle of knowledge. Therefore, the highest principle of philosophy must be contradictory and self-identical.
-
Knowledge is not merely established from the standpoint of formal logic. Knowledge must include intuition in some sense. If it does not, it is not objective knowledge. My intuition is a process in which the end is contained in the beginning. Therefore, each process contains a beginning and an end. This is also true of objective action. But in intuition, every point is a beginning and an end. It is a creative process, and therefore conscious. It is not mediated by time; the process of time is from there. Therefore, intuition is an infinite process. I call it the infinite process by which the reality, which is itself, reflects itself in itself. Intuition is not simply a process that is negated and the final truth is seen once and for all. It is an extremely childish and mystical way of thinking. Artistic intuition is not such a thing. It is an infinite process. Physics, too, is based on the infinite process of action-intuition of our historical, physical senses. Every point in the intuitive process is a beginning and an end, and from the creative point of view, infinite questions arise. Nothing can come from a mere negation. From the standpoint of mere formal logic, any question can be presented. But that is not an academic problem. The problem arises when our self becomes a process of self-expression of true existence. The answer can be found in the question.
-
Our knowledge does not come from the world of mere objects, nor from the world of the self. In conventional parlance, it arises from the mutual limitation of subjectivity and objectivity. This means that our self, as a process of self-expression of that which limits itself by itself, becomes a standpoint of the self-expression of true existence. Therefore, the more truly real (i.e., the more truly individual) our self becomes as the self-limitation of true existence, the more our self seeks truth. True practice also comes from there. Truth is not relative, as the relativists say, nor is it once and for all definitive, as the so-called intuitionists say. Problems contain an infinite number of solutions, and solutions contain an infinite number of problems. This is why I once said that the historical world is self-identical in its problems. As such, all of our search for truth can be described as a negative analysis and skeptical awareness. Science is neither mere judgmental negation nor analysis. Scientific negation must be the denial of our own causal preconceptions and dogmatism from the standpoint of action-intuition. Analysis must be in the sense of Cartesian analysis. Denial for the sake of denial and analysis for the sake of analysis are no better than skepticism for the sake of skepticism. Therefore, the establishment of scientific knowledge must first be from the standpoint of action-intuition.
-
-
-
Philosophy, in this sense, must be a process of self-expression of the fundamental reality that is truly by itself and limits itself by itself, and must be a negative consciousness and a conscious analysis. It must therefore be the basis of all reality, the study of the reality of reality, the standpoint from which we see without seeing, the standpoint from which the world reflects itself. There must be no object, no substratum, in any sense. There must be nothing to be sought by inference. That which seeks proof of itself from another is not by itself. Even if it is a subject and not a predicate, it is not self-evident. The object of philosophy must be that which self-evidences itself, the object without an object. What Kant rejected as metaphysics is metaphysics that seeks existence outside through inference. Philosophy is then reduced to science. And so it cannot have any objectivity as long as it is merely inferential and leaves experience, which is action-intuitive. Philosophy is nothing but fantasy. Philosophy must be a study of objects without objects, a study of self-evidence. This is the reason for the existence of philosophy, which is different from science. Science is established when the self-expressive world expresses itself intuitively in action. The world of science is a world in which form limits itself to form. At its root, there must be seeing without seeing, the world reflecting itself. This is the reason why philosophy must be the basis of science. This is why the method of science is action-intuition. The method of philosophy is consciousness. Both are infinite processes. As I said, my action-intuition is an infinite process. Negative awareness is also an infinite process. As Alan says, skeptical awareness must be repeated many times.
-
The standpoint of philosophy is to grasp the conscious principle that limits itself as the standpoint of seeing without seeing and thinking without thinking. It must be grasped in the deepest conceptual way possible as the principle of true existence that limits itself by itself. When it is materialized, it is nothing more than a dead concept. I believe that since ancient times, philosophy began from this standpoint and has developed from this standpoint to the present day. Socrates’ philosophy also began in the Greek period from the standpoint of skeptical consciousness, and the principle of existence that limits oneself was grasped in Plato’s Idea. However, in the age of the Greek polis, there was still no such thing as true individual consciousness. It was not the world of things that work. It was the world of the Logos, the world of the seen. Augustine’s philosophy of consciousness could be considered to have grasped Christian reality, or historical reality, but medieval philosophy was a philosophy of religion. It was not a question of actuality itself. The idea of reality did not leave the Greek view. It can be said that the reality of medieval philosophy was Christ-like and Greek-like. When the medieval world came to a dead end and entered the age of early modern science, the self-expressive world of historical reality returned to itself and sought a starting point for a new philosophy. It could be said that the world of historical reality, which became conscious of its own personality in the Middle Ages, sought a more natural awareness. Our self returned to the root of itself and sought for the grasp of a new reality. This was the task of Descartes’ philosophy. Descartes’ world was the world of early modern science. However, Cartesian philosophy, from Descartes to Leibniz, still had a medieval philosophical background. It was everywhere inadequate in its relation to God and to the self. I believe that it was with Kant’s philosophy that we entered the philosophy of pure science. Kant’s philosophy is the philosophy of scientific self-knowledge. But the world of mere science is not the world of true existence, which is by itself and limits itself, but the world of true concrete reality. As I said at the beginning, Kant only broke through this problem. Practice, then, can only conceive of formal norms. Kant’s practical philosophy is the foundation for civil morality in modern society. I do not mean to ignore Kant’s moral code, but today’s historical world demands a new starting point for philosophy and a new principle of practice. We must still return to Descartes’ starting point.
-
-
ii
section 2
-
The problem of philosophy is about true existence, which exists by itself and limits itself.
- The method must be thorough skeptical awareness, absolute negative awareness, [conscious analysis
-
Descartes ultimately failed to be thorough in his method and did not depart from [Aristotelian logic
- His search for the real fell into [dogmatic metaphysics
- The “cogito ergo sum” claim is off the path of “negative consciousness.
- Made the objectivity of knowledge dependent on divine perfection and integrity, which reflects the zeitgeist
-
The understanding of cause and reality in Descartes’ philosophy should be understood as being by and limited by the self itself
- Proof of God’s existence explores the relationship between self and God, understood in terms of the logic of contradictory self-identity.
- Existence exists and is understood in the self itself, and must be understood and aware of the self
-
Kant is critical of the dogmatism of the subjective reality, and the reality is constituted by the synthesis-unification of epistemic subjectivity.
- Kant’s method is understood as negative awareness, but not fully devoted
-
Fichte moved in the direction of the materialization of the epistemic subject and made the predicative subject a metaphysical entity
- A new concept of reality emerges in Fichte.
-
The progression of philosophy from Descartes to Spinoza and from Kant to Fichte is contrasted
- Descartes’ and Fichte’s philosophy is criticized from the standpoint of contradictory self-identical awareness
- New logic and real concepts are needed
-
The real in Descartes’ philosophy is not a real that exists by itself; such a real is limited to God
- As a result, our self-independence is lost and our awareness is erased.
- Descartes’ philosophy is not a reality in which the self exists by itself
-
Philosophy needs to rethink the relationship between science and philosophy, and science should also be grounded by philosophy
- Philosophy is the study of self-denial and self-oblivion, and should be a fusion of Eastern and Western cultures
- Forms of true contradictory self-identical logic should be explored.
-
The problem of philosophy is that of true existence, which exists by itself and limits itself, and the method must be thorough skeptical awareness, absolute negative awareness, and conscious analysis.
-
The problem of philosophy is the problem of true existence, which is limited by and to oneself, and the method of philosophy must be a skeptical awareness that goes to any length, or to be more precise, an absolute negative awareness and conscious analysis. It is from here that we can truly put our lives and deaths on the line. In this sense, I agree with Descartes’ problem and method. I recommend that those who enter philosophy read his “Reflections” carefully. However, I believe that he has finally failed to be thorough in his aims and methods. He did not depart from Aristotelian logic. He sought existence in the subjective and fundamental. From there, he fell into so-called dogmatic metaphysics. This is the reason why he had to be rejected by Kant.
-
That which is truly by itself and limits itself must not only be in itself and understood by itself, but must also understand and be aware of itself. If it is not, then it is only an opposition to our self, an object. When he thought of the corporeal, or the corporeal outside of the corporeal, he had already gone beyond the path of negative consciousness and outside of the method of conscious analysis. Of course, this is a proposition, as Spinoza says, of smoothness and cogitation, but the problem must be in this smoothness. If we think of ourselves as an entity in the sense of Descartes, then even the so-called truth that is clearly evident as an internal fact cannot escape being subjective. Descartes was clearly aware of this. He even thought that mathematical truths might be the work of demons. He finally sought the objectivity of knowledge in God’s perfection and in God’s sincerity. Descartes’ idea and Leibniz’s scheduled harmony are both inappropriate for the sharpest minds of our time. When we consider our self as an independent entity, as Descartes did, we are forced to contradict the existence of God. Descartes argued for the existence of God in his “Third Reflection. This is called proof by results. This is called “proof by results,” because we consider the cause of the idea of God in our own selves, and we seek the cause of our own existence. Nothing comes from nothing. Moreover, we cannot seek the cause of the infinite idea of God in our finite self. Nor can we seek the cause of our existence in the next moment in the present self. The creative must be at work there. As the cause, we must acknowledge the existence of God. However, when we think of it this way, the self is not an entity by itself. The only reality that exists by itself must be God. With that, our self-independence is lost, and our awareness must be erased. But God cannot be the mysterious cause of our self. In Descartes’ philosophy, the cause is the self, and the self limits the cause, as in Spinoza’s Causa Sui. It must have the significance that essence is the basis of existence, and existence is the basis of essence. To this end, the relationship between essence and existence must first be investigated.
-
-
-
Descartes again touches on the question of God’s existence in his “Fifth Reflection.” There it is epistemological. What is clear and known is true. The existence of God is at least as certain to me as mathematical truths are certain. But just as the fact that the sum of the three angles of a triangle is a right triangle cannot be separated from the essence of the triangle, so the existence of God cannot be separated from the essence of God. To think of the Supreme Perfect Being without existence is as self-contradictory as thinking of a mountain without a valley. Therefore, God exists. Therefore, God exists, and God, who is perfect, does not deceive. From this we base the objectivity of knowledge, which turns out to be clear in our self. The proof of the existence of God, that the idea of God as the Supreme Being includes existence, should not be dismissed simply by saying that an idea of a hundred yen is not a coin of a hundred yen. God does not exist according to the form of Kant’s philosophy. When the basis of existence is considered logically, I believe that there is a reason for the existence of the Supreme Being (Leibniz, “Quod Ens Perfectissimum existit.”). However, there is no logic in basing the objectivity of knowledge on the sincerity of God. The breakdown of subject-oriented logic is a sign of a breakdown. What is clear and known must be truly understood by itself, as full knowledge. God is an expression of itself. Insofar as our conception is caused by God, it is clear and clear, it is perfect. In short, the Cartesian philosophy that emerged from Cogito, Hergo, and Smoot must come to Spinoza. The Cartesian philosophy, which emerged from Cogito ergo sum, must come to Spinoza: “All things are in God, and without God nothing can be or be understood” (Ethica. Prop. 15, p. 1). Spinoza’s philosophy emerged from Descartes’ substance and reached the extreme of his subject-oriented logic. Here, we have lost all our originality, and we have become an aspect of an entity. We are the aspect of God. As long as our conception is in God, we know. Thus, as our self-awareness is denied, God, as an object, loses the nature that is the basis of our awareness. God, who should be the most concrete of all, has become the most abstract of all, the Caput Mortum.
-
Descartes doubted everything. He wondered if there was nothing in the world but the heavens, the earth, the mind, objects, and even the self. Of course, there is a me who thinks this way. But is there not a great deceiver who is constantly deceiving me? Is there no such thing as a true God? But even if I doubt this, I am still deceived. No matter how much the deceiver deceives me, as long as I think, I am, and I have arrived at the proposition of Cogito ergo Sum. From this emerged the Cartesian philosophy. This, I say, is the insufficiency of Cartesian philosophy. Even if God deceives himself, there is a self that is deceived, and if I doubt my existence, it is I who doubt. The very fact of doubt proves the existence of the self. The principle of existence grasped from such direct evidence must be in the form of contradictory self-identity, not in the form of a subjective existence. The self of Smr. Cogitans is grasped as a self-contradictory existence. The self is everywhere in denial of itself. Moreover, it is not a mere negation, but an absolute negation and immediate affirmation. It must be a reality conceived by subject logic’s denial of itself.
-
-
-
Descartes denied everything from the standpoint of consciousness. However, he did not reach the position of true negative consciousness in the sense described above. When one speaks of a direct evidence, one immediately thinks of it as internal. Then, to emerge from it is to emerge from within. Therefore, there is no other way to emerge from the truth that we cannot doubt. But I think that even here the dictum of subject logic is presupposed. The fact of unquestionable direct evidence is the fact of the contradictory self-identification of the self with things, of the inside with the outside. It is the result of inference to think that there is a self and that such a fact exists, and our self is formed from such a fact. Instead of calling it a fact of direct evidence within the self, we should change it to a fact of self-formation. Thinking is already such a fact. Even doubting is a contradictory self-identification. Of course, I am not an empiricist who believes that knowledge comes from outside. Nor, for that matter, does it simply come from within. The reason why I consider logical origination to be subjective is because I consider the self to be the subject and the thought to be the action of the self. However, logic does not belong to the self, but from logic to the self. The self is conceived as the individual self-limitation of contradictory self-identical logic. If this is not the case, then logic is merely an action of the association of ideas, as the English psychologist once said.
-
The target of Kant’s critical philosophy was the dogma of the subject existent as described above. To think of reality inferentially, leaving the form of intuition, is to fall into the falsehood of transcendental dialectics. It is a self-contradiction of subjectivistic logic itself. Therefore, the significance of reality itself must be changed. The objective reality is what is constituted by the synthesis and unification of cognition and subjectivity. Our self sees itself in self-denial. The basis of existence is sought in the awareness of such a transcendental self. In this sense, I consider the method of Kant’s philosophy to be negative consciousness. Critical philosophy was a negative consciousness of science. However, was Kant’s philosophy truly devoted to negative consciousness? We can think that Kant denied transcendental reality in the subject direction, but sought the ground of reality in the predicate direction. Kant’s conscious self, like Descartes’, is not an entity by itself, but my thinking accompanies all my representations. Our judgmental knowledge is formed by its synthesis and unification. It can be said that the subject that does not become the predicate has conversely become the predicative subject that encompasses the predicative subject and makes all judgments as self-limiting. Of course, there will be many objections to this from various Kantian scholars. I will not enter into these discussions at this time. At any rate, in Kant’s philosophy, the fundamental idea is the subject-object conflict and mutual limitation, as in the beginning of the theory of a priori sensation, in which our self is moved from the outside, and this idea of subject-object logic has not been removed. This is also where the difficulty of the object itself arises. The same is true even if we substitute the opposition of subject and object for that of form and content or material. Fichte, as is well known, moved in the direction of the materialization of the subjectivity of perception in order to eliminate such a non-perfectionist contradiction. The predicative subject became a metaphysical entity that limits itself. This is Fichte’s transcendental ego. I believe that in Fichte, a new concept of reality emerged. In Descartes’ philosophy, the entity that is the self was conceived through transcendence in the subject direction, but in Fichte’s philosophy, it is conceived through transcendence in the predicate direction.
-
-
-
The thoroughness of the direction from Kant to Fichte is similar to the thoroughness of the direction from Descartes to Spinoza. Moreover, they are diametrically opposed directions. From the standpoint of our contradictory, self-identical self-awareness, we can say that the latter is in the outward direction and the former is in the inward direction. Even though they are both metaphysical, Fichte’s philosophy and Descartes’ philosophy stand on opposite sides of the same coin. From the standpoint of contradictory self-identity, the standpoint of awareness of the actual self, that is, absolute negative awareness, Descartes’ philosophy must be criticized, and Fichte’s philosophy must also be criticized. No, Kant’s critical philosophy itself must also be criticized. Kant’s critical philosophy is not free from the dogmatism of the subjective self at its root. This is why I insist that we must return to Descartes’ position of negative consciousness and conscious analysis and reconsider it. Today, as in the age of Descartes, the traditional traditions of thought must be reconsidered and criticized from their very roots, and we must once again return to Descartes’ problems. It is not a question of how objective knowledge is possible, as in the case of Kant, but a question of what is the true existence that is by oneself and limits oneself. Learning is also a product of the historical world. In Kant’s time, the world was conceived of in terms of science. Today, science must be conceived of in terms of the world.
-
From the very beginning, it is dogmatic to think of opposites such as inside and outside, subjectivity and objectivity, immanence and transcendence, and to think of inside from outside is dogmatic, but to think of outside from inside is also dogmatic. It is said that “before existence, there is action,” and that action does not emerge from existence. What then is there to think about? Is there nothing to think about? If there is nothing to think about, then there is no reason to think. If it is a mistake to say so, then there must be a mistaken self. If there is no such thing, then there must be such a self. Descartes said, “Cogito, ergo, sum,” and he emerged from the self. But before that, he even doubted the existence of the self. Then he grasped the contradictory and self-identical truth of the subject entity in which what is thought is what is thought. I think, on the contrary, that a new logic and a new conception of reality had to emerge from this. But he did not go beyond Aristotelian logic and reality. The logic of the idea of the reality of our own self must be the logic of the general person, which includes our self as an extension (my so-called locative logic). Kant’s logic of object recognition is a logic that denied such a reality from the beginning. It goes without saying that the thinking self cannot think objectively. Aristotle’s logic does not encompass the self, of course, but the hypocaemenon, which is the subject and not the predicate, has a wider meaning than Kant’s object of recognition. When I think, that “I” has subject significance. Of course, when I say “I think,” the meaning of “I” is only that of “undecided. For this reason, when I once sought a new position of logic beyond Kant’s philosophy, I returned to the position of Aristotle’s Hippoceimenon. Logic is not a subjective form of our self, as people think today. The standpoint of logic must be a standpoint from which we can think beyond the opposition of subject and object, and also the opposition and interrelationship of subject and object. Our self thinks of itself by means of a logical form. When we deny the dogma of Kant’s philosophy and try to emerge from a new standpoint of consciousness, that standpoint must be logical to the utmost. Then, there must be a deep self-reflection of logic. However, those who carelessly stand from the standpoint of causal logic consider everything beyond the causal standpoint to be mysterious.
-
-
-
After Kant, Hegel was the first to reject the position of the subjective self and to take a purely logical position. Contrary to Fichte, who stood from the position of Ich-Ich, “the self is the self,” Hegel stood from “Yes” (Encyklopädie, *(Roman numeral 1, 1-13-21). §86.). Hegel’s philosophy was the philosophy of a logical reality that is by itself and understood by itself. I think there is something in it that unites him with Descartes. Moreover, unlike Descartes, Hegel grasped a new reality and the principle of logic. This is Hegel’s dialectic. It is through Hegel that the philosophical principle of true existence, which is by oneself and limits oneself, was grasped for the first time. When our self stands in the position of thoroughly negative consciousness, it must be contradicted by the absolutely contradictory principle of self-identity, which is immanent and transcendent, transcendent and immanent. There is no self-awareness whether we consider the self from the outside or from the inside. Self-awareness must be grounded in self-awareness. When one says that self-awareness is from within, the self is already outside.
-
The pure ego subjectivism that started with Kant can be said to have been overcome by Hegel. In Fichte, the pure ego as a subjectivity of perception became the dialectical ego as a doctrinaire, which, as Fichte’s practical ego, I believe, has already opened up a new world of reality. In Kant, the world of the practical self as a moral act became the real world in Fichte. In Schelling, the world became Spinozistic as an absolute indiferenc or idenitate, but it was not until Hegel that it shed its subjective eggshell and became a world of logical and dialectical reality. The world became a world of self-development of objective reason. I am afraid that even Hegel did not reach the position of absolute negative consciousness. It has not yet thoroughly escaped from the subjective eggshell. Hegel’s generic person does not include the true individual. It does not include our willful self, our practical self. Hegel’s reason is opposed to the individual willful self. It is that subjective. It is not a real principle grasped from the standpoint of the awareness of our truly willful self. It may be thought of as the principle of our intellectually conscious self. But it is not the principle of the consciousness of our true practical self, our historical action self. Hegel’s real world is not the world from which our self is born. The principle of the life and death of our self will not emerge from it. When we speak of a volitional self, we think simply of the abstract will of the conscious self. But that is not the true practical self. Each practice must be a historical creation. Our self, in each practical decision, stands in a position of life or death, of crisis. Our practical decisions do not come from within the abstract conscious self. It is only through the dictates of subject logic that we think of them. I have discussed this a great deal.
-
-
-
Our true self is our historical-practical self. There is no practice outside of historical action. Our thinking is also historical action. Where we are made and make, we are aware. Therefore, our self is historical and corporeal. If not, it is only a thought self. To be attached to such a self is to be lost. Absolute negation and immediate affirmation are not possible from the standpoint of the judgmental self. It must be done from the standpoint of the historical self that is created, from the standpoint of the life-death self. Dogen Dogen says, “To learn the self is to let the self be, and to let the self be is to be proven by all the laws of nature. We grasp the true self in the place where we deny the abstract, conscious self, where body and mind are one and the same. We must now reconsider conventional philosophy from the standpoint of such awareness of the true practical self, the self that is body and mind as one. This is why I am again advocating Descartes’ position. However, it goes without saying that the logic of such a position is not Descartes’ subject-oriented logic, and it must be different from Hegel’s dialectic. Hegel’s logic, even as a dialectic, is still Aristotelian in its subject-matter nature. It is the logic of the objective mind, not the logic of historical formative forces in the world of historical practice. We must return to the root of the emergence of logical consciousness in the world of historical practice and grasp the logic of self-formation in the world of historical practice. This would be the opposite of Hegel’s ideological dialectic. In the self-formation of the historical world, form and material contradict each other to any extent, and as a contradictory self-identity, form limits form itself, from form to material and from material to form. There, the form limits itself from form to matter and from matter to form.
-
The relationship between God and the self, as Descartes stated in his “Third Reflection” regarding the proof of God’s existence, can be understood immediately from the logic of contradictory self-identity, which states that the expression of the whole by the individual is the self-expression of the whole, that the world is established when the thing limits itself in a contradictory self-identity between the whole one and the individual many, that the beginning of the self is the beginning of the world, and that the beginning of the world is the beginning of the self. The world is established from the contradictory self-identity logic of “the beginning of the self is the beginning of the world, and the beginning of the world is the beginning of the self. The conflict and interrelationship between the two must be considered as the two causes of the historical world that form the self. The self and God are the two ends of the contradictory self-identity of the finite and the infinite. Thus, as the instantaneous self-limitation of the absolute present, our self exists in the next instant through God. My absolute present is nothing but the absolutely contradictory self-identical form of the many and the one. Furthermore, in the “Fifth Reflection,” the concept of God includes self-existence, and since God is not deceptive, it conversely provides the basis for the objectivity of our knowledge, but the intuitive knowledge that becomes clear to us is the knowledge that our self is evidenced in things in the denial of our self. It is there that our self sees the world as a process of self-expression in action-intuition. It is because we are trapped in the form of subject logic that we think we need the mediation of a transcendent God. It is nothing more than explaining the unknowable by the even more unknowable. The perfect being is by itself, and it must limit itself. It is that which expresses that which is expressed, and it is that which expresses itself. In such a mode of being, what is must be that which proves itself, and what proves itself must be that which is. In this sense, as God is by itself and understood by itself, we can say, as Spinoza did, that all things are in God, and that without God nothing can be, and nothing can be understood. One winter evening, Descartes sat by the fire and began to think. He began to think in historical reality, as the historical-real self. He doubted. He doubted even the existence of the self. However, the blade or the sharp edge of his skepticism did not go to logic itself. He did not reach true self-negative awareness. His self was an abstract self without a body.
-
-
-
Spinoza’s “All that is is in God, and without God nothing can be or be understood.” God, which is in and understood by itself, must be the absolute present, or absolute space, which limits itself in an absolutely contradictory and self-identical way. As a groundless basis, it should be considered the basis of the historical world. In this way, we can give new life to Spinoza’s philosophy. Spinoza’s philosophy has taken a thoroughly subject-oriented turn away from Descartes’ philosophy. There, our self-aware independence is erased and we become God. God has become a negative reality. God, as the absolute present, is spatial in the direction from the projected to the reflected, from the past to the future, and conversely temporal and conscious in the direction from the projected to the reflected, from the future to the past. God is spatial on the one hand as res extensa and conscious on the other hand as res cogitans. Two attributes are thus possible. Aspect is nothing but the form that limits itself as the self-limitation of the absolute present. On the one hand it is everywhere spatial and on the other hand it is everywhere conscious: ordo et connexio idearum idem est, ac ordo et connexio rerum (Prop. 7. p. 2.).
-
Spinoza’s cause is all that which has the significance of Causa Sui. It refers to that which contains existence in its essence, and whose essence can be understood only as existence. Everything that exists as the self-limitation of the absolute present must have such a nature as that which is expressed by that which is expressed. The thing is reason, and reason is the thing. Spinoza’s perfect knowledge must mean a conscious intuition that sees itself in absolute self-denial. Our knowledge is complete where the self is attested to by all the laws. Spinoza says that we have perfect and complete thought insofar as God constitutes the human spirit (Prop. 34, p. 2.). There we see God in self and self in God in an absolutely contradictory and self-identical way. From this standpoint, our self is religious in the very foundation of its formation, and philosophical knowledge is founded on this. Therefore, the method of philosophy is negative consciousness, and the object of philosophy is the object without object, the true existence that is in and understood by the self itself. Spinoza also says that perfect thought means what is true, i.e., what is in accord with the object, as long as it is thought in itself, regardless of the object (Def. 4, p. 2). There, what is thought and what is thought must be one. Spinoza’s famous intellectual love, amor Dei intellectualis, is also based on this. As long as we have perfect knowledge, we are powerful and happy. This must be different from scientific knowledge, which is object-cognitive. Spinoza also said that our mind can only have imperfect knowledge of external things. Perfect and imperfect must differ not in degree, but in nature. There must be a difference in position.
-
Since Descartes, perfect knowledge has been explained by the example of mathematical knowledge. Spinoza’s philosophy of perfect knowledge can also be understood as such. However, if this is the case, then Spinoza’s philosophy must also fall into mathematical subjectivism. But is today’s mathematics of consistency as complete as it was thought to be at that time? In Spinoza’s philosophy, I think the reason why the difference in positions as described above was not made clear is because it was subjectively logical. There must be a turn in the logical standpoint (see “Toward a Philosophy of Religion Using Scheduled Harmony as a Guide”). However, although I insist that the difference between science and philosophy should be made clear, I do not simply consider the two to be unrelated, as one school of scholars does. Philosophy must respect science and use science as its material, and science must be founded on philosophy. It is said that Descartes’ aim in founding Galilee without foundation was to provide a metaphysical foundation for the new natural science. However, this does not mean that Descartes conflated the two positions and included philosophy in science. However, since the rise of science, philosophy has become a servant of science. In recent years, it has become merely epistemological and even pragmatic. Philosophy seems to have lost its own problems.
-
-
-
I am not asking you to return to Descartes’ philosophy. I am simply asking you to return to Descartes’ problems and methods and consider them again. Descartes’ philosophy was overturned by Kant’s Copernican turn. But today, the very position of Kant’s philosophy must be criticized again. Kant’s philosophical method is not the same as philosophical method. The method of philosophy must be Cartesian to the fullest extent. It is negative consciousness and conscious analysis. For this reason, philosophy is not individualistic or liberal. Philosophy is learning to deny oneself, to forget oneself. At this time of great change in world history, we must dig down to the root of Japanese culture and build our thought on a deep and profound foundation. For true action, as Descartes said, reflection and awareness must become the issue.
-
As I have already said, philosophy emerges from the self-contradictory nature of our self. Doubt itself is the problem. I believe that our self-contradictory nature can take us in two opposing directions. One is in the direction of self-affirmation, and the other is in the direction of self-negation. Western culture has gone in the former direction, while Eastern culture has its advantages in the latter direction. However, we must now return to the root of our self-contradictory nature and emerge from a position of true contradictory self-identity. Therein lies the way to the fusion of Eastern and Western cultures. Therefore, I believe that the spirit of our Japanese culture, which developed from Eastern culture, has something absolutely contradictory and self-identical in reality as an absolute and present self-limitation. People consider Western culture as logical and Eastern culture as merely experiential. However, if Eastern culture is simply experiential, then I believe that the basis of Western culture is also experiential. It is not necessarily a logical necessity that we go from a true awareness of our contradictory, self-identical self to an awareness of the object. This is where the subjective tendency of Western peoples lies. In Eastern culture, which is oriented in a self-negating direction, it has not developed its own logic. Today, however, we must have our own logic. If we do not, we will have no choice but to go to war without an airplane. I believe that logic is at the root of Oriental culture. And I believe that it is also the basis of today’s science. As I mentioned in my article “Logic and Mathematics,” I believe that a formula of inference must be a true contradictory and self-identical form of logic. I believe that all the conventional forms of logic, developed from Greek logic, are based on the form of classificatory logic.
-
-
https://www.aozora.gr.jp/cards/000182/files/3216_16432.html
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/デカルト哲学について using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.