| But we shall have to follow here the guidance of the categories- only, as in the present case a thing, "I," as thinking being, is at first given, we shall--not indeed change the order of the categories as it stands in the table--but begin at the category of substance, by which at the a thing a thing is represented and proceeds backwards through the series. |
| The topic of the rational doctrine of the soul, from which everything else it may contain must be deduced, is accordingly as follows: |
| 1 2 The Soul is SUBSTANCE As regards its quality it is SIMPLE |
| 3 As regards the different times in which it exists, it is numerically identical, that is UNITY, not Plurality. |
| 4 It is in relation to possible objects in space* |
| [*Footnote; The reader, who may not so easily perceive the psychological sense of these expressions, taken here in their transcendental abstraction, and cannot guess why the latter attribute of the soul belongs to the category of existence, will find the expressions sufficiently explained and justified in the sequel. |
| I have, moreover, to apologize for the Latin terms which have been employed, instead of their German synonyms, contrary to the rules of correct writing. |
| But I judged it better to sacrifice elegance to perspicuity.] |
| From these elements originate all the conceptions of pure psychology, by combination alone, without the aid of any other principle. |
| This substance, merely as an object of the internal sense, gives the conception of Immateriality; as simple substance, that of Incorruptibility; its identity, as intellectual substance, gives the conception of Personality; all these three together, Spirituality. |
| Its relation to objects in space gives us the conception of connection (commercium) with bodies. |
| Thus it represents thinking substance as the principle of life in matter, that is, as a soul (anima), and as the ground of Animality; and this, limited and determined by the conception of spirituality, gives us that of Immortality. |
| Now to these conceptions relate four paralogisms of a transcendental psychology, which is falsely held to be a science of pure reason. |
| touching the nature of our thinking being. |
| We can, however, lay at the foundation of this science nothing but the simple and in itself perfectly contentless representation "I" which cannot even be called a conception, but merely a consciousness which accompanies all conceptions. |
| By this "I," or "He," or "It," who or which thinks, nothing more is represented than a transcendental subject of thought = x, which is cognized only by means of the thoughts that are its predicates, and of which, apart from these, we cannot form the least conception. |
| Hence in a perpetual circle, inasmuch as we must always employ it, in order to frame any judgement respecting it. |
| And this inconvenience we find it impossible to rid ourselves of, because consciousness in itself is not so much a representation distinguishing a particular object, as a form of representation in general, in so far as it may be termed cognition; for in and by cognition alone do I think anything. |
| It must, however, appear extraordinary at first sight that the condition under which I think, and which is consequently a property of my subject, should be held to be likewise valid for every existence which thinks, and that we can presume to base upon a seemingly empirical proposition a judgement which is apodeictic and universal, to wit, that everything which thinks is constituted as the voice of my consciousness declares it to be, that is, as a self-conscious being. |
| The cause of this belief is to be found in the fact that we necessarily attribute to things a priori all the properties which constitute conditions under which alone we can cogitate them. |
| Now I cannot obtain the least representation of a thinking being by means of external experience, but solely through self-consciousness. |