Fooloso4 wrote:Have you shown any of this to be the case?
No, it is kind of an insight, and the concept of transcendental subject transmigrating through all the points of view to the world we call individuals makes the situation normal again. Only this way the world does not vanish away when I die.
Fooloso4 wrote:I don’t think so. That my consciousness is not within the world does not mean it is independent of the world, it means it is not within the limits of the world. It is not a logical relationship. It is like the relationship between my world and ethics. My consciousness is of the world.
I have my point of view to the world, and you have your point of view to the world. So there seems to be two metaphysical subjects. But you said we cannot say so. In that case, is it not an abstraction? I think there must be a concrete relation between our points of view. If the relation is only that factual relation, a fact of the world, which we all know, then there must be several points of view. In fact I accept the concept of the metaphysical I, but we need to establish a concrete relation between those several points of view, and that is why I have introduced the concept of transcendental subject, which is the unifying principle between them, but it needs the transmigration part to complete the concrete picture, because I think Wittgenstein's view lacks concreteness and is very difficult to understand.
Fooloso4 wrote:I do not see why my not having existed or no longer existing leads to solipsism. Are you using I in an ambiguous way? As both the experiencing subject and as a particular experiencing subject?
If my existence does not depend on time, there must be only one subject, and I have called it the transcendental subject.
Fooloso4 wrote:Again, you seem to be playing on the ambiguity of the term. All experience is mine in the sense of the experiencer, but unless you are doubting the existence of other minds then it does not follow that I am the only experiencer. It does not follow that you are not also an experiencer.
Fooloso4 wrote:...we are somehow one universal subject?
This is the whole point. I think we must modify the old eastern thought of the transmigration of souls so that there is only one transcendental subject that adopts all the ways of being in the world we call individual subjects. How this is possible, and how it takes place concretely, we probably cannot know, but it is a hypothesis that answers many difficult existential questions, which many religions have failed to answer, for example, what does it mean to die.