Parallels between Kant's, Fichte's, and Husserl's concepts of pure I or ego?

[Asketa]

They all have their respective concepts of pure I as opposed to the empirical I, and mixed with transcendental I, where Fichte also introduces the absolute I and the limited I (and Not-I), and Husserl expands on it with transcendental ego and mundane ego, and even with eidos ego. Therefore, as the title says, can someone explain the difference and similarities between these concepts of the I or ego? Or perhaps point to some relevant literature?

[3017Metaphysician]

They all have their respective concepts of pure I as opposed to the empirical I, and mixed with transcendental I, where Fichte also introduces the absolute I and the limited I (and Not-I), and Husserl expands on it with transcendental ego and mundane ego, and even with eidos ego. Therefore, as the title says, can someone explain the difference and similarities between these concepts of the I or ego? Or perhaps point to some relevant literature?

Intriguing question. Transcendental ego, the self that is necessary in order for there to be a unified empirical self-consciousness. For Immanuel Kant, it synthesizes sensations according to the categories of the understanding. Nothing can be known of this self, because it is a condition, not an object, of knowledge.

Think of the transcendental ego like Schopenhauer's metaphysical Will. We all have a Will, some-thing that causes us to be or not be. Some-thing in our minds that we only experience, or sense. Some-thing that is not concrete or objective. For example, what is an object of thought(?).

So just as our own sense of having an ego has causal powers, so does our Will to be. It's a subjective sensory experience beyond material interactions or phenomena. But it is also innate, fixed, a priori, logically necessary, and existentially, just is. Yet another qualitative property of the mind that hold primacy in most all human behavior or purpose...

[The Beast]

It is said by the Gnostics: “the soul is very hard to find and to comprehend” Thus they spoke of wholeness. Sacred texts in some doctrines put forth the questions: “By whom willed and directed does the mind fly forth?”; “By whom commanded does the first breath move?”; “who sends forth the speech we utter here? And recently: “What is ego-consciousness?”
I take that condition is the state (age, knowledge, understanding) of the ego-formation and not the statement of disease as in madness or a description of the object (the brain) as in mint condition.

[Asketa]

Transcendental ego, the self that is necessary in order for there to be a unified empirical self-consciousness. For Immanuel Kant, it synthesizes sensations according to the categories of the understanding. Nothing can be known of this self, because it is a condition, not an object, of knowledge.

But, how can we talk about it, think it, state that it is or exists, etc., if it cannot be an object of knowledge? If saying that it exists but that I cannot know anything about it, then I know that it exists, which is its property that I am sure about.

[3017Metaphysician]

Transcendental ego, the self that is necessary in order for there to be a unified empirical self-consciousness. For Immanuel Kant, it synthesizes sensations according to the categories of the understanding. Nothing can be known of this self, because it is a condition, not an object, of knowledge.

But, how can we talk about it, think it, state that it is or exists, etc., if it cannot be an object of knowledge? If saying that it exists but that I cannot know anything about it, then I know that it exists, which is its property that I am sure about.

Excellent question. This is one reason we have metaphysics, and questions relative to the qualitative properties of a thing-in-itself. For example, we have material entities (and/or quantities of things) that exist through observation and otherwise perceived by the senses. But we also have metaphysical entities that have qualitative properties (Qualia , etc.) that seem to transcend the senses or mere material quantities of things. Meaning, the ego, or will, is such a qualitative property that is not exclusively a concrete object having the causal powers of mere material interactions. The ego or Will effects human behavior as an end-goal facilitating or providing for feelings of purposefulness and other sentient qualities of self-consciousness and so on. As such, the primacy of the ego or Will is that thing which causes humans to do stuff, live life or not live life.

How do we describe or completely explain this thing which has causal powers for much human behavior? We can surely talk about it, and sense it's existence through experiencing consciousness itself and/or self-awareness, but the metaphysical qualities of such a thing exists in a way that goes beyond material interactions (neural activity). Think of this 'thing' like the concept of time itself. How do we explain time in terms of material entities? While we can do that through observations of changing things, that still does not capture the nature of experiencing a human experience.

Maybe ask the question, what is an object of thought? Is it really an object?