Philosophy As Science: Phenomenology and Transcendentalism

Truth can be defined as that which transcends the subjective and objective.It has properly in its communication and comprehension represented the objective and it has naturally passed by the cynical bounds of the subjective and arrived a synthesis of which we can truely call “truth”. In truth we cannot pertain ourselves to option for it has a intimate basis to necessity and this alone by which through reasoning logic has chopped down the options to necessity. It is also governed in its possibility, that is, the possibility of truth by sufficient reason. Sufficient reason removes all adduction of all things subjective for it is based on the understanding of the workingso f the subjective and through this understanding all things entering the consciousness can be judged accordingly. Schopenhauer developed this schema in his essay “The Four-Fold Root Of Sufficient Reason”. Schopenhauer in a generalization implies the natural division between Subject and Object and that any trangression of this would deem a falsity, that is, anything that claims perception to represent reality in clarity either provided reason or not. Schopenhauer failed due to much diffulty to deal with the subjective but he managed to do a far better job than Kant did who avoided it almost entirely only making short comments on immagination but never on its implication as to the determination of reality. Kant however in his name never intended to deal with subjective but only provided a critical limitation on the thinking process itself as to the logical components and their proper use. Phenomenology which is naturally derived from the Transcendentalism of Kant did exactly what Kant did not do and provided a critique of the subjective which involves purely positive investigations rather than Kants which is for the most part purely negative. Iti s due to both Kant and Husserl that a synthesis between the two systems can arrive at a transcendent means to arrive at truth and of which Sartre and Schopenhauer (before Hsserl suprisingly) have made the first attempts to do so knowingly or not.

Sufficient Reason provides the screen of possibility for limitations of options for it provides the nature of the objects of study and their context as it where. Husserl called this process “Bracketing” which detaches the relationship between reality and perceptions or between Subject and Object and in ther realization of their confliction we through logic may arrive at a necessity to resolve the conflict and transcend the subjective and objective and arrive at truth. The whole process as pre-determined thanks to Phenomenonology and Transcendentalism simply requires doubt.

The only problem with this process is the fact that Phenomenology and Transcendentalism have never been piled into one and therefore very few know how to carry out the process. It would be my duty specifically as I have understook and have undertook for sometime to merge the two doctrines and refine the processes to absolutism and to bringforth philosophy as a definitive Science in which a universal method for truth will have been achieved.

Therefore, it would be of my asking to inquire of you some aid in merging these two doctrines and two provide a finalized method of which would be born for this merger.

merge all you like…
construct all the epistemological systems you can…
it is a lofty goal; however, you will find that you still can’t get past hume’s problem of induction…



“Therefore, it would be of my asking to inquire of you some aid in merging these two doctrines and two provide a finalized method of which would be born for this merger.”

I respect your ambition, but wasn’t this already done/attempted by Heidegger?



I have developed a Objective Schemata and an Subjective Schemata of which I have have been unable as of yet to unite but I am getting close to a solution. In their combination I will form a Epistemic Scheme which will serve as the universal means to truth not only in deduction but in induction.

The Schemate can be paired with the two major logical constructs of Transcendentalism and Phenomenology. In Transcendental Schopenhauer developed “Sufficient Reason” and in Phenomenology Sartre developed “Bad Faith”. The Phenomenological Qualitification of “Bad Faith” is a necessary condition of which Quality must face. The Transcendental Qualification of “Sufficient Reason” is a necessary condition of which Actuality must face. Without this prerequistes the Schemeta’s prove ineffectual but with them they are universal. It is my goal firstly to combine these Qualifications into one. After this the duality the Objective and Subjective Schemata must be resolved.

The easiest way to explain it is to bring up a duality between Quality and Actuality. There requires a means found upon necessity to measure a Quality’s representivity of an Actuality. Through my Objective Schemata I suppose how and what can be known as Actuality and provide a valid means by which an Acuality gains shape as a Quality. Through my Subjective Schemata I suppose how and what can be known as Quality and provide a means of which to reduce Quality to Actuality. In the resolving of this duality between Actuality and Quality I can absolve the Schemata’s into a Scheme.

if by “actuality” you mean an absolute certain entity, you’ll never have it because your “sufficent reason” is never sufficent…

“what exactly do you mean?”

read your Derrida again… every attempt to say what one means by meaning and reality must necessarily self destruct…



Actuality is the same as “thing-in-itself” where as Quality is the same as “phenomenon”.

It is Sufficient Reason and Bad Faith serve merely as a Qualifying Conditions and not as the determination of Actuality but as the Determination of Quality. It is infact that Phenomenology determines the nature of an object of consciousness in consciousness and supplies the correct conception existing in the consciousness of the object of consciousness. It in infact that Transcendentalism determines the nature of consciousness and supplies the correct conception of the object of consciousness in consciousness. In the reduction to the reality of consciousness it is made possible to imploy the Objective Schemata which then and only then can reduce the Quality to an Actuality or the Phenomenon to the thing-in-itself. The Subjective Schemata serves to takes the Actuality now determined and it give Quality to it so that we may become conscious of it in a more clear and accurate way.

Derrida conception has been thoroughly overcome by Sartre who has effectively reduced all subjectivity to the Ontological Phenomenon of “Being-in-itself” and “Being-for-itself”. This division I am also close to putting an end to. I will explain more on this if it is needed.

Isis77, I admire your attempts to create a “system”.
Let us (for the moment) put Imp’s objection off to the
side, what is the value of what you are attempting?
What would the “average” person gain with
any success that you offer.
I personally think that what you offer is great,
but in the end it is a failure because it does not
offer any solution for the issues of living.

How does you solution create meaning in one’s life?
How does you solution show us how to live?
How does you solution show us what is truly
important in life? What you offer is a technical solution
for a technical question. What you offer is what I think
is wrong with philosophy today. It does not speak to the
concerns of living and how to live.

Now to return to imp’s point, you have yet to address it.
From a technical standpoint, he is correct.

What say you.


it probably is needed…


what a pile of rubbish.


If you have read Hegel you would understand as I that nothing else is important except the 'Absolute Spirit" If you need me to explain it I will.


I will get back to you on this!

I am very sorry not to have read all the masters you are mentioning here. I thought I can think and reason for myself. Ignorant, maybe.
The purpose of philosophy is not to find the truth. Rather to come to possible explanations to questions can not be scientifically answered using only deductive logic.
What surprises me the amount of time and space people use to promote their small minded agendas.
Dear Pinnacle of Reason, the only way to sin no more – by definition of the church – is to live no more. Oh, suicide is a sin as well?

Now i’m not an expert on this, but I thought deduction was the method of presentation for knowledge, but finding answers came with brainstorming and flashes of insight. (Least that’s how mathematics seems to go – and it’s a kinda paradigm for philosophic logic.)

Perhaps you have a large-minded agenda to present to us? Without the purpose of finding the truth? :confused:

Welcome to the board!

(All: Sorry for straying off-topic.)

I’d love it if you could dissolve the distinction between etre en soi and etre pour soi but I don’t think you’ll be able to do it satisfactorily

Regardless of any other argument Sartre didn’t overcome Derrida’s conception because Derrida’s conception came after Sartre ceased writing - no? One cannot overcome something which doesn’t yet exist.

Aside from that I want to know how you can feel so confident in this realm of Being per se if you’ve read Derrida and noted how any given example of Being is corrupted by others (temporally and semantically).

Nonetheless this could be a fun discussion

someoneisatthedoor and Impenitent,

I came to the understanding that awareness is my most immediate faculty thus in order to have a proper ground I cannot use anything that I am aware of because of the Priniciple of Sufficient Reason which would make all things I am aware of relative to my awareness. The only way of overcoming this is to start at self-awareness which is the awareness of awareness itself because since awareness is what is most immediate I do not abstract myself if my most immediate faculty affirms itself. I established the first step of necessity which is that in order to be aware I need to be aware of my awareness itself. This awoke a paradox, that if in order to be aware I need to be aware of being aware then it has to be that my awareness precedes self-awareness. It is that self-awareness requires awareness and awareness requires self-awareness. I established two lines of necessity by this one I called the Objective Cascade and the other the Subjective Cascade. In the Objective Cascade the line of necessity implies a movement to simplicity such is the necessity of self-awareness requiring awareness is. In the Subjective Cascade the lines of necessity inplies a movement to complexity such is the necessity of awarness requirng self-awareness is. In this Sufficient Reason posits that everthing is relative so that self-awareness requires awareness and vice versa. I found that I followed the Objective Cascade and keep in mind the Subjective Cascade I could get lead back to something that everthing is relative to. This something which everything is relative to resolves the paradoxal relationship beween the Objective Cascade and the Subjective Cascade. I understand that in the Subjective Cascade it is Will->Being->Awareness->Self-Awareness and in the Objective Cascade it is Self-Awareness->Awareness->Being->Will. I understand that although will is dependent upon self-awareness it is that self-awareness is dependent on will and in this sense one can establish that the dependency of self-awareness upon will precedes will dependency on self-awareness.

As you can see I constructed my philosophy upon absolute grounds and followed necessity alone, that is, by removing everything except Logical Dependence or Sufficient Reason. Also this makes Sartre’s “being-in-itself” and “being-for-itself” mere abstractions because he ignored the immediateness of awareness and did not start therefore in self-awareness and did not follow Logical Dependence.

ps. I think you are confusing heidegger and sartre



It is awareness that is most immediate for all things for us come through it and therefore are relative to it. The only thing I directly experience is awareness therefore I can associate “I” with awareness and I can call it the formal condition of the posibility of existence. “I” indicates absolute identity or what can be considered mine and it is due to this that we may call awareness self-evident and nothing else and the only valid starting position for all others could not be considered self-evident and would be abstractions.

If awareness and self-awareness are relative to each others existence’s and since awareness is the formal condition of existence we must comprehend that awareness through self-awareness is affirmed to exist. In the self-affirmation of existence it indicates “precense” which is by definition being. This resolves the co-dependence between awareness and self-awareness because in order to have a dependence it requires something homogeneous in either. There is the informal condition for existence which indicate that if there is nothing to be made aware of then existence itself cannot exist for it is only through the awareness of something that existence itself is affirmed secondarily. Self-awareness prevents “bad faith”, that is, extending beyond awareness or what is absolute. Self-awareness also allows the affirmation not only of awareness but of existence itself and in this the informal condition of existence is satisified. Existence as its nature dicates arises from the precense of itself but its precense rests on awareness which through itself is affirmed present. The presentness of existence and the presentness of awareness indicate that awareness is a being and therefore by consequence self-awareness is a being as well. Thus, being is the formal condition of awareness.

Along, with precense there is another homogeneous characteristic which is that of ability proper. Ability proper is a theoretical definition of ability indicating merely “the ability to do” which is the really the same potential or energy. Without the ability to do nothing could be done and therefore the “ability to do” which is called Will is certainly a formal condition of awareness but it may be that this is only indirectly as it may be that it is infact a formal condition of being itself.

If we understand the statement “I think, therefore I am” we indicate a division between “being” represented by “I am” and Will represented by “I Think”. It is either that the “I think” supposes the “I am” or that “I am” supposes the “I think”. Existentialists take the latter while Transcendentalists take the former. I already established awareness as the formal condition for existence and we have came to understand that being is the formal condition for awareness. It is very difficult indeed to resolve this difficulty to either suppose that the “ability to do” belongs under Sartre’s conception of the “for-itself” or under the “Will”. Sartre however did us a favour by provided an ontological division in which resolvement cannot occur epistemically or ontologically but only it would seem metaphysically.

I have the solution to this division between the “for-itself” and “in-itself” which I will post later tonight. If I understand that since the division is created ontologically the solution to the problem as to a Metaphysical solution cannot escape being but a Hypothesis. If I revert the dualism into an epistemological division it would be dealing with problems posterior to being and therefore remove some difficulty. I have already established in my book Sartre’s ontological investigation is infact based and fowarded on abstractions. It is my awareness that is “I” and it is my awareness through which is for me and it cannot be that a secondary function such as the recognition of being serves as the means for generating a an ontological prespective. It is impossible for me to see through the eyes of being because I can only see through the eyes of my awareness and although there are precenses of which indicates the existence of beings it is infact “I” viewing precense in the abstract (as something one is aware of) and not in the concrete (as the formal condition for awareness). This is the means by which the error of Sartre can be overcome and I will post my ideas on this later.

  • What exactly am I confusing regarding Sartre and Heidegger?

nothing exactly, I was just making sure that you understood that being-in-itself is not a bad thing for heidegger…



When dealing with my writing you have failed to present an understanding of it and you have based any form of judgements that would seem to relate to the writing on adduction you made about possible implications of an ideas (ex. you did this when interperting my idea of “I”). For the most part you present judgements of foreign understandings in which you present no understanding of which the judgement is based nor relate it to an understanding of my writing or the judgements of that understanding.

Follow these rules if you actually want to achieve valid criticism.

  1. Demonstrate your understanding my writing
  2. Make and show judgements in relation to the demonstrated understandings

If presenting opposing ideas:

  1. Demonstrate the understanding
  2. Make and show judgements in accordance with the understanding.
  • I like Skepticism but it is obvious you use Skepticism on personal grounds rather than intellectual grounds. I have meet to my contributers to various boards who have fallen to pride and egoism and I would hate to encounter another.