Post 12 – The Empirical vs. Transcendental Self: Understanding Duality

Body and soul, flesh and spirit, empirical and transcendental—the list of dualities used to describe reality and the human condition is extensive. But does this dualism truly reflect reality? If it does, how do these two sides of existence relate to one another? Is this division a fundamental part of reality, or merely a framework we use to make sense of things?

Plato and the Origins of Duality

Plato introduced a divide between the eternal, unchanging ideals (which he called “Forms”) and the ever-shifting world we experience. He saw these ideals as perfect and unchanging, existing in a realm beyond the physical, which he considered a shadowy imitation of true reality. While this perspective highlights the existence of an eternal dimension, it downplays the value of the changing, everyday world by implying it “lacks” the fullness of the ideals.

This perspective leads to a deeper question: If the everyday, changing world is imperfect and derivative, where does it come from? Plato’s division raises the challenging notion of something arising from nothingness, which seems logically impossible. After all, nothing cannot give rise to something. What exists must, in some sense, always exist. Rather than being in opposition to the eternal, the changing world could instead be understood as a way the eternal manifests itself. However, Plato’s sharp division between the “visible world” and the “world of ideals” obscures this unity.

Yet, Plato’s philosophy offers a key insight: an eternal foundation supports everything we see. Where he fell short was in failing to recognize that everything—ideals, experiences, and all else—participates in this eternal foundation. Change, rather than being a departure from eternity, is better understood as a way in which eternity manifests itself.

In summary, while Plato’s ideas were significant in recognizing an eternal realm, his strict separation between the eternal and the changing world influenced Western thought in ways that often undervalue the transient, everyday world. This dualistic framework also paved the way for the nihilism of later philosophies.

Aristotle and the Unity of Form and Matter

Aristotle challenged Plato’s separation by rejecting the idea that ideals exist apart from the physical world. Instead, he believed the essence of a thing (its “form”) exists within the material world itself. For Aristotle, form and matter were inseparable parts of every object.

This approach resolved some issues but brought new ones. Aristotle’s idea of potential and fulfillment suggests that things “become” what they are meant to be by transitioning from not-yet-existing to fully existing. But this idea implies that something can come out of nothing—a contradiction, since nothing cannot produce something.

What appears as change, Aristotle suggested, is the unfolding of possibilities. However, in truth, all states of being already exist in some eternal sense. Change is not about things emerging or disappearing but about the eternal showing itself in different ways.

Aristotle’s idea of the “unmoved mover” as the ultimate source of all motion retains an echo of Plato’s divide between the eternal and the changing world. While Aristotle better integrates form and substance, his view still rests on a framework that struggles to fully embrace the eternal unity of existence.

In summary, Aristotle moved closer to bridging the gap between the eternal and the changing, but he still left room for the idea that things emerge from nothingness. This keeps his philosophy tied to the illusion of fragmentation over time.

The Empirical Self and the Transcendental Self

How do these ideas apply to us as individuals? Are we also divided into two parts, or is that sense of division just another illusion? The distinction between body and soul, or between our everyday self and our deeper, eternal self, helps us understand the way we experience life. However, this distinction is more about how things appear to us, not how they truly are.

The Empirical Self

The empirical self is the version of ourselves that operates in daily life, bound by time, space, and the need to get things done. It sees itself as separate, limited, and subject to birth, death, and change. This part of us is shaped by culture, history, and personal experiences, often feeling isolated and seeing the world as fragmented.

This way of seeing things comes from the belief in finitude and impermanence, which are central to nihilism. This perspective generates anxiety and a drive to control or escape the chaos we perceive in life.

The Transcendental Self

The transcendental self, on the other hand, is the part of us that is connected to the infinite and unchanging structure of Being. It’s not bound by time or divided into parts. Instead, it reflects the eternal truth of who we are.

This transcendental self isn’t separate from the empirical self—it’s the core truth of it. The feeling of division comes because the empirical self operates within a perception of separation and fragmentation in time. When this perception fades, then the empirical self finally appears as the eternal manifestation of its being.

(For the theologically inclined, this is the idea behind the doctrine of the incarnation of Christ: two natures in one being, human and divine, fully united.)

Reconciling the Empirical and Transcendental

The apparent divide between the empirical and transcendental selves is resolved when we recognize that the empirical self is part of the transcendental. This understanding removes the perception of separation and finiteness, revealing the unified structure of being.

The empirical self isn’t erased but understood as the way in which the transcendental unfolds itself in the world. The transcendental self isn’t some abstract ideal but the constant reality behind every moment of life. In this way, the self reveals its wholeness, integrated into the eternal structure of Being.