transcendental subject

The present article attempts to explore two principles out of four literary and poetic principles with the centrality of Kant's conceptual turn concerning the concept of time that Deleuze opted for treating Kant's philosophy. In order to reformulate the Critique of Pure Reason, Deleuze exploits two literary principles. The first one is taken from Hamlet according to which time is out of control, the second one is taken from Arthur Rambo as he said, I is another. For appreciating such complicated statements and explaining Deleuze's particular reading of Critique of Pure Reason, the author proceeds to explore Deleuze's writings and seminars on Kant in order to show that the presupposition of having a good command over Deleuze's philosophy is to study his confrontation with Kant's philosophy. For achieving such an end, the author accompanies Deleuze's treatment of Kant's philosophy step by step in order to shed some light on the concept of time in his reading of The Critique of Pure Reason from various perspectives so to apprehend the two poetic principles concerning the time.

Undoubtedly, Kant is one of the most effective figures in the history of western philosophy because he created a great evolution in this history by his so-called Copernican revolution and the interwoven relation of subject and object. As is acknowledged by many scholars, Critique of Pure Reason is one of the most important epistemological works in the new era that has set the boundaries of knowledge and has offered a new and unmatched description of how knowledge is gained by subject. Accordingly, most released commentaries of Kant’s philosophical outlook are epistemological. But Alain Badiou, contemporary French philosopher, contrary to common interpretation, presents an ontological one. He himself offers a kind of ontology named subtractive ontology, and believes that we can recognize it, due to how Kant formulates transcendental subject and object, forms of sensible intuition, and categories of understanding. As a result, he describes the features of Kantian ontology in his works Briefings on Existence and Theoretical Writings. The authors of this article see his claim notable and realizable. So, we will try to introduce the specifications of subtractive ontology and then check Badiou’s claim of Kant’s ontology. Finally, we will explain some reasons to criticize his belief.
Key Words: Badiou, Kant, Subtractive Ontology, Transcendental Subject, Transcendental Object The authors of this article try to read Badiou’s interpretation of Kant’s philosophy. In doing so, first we see two of his most famous books about Kant: Briefings on Existence and Theoretical Writings. In them, he claims that Kant should be read as an ontologist, because of some main notions as subject and object. Then, he tries to compare ontology in Kant with the one he names subtractive ontology and which is based on mathematics. So, we read his book, Being and Event, and review some of Badiou’s important ontological foundations as situation, set theory, void set, presentation, power set etc. in order to study his claim.
According to Badiou, the existence of transcendental subject and transcendental object, which he names proto-transcendental subject and proto- transcendental object, proves that we can consider Kant as an ontologist, and therefore an ontological interpretation of him is inevitable. In spite of this claim, Badiou also remember that, because of relational character of subject and object, we essentially describe them as epistemological entities.
Finally, we conclude that ontological and epistemological interpretation of Kant seems inseparable. For this reason, we have to pay attention to key role of void in Badiou's ontology, i.e. subtractive ontology, and show its differences with Heidegger's fundamental ontology. Ontology in Kant, according to Heidegger, is preceded by epistemology and, according to Badiou, they are implicit in Kant's thought; hence, according to Heidegger, Kant's ontology is complete and more important than epistemology. In contrast, Badiou says that Kant cannot never completely rid himself of epistemological strains. Heidegger even talks about Kant's ability to better understand. He believes that if we consider Kant to be an ontologist, we can understand him better than himself. Badiou believes that by relying more on a number of categories, instead of relying on the connection between the subject and the object, the Kantian can be seen deeper than conventional and epistemological believers. Kant is an ontologist.
However, Badiou's insistence on the existence of Kant's ontological dimensions is significant. On the one hand, he himself cannot ignore the great and inevitable role of epistemology in Kant, because the characteristics of the subject and object in his view, moreover, of the form of formation Recognizing the human being from the real world through the certainty and necessity of the past elements, and drawing the focus of past writing theorems. Therefore, the relationship between the whole and the whole subject with the object makes it impossible for each other to exist, because, in Kant's opinion, the subject creates the universe; therefore, the existence of the subject and object serves their epistemological function. Whereas the distinction Kant between Neumann and Phenomenon confines his ontological view to phenomena, while he does not directly associate the existence with such a distinction, he basically dismisses it. Counts On the other hand, the elements of Kant's philosophy, as the ontological foundations, cannot be fully coherent with the definition of a person from the ontology of introspection, because the recognition of concepts such as subject, object, sensory intuition, and categories Understanding their epistemological functions in Kant's view of one and the other, and the reasons for their explanation, namely, the need to respond to the circumstances of Kant's time on the other. Consequently, even if we want to accept the ontology of the discourse in Kant, we must rightly affirm that the ontology of discourse in Kant is on epistemology. - Badiou, A. (2006) a. Being and Event, translated by Oliver Feltham, London: Continuum.
- Badio, A. (2006) b. Briefings on Existence: A Short Treatise on Transitory Ontology, translated by Norman Madarasz, New York: SUNY Press.
- Badiou, A. (2009) Logics of Worlds, translated by Alberto Toscano, London: Continuum.
- Badiou, A. (1991) "On a Finally Objectless Subject", in Who Comes after the Subject, translated by B.Fink, 24-32, New York: Routledge.
- Badiou, A. (2004) Theoretical Writings, translated by Ray Brassier and Alberto Toscano, New York: Continuum.
- Forster, Michael N. (2008) Kant and skepticism, Prinston University Press.
- Heidegger, M. (1990) Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, Forth edition enlarged, translated by Richard Taft, Bloomington: Indian University Press.
- Kant, I. (1998) Critique of Pure Reason, translated by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Kullman, O. (2011) Some Remarks on the Philosophy of Alain Badiou: Mathematics, Ontology, Politics, available in http://cs.swan.ac.uk/~csoliver/ Sun Yat-sen University, Institute of Logic and Cognition.
- Wolf, R. P. (1963) Kant`s Theory of Mental Activity, A Commentary on the Transcendental Analytic of the Critique…, United States: Harvard University Press.

Maurice Merleau-Ponty has undoubtedly made extensive use of Edmund Husserl's works, particularly Ideas and Cartesian Meditations in writing his book Phenomenology of Perception. However, the difference between Merleau-Ponty and Husserl's views comes to light as soon as his approach to Cartesian dualism of body-subject is studied and his views are compared with those of Husserl. Although Husserl emphasizes on the close relation between body and subject in some of his works, Merleau-Ponty does not approve of his emphasis on elements like phenomenological interpretation and transcendental subject which imply the mind's independence from body. He surpasses Husserl in emphasizing the body-mind unity and believes that not only does the body have a subjective nature, but also the subject is a creature due to its embodiment. Like Martin Heidegger, he believes that the study of subject as a creature in the world makes the explanation of understanding possible.