Kant’s Concept of the Self

In this lecture notes, I will briefly explain the nature and dynamics of the “Self” according to Immanuel Kant. But it must be noted at the outset that Kant’s concept of the self is very difficult to systematize because in the first place, Kant himself did not fully develop this concept. This is partly because Kant’s concept of the self serves only as the foundation of his moral theory. In fact, for Kant, the human person as a rational moral agent is the sole basis in determining the truth of the categorical imperative. 

Indeed, behind the formal ethical façade of Kant’s categorical imperative is the attempt of the human person to achieve moral perfection. Hence, we can surmise that the ultimate goal of Kant’s moral teachings is for the human person to become morally perfect. And for this reason, it can be argued that anybody who wants to study Kantian ethics should first and foremost understand Kant’s concept of the self as the anthropological basis of his moral teachings.

So, how does Kant view the self?

According to Kant, the human person has a two-fold nature, namely:

1) homo noumenon and 

2) homo phaenomenon

On the one hand, the term noumenon, which is derived from Kant’s epistemology, refers to the essence of things. For Kant, the noumenon is the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich). According to Kant, the noumenon cannot be known because, as the essence of things, it is beyond experience. For example, as Kant would have us believe, we cannot know the “tableness” of the table, or that which makes a table really “a table”. Later on, Hegel argues that there is no such thing as “thing-in-itself” or the “tableness” of the table. For Hegel, what reason knows is all there is to know.

On the other hand, the term phaenomenon, according to Kant, refers to the thing as it appears to the observer. In other words, the phaenomenon is the empirical part of a thing. It is indeed that part of a thing that can be experienced by humans. The hardness, texture, color, and shape of a table are all that we can know about the table. For Kant, they are the phaenomenal aspects of the table.

For Kant, therefore, everything that exists has two natures, namely: 

1) the non-empirical part (noumenon or essence) and 

2) the empirical part (phaenomenon). 

Applied to humans, the homo noumenon for Kant is the godlike self of the human person which comprises the psychological state and intellect, while the homo phaenomenon is the merely human self or, simply, the physical self.

Now, it is important to note that when it comes to Kantian ethics, the phaenomenal self is dropped from the equation. This is because the homo phaenomenon is the animal or instinctual aspect of the human person. Therefore, it cannot be put under moral obligation. Just think, for example, of how ridiculous it is to sue a cat for stealing your food. So, when it comes to Kantian ethics, we only talk about the homo noumenon or the “godlike self”. However, the phaenomenal self is equally important if we talk about the “self” in itself because one cannot be a complete self without it. In fact, according to Kant, we humans have both an inner self and an outer self which allow us to become conscious. This is because the inner self comprises our psychological state and rational intellect, while our outer self comprises our senses and other instinctual functions. Again, it is just that when it comes to ethics, Kant focuses only on the noumenal self for the same reason already given.

If the homo phaenomenon cannot be put under moral obligation, Kant says that the homo noumenon or the noumenal self (or godlike self) can be put under moral obligation simply because it is the self that is endowed with “freedom”. The homo noumenon or the noumenal self, therefore, is a free agent. And it is this very idea of freedom that the noumenal self is said to have an “absolute inner worth”, a value which is beyond any price and which demands respect.

As a free agent, Kant says that the the noumenal self has two aspects, namely, 1) free choice (freie Willkür) and 2) will (Wille).

On the one hand, “free choice” is understood as the capacity of the self to act without being determined to do so by any external material forces. On the other hand, “will” is the capacity of the self to set forth unconditionally binding moral laws.

So, with free choice, the human person (and it must be noted that in Kantian philosophy, when we say the “human person” we mean the “noumenal self) can do whatever she wants to do. However, even if the human person can do whatever she wants to do, she may not always do whatever she wishes because of the self-imposed moral law promulgated by the will. For instance, because of free choice, the human person is free “to lie”, but because the will promulgated the moral law “not to lie”, then the human person or the self has to always tell the truth.

This now brings us to the idea that being true to one’s self is, for Kant, respecting one’s self. And for Kant, it is our duty to respect our own self because doing so is respecting humanity at the same time. This implies that if we violate our duty to respect our very own selves, then we fail somehow to give humanity the same respect it demands.

A concrete example of respecting one’ self is not to harm it by, say, not drinking too much alcohol or committing suicide. Needless to say, drinking too much alcohol will harm the body, which in the long run will ruin the entire person. In the case of suicide, if one kills herself, she is not only undermining her own “absolute inner worth” as a person but also the “absolute inner worth” of the entire human race.

Now, Kant believes that the noumenal self is the idealized person who is destined to be perfect since she has in herself the godlike nature as belonging to the world of understanding.

Logically then, we can infer that for Kant, the noumenal self is the human person’s real self. It is indeed the person’s true self. Since we have this godlike self, Kant believes that it is our duty to attain perfection by actualizing this godlike noumenal self.  And according to Kant, we can attain perfection or we can actualize our godlike self by developing ourselves into moral persons, which can be done by obeying the command of the categorical imperative.

But how does the human person actualize her true self if she cannot know her noumenal self? The phaenomenal self can provide us the key.

Since the human person cannot know her noumenal self, then she must take into account the fact that part of her “self” belongs to the phaenomenal world, that she has a phenomenal self, a physical body so to speak. As already mentioned, this is the self that can be experienced by the senses. We can touch it, see it, smell it. We can even taste it if we like.

In this way, the human person can have an idea of her noumenal self. In simple terms, the body, which is the seat of reason or intellect, allows the self to think, analyze, understand, and interpret reality. The phenomenal self, therefore, serves as the springboard for the actualization of the noumenal self.

Lastly, because the phaenomenal self always appeals to “desires”, which, according to Kant, is the source of errors, it has to be guided by a moral principle based on reason. Thus, the human person as a rational being must also consider her “self” as belonging to the intelligible world if she hopes to attain perfection. This is where the categorical imperative comes in. As Tucker (1972, p. 35) argues, the noumenal self tries to actualize its godlike nature as the real self by obeying the dictate of reason through the categorical imperative.