Subjective, objective and intrinsic existence according to Karl Jaspers

Karl Jaspers' ontology distinguishes between three formalized views on human being: a) objective being, b) subjective being, c) being in itself. In the alternative terminology, the three index fields of being are the world, man and transcendence. The world stands for objective being in the sense of empirical reality. This objective being is not given to the man directly but with the help of some subject, thanks to which he can discover what is different from him in an act of cognition. Any object, then, is an empirical reality given through presentation. And, an overall definition of the object's equivalent in an act of cognition stands for subjective being. Dasein, consciousness as such, a spirit in the psychological, rational or spiritual aspect, respectively, can be such subjective being. Subjective being is singled out by selfknowledge, that is being for oneself in the sense of self-consciousness. Following phenomenological message, Jaspers notices that consciousness has intentional specificity and that it is filled up with objective content. One consciously directs his attention towards objects, turns towards them intentionally. It is the only relation of this kind, incomparable with any connection between objects. Hence this kind of being needs to remain detailed for one cannot derive any subject's scientific view from the objective world. Anything that is an object, in turn, in the sense of the world, always appears as an equivalent of the subject's cognitive reason. Jaspers, finding support in Kant's statements, whom he regards as the greatest of all philosophers, assumes that any cognition exists, out of necessity, in the form of division into a subject and object as well as depends on their mutual correlation. This, as a matter of fact, is a kind of pre-phenomenon and irreducible structure. Jaspers defines the rule of cognition which states that the man cognizes everything with the help of consciousness as ”the foundation of immanence”. Anything that lasts for people as cognizing subjects, at the same time, has to come into being on the consciousness plane. It also needs to take on the object form, that is appear within the boundaries of the basic division into a subject and object. The rule of immanence links various forms of existence but does not create any superior class of being which would join them into a whole. The outcome of this formal analysis of notions can be the statement that: being is unrecognizable; we deal with existence forms but there is no superior category of being which would bond them together: being is torn – this is Jaspers' fundamental thesis. It can be noticed that he accepts unquestioningly the theses of Kant's transcendental idealism, inevitably connected with phenomenalism: objective reality, available to us in cognition, is just an event, not being itself. The notion of transcendence in this aspect is a logical complement of theoretical and cognitive deliberations, an equivalent of Kant's thing in itself. An essential novelty, which determines the originality of Jaspers' philosophy, is about defining the ways leading to such absolute being. The rule of immanence draws the condition of human thinking on the basis of which human individual is, as a subject, simultaneously alienated from being. Let me add that this is the price which consciousness pays for such a rule which comes into being when the man breaks off his unreflective tie of identification with the world and starts to distinguish subject from object. The bereavement from the world itself taking place pursuant to thinking, which gives rise to subjectivity – Jaspers defines with the help of the word ”breakthrough”. Such breakthrough is identical with human being while in myths it is presented as the original sin