I think learning to accept and live with the elusive nature of the self/subject/'I' is a fundamental life lesson. — Wayfarer

That's a bit pf a tantalising idea. Are there 2 or 3 aspects of this particularly you can dot point?

Very roughly, for me it shows up as (1) less compulsion to define or secure a fixed identity, (2) more tolerance for uncertainty and contingency, and (3) a slightly quieter self-preoccupation in everyday experience. Hard to argue for — more something noticed over time.

Nice. Thanks.

Well, I brought in the relationship with a "transcendental object" to express Kant's vision of himself as walking between two extreme views. Getting the sense for what 'empirical realism' means for Kant is not a wholesale rejection of Descartes. I will try and come back with a report.

Getting the sense for what 'empirical realism' means for Kant is not a wholesale rejection of Descartes. — Paine

I agree. It's not a wholesale rejection, but a correction.

I've also noticed that Edmund Husserl similarly commented on the mistake Descartes makes in respect of 'res cogitans'. He sees the cogito and the turn to first-person evidence as the genuine origin of transcendental philosophy (including his own). His criticism is internal: Descartes discovers transcendental subjectivity but then reinterprets it in the old metaphysical grammar of substances, turning it into something quasi-objective. Then follows all of the confused questions about what 'it' is etc.

I think Kant is campaigning for an understanding of objectivity that differs from your narrative. I need to think about how to put that forward.

The "history of philosophy" approach is a problem for all who use it, Kant included.

More than happy to debate it.