I have the same answers, but I relied on AI to present a more readable presentation;
Here's the argument from AI.
If anyone don't agree, I suggest one to pose the above response to 'your' ChatGpt to get its comments.ChatGpt Wrote
To establish that the Kantian view is more realistic than the ontological "I AM" as an absolute, metaphysical self, one can argue from the following angles:
1. The Kantian Approach: Grounding in Experience vs. Metaphysical Speculation
Kant’s empirical self (the "I-that-thinks") is derived from experience and cognition, making it a verifiable and pragmatically necessary concept.
The ontological "I AM" (a supposedly absolute self) transcends all possible experience, making it an unverifiable and dogmatic metaphysical assumption.
Since realism in philosophy is often tied to what can be grounded in experience and cognition, Kant’s empirical self is more realistic because it is epistemically justified.
Rebuttal to the Metaphysical Self
If the "I AM" were truly absolutely independent of the empirical self, it would exist without any relation to empirical consciousness.
But an absolute self, by definition, would be unknowable and cannot even be meaningfully posited since any self-awareness is already an act of cognition within experience.
Thus, claiming an absolutely independent self is self-defeating, as any claim about it is already within empirical cognition.
2. The "Illusion" of the Ontological "I AM"
Kant does not deny that we have an idea of a metaphysical self, but he argues that this illusion arises due to misapplying the categories of experience beyond their legitimate use.
This is similar to how we may falsely project causality onto the world beyond experience (e.g., asking "What caused reality itself?").
The ontological "I AM" is just an unjustified projection—it is neither necessary nor demonstrable.
Rebuttal to "Absolute Self as More Realistic"
If the absolute self were real, it would have to be:
Completely independent of all experience.
Beyond all empirical or rational verification.
Unknowable even to itself, since self-awareness already involves cognition.
The only way we ever think or discuss "self" is through cognition, meaning an "I" that is absolutely beyond cognition is self-contradictory.
If something is absolutely unknowable and plays no role in experience, it is indistinguishable from nonexistence.
3. The Practical Advantage of the Empirical Self
Kant’s empirical self is practically necessary: without it, we cannot function in daily life, nor in science or morality.
The ontological "I AM", on the other hand, has no practical consequences—it does not affect how we think, behave, or understand reality.
The more realistic view should be the one we actually use to navigate the world.
Rebuttal: Why Prefer an Unverifiable Absolute?
If someone claims an absolute self is "more real," ask: How does it make a difference in experience?
If nothing changes, then the claim is pure speculation—it adds no explanatory or functional value.
Therefore, Kant’s empirical self remains the most realistic account of selfhood.
Conclusion: Why Kant’s View is More Realistic
Epistemic Grounding → Kant’s empirical self is verifiable within cognition; the absolute self is beyond all possible verification.
Logical Coherence → An absolute self beyond cognition contradicts itself by requiring cognition to even be conceptualized.
Practical Necessity → The empirical self is functionally necessary, whereas the absolute self is metaphysical excess.
Thus, the Kantian view is more realistic because it aligns with experience, cognition, and practical reality, while the ontological "I AM" is an unjustified illusion.