Works › Intuition and Reflection in Self-Consciousness
Work #1609 · Middle period

Intuition and Reflection in Self-Consciousness

Nishida's 1917 'Jikaku ni okeru chokkan to hansei' — second major work, between Inquiry into the Good and the Logic of Place

Nishida Kitarō · 1917 · Japanese · Philosophical treatise

Tradition: Kyoto School / Japanese Buddhist-influenced phenomenology / post-Kantian idealism

Nishida's 1917 second major work — Japanese Buddhist phenomenology in dialogue with Fichte and Husserl

Published in 1917 by Iwanami Shoten, 'Jikaku ni okeru chokkan to hansei' (Intuition and Reflection in Self-Consciousness) is Nishida Kitarō's second major philosophical work, written six years after his first book 'Inquiry into the Good' (Zen no Kenkyū, 1911) and ten years before the basho-turn 'From the Acting to the Seeing' (1927). The book represents the middle phase of Nishida's philosophical development: still working largely within the Fichtean-active framework of self-consciousness (rather than the later contemplative basho-framework), but moving toward the distinctively Nishidian philosophy that would mature in the 1920s. The book engages closely with the contemporary European-philosophical sources Nishida had been studying since the early 1900s: Fichte's Wissenschaftslehre, Husserl's Logical Investigations and (then very recent) Ideas I (1913), Henri Bergson's Time and Free Will and Matter and Memory, the Marburg neo-Kantians (Cohen, Natorp) and the Baden neo-Kantians (Rickert, Windelband). Major themes: the structure of self-consciousness as the philosophical foundation; the relations between intuition (chokkan) and reflection (hansei) — these are not two distinct mental acts but moments of a single self-conscious activity; the absolute self-consciousness as the philosophical-foundational reality; the implications for theory of knowledge, theory of value, and theory of the will. The book is methodologically distinctive in synthesising Japanese-Buddhist philosophical resources (the Mahāyāna-Buddhist non-dualism Nishida had practised under his Zen teacher Setsumon Roshi) with German-philosophical modernism. The book is one of the major early-twentieth-century non-Western philosophical works and a principal source for Nishida's middle period.

Author

Editions cited

  • Jikaku ni okeru chokkan to hansei (Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo, 1917)
  • Modern critical edition: Nishida Kitarō zenshū (Iwanami Shoten, 2002-2009, 24 vols)
  • English translation: Valdo H. Viglielmo with Takeuchi Yoshinori and Joseph S. O'Leary, Intuition and Reflection in Self-Consciousness (SUNY Press, 1987)
  • Companion works: An Inquiry into the Good (1911); From the Acting to the Seeing (1927); The Self-Identity of Absolute Contradiction (1939)
  • Critical commentary: Robert E. Carter, The Nothingness Beyond God (Paragon House, 1997); James W. Heisig, Philosophers of Nothingness (Hawaii, 2001)
Compare this work

School Embodiments

Buddhism · 26%
Phenomenology · 20%
Idealism · 18%
Mysticism · 10%
Kantian Transcendental Idealism · 10%
Buddhism 26%

Founding middle-period Kyoto-school work.

"Self-consciousness as the fundamental philosophical question." (Intuition and Reflection)
Phenomenology 20%

Japanese phenomenology in dialogue with Husserl.

"Phenomenological self-consciousness." (Intuition and Reflection)
Idealism 18%

Engagement with Fichte's Wissenschaftslehre.

"Following and modifying Fichte's account of self-consciousness." (Intuition and Reflection)
Mysticism 10%

Mystical register of unmediated intuition.

"Pure intuition prior to subject-object split." (Intuition and Reflection)
Kantian Transcendental Idealism 10%

Engagement with the Marburg and Baden Neo-Kantian schools.

"Neo-Kantianism as principal interlocutor." (Intuition and Reflection)

Internal Tensions

Middle-Nishida — the bridge between Inquiry into the Good and the Logic of Place. Continuously read in Nishida-scholarship and in the broader Kyoto-School literature; the book records the development from active-volitional self-consciousness to the contemplative basho-framework that would define mature Kyoto-School philosophy.

⧖

I. Time

1917 publication. Nishida was 47, in the middle of his Kyoto Imperial University tenure (he had joined the faculty in 1910).

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Emergent Grain: Continuous Freedom: Non-Deterministic Traversability: Linear Direction: Uni-directional Dimensionality: One
✦

II. Space

Kyoto Imperial University — the institutional centre of the Kyoto School.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Relational Curvature: Flat Dimensionality: Three Locality: Non-local
◉

III. Matter

Middle-period philosophical treatise (~400 pages in modern editions). Form is sustained philosophical-systematic essay.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Emergent Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local
◎

IV. Observer

Middle Nishida. The observer-philosopher is in the transition period between the early experiential framework of 'Inquiry into the Good' and the later basho-framework.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Single Knowledge Extent: Immediate Knowledge Retainment: Total Physicality: Both Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: Impersonal
⚡

V. Energy

Mid-development philosophical energies. The book records Nishida's intellectual development across six years of intensive engagement with German-philosophical sources.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Emergent Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Reversible
⧉

VI. Information

Single book of substantial philosophical-systematic argument.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Relational Cosmic Conservation: Conserved Personal Conservation: Conserved Granularity: Continuous

Personas that cite this work

Nishida Kitarō

Personas with the nearest attribute fingerprint

Historical figures whose own classification on the same six-dimensional grid lands closest to this work's. Computed by attribute-agreement on coordinates both address.

94%
Nishida Kitarō
32/34
88%
Rabindranath Tagore
30/34
84%
Socrates
21/25
82%
J. M. E. McTaggart
28/34
80%
Carneades
8/10
79%
Mary Daly
27/34

Computed school proximity

The work's attribute fingerprint scored against all schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated embodiments above.

68%
Baha'i Faith
21/26
64%
Pure Land Buddhism
19/26
61%
Process Theology
18/26
59%
Afrofuturism
19/26
59%
British Idealism
19/26
58%
Theosophy
17/26
58%
Vedanta
17/26
57%
Psychedelic / Entheogenic Worldview
17/26

How Intuition and Reflection in Self-Consciousness resolves each dilemma

34 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 9 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 23 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The heat death of the universe — entropy maxed out, no further work possible — is among the more sobering implications of mainstream physics. Whether it is structurally inescapable depends on what kind of finitude the cosmos has.
Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed.
On this view, the cosmos has neither a temporal horizon nor a material exhaustion point. The framing of running out presupposes bounds that the cosmos doesn't have. Energy gradients perpetuate; new configurations emerge; the categories that make heat-death scary don't apply at the cosmic scale.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing. (47%) · Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. (26%) · The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Whether we can grow our way out of resource constraints — or whether the cosmos sets limits the economy ultimately must obey — depends on what kind of finitude matter has.
Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering.
On this view, matter and time are both unbounded at the largest scales. Terrestrial resource limits are real engineering and political constraints but not metaphysical ones; the cosmos can in principle support whatever expansion intelligence is capable of.
Roads not taken Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time. (47%) · The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. (26%) · Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
If we owe future people a habitable planet and the material means to flourish, and the cosmos is bounded in ways that make those obligations impossible at some scale, the obligation and the possibility come apart. Where they come apart turns on what kind of finitude we live in.
Both time and matter are unbounded; we cannot in principle owe more than is possible.
On this view, the cosmos has the resources to support whatever flourishing future generations are capable of, given sufficient time and intelligence. The impossibility concern is misplaced; the real questions are about trajectories and choices, not about resource ceilings.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide. (47%) · The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on. (26%) · The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it. (12%)
6 mainstream positions
Do you really choose? The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it. 69% Are addicts responsible for their addiction? The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real. 69% Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do? An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible. 69% How much weight do future people deserve? Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet. 32% Is regret rational? The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer. 32% Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them? Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future. 32%

Matter · 7 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

What stuff is — fundamental, relational, or appearance.

Distinctive · only 23% of schools agree (47/202)
Is the world created from nothing?
Creatio ex nihilo is one of the most distinctive Western-theological claims. Whether matter was created from nothing, eternally exists, or is sustained moment-by-moment turns on what kind of thing matter is.
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
On this view, matter is genuinely there, but it isn't the floor of reality. It depends on something more fundamental — dependent origination, mind, divine sustaining act, computational substrate, or the structure of conditions — and is conserved only at its own level of description. …
Roads not taken Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance. (55%) · Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance. (16%) · Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal. (4%)
Distinctive · only 23% of schools agree (47/202)
Is the physical world fully real?
Realists, idealists, and relationalists divide on whether matter exists mind-independently, derivatively, or as a pattern of relations. The split runs deeper than any single scientific question.
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
On this view, the physical world is real enough — it has its own laws, its own conservation principles, its own resistance to wish — but it is not the floor of being. It is sustained by something else: mind, divine attention, computational substrate, or …
Roads not taken Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting. (55%) · Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction. (16%) · Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution. (4%)
Distinctive · only 23% of schools agree (47/202)
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Do rocks, soil, rivers, and stuff in general deserve moral consideration — or only the living, the conscious, the human? The answer turns on what matter is.
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
On this view, matter doesn't have standing on its own; it has standing through what it makes possible. Soil matters because it grows food; water matters because it sustains life and mind and practice. Asking whether the rock as such has moral standing slightly misreads …
Roads not taken Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good. (55%) · Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric. (16%) · Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated. (4%)
4 mainstream positions
What is money? Money is a real institution with intrinsic features. 54% What is a nation? A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character. 54% What makes someone male or female? Sex is a real biological kind with given content. 54% Should we edit the human germline? Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given. 54%

Observer · 37 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.

Distinctive · only 5% of schools agree (11/202)
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Extinction is forever; soil erosion takes centuries to repair; the carbon we emit will warm the climate for millennia. But whether 'forever' or 'millennia' means what they say depends on what kind of process the universe is.
What appears irreversible is reversible by the right action.
On this view, the appearance of permanence is a function of limits we have not yet exceeded. Divine action, sufficiently advanced technology, intentional restoration practice can in principle reverse what now appears irreversible. The lost is not gone for good; it is gone for now.
Roads not taken Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. (66%) · Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form. (17%) · From the standpoint of the One, the categories of permanence and loss are conventional. (8%)
Distinctive · only 5% of schools agree (11/202)
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Rome fell; Maya cities emptied; Bronze Age trade networks collapsed in a single generation. Whether what was lost can be recovered — or whether collapse is structurally final — depends on what kind of process civilization is.
Civilization is the kind of order that can in principle be restored.
On this view, the order that constitutes civilization — information, practices, institutions, ethics — is not destroyed by collapse, only dispersed. Given the right work, by humans, divine action, or both, it can be reconstituted. The historical pattern of recovery and renewal is partial evidence; …
Roads not taken Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. (66%) · Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history. (17%) · From the One's vantage, civilizational categories are themselves conventional. (8%)
Distinctive · only 5% of schools agree (11/202)
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
The universe trends from order to disorder. Whether that physical pattern carries moral weight — making the preservation of order, beauty, complexity a kind of cosmic duty — depends on whether time has the kind of structure morality could lean on.
Apparent entropy is reversible in principle; the moral category is restoration.
On this view, the second law describes local pattern rather than cosmic destiny. What is broken can be repaired — by divine action, by human work, by energetic intervention. The moral weight of restoration is real and not borrowed from the physics. The cosmos is …
Roads not taken Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. (66%) · Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle. (17%) · From the One's vantage, the second law is itself a feature of the conventional, not the ultimate. (8%)
11 mainstream positions
Could causation work backwards? Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. 68% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. 68% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description. 68% When does a person begin? A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. 54% What is marriage? Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. 54% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce. 32% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it. 32% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing. 32% What makes someone the same person over time? You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect. 29% Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's. 29% If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it. 29%
23 unaligned
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? Schools split: 49% / 37% / 8% — Are the dead morally present to the living? Schools split: 44% / 35% / 13% — Are there indivisible units of experience? Schools split: 44% / 37% / 13% — Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Schools split: 49% / 37% / 8% — Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Schools split: 32% / 29% / 11% — Could an AI have a mind that matters? Schools split: 30% / 30% / 15% — Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Schools split: 32% / 29% / 11% — Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Schools split: 50% / 29% / 12% — Does history have a direction or meaning? Schools split: 37% / 23% / 19% — Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Schools split: 46% / 33% / 13% — Does prayer change God's mind? Schools split: 46% / 33% / 13% — How is knowledge of reality produced? Schools split: 25% / 17% / 13% — Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? Schools split: 46% / 33% / 13% — Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? Schools split: 48% / 15% / 15% — Is memory stored or reconstructed? Schools split: 44% / 37% / 13% — Is reality fundamentally digital? Schools split: 44% / 37% / 13% — Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal? Schools split: 15% / 14% / 4% — Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? Schools split: 65% / 16% / 10% — Should we colonize space? Schools split: 48% / 15% / 15% — What happens to "you" when you die? Schools split: 37% / 30% / 18% — What is our place in nature? Schools split: 48% / 15% / 15% — What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? Schools split: 44% / 16% / 14% — Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species? Schools split: 40% / 28% / 14% —
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets? Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it. 39% Does deleting your data online destroy something real? Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access. 39% Could the dead, in principle, be brought back? The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible. 39% Is forgiveness ontologically possible? The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was. 39%
← #1608 The Words All Works #1610 From the Acting to the Seeing →