←IndexThe Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam

Lecture 4: The Human Ego — His Freedom and Immortality

Section 3 of 13

The characteristics of the ego

Section summary

In brief

Having secured that the ego is real, Iqbal turns to what it is, isolating two defining features: non-spatiality (mental states do not sit side by side in space; the ego can even generate multiple space-orders) and essential privacy (no one else — not even God — can feel, judge, or choose in my place). Together these establish that the ego cannot be reduced to the body and that its freedom is structurally inalienable.

Section 2 confronted the strongest modern Western case against the reality of the ego — Bradley's relational critique — and showed that even its proponent could not sustain the denial. The ego survived the critique not by resolving its internal contradictions but by proving undeniable: 'our feeling of egohood is ultimate.' But survival is not characterisation. To say that the ego is real is not yet to say what it is. Section 3 now moves from the question of the ego's reality to the question of its nature: what are the distinctive features that make the ego the kind of thing it is?

The section advances through two connected arguments, each isolating a characteristic that distinguishes mental reality from physical reality. The first argument concerns the ego's non-spatiality. Mental states — beliefs, desires, aesthetic responses — do not exist side by side in space the way parts of a material object do. You cannot locate one belief to the left of another. Your appreciation of the Tāj Mahal does not diminish with your distance from Āgra. The ego can even entertain multiple incompatible space-orders simultaneously: the space of waking experience and the space of dreams do not overlap or interfere with each other. From this non-spatiality, Iqbal draws a conclusion about time: the ego's duration is fundamentally different from physical duration. A physical event's history is 'stretched out in space' — it leaves marks, traces, residues — but these are only emblems of duration, not duration itself. True time-duration, the living experience of temporal flow, belongs to the ego alone.

The second argument concerns the ego's essential privacy. Iqbal demonstrates this through three examples that ascend in philosophical significance: the syllogism (inference requires that all premisses be held by a single mind), desire (the satisfaction of another's identical desire does not satisfy mine), and pain (the dentist cannot experience my toothache). The argument culminates in a theological claim of remarkable boldness: 'God Himself cannot feel, judge, and choose for me when more than one course of action are open to me.' The ego's privacy is not a deficiency to be overcome but a constitutive feature — the very thing that makes it an ego rather than an interchangeable component of a larger whole.

Together, these two arguments — non-spatiality and privacy — prepare the ground for the rest of Lecture IV. If the ego is non-spatial, then it cannot be reduced to the body (which is spatial). If the ego's duration is uniquely its own, then the physics of material time cannot exhaust the question of the ego's persistence. And if the ego is essentially private — so private that not even God can substitute for it — then the question of its freedom becomes urgent: a being whose inner life is impenetrable even to the Absolute is a being whose choices must be genuinely its own.

Original text

The finite centre of experience, therefore, is real, even though its reality is too profound to be intellectualized. What then is the characteristic feature of the ego? The ego reveals itself as a unity of what we call mental states. Mental states do not exist in mutual isolation. They mean and involve one another. They exist as phases of a complex whole, called mind. The organic unity, however, of these interrelated states or, let us say, events is a special kind of unity. It fundamentally differs from the unity of a material thing; for the parts of a material thing can exist in mutual isolation. Mental unity is absolutely unique. We cannot say that one of my beliefs is situated on the right or left of my other belief. Nor is it possible to say that my appreciation of the beauty of the Tāj varies with my distance from Āgra. My thought of space is not spatially related to space. Indeed, the ego can think of more than one space-order. The space of waking consciousness and dream-space have no mutual relation. They do not interfere with or overlap each other. For the body there can be but a single space. The ego, therefore, is not space-bound in the sense in which the body is space-bound.

Again, mental and physical events are both in time, but the time-span of the ego is fundamentally different to the time-span of the physical event. The duration of the physical event is stretched out in space as a present fact; the ego's duration is concentrated within it and linked with its present and future in a unique manner. The formation of a physical event discloses certain present marks which show that it has passed through a time-duration; but these marks are merely emblematic of its time duration; not time-duration itself. True time-duration belongs to the ego alone.¹⁴

Another important characteristic of the unity of the ego is its essential privacy which reveals the uniqueness of every ego. In order to reach a certain conclusion all the premisses of a syllogism must be believed in by one and the same mind. If I believe in the proposition 'all men are mortal', and another mind believes in the proposition 'Socrates is a man', no inference is possible. It is possible only if both the propositions are believed in by me. Again, my desire for a certain thing is essentially mine. Its satisfaction means my private enjoyment. If all mankind happen to desire the same thing, the satisfaction of their desire will not mean the satisfaction of my desire when I do not get the thing desired. The dentist may sympathize with my toothache, but cannot experience the feeling of my toothache. My pleasures, pains, and desires are exclusively mine, forming a part and parcel of my private ego alone.

My feelings, hates and loves, judgements and resolutions, are exclusively mine. God Himself cannot feel, judge, and choose for me when more than one course of action are open to me. Similarly, in order to recognize you, I must have known you in the past. My recognition of a place or person means reference to my past experience, and not the past experience of another ego. It is this unique interrelation of our mental states¹⁴ that we express by the word 'I', and it is here that the great problem of psychology begins to appear. What is the nature of this 'I'?

← Previous

2. Bradley and the reality of the ego

4. The soul-substance theory and its critique

Original text