¹ I should clarify my use of the word ‘symbol’ here. The use of the word in the present context must not be understood as determined by any sort of convention which usually determines symbols. Rose, e.g., is the symbol of love in the sense that it is a convention to understand rose as the symbol of love. Language, however, cannot be understood as the symbol of the speaking subject in the sense that people conventionally understand it to be so. We use the word ‘Symbol’ in the present context in the sense of ‘figuration’ or ‘construction’: Kant's Transcendental Problem arises out of his insight that our language-system is a construction. It does not propound any such trivial doctrine that what we speak of is spoken of by a subject: the most important thesis of Transcendental Idealism is that the Subject itself is constructed or figurated in language, viz., in the word‘I’. That our entire language-system is a symbolization or construction cannot be appreciated except by understanding that the subject is incarnated in language. Far more, therefore, is expounded in the Kantian doctrine than the contemporary view that the world of our usual parlance is a linguistic-construct. The contemporary view does not at all approximate to Kant's revolutionary thesis that language is intrinsically construction, that the Subject is presented (in our experience) only as symbolized.