An Ontology of "We":
Transformation of the Subject, from "I" to "We."

This essay constitutes the first part of An Ontology of "We," which has, for its object, a transformation of the subject, from "I" to "We." Firstly clarifying, in its critical phase, our situation of today, exposed to the Globalization and IT innovation, this essay tries to change our (individual) way of thinking, based on "I," from the beginning of the modern age after the Descartes evenement. Our existence has been constructed and dominated by the idea of "I=Ego," always distinguishing its Self from Others. Even if it is called borderless, it is still surrounded by the things fixed on its border, such as Nation, People, Race, Culture, Civilization, etc. Therefore, everywhere in our life, we observe conflict, war and terrorism----all kinds of antagonism. In the age of Globalization, it seems that we are living blocked in our "Self" without exit.

Today, many people need to change this way of thinking, because it could carry them to egocentrism. As a natural consequence, some people develop their thinking based on Other(s), just like an antithesis of the thinking of "I." We rather think that altruism is not only a transformation of egocentrism, but also both kinds of thinking imply the same type of thinking based on "Individual." We try to develop a new type of thinking (ontology), not based on "I," not on "Individual," but on "We," in its plurality. That is from the conviction of the experience of our real life. We are already here in our coexistence, called "being-together." Heidegger's "In-der-Welt-Sein" and Husserl's "Lebens Welt" are perhaps an expression of this experience.

Secondly considering, the meaning of "We" for Husserl, constructed in a correlation around/based on the "Transcendental I," we conclude that this "We" does not have any distinguished characters, and it only remains itself by forgetting its different plural phases. This "We" exists in the two expressions: "we each" and "we all." "We" does not explain any plurality situated between these two. Face-to-face with this "We," we interpret "We others" of Nietzsche in this sense, not "we(-being)-now-with-me," but "we(-being)-not-yet," however "we-coming(-from-the-future)," by responding to the call of the "I" of Nietzsche. "We others" shows us mutual recognition of "We" and "I," and face-to-face with our contemporary "We," given accidentally, opens a new horizon of coexistence, constructed not on "I," but on "We," in its plurality. That's what our new ontology consists of.

Key Words: From the discourse on "I" to the discourse on "We" "We others" face-to-face with "We" Ontology based on "We"