The reception history of the French Revolution in France and England is well documented among Anglophone scholars; however, the debate over the Revolution in Germany is much less well known. Fichte's Contribution played an important role in this debate. Presented here for the first time in English, Fichte's work provides a distinctive synthesis of Locke's "possessive individualism," Rousseau's general will, and Kant's moral philosophy. This eclectic blend results in an unusual rights theory that at times veers close to (...) a form of anarchism. Written in 1792–93, just before Fichte moved to Jena to develop his philosophical system in a series of works—above all the Wissenschaftslehre of 1794—the Contribution provides invaluable insight into Fichte's early development. In addition, Fichte's work predates much of Kant's political philosophy, and can shed light on the rich dialogue in German political thought in the 1790s. (shrink)

Die Wissenschaftslehre von 1812 - die letzte, die Fichte vollstandig vorgetragen hat - wird der Forschung erstmals in zuverlassiger Form vorgelegt. In ihr deduziert Fichte vom hochsten bestimmten 'Blick' aus, dem des sittlichen Wollens als einem der hoheren 'Schemata' der Erscheinung des Absoluten, die weiteren Momente des Wissens. Die Rechtslehre von 1812 wird ausschliesslich nach der Handschrift wiedergegeben. Drei nicht exakt zu datierende Texte zeigen Fichtes Reaktion auf die Zeitereignisse (u.a. Napoleons Kontributionsforderungen an den preussischen Staat). Ausserdem stellt (...) der Philosoph grundsatzliche Uberlegungen auch auf volkswirtschaftlichem Gebiet an (Bewertung landwirtschaftlicher Guter, Geldwerttheorie). The Wissenschaftslehre of 1812. This is the last complete version of Fichte's lectures on the Wissenschaftslehre, and it is here published for the first time in a reliable edition. This version begins with the most determinate "point of view," that of ethical willing, understood as one of the higher "schemata" of the absolute's appearance, from which Fichte deduces the additional moments of knowing. The texts of the 1812 Doctrine of Right [Rechtslehre] and the 1812 Doctrine of Ethics [Sittenlehre] published here are based entirely on the lecture manuscripts and incorporate nothing from previously published texts based upon other sources. -- Three additional texts, none of which can be precisely dated, illustrate Fichte's reaction to events of the day, such as Napoleon's demand for reparations from Prussia. Here the philosopher engages in fundamental reflections concerning the economic realm (the valuation of agricultural wealth, monetary theory). The introductory lecture of the Summer Semester of 1812 documents Fichte's efforts, at the start of the semester, to attract and to introduce as many interested students as possible to the study of philosophy. (shrink)

A modern translation of J. G. Fichte's best known philosophical work (including his two explanatory Introductions), which contributed to the development of 19th Century German Idealism from Kant's critical philosophy.

Fichte argues that the conclusion of Kant’s transcendental deduction of the categories is correct yet lacks a crucial premise, given Kant’s admission that the metaphysical deduction locates an arbitrary origin for the categories. Fichte provides the missing premise by employing a new method: a genetic deduction of the categories from a first principle. Since Fichte claims to articulate the same view as Kant in a different, it is crucial to grasp genetic deduction in relation to the sorts (...) of deduction that Kant offers. I propose to interpret genetic deduction as the simultaneous fulfillment of two tasks: answering the question quid facti by deriving the categories from the I and answering the question quid juris by establishing our entitlement to the categories as conditions of experience. While the second task represents Fichte’s agreement with Kant’s transcendental deduction, the first reflects his correction of Kant’s metaphysical deduction. (shrink)

A precursor to the hard problem of consciousness confronts nihilism. Like physicalism, nihilism collides with the first-personal fact of what perception and action are like. Unless this problem is solved, nature’s inclusion of conscious experience will remain, as Chalmers warns the physicalist, an “unanswered question” and, as Jacobi chides the nihilist, “completely inexplicable". One advantage of Kant’s Copernican turn is to dismiss the question that imposes this hard problem. We need not ask how nature is accompanied by the first-person standpoint (...) because “I think” is an apperceptive form of thinking that must be able to accompany any cognition of nature. Kant’s formal conception of apperception worries Fichte in his Nova Methodo lectures. This conception arguably cannot exhaust the ground of experience, for it does not show why we posit objects “at all". For Fichte, it is our agency that first opens a world of objects, viz., as subjects, means, ends, and obstacles. In what follows, I argue that, for Fichte, the I poses no hard problem because it collides exclusively with nihilistic views like Spinozism, which are refuted by a properly transcendental idealist conception of apperception, according to which the first-person standpoint is the absolute ground of our experience of nature. If transcendental idealism refutes nihilism, nature is no more explicable than that there is something it is like for me to perceive and act. In Section 1, I show why Kantian apperception is necessary for possible experience. In Section 2, I reconstruct Fichte’s argument that a modified conception of apperception refutes guises of nihilism, thereby solving the hard problem of consciousness. In Section 3, I suggest that transcendental idealism undermines Chalmers’ proposed solution to and Dennett’s dismissal of this problem. (shrink)

Fichte assigns ‘intellectual intuition’ a new meaning after Kant. But in 1799, his doctrine of intellectual intuition is publicly deemed indefensible by Kant and nihilistic by Jacobi. I propose to defend Fichte’s doctrine against these charges, leaving aside whether it captures what he calls the ‘spirit’ of transcendental idealism. I do so by articulating three problems that motivate Fichte’s redirection of intellectual intuition from being to acting: (1) the regress problem, which states that reflecting on empirical facts (...) of consciousness leads only to further facts and so cannot yield a first principle; (2) the rhapsody problem, which states that the categories form a haphazard set and so lack necessity unless they derive from a first principle; and (3) the nihilism problem, which states that a first principle cannot lie outside our cognition of it, lest it be the cause of our cognition and, being first, the cause of all our actions, reducing us to machines. Crucially, Fichte’s three motivating problems are in fact aspects of a single problem. Leaving any aspect unsolved spoils putative solutions to the other two. Consequently, Fichte requires a single unified solution to all three, which his doctrine of intellectual intuition provides. (shrink)

The concept of facticity denotes conditions of experience whose necessity is not logical yet whose contingency is not empirical. Although often associated with Heidegger, Fichte coins ‘facticity’ in his Berlin period to refer to the conclusion of Kant’s metaphysical deduction of the categories, which he argues leaves it a contingent matter that we have the conditions of experience that we do. Such rhapsodic or factical conditions, he argues, must follow necessarily, independent of empirical givenness, from the I through a (...) process of ‘genesis.’ I reconstruct Fichte’s argument by tracing the origin of his neologism, presenting his Jena critique of Kant’s rhapsodic appeal to the forms of judgment, and illustrating the Jena period’s continuity with the Berlin period’s genetic method, while noting a methodological shift whereby Fichte directs his critique against his own doctrine of intellectual intuition in order to eliminate its ‘factical terms.’. (shrink)

In the Vocation of Man, Fichte makes the striking claim that life is eternal, rational, our true being, and the final cause of nature in general and of death in particular. How can we make sense of this claim? I argue that the public lectures that compose the Vocation are a popular expression of Fichte’s pre-existing commitment to what I call immortalism, the view that life is the unconditioned condition of intelligibility. Casting the I as an absolutely self-active (...) or living power enables his philosophical account of both the intelligibility of objects and of what it means to die. This explains his characterization of the Wissenschaftslehre as a system in which ‘all is act, movement, and life’. In Sect. 1, I explain the context of Jacobi’s use of ‘caput mortuum’ as a term for the thing in itself. In Sects. 2 and 3, I reconstruct two immortalist arguments from Fichte’s Jena period. The first is that the I’s self-activity rules out the existence of the thing in itself and thereby vanquishes ‘death’s head’. The second is that, insofar as the I charges us with the moral perfection of nature, it is the final cause of our entire life, including its end. This is to say that the I puts our every moment into question, even our last. In Sect. 4, I use these immortalist arguments to interpret the striking claim from the Vocation. (shrink)

English summary: Edition of Johann Gottlieb Fichte's (1762-1814) The Way Towards the Blessed Life. French text. French description: L'initiation a la vie bienheureuse presente la doctrine de la religion de J.G. Fichte. S'adressant a un grand public, ce cycle de conferences tenues a Berlin en 1806 et publiees la meme annee, n'est pas un traite theologique, mais il expose les principes d'une doctrine de la vie et de la beatitude qui constitue l'application pratique et religieuse de la doctrine (...) de la science. Chef d'oeuvre edifiant, ce texte qui eclaire remarquablement (autant qu'il les suppose) les ecrits theoriques de Fichte est livre ici dans une nouvelle traduction tenant compte des recherches recentes sur le philosophe, lesquelles connaissent un nouvel essor depuis quelques annees grace a l'edition, desormais achevee, de ses oeuvres Completes a l'Academie Bavaroise des Sciences. (shrink)

La philosophie de Hegel a reussi ; trop bien, peut-etre, car Hegel a trop critique l'entetement individuel afin d'exprimer ce que chacun porte en lui ; mais nul autre n'aurait su l'exprimer avec autant de raison. Avant lui Fichte, avec lui Schelling ont fait epoque. Pris en eux-memes, ces deux philosophes sont importants. De plus, ils font l'objet de la premiere oeuvre publiee par Hegel. A propos des critiques de Reinhold, Hegel oppose Schelling a Fichte dans la difference. (...) L'essai sur la philosophie de la nature reprend cette opposition, mais une controverse s'est elevee: qui l'a ecrit, Schelling ou Hegel? (shrink)

Inhalts: Vorwort. A. SCHRIFTEN FICHTES. I. Gesammelte Werke. II. Einzelausgaben. III. Fremdsprachige Ausgaben. B. LITERATUR ZU FICHTE. I. Publikationen zu Leben und Werk im allgemeinen. II. Untersuchungen zu einzelnen Sachgebieten. III. Fichte und andere Denker. C. REGISTER. ZEITSCHRIFTENVERZEICHNIS. NACHTRAG.

Our understanding of Schelling’s internal critique of German idealism, including his late attack on Hegel, is incomplete unless we trace it to the early “Philosophical Letters on Dogmatism and Criticism,” which initiate his engagement with the problem of systematicity—that judgment makes deriving a system of a priori conditions from a first principle necessary, while this capacity’s finitude makes this impossible. Schelling aims to demonstrate this problem’s intractability. My conceptual aim is to reconstruct this from the “Letters,” which reject Fichte’s (...) claim that the Wissenschaftslehre is an unrivalled system. I read Schelling as charging Fichte with misrepresenting a system’s livability or commensurability with our finitude. My historical aim is to provide a framework for understanding Schelling’s Freiheitsschrift, which argues that a system’s liveability depends on its incompleteness or limitation by our finitude. On my reading, Schelling is early and continually committed to systematicity within the bounds of human finitude. (shrink)

‘Facticity’ is a concept that classical phenomenologists like Heidegger use to denote the radically contingent or underivably brute conditions of intelligibility. Yet Fichte coins the term, to which he gives the opposing use of denoting unacceptably brute conditions of intelligibility. For him, radical contingency is a problem to be solved by deriving such conditions from reason. Heidegger rejects Fichte's recoil from facticity with his hermeneutics of facticity, supplanting Fichte's metaphor of our always being in reason's hand with (...) the metaphor of our always having been thrown. How does Heidegger inherit and diametrically repurpose Fichte's neologism? Whence the reversed meaning of ‘facticity’ in post-Kantian thought? The answer is Lask's doctoral thesis, which exerts an acknowledged impact on Heidegger's habilitation thesis. Lask interprets ‘facticity’ as Fichte's term for the individuality problem, that is, the resistance of the material particularity of individuals to explanation by the categories genetically deduced from reason. On his interpretation, ‘facticity’ denotes radical contingency in the guise of haecceity, that is, the brute uniqueness of individuals. Lask credits Fichte with registering the problem of individuality, which highlights the world's irreducibly precategorial character. But how is ‘facticity’ transmitted from Lask to Heidegger, given their opposing interpretations of how Fichte understands its meaning? I argue that (1) Lask misreads Fichte as a proponent of facticity, that is, one whose accommodation of radical contingency deflates the Wissenschaftslehre's systematic ambitions, and (2) Lask's misreading, without deceiving Heidegger regarding the sincerity of Fichte's ambitions, encourages Heidegger's own hermeneutics of facticity. (shrink)

Johann Gottlieb Fichte hielt im Sommer 1805 in Erlangen öffentliche Vorlesungen zum Thema 'Über das Wesen des Gelehrten und seine Erscheinungen im Gebiete der Freiheit'. In diesen Vorlesungen erläuterte Fichte sein Verständnis des Wesens und der Aufgabe des Gelehrten und führte in seine Philosophie ein. Dieser Text ist ein wichtiges Zeugnis nicht nur für die Entwicklung von Fichtes Philosophie, sondern auch für die Geschichte des Deutschen Idealismus und das Verständnis von Bildung und Wissenschaft im frühen 19. Jahrhundert. Dieser (...) Band enthält den Text von J. G. Fichtes 'Über das Wesen des Gelehrten' (1805) zusammen mit Interpretationen, die Fichtes Vorlesungen im Rahmen seines eigenen Werkes und im Kontext der Philosophie- und Geistesgeschichte verorten. Mit Beiträgen von Paul Cobben, Alfred Denker, Elisabeth Kessler, C. Jeffery Kinlaw, Wilhelm Metz, Angelica Nuzzo, Ernst-Otto Onnasch, Tom Rockmore, Annette Sell, Michael Vater, Richard Velkley, Franziskus von Heereman, Holger Zaborowski u.a. (shrink)

The principal aims of this study are to compare the positions of Fichte and Marx, particularly with respect to the concept of "activity," and concurrently "to contribute to a reconceptualization" of the nineteenth century German philosophical tradition. In the seventh chapter we learn in effect that Fichte’s influence on Marx is, from a historical standpoint, barely traceable. Some of Marx’s Fichteanism may be attributable to Fichte’s influence on the Young Hegelians, and in turn their influence on Marx.

Über das Wesen des Gelehrten, und seine Erscheinungen im Gebiete der Freiheit (1805) von Johann Gottlieb Fichte -- Vorrede -- Erste Vorlesgun: Plan des Ganzen -- Zweite Vorlesung: Nähere Bestimmung des Begriffs der göttlichen Idee -- Dritte Vorlesung: Vom angehenden Gelehrten überhaupt; insbesondere vom Talente und Fleisse -- Vierte Vorlesung: Von der Rechtschaffenheit im Studiren -- Fünfte Vorlesung: Wie die Rechtschaffenheit des Studirenden sich äussere -- Sechste Vorlesung: Ueber die akademische Freiheit -- Siebente Vorlesung: Vom vollendeten Gelehrten im Allgemeinen (...) -- Achte Vorlesung: Vom Regenten -- Neunte Vorlesung: Vom mündlichen Gelehrte=Lehrer -- Zehnte Vorlesung: Vom Schriftsteller -- Menschliche Bildung und göttliche Idee. Über Struktur und Gedankengang von Fichtes Erlanger Vorlesungen Über das Wesen des Gelehrten / Annette Sell -- Über das Wesen des Gelehrten im Kontext der Wissenschaftslehre / C. Jeffery Kinlaw -- Fichte on Bestimmung and Wesen des Gelehrten / Angelica Nuzzo -- Fichte's Über das Wesen des Gelehrten, or the educated man as the salt of the Earth / Tom Rockmore -- Werkzeuge? Zur Herrschaft der Gelehrten im Kontext des Fichteschen Spätwerks / Franziskus von Heereman -- J.G. Fichtes Über das Wesen des Gelehrten und die Bestimmung des magister bei Thomas von Aquin / Wilhelm Metz -- Wie sich der Philosoph bei Descartes und Fichte zu sich selbst verhält / Elisabeth Kessler -- The ghosts of Kantian philosophy in Fichte's Über das Wesen des Gelehrten / Richard Velkley -- Reinhold über die Bildung eines neuen Menschen / Ernst-Otto Onnasch -- Die innerliche Verknüpfung von "objektiver Wissenschaft" und "subjektiver Bildung". Wilhelm von Humboldts Universitätsidee - mit einem Ausblick auf sein Kritik an Fichtes Überlegungen zum Gelehrten und zur Universität / Holger Zaborowski -- Die Todesangst als die Vermittlung zur absoluten Idee / Paul Cobben -- Fichte and Schelling / Michael Vater -- Fichtes Über das Wesen des Gelehrten und Heidegger / Alfred Denker. (shrink)

The recent resurgence of Fichte scholarship, especially on the European continent, challenges conventional views of his work. The common characterization of Fichte as a “subjective idealist” has become almost axiomatic. It is a charge traceable directly to Hegel but widely repeated by those who would not ordinarily claim Hegel as an authority. The new Fichte scholarship, however, places even Hegel’s interpretation of Fichte in question.

The problem of knowledge in German Idealism has drawn increasing attention. This is the first attempt at a systematic critique that covers all four major figures, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel. The book offers a fresh and challenging analysis.

If a problem is the collision between a system and a fact, Spinozism and German idealism’s greatest problem is the corpse. Life’s end is problematic for the denial of death’s qualitative difference from life and the affirmation of nature’s infinite purposiveness. In particular, German idealism exemplifies immortalism – the view that life is the unconditioned condition of all experience, including death. If idealism cannot explain the corpse, death is not grounded on life, which invites mortalism – the view that death (...) is the unconditioned condition of experience. In “Philosophical Letters,” Schelling critiques idealism, arguing that death symbolizes the regulative ideal of a philosophical system’s derivation, our striving for which unifies our rational activity. I interpret Schelling’s critique as explaining how death puts philosophy into question, an idea he develops in the Freedom essay and Berlin lectures. Death is not a problem to be solved by a system, but represents philosophy’s highest yet unrealizable end. (shrink)

Kant’s critique/doctrine distinction tracks the difference between a canon for the understanding’s proper use and an organon for its dialectical misuse. The latter reflects the dogmatic use of reason to attain a doctrine of knowledge with no antecedent critique. In the 1790s, Fichte collapses Kant’s distinction and redefines dogmatism. He argues that deriving a canon is essentially dialectical and thus yields an organon: critical idealism is properly a doctrine of science or Wissenschaftslehre. Criticism is furthermore said to refute dogmatism, (...) by which Fichte means Spinozism. Schelling repudiates Fichte’s position in his Philosophical Letters by reviving Kant’s distinction. First, ‘critique’ for Schelling names a canon that is valid for all systems—including Spinozism—and thus favours none—not even the Wissenschaftslehre. Second, Schelling coins ‘dogmaticism’ to refer to what Kant calls ‘dogmatism’: reason’s uncritical claim to doctrine. Hence, he says all systems—even Fichte’s—are susceptible to the ‘enthusiasm’ of mistaking themselves for doctrines or ‘objects of knowledge’, instead of subjectively valid ‘objects of freedom’. I reconstruct Schelling’s argument for reviving Kant’s distinction, while noting two consequences for German idealism. First, if criticism favours no system, a system’s origin cannot be an act of knowledge, e.g., intellectual intuition, but only an act of endorsement. Second, if dogmaticism entails enthusiasm, a system’s goal cannot be absolute knowledge, but only infinite striving. Hence, by retrieving Schelling’s notion of dogmaticism, we can both gain a better understanding of the Letters and register the impact of a core Kantian distinction on the German idealist project. (shrink)