Fichte and Schelling: Part Two

The French Revolution was a time of change. As Charles Dickens said "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times." The old institutions and ideas no longer resonated with the people. This was especially true of the younger generation. It was a time comparable to the Greek Enlightenment, or the 1960's. It was a great time to be a young romantic rebel. If you were in the right place. The right place in Germany was the University of Jena in the lecture hall of Johann G. Fichte. The parallel with the Greek Enlightenment is instructive. Socrates was surrounded by a group of talented young men, that would change the culture of Classical Civilization. So Fichte was also surrounded by a group of talented young men that would have an effect on the philosophy of Western Civilization; they had names such as Holderlin, Novalis, Schelling, and Hegel through the influence of the others. So what was the message that Fichte had that captivated so many brilliant young men? Fichte was the philosopher of freedom. So let us examine the philosophy of Fichte. Fichte's book: "The Science of Knowledge" would become a model for both Schelling and Hegel. It was meant to be a natural or pragmatic history of consciousness. Unlike Kant, Fichte would abide by the limits that Kant laid down in the critical philosophy. Fichte does not use logic and reason to move beyond experience and observation. This makes Fichte's philosophy into a radical subjectivism. Fichte recognized this and often claimed that his philosophy was the antithesis of Spinoza. We shall begin our examination with Solomon Maimon's criticism of Kant's philosophy. That Kant used causality to go beyond experience to posit the categories in the noumenal or thing in itself. Fichte realized that the answer was to move the categories into experience(phenomenal realm), and get rid of the thing in itself. the question becomes how to do this, and preserve freedom. Remember that in eighteenth century science, matter was dead and inert; it was totally subject of the laws of causality. The conception was much like a line of falling dominoes. The answer Fichte provides is what made his reputation as an important thinker. Fichte posits what he calls an intellectual intuition. The intuition is that we know we are free: human agents are striving wills. That each human agent strives for freedom and independence. Let us now break down the term "intellectual intuition." The term "intuition" has a long history in western philosophy. Unfortunately, the term "intuition" has also had varying definitions in its long history. Fichte's definition is that of Rene Descartes that an intuition is a self-evident proposition or a given. Like Descartes's "I think therefore I am" we also know we are striving for freedom and independence. We know that we are striving against obstacles to achieve our goals. This shall also become Fichte's argument against skepticism; which we shall examine later. That we cannot deny that there are obstacles that we are trying to overcome. For Fichte the self is a verb; not a noun. There is no ectoplasmic soul that experience inheres in, or writes upon. Instead the self develops through its active striving to achieve freedom and independence. The reason for the term "intellectual" is that it is a non-sensuous intuition. It is not a material given from the external world. but an intellectual given(internal state). Like Descartes, Fichte has posited the self, so like Descartes he needs to posit the external world. How Fichte does this insures his place in the history of philosophy. We know the external world exists, because it is always getting in our way. We are always striving against external obstacles. External states are dependent on internal states; no internal states, no external states. The reason we know the external world exists is because it is always getting in our way. What Fichte has done is truly momentous. Fichte has denied the supposition of eighteenth century science, that causality is the mechanism of nature and change. Instead reciprocity has become the mechanism of nature and change. This allows humans to be centers of causality without any metaphysical thickness as in Kant's philosophy. Before moving on, let us review Fichte's theory so far. Fichte has moved the "I" or self into the world of change(Kant's phenomenal realm), while keeping freedom, by changing the mechanism of change from causality to reciprocity. In this way Fichte has answered Maimon's criticism. Fichte has gotten rid of the hole that was the noumenal or thing in itself. Fichte has also stayed within the limits laid down by Kant for the use of reason and logic. Fichte uses the principle of reciprocity to not only prove the existence of the external world, and human freedom, but also to deduce the categories. Fichte's philosophy is a precursor of Hegel's dialectic and logic. Fichte deduces the categories and abstractions by showing how two opposing positions are reconciled by a higher third term. The difference between Fichte and Hegel in logic is that Fichte never moves beyond observation. Logic is a human invention, and not a discovery. Therefore logic could not be God. God for Fichte is a regulative principle, and not a constitutive principle. By regulative is meant a principle that is a goal or standard to regulate our activity. By constitutive is meant a principle that creates or generates activity. It should come as no surprise that Fichte got into trouble for this position. It was not only passionate, young, romantics that understood Fichte, but also sober, old clergyman. Fichte was accused of atheism; a charge that was justified. It is illustrative to compare Fichte with Schopenhauer on the will; we shall also compare them later on another issue. Schopenhauer thought the will was the cause of pain therefore a bad thing that should be denied; Fichte found the will to be a positive influence, so it should be pursued; Fichte thought that humans should strive for more power: that humans should try to bring all experience into human reason. That humans should strive to become God. Let us now examine the interaction between the self and the not-self. As was said before, without internal states(self) there are no external states(not-self).It is by meeting and overcoming of the not-self, that the self is able to define and know itself. If there was some completely unchecked will it would not have any self-knowledge. We define ourselves by the obstacles that we meet,the reciprocity bounces back to deepen the self(gives us self-knowledge) when it encounters an obstacle(not-self), it deepens the self by rebounding back thus defining the self. Again we see Fichte's use of reciprocity as the mechanism of change, and self-knowledge. Fichte also states that the desire even when thwarted by the not-self goes beyond the obstacle. This is a highly abstract way of saying that the striving of the self also defines the limits of an obstacle, turning the obstacle into an object. So for Fichte self-knowledge, and the categories are not innate; they are all created by the reciprocal action of the self and the not-self. Thus Fichte has shown how the categories are generated; unlike Kant. This brings us to Fichte's refutation of skepticism and solipsism. It is strange that many empiricists think that skepticism and solipsism are problems for the idealist. The reason that empiricists think this is because they do not understand the idealists conception to the self. Unlike empiricism, the self is not as ectoplasmic tablet that experience writes upon. Instead in idealism, the self is an activity; a continual striving, growing, and learning activity. That learns the difference between the self and the not-self through a dialectical reciprocity. The objective would is and abstraction; for Fichte there is no preexisting objective world; the objective world is a creation, not a discovery. The objective world is created by deducing the categories through the dialogical reciprocity of the self and not-self. Let us illustrate by a quote from F.W. v. Schelling's book: "System of Transcendental Idealism 1800" (translated by Peter Heath and Micheal Vater). "For the individual, these other intelligences are, as it were, the eternal bearers of the universe, and together they constitute so many indestructible mirrous of the objective world. The world, through it is posited solely through the self, is independent of me, since it resides for me in the institution to other intelligences; Their common world is the archetype, whose agreement with my own presentation is the sole criterion of truth. In a transcendental enquiry we make no ppeals to the fact that a discrepancy in our own presentations with respect to those of others immediately makes us doubtful as to their objectivity: nor do we argue that for every unexpected appearance it is the presentations of others which promote, as it were the touchstone; we rely rather solely on this, that intuitions outside us---so many intuitions, that is our own intuiting." Even though the above quote is taken from Schelling, it expresses the view of Fichte. We can see Fichte saw reason as a social process, and that in the contemplation versus action debate, that Fichte comes down on the side of action in finding truth. Again we see Fichte as a precursor to Hegel, in the theory of inter-subjectivity. In fact Fichte is more radical than Hegel, in his views of logic and reason that they are human creations, and not intrinsic aspects of the cosmos, that are discovered. In many ways Fichte is the most modern of the German Idealists. It should now be easy to understand why and how Fichte captivated a generation of young men. Fichte was not only one of the boldest and most original thinkers of German Idealism, but of Western philosophy. Let us now try to sum up Fichte's philosophy and identify the problems he left. Fichte reversed the traditional concept of contemplation and action. Activity became the mechanism or truth. Fichte knew what he was doing when he started "The Science of Knowledge" with a quote from Francis Bacon. The action of truth and change was reciprocity, and not causality. Humans learn by encountering obstacles, and overcoming them.The self(the striving will) and the not-self(external world) combine to make us who we are. The obstacles we encounter give us self-awareness. Self-awareness and reason are a social process. To be human is to strive for freedom and independence(power). We must now move to the problems Fichte left for hes successors. To riff on the Dickens quote I used earlier in this essay "The best thing and the worst thing about German Idealism is the incredible amount of knowledge one must have of western philosophy, religion, and culture to understand it." So let us bring the elements together to try to understand the problems and accomplishments of Fichte. The idea of the Platonic Sage. In explaining the Platonic Sage I shall follow Plotinus instead of Plato.The Platonic Sage is a person that has a unified personality. The unification has been achieved by the higher self(reason) as taking control over the lower parts of the self(emotions and desires). In other words, a person who has a conscience. A person that does not give into impulses and desires, and is ruled by reason. By reason is meant actions that can be universalized, as in the categorical imperative. The reason this is considered the optimal unification of the personality must be understood by the doctrine of the microcosm and macrocosm. By bringing the personality into unification under reason, the Platonic Sage is a microcosm of the cosmos. In the Platonic tradition the cosmos is ruled by reason; abstractions are higher than particulars. This is the source of reason's authority. The trouble in Fichte is that the emotions and desires are the primary part of the person; reason is the servant of the emotions, not the other way around as in the Platonic tradition. Reason is for Fichte is a human creation; the categories are created by the imagination. Reason is not an intrinsic part of the cosmos, but a human invention. Fichte was on the verge of saying that power is the highest value, but his was not an age to appreciate such a revolutionary transvaluation of values. Let us now review some of Kant's political philosophy. to make this clear. As I said before, Kant's political philosophy is not an add on, but the very heart of Kant's vision. This is of course part of Kant's protestant inheritance. Martin Luther and John Calvin believed that through universal education people could acquire enough reason to rule themselves. Therefore like the Platonic Sage people could become autonomous. This was the faith of the French Revolution; remember they set up a statue to the Goddess of Reason. That there was no need for a King; that a republic of self-governing citizens could bring about a utopia. Although many of the French Revolutionaries were anti religion, they still held to the top-down system; that reason was higher than particulars. In establishing a representative democracy they could lead the world to a utopia. In that representative democracy would spread through out the world, and bring about universal peace. This is what I call the revolutionary faith. Kant had the revolutionary faith; probably acquired from the enlightenment. Remember when Schelling, Holderlin, and Hegel were roommates at school they planted a Liberty Tree and danced around it when the French Revolution broke out.The trouble with Fichte's thought is that reason is not an intrinsic part of the cosmos, but a human creation, that is subject to revision. This does not lead to utopia.This is because reason does not bring one into harmony or resonance with the cosmos, but only gives power. Fichte's philosophy offers no Utopian endpoint. Fichte never seems to have caught the revolutionary faith. On the other hand Kant's political writings are visionary. That theory could become practice(a title of one of Kant's political writings) that humans could advance to perpetual peace(another title from Kant) through the enlightenment of reason. Fichte's thought provides no justification for such a belief. This is also the reason Schopenhauer is the odd man out of German Idealism. Schopenhauer was born a decade later than the principle German romantics. Schopenhauer grew up surrounded by romantics, but the world had change much in that decade. So instead of smelling the intoxicating blooms of the Liberty Tree, he smelled the smoke of the Napoleonic wars. It is easy to imagine how absurd the talk of Utopian republics sounded to one growing up during the continual wars of Napoleon. Back to Kant. The trouble with Kant is that he never left any justification for the Utopian faith. Reason is only operative in the phenomenal realm, and not intrinsic in the real world, the thing is itself. Kant used sort of a reverse ontological argument to support his political vision; that if we act like it is true, it shall become true. So the problem becomes how can reason justify the revolutionary faith in republican government? If reason is imposed from outside by a transcendent God it is tyranny, if reason is a human creation, then how can it provide an eternal guide for human activity? We are now ready for Schelling. END OF PART TWO