Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762–1814)

Fichte has been the German Idealist I have read the most of. I can't deny thinking that some of the ideas he was working with were interesting. I don't know if this collection of introductions to his idealist system are more clearly and comprehensively elucidating, but they do offer further explanations of the system that may allow one to see it from a greater vantage point. His letters, I am finding, provide an even greater context to his Wissenchaftslehre (loosely translated as the science show more of knowledge). They do make more evident the theological implications of his system. I would definitely advise people studying Fichte to consult his correspondences as well.
This volume also contains his notorious essay on divine governance where he claimed that there was no God beyond the moral ordering of the world. Obviously, that statement was ridiculous and got him into trouble. Some going so far as to even claim Fichte was an atheist. He wasn't an atheist, but some of his statements, including that one, indicate some amount of erroneous thinking and more than a tinge of arrogance. Some of his responses to the charge of atheism are included here. They do not help to vindicate the statement however. His main defense was that people failed to understand what he was thinking. Often Fichte resorts to the defense that people cannot critique his system until they understand his system. This usually amounts to anyone who criticizes it, fails to understand it; in other words, understanding it means to believe it, thus it is beyond criticism until one agrees with it! Part of his defense to the atheist charge is bound up with his system and boils down to the way he uses terminology; order cannot be static, it must be dynamic; and dynamism denotes life and thus God in actuality, or some such line of thinking. Even aside from the misusing of standard terminology in idiosyncratic ways in a public setting, my main issue is that the statement in question still makes God dependent on mundane notions; at least that is the way it appears from wording. The wording is poor and really indefensible as it stands. No amount of rhetorical gymnastics saves the statement. It is one example of a number of statements that show that Fichte imbued his system with a Godlike perfection. He was not the last idealist to do that. Hegel was certainly guilty of doing the same. In Hegel's case, certain members of the New Hegelians (e.g. Marx) were able to interpret his system atheistically. It stands to reason that much of the erroneous hubristic system building found in Fichte was also found in Hegel. Both found themselves in close proximity to charges of atheism (in the latter case positively, and in the former negatively) because of the kinds of claims they were making; at least through implication, if in no other manner.
I like Fichte to a degree. Some of his notions are indeed profound, so I think he is worth reading. I feel the same way about Hegel; although I have had a tendency to favor Fichte. I don't have all of the antipathy towards Idealism that was often found in Kierkegaard, although I approach Idealism with some amount of ambivalence. I recognize that there are problems with Idealism; but in certain respects, and in very particular contexts, some of the ideas found in this tradition are accurate -if not used as some all-encompassing box wherein we fit all of existence, that is. Many of Kierkegaard's criticisms are my own, but I find more things of value here than Kierkegaard did, or at least would've admitted to. show less

Riffing on Kant. Patient zero for “progress,” liberal internationalism, and auto-lobotimization in the service of kindness.

Fichteova Filozofija zidarstva predstavlja pokušaj da se sa stanovišta visoke, klasično-idealističke filozofije rasvijetli i preuzme, zapravo "iskoristi" za svoje svrhe, jedna u doba prosvjetiteljstva i rane romantike utjecajna i raširena, iako i tada ništa manje opskurna kultura tajnog društva, da se preko nje ostvari ideja čovjeka kao svjetskog građanina, i poluči utjecaj na tzv. "veliko" ili javno društvo i na politiku.
Riječ je o vezi Fichtea sa "slobodnim zidarstvom" ili show more "masonerijom", tajnim društvom tajnovite povijesti, koje zapravo, otkako je 1717. u Londonu godine stupilo u javnost osnivanjem Velike lože Engleske, nije više bilo tajno, i s kojim su mnoge veličine toga doba - poput Lessinga i Goethea ili Mozarta - bile u bliskim vezama.
Za tom je pseudo-tajnom, ali ipak posebnom društvenom subkulturom Fichte posegnuo nakon što je zbog spora o ateizmu protjeran sa sveučilišta u Jeni (1799.) te je morao tražiti zaštitu i nove društvene veze.
No pokušaj djelovanja filozofije na društvenu zbilju, posvjedočen Filozofijom zidarstva te Fichteovim motivima saopćenim u bogatoj prepisci i napose izvanjskim događajima iz njegove osobne povijesti, usporediv je s avanturizmom kakav nalazimo još samo kod Platona u njegovoj poznatoj sirakuškoj ekspediciji, opisanoj u VII. pismu, ili ponovo kod Heideggera u njegovoj avanturi s nacionalsocijalističkim pokretom.
U tim aspektima leži sigurno i poneki od razloga za nedoumice oko ovog Fichteova filozofskog djela, koje nije bilo uključeno u prvu publikaciju njegovih sabranih djela u izdanju njegova sina Immanuela Hermanna Fichtea.

Iako objavljena za Fichteova života, prva publikacija Filozofije zidarstva nije istovjetna s oblikom i izričajem Fichteova izvornog djela. Riječ je o dvama predavanjima pred izabranim članovima bratstva slobodno-zidarske lože Royal York u Berlinu (u travnju 1800.). To nepodudaranje izričito posvjedočuju uvodne riječi nakladnika časopisa "Eleuzinija 19. stoljeća" (Eleusinien des 19. Jahrhunderts), Johanna Fischera, inače jednog od majstora te berlinske lože, koji je privolio Fichtea na objavljivanje predavanja, iako navodno nevoljko (Eleusinien, I sv., 1801 i II sv., 1802). Oblik akademskog predavanja Fischer je preinačio u oblik pisama, u skladu s tada vladajućom epistolarnom književnom kulturom, ali ih je znatno izobličio vlastitim umetcima.

Tekst ovog uglavnom nepoznatog spisa J. G. Fichtea, koji se vodi pod dvostrukim naslovom, Filozofija zidarstva ili Pisma Konstantu, objavljujemo ovdje u popravljenom i proširenom obliku.
Preveden je i priređen, zajedno s predgovorom urednika, prema ažuriranom i komentiranom izdanju Wilhelma Flitnera iz 1923. godine, zajedno s njegovom uvodnom povijesnom studijom (v. odj. IV). U doba ponovnog buđenja kulture i ideologije odgoja i druževnosti s početka ovog stoljeća, to je bila prva ponovna publikacija toga neobičnog spisa nakon Fichteove smrti. Iz toga kritičkog izdanja, izrađenog na temelju izvornog izdanja iz Eleuzinija, preuzimamo i polemiku između Fichtea i Ignaza Feßlera (v. odj. III), visokopozicioniranog člana berlinske lože i Fichteovog povjerenika (bivšeg jezuita i potom kantovca), na čiju inicijativu je Fichte držao svoja predavanja. Ta je polemika, vođena putem pisama, dovela do skorašnjeg Fichteovog raskida ne samo s tom ložom, nego s "masonerijom" uopće, no postala je svjedočanstvom o tajnoj namjeri jednog od najznačajnijih filozofa da iskoristi jedno tajno društvo za javne i općeljudske svrhe.

Kao uvod u Fichteovu Filozofiju zidarstva ovome smo izdanju dodali (vidi odjeljak 1.) Fichteov govor pred bratstvom lože u Rudolstadtu 1794. (s povijesno-kritičkim komentarom R. Lautha). Taj govor svjedoči s jedne strane najizravnije i možda najbolje o Fichteovim spekulativno-filozofskim motivima i namjerama, dok s druge strane daje prepoznati idejne i institucionalne nesporazume koji će proisteći iz takva kratkog spoja između jedne akademske filozofije, s njezinim svjetsko-građanskim namjerama, i "slobodnih zidara" ili "masonske sekte", jedne od možda najstarijih tradicija subkulture, poznate kao posebno omražene unutar zapadno-crkvene, napose katoličke tradicije.

Nadalje, osim dodatnih bilješki s pojašnjenjima, koje se ne nalaze u Flitnerovu izdanju, donosimo na kraju (v. odj. V) i bibliografiju izabranih, uglavnom novijih radova o slobodno-zidarskom i srodnim tajnim društvima, s filozofskom i kulturno-povijesnom relevancijom. show less

Very distinctive decorative half leather binding of the time with Oval Green Shield and a rich floral gilding. Colored end papers. Fichte's fundamental work on moral philosophy and ethics. The most important work in moral philosophy written between Kant and Hegel. The principle of morality is the necessary idea of the intelligence that it should determine its freedom according to the concept of independence