The PHILOSOPHY of JOHANN FICHTE: Wissenschaftslehre, Ego & Freedom
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 вер 2024
- Visit my educational site: minervawisdom....
Support Wisdom: paypal.me/PJKr...
Venmo: www.venmo.com/...
My Book on Plato: www.amazon.com...
Instagram: / paul_jkrause (@paul_jkrause)
Twitter: / paul_jkrause (@paul_jkrause)
TikTok: / paul.j.krause
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explaining the philosophy of Johann Fichte in 30 minutes. After Kant, Fichte was an important German Idealist philosophy who developed ideas of the self, ego, subjectivity and freedom that would influence Schelling and Hegel. This lecture covers the basic framework of Fichte's philosophy of knowledge, or the Wissenschaftslehre.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Krause is the editor-in-chief of VoegelinView. He is a writer, classicist, and historian. He has written on the arts, culture, classics, literature, philosophy, religion, and history for numerous publications in the English-speaking world. He is the author of Finding Arcadia (2023), The Odyssey of Love (2021), and the Politics of Plato (2020); he has also contributed to The College Lecture Today (2019) and Making Sense of Diseases and Disasters (2022).
To read with a theological framework, which Fichte by his profession applies, In the process of Ego meeting Other and becomes Absolute Ego, there is at least some indication of God's intention of human existence: Human is an Ego individual and is meant to meet Others, to fulfill a complete image of God. In other words, God is really like a Father wishes the offspring, human, to grow independently through being in the world and meeting others, mature into a degree that resembles the Father. The Absolute Ego in a Christian language can be said as the Perfect Resemblence of God's image, or the perfected human consciousness. But the big picture has more to consider. Nature compare to human who has Ego free-will, is already subject to God's will. Nature is impersonal, therefore not Egoistic in the human sense. Natural beings do not maintain a balance by active moral thoughts like human, but employ an instinctual loyalty to balance and order; in other words they simply inherit God's morality directly. Argubly natural beings have a non-human Ego that can be known, but that would be a quite different kind. If Human becomes Absolute Ego then Nature which is part of God's image also needs to be included. It is not only the perfection of moral relations in human society that constitutes the Absolute. Fichte in my opinion one-way focused on the conquest or active side of the Ego evident in human social activities, evidently his focus on making right decisions. He did not speak of the opposite side of impersonal passivity exist in Nature. Nature does not make decisions, it just is; it just have an innate balance without decision. Human does not learn this by being a member of society and keeps making right decisions to social context or even think of humanity at all. This lack of attention on Nature in Fichte's work, to me led to Schelling's work following Fichte, which Paul also presented recently.
What a pleasant surprise. You actually make sense on a topic like this.
thank you...I think I see what Shopenhauer was talking about with this guy....sounds like he could whip up quite a word salad.
I thought this was being narrated by kantbot for a second. Very similar voice.
Thanks!
Back to Fichte, super ! ... will have to check this out
Yeah, well as someone who is sort of a closest Fichtean it's always good to return to him from time to time...
@@PaulJosephKrause Why only a closet? Your introductions to Fichte and German Idealists have been important to me in centralizing the need for 'spirit' in our contemporary society. Something the Anglo orientated philosophy I was spoon fed in college sorely lacked.
@@clumsydad7158 There's a lot of bad "negative" public consideration on Fichte for one (generally by people who only read his wiki and make the leap from "German nationalism" to national socialism). I also have plenty to critique Fichte on, there are serious collectivist implications that can be drawn out in his work but I don't necessarily see it as my job to impart critique on what mostly amount to explanatory lectures/videos here on YT. Though I think, personally, Fichte retains more individualist space than Hegel. Plus, I'm far more Neoplatonic, Augustinian, and humanistic (Renaissance sense) than the German Idealists, though I have an obvious and deep influence from them -- which isn't much a surprise given the similarities and overlap between Platonic Christianity and German Idealism -- also notwithstanding that my philosophy professors over my education were both German Idealist and Kant/Hegel scholars. Anglo "analytic" and utilitarian philosophy is of the devil! :P
@@PaulJosephKrause touche', (-: , ty
Maybe I haven't gotten far enough into the video, but I'm curious as to whether Fichte posited the "other" as the thesis or the antithesis in the relationship between the subjects and objects? Further, does he expatiate on how complex that idea would become when two subjects interact, e.g. both are simultaneously subjects AND objects in that scheme. Obviously the kind of synthesis arising out of the interaction between two subject-objects would necessarily have to be vastly different and more richly complex than, say, the interaction between a person and a rock, or fungus, or plant, or dog. I suspect there must be gradations of complexity in this scheme, depending on the inherent nature of whichever theses or antitheses obtain or synthesize. Indeed, even the interplay between two human subject-objects must have, in this scheme, levels of depth and richness or complexity. For example, the synthesis between myself and a stranger must be of a less significant nature than between, say, myself and my wife. I can imagine how an analysis of this sort--strangely, an analysis that relies not on mere reduction but on synthetic reproductions--would no doubt result in a vibrant tapestry of multifarious conceptions about life, from its lowest level of relations to the highest forms of consciousness. Honestly, although I had heard a lot of the name, I hadn't heard much of his actual philosophy. Thank you for this. I'm inspired to learn more 😊
Self positing the other to deconstruct them can't get anymore gay than that he's a narcissist.. While the something others a priori something goes something other. He will reverse the something of the other to the a priori knowledge or whatever, he's schizophrenic. The something that others a priori to reverse it to something as a target 4:05 that goes something other. Seriously medieval junk modernized in a circle of historicity.
i'm a bit sick, but i found this maybe not quite as explanatory as your previous video(s) on Fichte. i was confused about fichte's rejection of kant's noumenal, but yes, he posits consciousness is the only thing we know. this time around i found his insistence on absolute knowledge kind of troubling, in the sense any insistence on absolutes to me is a bit problematic. education is the key in any circumstance, however, as humans have short spans in life to understand the essential and then implement it in a productive, loving way, let us say. an important thinker, and john vervaeke as well emphasizes the huge historical role of germans in philosophy all the way back to eckhart and ockham (in exile in munich)
Thanks again for the series. I wonder what your take on this old debate is - where do you fall with respect to German idealism. PS the pronunciation of Fichte is quite off (the combination "ch" is a particular sound, also found in "ich", I, and it doesn't sound like "ck"). But that's not a real critism, all Americans do that. Feuerbach is even worse. Come to think of it, the same comment also applied to Bach. It's not "Bakk".
I'm very self-conscious of my poor pronunciation, we Americans learn how to translate but not so much how to pronounce or speak the languages we learn -- because we learn how to read and write it. I'll never use Latin, Greek, Hebrew, or German for anything practical. What do you mean where I fall regarding German Idealism? I'm very, and deeply, influenced by it -- notwithstanding both of my philosopher advisors through my BA and MA were German Idealist scholars. On the whole, I'm sympathetic. I'm also not a materialist. But there are plenty of misgivings I have on German Idealism, though there's no real reason to raise them in what are expository/teaching videos and lectures.
@@PaulJosephKrause I'd be interested in a modern take by you on those 3 (or 4 if you get to Hegel, which it seems) philosophers.
@@watcher8582 I have a talk on Hegel here: ua-cam.com/video/JrAE8Z7I4Hc/v-deo.html
English speakers gonna Anglicise 😂
Or you could think of an English word that has (ding!) a very similar phoneme and point out that the "ch" in "Fichte" reads kind of like the very first sound in "home", "helicopter or "hierarchy", "hero", "have", "halo" etc. They don't really have a longish "h" sound in English, but still...