In the Wissenschaftslehre 1804-II, Fichte claims to both continue and correct Kant’s transcendental philosophy. I reject this double claim by demonstrating that Fichte’s engagement with Kant is guided by altered premises that make the affiliation to Kant’s transcendental philosophy seem implausible. These divergences culminate in an opposing understanding of unity between the two philosophers, which can be revealed by attention to Fichte’s objections to the KdU. Fichte’s thesis that Kant established three absolutes instead of one absolute is based on Fichte’s (...) own demand for an absolute unity that is not differentiated in itself, which is also reflected in his transposition of Kant’s concept of the root to the KdU. In section 2, I attempt a precise exegetical reconstruction of Fichte’s concept of the absolute, as well as of his thesis of Kant’s triple absolute. In section 3, I raise three interconnected objections to this: first, Fichte’s critique is actually based on an accusation of dualism, which is suggested both by his own concept of the absolute and the programme of the KdU (section 3.1). Second, however, Kant’s two absoluta should be seen more as constructions by Fichte rather than as revealing problems immanent to Kant’s philosophy (section 3.2). Third, these divergences can be traced back to Fichte’s own understanding of unity, which gives rise to his objections to the KdU in the first place (section 3.3). (shrink)

This is a review of a book by Simon Schüz, in which transcendental arguments in Fichte and Hegel are examined.