ZusammenfassungDas Verhältnis zwischen Fichtes WL und Schleiermachers Reden wurde heftig diskutiert. Dieser Aufsatz hält den Einfluss von Fichtes Wissenschaftslehre auf Schleiermacher für nicht stichhaltig. Es wird darauf hingewiesen, dass es verschiedene Modelle der Beziehung zwischen dem Gefühl und dem Absoluten bei Fichte und bei Schleiermacher gibt: Fichte betrachtet das „Gefühl der Abhängigkeit“ vom Absoluten oder vom absoluten Sein als eine Selbstvernichtung der formalen Freiheit, während Schleiermacher zufolge das Individuum mit dem Absoluten im Gefühl vereinigt wird.

Fichte claims in Section 5 of the Grundlage der gesamten Wissenschaftslehre that the absolute I contains a difference between two directions. In this paper, I argue that this specific claim complements, rather than contradicts, his general position in Section 1, according to which the absolute I is a simple identity or a point. I first show that we can identify a version of what I call Fichte’s Two-Directions Theory in texts written both before and after the GWL. I term this (...) version his Two-Series Theory. Drawing on this reading, I demonstrate, in contrast to previous research, that Fichte consistently formulates the absolute I in a twofold manner: as a pure act that precedes any difference and as a proposition that contains a relation. I further argue that Fichte’s treatment of the absolute I as a simple unity and as a unity of two directions maps onto two stages within his philosophical investigation. On my account, Fichte seeks to comprehend the absolute I by considering the I’s activity both as it is in itself and as it presents itself to thought. (shrink)

K.L. Reinhold’s interpretation of deduction plays a seminal role in the development of German Idealism. However, as yet Reinhold’s concept of deduction has not been sufficiently explained. The goals of this paper are to analyze Reinhold’s notion of deduction in his Neue Darstellung der Hauptmomente der Elementarphilosophie, to reconstruct his deduction of a priori forms of representation and to discuss his deduction critically. In doing so, I will present Reinhold’s objections against Immanuel Kant’s method in the Critique of Pure Reason.

Since the seminal 1955 habilitation by Heidegger's pupil, Walter Schulz, it has become an open secret that Schelling's philosophy, more than that of any of the other German Idealists, is an immediate antecedent to Heidegger's thought. For this reason, it is all the more fascinating that to this day research is still lopsidedly concerned with the interpretation of Heidegger's reading of Schelling's Freedom Essay and that a thorough and overarching investigation into the idealistic inheritance of Martin Heidegger's thought remains wanting. (...) The same applies to the debates that Heidegger's students began in the twentieth century. The traditions of modern nature ethics and the criticism of technology, which derive from Schelling, were interpreted and mediated through Heidegger to his students Hans Jonas, Hannah Arendt, and Günther Anders. This essay attempts to delineate some of the basic features of a more bilateral or dialogical relationship between these two philosophers and to more fully appreciate Heidegger's relationship to German Idealism in general and Schelling in particular. (shrink)