Wenn zwei Philosophen sich treffen, so besagt ein Diktum Jean-Paul Sartres, sei es am vernünftigsten, wenn sie sich lediglich »Guten Morgen« sagten. Diese Ansicht mag in manchen Fällen sowohl der Vergangenheit als auch der Gegenwart einer gewissen Berechtigung nicht entbehren. Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Fichte und Schiller allerdings, wie sie in Form eines Briefwechsels vom Sommer 1795 vorliegt, zählt nicht zu diesen Fällen. Trotz, oder gerade aufgrund der Tatsache, daß dieser Briefwechsel, der sogenannte »Horenstreit«, aneinander vorbei verläuft -- wie noch zu (...) zeigen sein wird --, lassen sich die Positionen beider dadurch einerseits deutlicher zueinander in Beziehung setzen. Andererseits können mittels eines solchen Bezuges die Differenzen beider Denker klarer markiert werden. (shrink)

Wenn zwei Philosophen sich treffen, so besagt ein Diktum Jean-Paul Sartres, sei es am vernünftigsten, wenn sie sich lediglich »Guten Morgen« sagten. Diese Ansicht mag in manchen Fällen sowohl der Vergangenheit als auch der Gegenwart einer gewissen Berechtigung nicht entbehren. Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Fichte und Schiller allerdings, wie sie in Form eines Briefwechsels vom Sommer 1795 vorliegt, zählt nicht zu diesen Fällen. Trotz, oder gerade aufgrund der Tatsache, daß dieser Briefwechsel, der sogenannte »Horenstreit«, aneinander vorbei verläuft -- wie noch zu (...) zeigen sein wird --, lassen sich die Positionen beider dadurch einerseits deutlicher zueinander in Beziehung setzen. Andererseits können mittels eines solchen Bezuges die Differenzen beider Denker klarer markiert werden. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Das Begreifen des Unbegreiflichen, Philosophie, und Religion bei Johann Gottlieb Fichte 1800-1806Dorothea WildenburgChristoph Asmuth. Das Begreifen des Unbegreiflichen, Philosophie, und Religion bei Johann Gottlieb Fichte 1800-1806. Stuttgart/Bad Cannstadt: frommann-holzboog, 1999. Pp. 411. DM 118.00."God is neither One nor Many... all these predicates are suited only to finite natures, not for the Incomprehensible... Yet if we attribute even one of them to Him, it is all the same no (...) matter which; the error is always the same, that one wants to comprehend the Incomprehensible." These remarks of the Verantwortungsschrift gegen die Anklage des Atheismus (1799) indicate a main concern of Fichte's later philosophy. This is the problematical relation between the "Absolute" or "God" as origin and principle of all knowing on the one hand, and the possibility of comprehending the Absolute on the other. The Absolute, as knowing, is always finite and differentiated within itself. Asmuth's purpose is to clarify this relation in Fichte.The chief emphasis of this book lies on the presentation and interpretation of two later writings, Die Anweisung zum seeligen Leben (1806) and the Wissenschaftslehre 18042, the second of three series of lectures on the Wissenschaftslehre held in Berlin. Another important [End Page 288] topic is the relationship between strictly philosophical and popular writings, because the Anweisung belongs to Fichte's popular texts, while the Wissenschaftslehre 18042 is a scholarly or scientific one. Asmuth shows that the methodological difference between the popular and the scientific approach is based on the structure of the Wissenschaftslehre, which for Fichte is always situated between realism and idealism: "The popular is the real form of lecturing; the scholarly, the ideal form" (18).The work thus covers a whole thematic complex, which the author presents in its multiple entanglements: He discusses the topic of Comprehending the Incomprehensible, asking whether and how the unity of the Absolute and the differences of knowing are compatible, and how this topic is connected with the relation between popular philosophy and Wissenschaftslehre. He links this question in turn to the methodological standpoint in the Wissenschaftslehre, thus its realism and idealism.In the first three of seven chapters the work turns to religion, thus toward the "real" side of knowing, to popular philosophy. At first Asmuth deals with this subject historically, presenting Fichte's assessment of popular lecturing and showing that it was for Fichte realistic and corresponding to "ordinary knowing" (47). After representing Fichte's position within its historical context, he provides a detailed analysis of the Anweisung, emphasizing its rational character and rejecting any mystical interpretation, such as he finds in Edith Düsing's recent publications, for example (68). The task of religion is not, Asmuth points out, to clarify the relation between concept and what is incomprehensible, but rather merely to state this relation factually: "Religion conceives the relation of finite and absolute... in its That" (112). Fichte does not separate religion from Wissenschaftslehre. They are both complementary accesses to the Absolute, but not of equal value: "Thinking in its constitutive function remains predominant." (121)After the representation of Fichte's view of Christianity, we find (chapters IV-VI) the discussion of the Wissenschaftslehre, the "ideal" side of knowing. The discussion starts with the problem of appropriate terminology. Taking Fichte's difficult language as the occasion to ask whether it is possible in principle to seek through language the "pre-linguistic An sich of what has been thought (des Gedachten)" (164), he tries to make clear how the problem of language can be used to explain Fichte. Yet it remains unclear whether language as such can be used to explain the fact that Fichte's texts themselves are partly "cryptic." The fact that the Absolute cannot be attained through language does not itself provide a sufficient reason for incomprehensible writing.The fifth and sixth chapter contain a philosophical-historical analysis of the Wissenschaftslehre 18042. Asmuth argues against Wolfgang Janke and Michael Brüggen that the Wissenschaftslehre proper does not start before lecture 15. The preceding lectures, which Asmuth considers as Propraedeutics, serve only as preparation for the Doctrine of Truth, which is finally followed by the Phenomenology. The Propraedeutics... (shrink)

Um zu bestimmen, ob der Existentialismus Sartres ein kritischer Idealismus ist, muß zunächst geklärt werden, was unter Existentialismus zu verstehen ist - vorausgesetzt, daß man bereits weiß, was kritischer Idealismus bedeutet. Unter kritischem Idealismus soll hier die Philosophie des frühen Johann Gottlieb Fichte verstanden werden, die versucht, in der Frage nach den Konstitutionsbedingungen von Selbstbewußtsein einen Mittelweg zwischen einem einseitigen Idealismus und einem ebenso einseitigen Realismus zu gehen.

Zwischen Johann Gottlieb Fichte, dem Philosophen der „abstrakten Denkkünsteleien“ (Husserl), und Jean-Paul Sartre, dem Existentialisten, der sich von der Phänomenologie faszinieren ließ, weil man damit selbst über ein Glas Bier philosophieren könne, scheinen Welten zu liegen. Umso überraschender ist das Resultat der vorliegenden Studie, die aufzeigt, daß sich wesentliche Argumentationsweisen und Resultate von Sartres Selbstbewußtseinstheorie vor dem Hintergrund der Fichteschen Transzendentalphilosophie interpretieren und einsichtig machen lassen.Während Sartre bisher zumeist mit Husserl, Heidegger oder Hegel in Verbindung gebracht wurde, stellt diese Arbeit (...) die erste Monographie dar, die die Theorie Sartres inDas Sein und das Nichts aus der Perspektive des frühen Fichte in den Blick nimmt. DessenGrundlage der gesammten Wissenschaftslehre von 1794/95 dient der Autorin als Interpretationsfolie, vor der die grundlegenden Elemente von Sartres Ansatz untersucht werden: Die Konstitution des Für-sich in ihrem apriorischen Bedingungsgefüge, die Endlichkeit des Selbstbewußtseins und dessen Intentionalität, die ursprüngliche Mangelhaftigkeit des Für-sich angesichts des höchsten Werts, das präreflexive Cogito sowie schließlich die Aspekte, die mit dem „Primat des Praktischen“ in Verbindung stehen. Auch wenn der ‚Priester der Freiheit' des 20. Jahrhunderts den ‚Priester der Wahrheit' des 18. Jahrhunderts abzulösen scheint, zeigt die Autorin auf, daß Sartre in vielen Punkten als eine Art 'französischer Fichte' verstanden werden kann. (shrink)

Um zu bestimmen, ob der Existentialismus Sartres ein kritischer Idealismus ist, muß zunächst geklärt werden, was unter Existentialismus zu verstehen ist - vorausgesetzt, daß man bereits weiß, was kritischer Idealismus bedeutet. Unter kritischem Idealismus soll hier die Philosophie des frühen Johann Gottlieb Fichte verstanden werden, die versucht, in der Frage nach den Konstitutionsbedingungen von Selbstbewußtsein einen Mittelweg zwischen einem einseitigen Idealismus und einem ebenso einseitigen Realismus zu gehen.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 39.1 (2001) 153-155 [Access article in PDF] Dieter Sturma. Philosophie der Person. Die Selbstverhältnisse von Subjektivität und Moralität. Paderborn: Schöningh, 1997. Pp. 376. DM 68.00. According to Sturma, it was John Locke who first developed the concept of a person, molding it into an "elaborated theory of personal identity" (27). His approach was continued first by Hume, Rousseau, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, (...) and then in the 20th Century—via Freud, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and Sartre—by Anglo-American philosophers such as Strawson, Rawls, Frankfurt, Nagel, Parfit, and Taylor. While these authors provide the main orientation for Sturma, Kant seems to assume a leading position. The aim of the book is to trace out a non-reductionist philosophy of the person. Sturma believes that personhood consists in the fully developed subjectivity together with the moral components included in it" and he intends to uncover the "consequences for practical self-relation arising from it" (38). These relations are, first of all, relations to oneself.The book consists of eleven chapters. The last one is a kind of summary. The other ten can be subdivided into three parts. The first part serves as introduction and propedeutic. In it, Sturma first presents "Subjects and Problems of the Philosophy of the Person" (chapter I), then gives a compendium of "The History of the Philosophy of the Person" (chapter II), and finally presents a "Critique of Reductionism"(chapter III). The last part is the largest. Its main thesis is "that persons are at least in principle subjects who are due freedom, accountability, and self-determination, and who [... ] can initiate reflective and practical self-relations within the social space" (59). After claiming that in practice "every reductionism conceals a kind of determinism" (60), Sturma gives a sketch of his critical approach. Dealing with different forms of determinism, physicalism, logical empiricism, with Wittgenstein's position between reductionism and non-reductionism, and with Thomas Nagel's critique of reductionism, Sturma arrives at a discussion of the difference between (mental) experience (Erlebnis) and events (Ereignis). As a proponent of a "moderate naturalism" (95), he tries in the style of Davidson to take up a middle position, which neither denies events in space and time nor eliminates the personal standpoint of experience.The next two chapters, "Self-Consciousness"(chapter IV) and "Consciousness and [End Page 153] Personal Identity"(chapter V) form the second, more theoretical, part of the book. According to Sturma, Descartes deserves credit for revealing the irreducibility of self-consciousness. This irreducibility is revealed by the fact "that persons become aware of their existence in a way which differs from all other states of consciousness" (103). After discussing mainly analytical objections—above all Wittgenstein's 'private-language' argument and Ayers' critique of the Cogito argument—he summarizes the position of the Heidelberg school (Henrich, et al.). His effort is directed primarily at showing that reflexivity and self-reference are essential to self-consciousness. He tries to develop a concept of self-consciousness that is capable of tying together self-acquaintance and reflection. He believes that only in this way can "the project for a philosophy of the person that is critical of reductionism be transferred to a constructive concept of self-determination"(107). In self-consciousness a person always behaves in relation "to her concrete existence and her concrete behavior in ontological and social space." This explains why the immediate self-relation of self-consciousness is "always an alteration and its subject at once the altering instance and the altered person" (144f). This is followed in the fifth chapter by an examination of the relation between person and identity, where Sturma_starting with the Locke-Leibniz controversy_shows that a person refers to her identity as a given as well as something that needs to be produced (cf.187).The next chapter, "Personal Identity and Practical Self-relations" (chapter VI) is the beginning of the third part of the book, which is essentially practical. In this and the following chapters—"Contexts of Practical Self-relations: The Unconscious and... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Das Begreifen des Unbegreiflichen, Philosophie, und Religion bei Johann Gottlieb Fichte 1800-1806Dorothea WildenburgChristoph Asmuth. Das Begreifen des Unbegreiflichen, Philosophie, und Religion bei Johann Gottlieb Fichte 1800-1806. Stuttgart/Bad Cannstadt: frommann-holzboog, 1999. Pp. 411. DM 118.00."God is neither One nor Many... all these predicates are suited only to finite natures, not for the Incomprehensible... Yet if we attribute even one of them to Him, it is all the same no (...) matter which; the error is always the same, that one wants to comprehend the Incomprehensible." These remarks of the Verantwortungsschrift gegen die Anklage des Atheismus (1799) indicate a main concern of Fichte's later philosophy. This is the problematical relation between the "Absolute" or "God" as origin and principle of all knowing on the one hand, and the possibility of comprehending the Absolute on the other. The Absolute, as knowing, is always finite and differentiated within itself. Asmuth's purpose is to clarify this relation in Fichte.The chief emphasis of this book lies on the presentation and interpretation of two later writings, Die Anweisung zum seeligen Leben (1806) and the Wissenschaftslehre 18042, the second of three series of lectures on the Wissenschaftslehre held in Berlin. Another important [End Page 288] topic is the relationship between strictly philosophical and popular writings, because the Anweisung belongs to Fichte's popular texts, while the Wissenschaftslehre 18042 is a scholarly or scientific one. Asmuth shows that the methodological difference between the popular and the scientific approach is based on the structure of the Wissenschaftslehre, which for Fichte is always situated between realism and idealism: "The popular is the real form of lecturing; the scholarly, the ideal form" (18).The work thus covers a whole thematic complex, which the author presents in its multiple entanglements: He discusses the topic of Comprehending the Incomprehensible, asking whether and how the unity of the Absolute and the differences of knowing are compatible, and how this topic is connected with the relation between popular philosophy and Wissenschaftslehre. He links this question in turn to the methodological standpoint in the Wissenschaftslehre, thus its realism and idealism.In the first three of seven chapters the work turns to religion, thus toward the "real" side of knowing, to popular philosophy. At first Asmuth deals with this subject historically, presenting Fichte's assessment of popular lecturing and showing that it was for Fichte realistic and corresponding to "ordinary knowing" (47). After representing Fichte's position within its historical context, he provides a detailed analysis of the Anweisung, emphasizing its rational character and rejecting any mystical interpretation, such as he finds in Edith Düsing's recent publications, for example (68). The task of religion is not, Asmuth points out, to clarify the relation between concept and what is incomprehensible, but rather merely to state this relation factually: "Religion conceives the relation of finite and absolute... in its That" (112). Fichte does not separate religion from Wissenschaftslehre. They are both complementary accesses to the Absolute, but not of equal value: "Thinking in its constitutive function remains predominant." (121)After the representation of Fichte's view of Christianity, we find (chapters IV-VI) the discussion of the Wissenschaftslehre, the "ideal" side of knowing. The discussion starts with the problem of appropriate terminology. Taking Fichte's difficult language as the occasion to ask whether it is possible in principle to seek through language the "pre-linguistic An sich of what has been thought (des Gedachten)" (164), he tries to make clear how the problem of language can be used to explain Fichte. Yet it remains unclear whether language as such can be used to explain the fact that Fichte's texts themselves are partly "cryptic." The fact that the Absolute cannot be attained through language does not itself provide a sufficient reason for incomprehensible writing.The fifth and sixth chapter contain a philosophical-historical analysis of the Wissenschaftslehre 18042. Asmuth argues against Wolfgang Janke and Michael Brüggen that the Wissenschaftslehre proper does not start before lecture 15. The preceding lectures, which Asmuth considers as Propraedeutics, serve only as preparation for the Doctrine of Truth, which is finally followed by the Phenomenology. The Propraedeutics... (shrink)