Fichte-Studien, volume 49 (Leiden: Brill/Rodopi Publishers, 8 April 2021), edited by David W. Wood, 471pp. -/- Presenting new critical perspectives on J.G. Fichte’s Wissenschaftslehre, this volume of articles in English by an international group of scholars addresses the topic of first principles in Fichte’s writings. Especially discussed are the central text of his Jena period, the 1794/95 Grundlage der gesammten Wissenschaftslehre, as well as later versions like the Wissenschaftslehre nova methodo (1796-99) and the presentations of 1804 (...) and 1805. Also included are new studies on the first principles of the particular sub-disciplines of Fichte’s system, such as the doctrines of aesthetics, nature, right, ethics, and history. The volume also contains a number of miscellaneous essays on Fichte research, as well as several book reviews. (shrink)

The philosophical reception of German Romanticism, lead by Manfred Frank, has focused on Novalis’ early notes while studying Fichte, titled by the editors of the critical edition, the Fichte-Studien. Frank’s claim that these notes contain the most important philosophical contribution of Romanticism has played an especially influential role in the Anglo-American interpretations of Novalis and of philosophical Romanticism in general. In this paper I contest the coherency of these notes, and argue that a proper interpretation of Novalis (...) must take into account his later works as well (something which surprisingly few American scholars do). In addition, I argue that the Fichte-Studien contain two mutually exclusive conceptions of being and the status of being, and show that in addition to Frank’s “skeptical realist” conception, a second, more idealist conception, can be found in the notes—a conception, I show, which is more in line with Novalis’ later writings. I admit, however, that although this more idealist understanding of being appears to resolve many interpretive issues, these notes are ultimately inconclusive and thus cannot be the only source for interpreting Novalis as philosopher. Rather, they can only serve as the stepping-stone from which one can begin to see the questions and concerns which occupy Novalis from this early stage, without, however, providing any answers. In this way, I hope to challenge the contemporary reception of philosophical Romanticism, and of Novalis in particular. (shrink)

RESUMO: Fruto de longa maturação filosófica desde a sua estada em Jena, e instado a isso pelas influências de Karl L. Reinhold e Johann G. Fichte, o poeta Novalis produz, a partir do outono de 1795, um conjunto de anotações fragmentárias sobre a filosofia de Fichte, hoje conhecidas como Fichte-Studien. De entre os importantes temas aí abordados, um revela-se particularmente interessante: o tema do estatuto da Filosofia no seio do problema da autocompreensão do Eu -, e (...) mais concretamente, o necessário pensar da filosofia sobre si própria, as alterações que no processo têm de sobrevir à própria filosofia e a repercussão disto na compreensão de si próprio do Eu. Nesta senda, o seguinte ensaio propõe-se mostrar como, para Novalis, a filosofia é o natural pensar do homem, e como para além disto é a própria filosofia, com o decorrer do seu pensamento sobre si própria, que molda o curso da compreensão de si próprio do Eu: quer tendo com o Eu uma origem comum, nascendo com ele, lançando-o para o mundo e cindindo a união originária em que ele de outro modo sempre estaria, quer, por fim, afirmando-se como carência deste, ou como algo por que o Eu e a própria filosofia têm de passar no seu curso, para que possam experienciar a perda, e almejar à recuperação dessa origem. ABSTRACT: Fruit of a long philosophical maturation that began with his stay in Jena, and encouraged by the influence of Karl L. Reinhold and Johann G. Fichte, the poet Novalis produced, from autumn 1795 on, a set of fragmentary notes on the philosophy of Fichte. These are now known as Fichte-Studien. Among the important issues treated in the notes, one appears particularly interesting: the treatment of the theme of philosophy within the problem of the self-understanding of the "I" - and, more specifically, the need for philosophy to think about itself, about the changes that must come upon philosophy during this process, and about the impact of these on the self-understanding of the "I". The present article aims to show how, for Novalis, philosophy is the natural thought of man. Furthermore, it aims to show how philosophy, in the course of its thought on itself, shapes the course of the self-understanding of the "I", having with the "I" a common origin, being born with it, launching it into the world, cleaving the original union in which it otherwise would always be, and finally asserting itself as a lack of this union, something through which the "I" and philosophy itself must pass in their course so they can experience this loss and aim to recover its source. (shrink)

ABSTRACT The question of human consciousness is a crucial part of Novalis’ aim of construing a self-critique of the I, or critique of human identity, as it is proposed in his “Fichte-Studien”. Namely, this question is an intermediary stage in said critique, serving as proof for Novalis’ theory of the opposites, the fundamental stage, and his position on philosophizing, the final stage of this endeavor, which will be at the basis of his whole philosophical system; and as such, (...) it is a topic of great importance, as it is not only a link in a chain of thought which aims at proving the organicity or living heterogeneity - and not Fichte’s machine-like homogeneity - of the human but is also a key topic towards the resolution of Novalis’problem of philosophy as an existential problem. Given this, the present article intends to situate the question of human consciousness in the framework of Novalis’greater scope of a critique of the I; and from then, to comment on Novalis’own position on the problem of human consciousness, as it is stated in the formula “Consciousness is the Being outside of Being, within Being”; a position which further separates the young poet from Fichte, as it renders him closer and closer to other young idealists, such as Hölderlin or Schelling. RESUMO A questão da consciência humana é uma parte crucial no intento novaliano de construir uma autocrítica do Eu, ou crítica da identidade humana, como ela é proposta nos seus “Fichte-Studien”. Designadamente, esta questão constitui um estado intermédio em tal crítica, servindo como prova da teoria dos contrários de Novalis, o estádio fundamental desta, e a posição de Novalis sobre o filosofar, o estádio final da sua empresa, a qual está na base de todo o seu sistema filosófico; e, como tal, é um tópico de grande importância, visto ser não só um elo em uma linha de pensamento que visa provar a organicidade ou heterogeneidade viva - e não a maquinal homogeneidade de Fichte - do humano, mas também um tópico-chave tendo em vista a resolução da questão novaliana da filosofia enquanto problema existencial. Assim sendo, o presente artigo propõe-se situar a questão da consciência humana no contexto maior da crítica da identidade de Novalis; e, a partir daí, comentar a posição de Novalis sobre o problema da consciência humana, como ele surge exposto na fórmula “A consciência é o Ser fora do Ser, no Ser”; uma posição que decisivamente separa o jovem poeta de Fichte, enquanto o aproxima de outros jovens idealistas, tais como Hölderlin ou Schelling. (shrink)

Editor's Preface to Fichte-Studien 49 (2021), "The Enigma of Fichte’s First Principles", (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2021): : IX-XIX. Also available on open-access. See the publisher's website.

Mit dem Untertitel »Streitfragen« bringt dieser Band 44 der Fichte-Studien eine Gruppe von Beiträgen, die das Hauptthema »Fichte und seine Zeit« behandeln und es aus unterschiedlichen Gesichtspunkten entfalten.

Die vorliegende Arbeit möchte eine entscheidende Phase im Denken des Deutschen Idealismus beleuchten. Gemäß dem Diktum der Neuzeit, nach dem Wahrheit mit Gewißheit gleichzusetzen ist, kann allein das Ich als das allem Zugrundeliegende in Anspruch genommen werden. Es ist die Transzendentalphilosophie Kants, die zuerst dieser Einsicht rückhaltlos folgt und ein philosophisches System auf dem Boden des Ich zu errichten sucht. Aber Kant hat das volle Wesen des Ich nicht durchklären können. Deshalb erweist sich auch das Herzstück seiner theoretischen Philosophie, die (...) Deduktion der Kategorien, als nicht genugtuend durchgeführt. Erst Fichte gelingt es, das Ich als ursprüngliche, alles umfassende Einheit zu entfalten. Das ermöglicht in eins die Deduktion universaler Kategorien mit systematischer Strenge. Unwiderruflich ist damit die Vollendungsgestalt eines Denkens erreicht, dessen Prinzip das Wesen des Ich ist. (shrink)

This paper addresses Fichte’s puzzle of self-consciousness. I propose a new reading of “Fichte’s original insight,” inspired by Pareyson’s general reading, which I call here the “Fichtean metaphysical turn in transcendental philosophy.” Against the mainstream view in Fichte’s scholarship, I argue that Fichte’s and Kant’s views do not concur regard- ing the primary reference of the “I”, namely spontaneous agency in thinking, which Fichte calls “Tathandlung”. Yet, their views do, in fact, concur when Fichte (...) claims that this spontaneous agency in thinking is the “essence” or the underlying nature of the self, which Kant denies. Regarding this, I take the side of Fichte. But how is Fichte’s original insight supposed to solve the puzzle of self-consciousness? At that transcendental level, the puzzle does not arise because there is no need for self-identification in the first place. Transcendental self-knowledge results from the sui generis intellectual Selbstanschauung that everyone has of oneself as sheer spontaneous agency in thinking. But at the empirical level, the puzzle does not arise either and for the same reason. Reference to the embodied self dispenses with any self-identification because it is based on the fundamental metaphysical relation everybody has to their own body, namely identity. (shrink)

The idea of a “first principle” looms large in Fichte’s thought, and its first real appearance is in his “Aphorisms on Religion and Deism” (1790), which has received little attention. I begin this paper by providing some context on that piece, and then developing a reconstruction of the position presented within it. Next, I establish that Fichte’s views at the time of writing, and for some years prior, are those of the “deist,” and clarify why he sensed he (...) had to leave this stance represented in the “Aphorisms” behind. I conclude that understanding Fichte’s shift away from “deism,” a species of what he would eventually call “dogmatism,” can also help us understand Fichte’s critique of the latter kind of thinking and so shed light on Fichte’s better-known views; and I emphasize that Fichte’s transition from a strict rationalism to a form of Kantianism may be of interest not only to scholarship on Fichte and the period, but likewise to work on rationalism in contemporary metaphysics. Finally, in an appendix I supplement the paper with a first English translation of the entire text of the “Aphorisms,” complete with annotations. (shrink)

Based on Fichte's conception of international law from the Grundlage des Naturrechts the article examines to what extent a League of nations is compatible with the sovereignty of a nation state. Fichte's concept of sovereignty refers to a republican notion of a state which guaranties the congruence of power and right. This principle leads to an internal tension, for the League presupposes the existence of sovereign states and in the same time curtails their competences. It manifests an instance (...) of power without the legitimation of the singular nations. Fichte avoids the paradoxes of the Kantian vision of a perpetual peace, because he develops a more complex concept of political power, but it remains to be a contradictory construction. In the Rechtslehre of 1812 however, Fichte follows consistently the principle of popular sovereignty and therefore waives an explicit contract among states. He thus meets the ideal of congruence of power and right and also outlines the requirements for a realistic conception of the legalization of relations between states.Ausgehend von Fichtes Grundriss des Völkerrechts, dem Abschluss der Grundlage des Naturrechts nach Principien der Wissenschaftslehre wird untersucht, inwiefern ein Völkerbund mit der Idee staatlicher Souveränität vereinbar ist. Fichtes Konzeption der Souveränität basiert auf einem republikanischen Staatsverständnis, das im Idealfall die Koinzidenz von Macht und Recht garantiert. Dieses Prinzip führt zu internen Spannungen, denn ein Bund setzt einerseits die Existenz souveräner Staaten voraus, greift aber andererseits in die Kompetenzen der Einzelstaaten ein, bildet also selbst eine Machtinstanz, ohne wie die Einzelstaaten über eine entsprechende Legitimation zu verfügen. Zwar vermeidet Fichte die Aporien der Kantischen Vision eines ewigen Friedens, weil er über einen komplexeren Machtbegriff verfügt, doch bleibt seine Konstruktion widersprüchlich. In der Rechtslehre von 1812 hält Fichte dann jedoch konsequent am Prinzip der Volkssouveränität fest und verzichtet deshalb auf einen expliziten Vertrag der Staaten untereinander. Damit trägt er dem Ideal der Kongruenz von Macht und Recht Rechnung und skizziert zugleich die Voraussetzungen für eine realistische Konzeption der Verrechtlichung der Verhältnisse zwischen den Staaten. (shrink)

Für Fichte gab es 1799 keine Lebensunmittelbarkeit ohne die Abstraktionsarbeit philosophischer Spekulation. Es gab keinen gemeinsamen Boden, den sowohl Spekulation als auch Leben einnehmen könnten. Reinhold strebte einen solchen gemeinsamen Boden an. Für Fichte stand aber dieser gemeinsame »Vereinigungspunkt« einer dialektischen Verhältnisbestimmung beider im Wege. Denn beide negieren einander, und sind in dieser Negation von einander abhängig. Leben gibt es nicht ohne spekulative Thematisierung. Philosophisches Denken muss andererseits aber auch in der Unmittelbarkeit des Lebens verwurzelt sein, um seine (...) abstrahierende Gedankenarbeit ausüben zu können. Fichte hat dies ganz deutlich gemacht 1799, zur Zeit des Höhepunktes des Atheismusstreits, in seinem Brief an Jacobi vom 22. April dieses Jahres. Er sagt. (shrink)

Für Fichte gab es 1799 keine Lebensunmittelbarkeit ohne die Abstraktionsarbeit philosophischer Spekulation. Es gab keinen gemeinsamen Boden, den sowohl Spekulation als auch Leben einnehmen könnten. Reinhold strebte einen solchen gemeinsamen Boden an. Für Fichte stand aber dieser gemeinsame »Vereinigungspunkt« einer dialektischen Verhältnisbestimmung beider im Wege. Denn beide negieren einander, und sind in dieser Negation von einander abhängig. Leben gibt es nicht ohne spekulative Thematisierung. Philosophisches Denken muss andererseits aber auch in der Unmittelbarkeit des Lebens verwurzelt sein, um seine (...) abstrahierende Gedankenarbeit ausüben zu können. Fichte hat dies ganz deutlich gemacht 1799, zur Zeit des Höhepunktes des Atheismusstreits, in seinem Brief an Jacobi vom 22. April dieses Jahres. Er sagt. (shrink)

Fichte’s essay about Machiavelli was published in 1807 in Vesta journal with the declared aim to contribute to the »defence of a formidable man’s honour«. A year later some fragments from this essay were republished at the beginning of Fichte’s celebre writing: Addresses to the German Nation. Fichte’s declared admiration for Machiavelli as political thinker is difficult to understand, as the two men had very different political conceptions. The present study demonstrates that there is no difference between (...) Fichte’s eulogy for the man who discovered the demonic nature of power and his own political theory, which contains exactly an attempt to de-demonize this power. For Fichte The Prince contains a perfect political theory useful for the past of the humanity, but his theory, based on a new form of education, addresses the problems of the future. That is why he considered Machiavelli a good specialist of the human nature who, as a real physician of culture, made a very precise diagnosis of humanity’s moral maladies.Fichtes Essai über Machiavelli wurde 1807 in der Zeitschrift Vesta veröffentlicht, um zur »Ehrenrettung eines braves Mannes« beizutragen. Ein Jahr später wurden einige Passagen am Anfang seiner Reden an die deutsche Nation neu aufgelegt. Fichtes Bewunderung für Machiavelli als politischen Denker scheint schwer erklären zu sein, weil es um zwei entgegengesetzte politische Konzeptionen geht. Es gibt jedoch keinen Widerspruch zwischen Fichtes Lobrede auf Machiavelli als politischen Denker, der die Dämonie der Macht entdeckt hat, und seiner eigenen entgegengesetzten Lehre von der Entdämonisierung der Macht. Für Fichte enthält das Buch Vom Fürsten eine politische Theorie, die für die Vergangenheit der Menschheit vollkommen gültig ist, während er durch seine Lehre von der Entdämonisierung der Macht durch eine neue Art der Erziehung die Zukunft im Auge hat. Für ihn ist Machiavelli ein tiefgründiger Kenner des Menschen und der Gesellschaft, der wie ein Arzt der Kultur alle moralischen Krankheiten der Menscheit sehr genau diagnostiziert hat. (shrink)

Fichte’s hostility towards Napoleon, as expressed in his lectures of 1813 on the theory of the state, has its origin at the level of principles, and his always very strong admiration for the figure of Napoleon is at the same time so negatively loaded, that Napoleon becomes for Fichte something like an arch-enemy, the enemy par excellence. Napoleon has turned the old European political world upside down in favor of a re-structuration of this order according to the principles (...) of the French Revolution. This is, at least, how Napoleon was seen by the traditional powers that he had caused to fall or that he had shaken them with lasting political and historical consequences. Goethe, Hegel and Fichte have seen him in this perspective with very different attitudes. In this context, Fichte’s hostility towards Napoleon can be considered, at least partially, as a hostility towards the principles of the Revolution. But if these principles represent something like the normative self-understanding of political modernity at all, then the political philosophy of Fichte can be understood as strongly critical to these principles, if not simply as reactionary. It is worthwhile to consider why such a critical and even reactionary position can be derived in a completely consistent way from this philosophy, which has as its center a radicalized concept of freedom, and which at the beginning had even welcomed the outbreak of the Revolution.Die Feindschaft Fichtes gegen Napoleon, so wie sie später in seinen Vorlesungen von 1813 über die Staatslehre Ausdruck findet ist eine Feindschaft, die ihren Ursprung auf der Ebene von Grundsätzen hat, und die die immer sehr starke Bewunderung Fichtes für die Figur von Napoleon so negativ belastet, dass dieser am Ende zwar zu einem tief bewunderten, aber auch zu einem prinzipiellen Erzfeind wird. Nun hat Napoleon die alte europäische politische Welt auf den Kopf gestellt zugunsten einer Umstrukturierung dieser Ordnung nach den Prinzipien der französischen Revolution. So wenigstens ist Napoleon von den traditionellen Mächten, mit denen er sich auseinandergesetzt und die er zum Sturz oder ins Schwanken gebracht hat, empfunden worden. Und so haben Hegel, Goethe und auch Fichte ihn gesehen. Die Feindschaft Fichtes gegen Napoleon muss sich also zumindest teilweise als eine Feindschaft gegen die Prinzipien der Revolution verstehen lassen. Wenn aber diese Prinzipien so etwas wie die normative Selbstauffassung der politischen Moderne überhaupt bestimmen, dann ist die politische Philosophie Fichtes sehr kritisch zu dieser Selbstauffassung oder einfach reaktionär. Und es lohnt sich zu prüfen, warum gerade aus dieser Philosophie, in deren Mittelpunkt ein radikalisierter Begriff von Freiheit steht und die am Anfang den Aufbruch der Revolution sogar begrüßt hat, eine so kritische oder gar reaktionäre Einstellung, und zwar auf eine sehr konsequente Weise sich ergibt. (shrink)

This paper addresses the following questions: what is Fichte’s first principle of right, how does he argue for it, and how does it function as the first principle of his substantive political theory? To answer these questions, the paper offers an overview of the main steps of Fichte’s derivation of the principle of right, explains its relationship to Fichte’s account of individual personhood, and then specifies some of the senses in which the resulting principle serves as the (...) foundation of the rest of Fichte’s political and economic theory. I focus on the developmental logic of Fichte’s account of the “summons” and the “relation of right.” This developmental logic, I argue, is both recapitulated and completed within Fichte’s political theory and political economy. (shrink)

The concept of facticity denotes conditions of experience whose necessity is not logical yet whose contingency is not empirical. Although often associated with Heidegger, Fichte coins ‘facticity’ in his Berlin period to refer to the conclusion of Kant’s metaphysical deduction of the categories, which he argues leaves it a contingent matter that we have the conditions of experience that we do. Such rhapsodic or factical conditions, he argues, must follow necessarily, independent of empirical givenness, from the I through a (...) process of ‘genesis.’ I reconstruct Fichte’s argument by tracing the origin of his neologism, presenting his Jena critique of Kant’s rhapsodic appeal to the forms of judgment, and illustrating the Jena period’s continuity with the Berlin period’s genetic method, while noting a methodological shift whereby Fichte directs his critique against his own doctrine of intellectual intuition in order to eliminate its ‘factical terms.’. (shrink)