The real as problem in Fichte’s doctrine of knowledge

Authors

  • Martin Bunte Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, 1, Johannisstraße, D-48143, Münster, Germany

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2019.102

Abstract

Fichte describes in his The Characteristics of the Present Age (Grundzüge des gegenwärtigen Zeitalters) a three-stage structure of world history. In the first age of the world the reason  stands in instinct and credibility, and therefore the Foundation of the beliefs reached through them, remain hidden from him. This fact, according to Fichte, explains the lack of science in this age. Our age marks the turning point where the rising reason begins. This rise, that is, the liberation of the reason from the form of instinct, is that this age in principle learns the idea of science as a clear understanding of itself. However, this knowledge of his own nature transhistorically this age still do not understand real science, indeed a defining reason, understanding the science is only formally. The new age, that is about to come, will be, according to Fichte, an “epoch of the science of reason” in which philosophy has solved all problems of justification. This will be the very basis for the ongoing systematic progress of science. Despite the undeniable progress that science has made since the time of Fichte this goal has not been achieved to this day. In the essay, I will try to show why this promise of Fichte’s “science of knowledge” has not been fulfilled. The answer lies in certain unresolved problems of transcendental philosophy in general and the Fichtian philosophy in particular. Namely, Fichte also failed to completely solve the problem of transcendent schematism, because he did not demonstrate the separation of thought and intuition. In addition, I will indicate a possible solution by surmounting the transcendental schematism.

Keywords:

Fichte, philosophy of history, transcendental philosophy, system, schematism

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

References

References

Fichte, J. G. (1846), “Grundzuge des gegenwartigen Zeitalters”, in . Fichtes Werke, ed. Fichte, I. H., Bd. 7, Veit und Comp., Berlin, Prussia, S. 3–256.

Oesterreich, P. and Traub, H. (2006), Der ganze Fichte. Die populare, wissenschaftliche und metaphilosophische Erschlie.ung der Welt, Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, Germany.

Kant, I. (1923), Kant‘s gesammelte Schriften, ed. Preu.ische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Bd. 8, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany.

Kant, I. (1999), „Mutma.licher Anfang der Menschengeschichte”, in Kant, I., “Was ist Aufklarung?”, Ausgewahlte kleine Schriften, Meiner, Hamburg, Germany, S. 28–44.

Kant, I. (1998), Kritik der reinen Vernunft, Meiner, Hamburg, Germany.

Kant, I. (1999), “Verkundigung des nahen Abschlusses eines Traktates zum ewigen Frieden in der Philosophie”, in Kant, I., “Was ist Aufklarung?”Ausgewahlte kleine Schriften, Meiner, Hamburg, Germany, S. 77–87.

Fichte, J. G. (1986), Die Wissenschaftslehre. Zweiter Vortrag im Jahre 1804, Meiner, Hamburg, Germany.2018).

Downloads

Published

2019-03-26

How to Cite

Bunte, M. (2019). The real as problem in Fichte’s doctrine of knowledge. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 35(1), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2019.102

Issue

Vol. 35 No. 1 (2019): Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies

Section

Philosophy

License

Articles of "Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies" are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.