The slightest self-observation must show every one a remarkable difference between the various immediate conditions of his consciousness, which we may also call representations. For some of them appear altogether dependent upon our freedom, and we cannot possibly believe that there is without us anything corresponding to them. Our imagination, our will, appears to us as free. Others, however, we refer to a Truth as their model, which is held to be firmly fixed, independent of us; and in determining such representations, we find ourselves conditioned by the necessity of their harmony with this Truth. In the knowledge of them we do not consider ourselves free, as far as their contents are concerned. In short: while some of our representations are accompanied by the feeling of freedom, others are accompanied by the feeling of necessity.

what is the ground of the system of those representations which are accompanied by the feeling of necessity and of that feeling of necessity itself? To answer this question is the object of philosophy; and, in my opinion, nothing is philosophy but the Science which solves this problem. The system of those representations, which are accompanied by the feeling of necessity, is also called Experience—internal as well as external experience. Philosophy, therefore, to say the same thing in other words, has to find the ground of all Experience.

somebody might quarrel about the designation, and assert: “Philosophy is something else than what you have stated above, or at least something else besides.” It might be easily shown to such a one, that scholars have at all times designated exactly what we have just stated to be Philosophy, and that whatever else he might assert to be Philosophy, has already another name, and that if this word signifies anything at all, it must mean exactly this Science. But as we are not inclined to enter upon any dispute about words, we, for our part, have already given up the name of Philosophy, and have called the Science which has the solution of this problem for its object, the Science of Knowledge.

Yeah the Introductions are based. I have a friend who studied the SoK with Heath himself, they never finished it though.

Fichte’s philosophy is a defense of the ordinary stance - external world; other minds; freedom; morality; God. The dogmatist can explain everything but consciousness freedom etc. But the dogmatist says “your worldview puts the self outside of nature! How could a free intellect be part of nature?” This is what Fichte’s doing, constructing nature from consciousness and so vindicating the ordinary view. Identity of identity and non-identity and all that. People go far astray when they lose sight of the fact that Fichte is basically defending common sense (against materialists, skeptics, and religious fanatics). The dogmatist can’t derive consciousness from being, he has to say it’s an illusion. But the transcendental idealist wizard *can* deduce being from consciousness. Never forget the endgame - Socialism with Autistic Characteristics. Soon…

One thing I love about Fichte is how versatile he was. He’ll completely change his stance and vocabulary between books and even within the same book. I don’t know any philosopher who can shake things up to that extent. The feel when hours of studying pay off with a flash of insight and you see the whole in the parts is wonderful. I hope you do read the sok it will give you a headache but it’s fun. I think it was 2-3 weeks before I even started to understand basic stuff like the imagination. Nothing he talks about in sok is in time or space, strictly speaking he’s talking about simple perceptions like “red” or “soft”. The matter is intensive matter, ie a relation to our system of sensibility. The imagination is not a faculty of forming images (tho to confuse you he sometimes uses it in this sense!). What we think of as imagination is part of inner sense and he doesn’t deduce it until the Foundations of Natural Right. The SoK says almost nothing about willing and acting it’s all about vorstellung. There are NO temporal sequences in sok, it’s essential to remember this.

ok, what of it?