Anonymous
6/29/2025, 8:23:58 AM No.24505450
Where does Fichte talk about space and time?
Replies:
Thread 24505450 - /lit/ [Archived: 657 hours ago]
Anonymous
6/29/2025, 9:14:35 AM No.24505522
>>24505450 (OP)
read Ben Klassen.
read Ben Klassen.
Anonymous
6/29/2025, 4:10:15 PM No.24506076
>>24505450 (OP)
In “On What is Distinctive of the Wissenschaftslehre with Regard to the Theoretical Power” (deduction by determination of the drive to reflection); and in Wissenschaftslehre Nova Methodo (deduction by schematization of doing). The latter is the more interesting proof especially re: time.
In “On What is Distinctive of the Wissenschaftslehre with Regard to the Theoretical Power” (deduction by determination of the drive to reflection); and in Wissenschaftslehre Nova Methodo (deduction by schematization of doing). The latter is the more interesting proof especially re: time.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/29/2025, 7:35:40 PM No.24506521
>>24506076
Does he still believe in the transcendental ideality of space and time as purely the form of intuition? Does he ever comment directly on the transcendental aesthetic?
Does he still believe in the transcendental ideality of space and time as purely the form of intuition? Does he ever comment directly on the transcendental aesthetic?
Replies:
Anonymous
6/29/2025, 8:10:16 PM No.24506593
>>24506521
>Does he still believe in the transcendental ideality of space and time as purely the form of intuition?
Yes, but only from the standpoint of transcendental philosophy. From an empirical stance, his (and Kant's) views are similar to Aristotle's (space is relative to things in space, as Kant says in his remarks on the first antinomy; time goes on forever; and Fichte adds that the world is an organic whole, i.e. we necessarily think of space outside the universe, and in that sense space is infinite, but the universe itself is objectively finite. There's more too, it's all consonant with Aristotle).
From the transcendental standpoint space and time are forms of intuition, they are schemata of our own striving. In a tard form you might say, space is how we see things because we need to see things as contingent in relation to other things in order for us to be free. Time is the intuition of the manifold of feelings in relation to willing. He definitely does NOT think there's some mysterious thing outside of space and time that we transform into something in space and time, and he argues that this is not what Kant was really saying either.
> Does he ever comment directly on the transcendental aesthetic?
Yes, in the Nova Methodo. He says it sucks. Kant doesn't actually show how time and space follow from consciousness, he just plops them down. He recognizes that they have to be ideal but he doesn't give any sort of deduction of them.
>Does he still believe in the transcendental ideality of space and time as purely the form of intuition?
Yes, but only from the standpoint of transcendental philosophy. From an empirical stance, his (and Kant's) views are similar to Aristotle's (space is relative to things in space, as Kant says in his remarks on the first antinomy; time goes on forever; and Fichte adds that the world is an organic whole, i.e. we necessarily think of space outside the universe, and in that sense space is infinite, but the universe itself is objectively finite. There's more too, it's all consonant with Aristotle).
From the transcendental standpoint space and time are forms of intuition, they are schemata of our own striving. In a tard form you might say, space is how we see things because we need to see things as contingent in relation to other things in order for us to be free. Time is the intuition of the manifold of feelings in relation to willing. He definitely does NOT think there's some mysterious thing outside of space and time that we transform into something in space and time, and he argues that this is not what Kant was really saying either.
> Does he ever comment directly on the transcendental aesthetic?
Yes, in the Nova Methodo. He says it sucks. Kant doesn't actually show how time and space follow from consciousness, he just plops them down. He recognizes that they have to be ideal but he doesn't give any sort of deduction of them.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/29/2025, 8:26:31 PM No.24506616
>>24506593
> He definitely does NOT think there's some mysterious thing outside of space and time that we transform into something in space and time,
I gotta qualify this though, because the pure will is outside of time, but this again is a philosopher's thought, not something real. Sort of like a physicist might postulate some constant that doesn't actually exist, the philosopher is necessarily led to think of the I as outside of time because of its unity. That's how I interpret those sections anyway they are controversial.
> He definitely does NOT think there's some mysterious thing outside of space and time that we transform into something in space and time,
I gotta qualify this though, because the pure will is outside of time, but this again is a philosopher's thought, not something real. Sort of like a physicist might postulate some constant that doesn't actually exist, the philosopher is necessarily led to think of the I as outside of time because of its unity. That's how I interpret those sections anyway they are controversial.