Thread 24704706

Fichte thread

“[The babby] would have to exercise an influence [on its parents] by virtue of its shape alone and its mere existence in space; and indeed it would have to exercise an efficacy such that every rational being would be obliged to recognize it as a being capable of reason. Its articulation would have to point not to some determinate sphere of arbitrary movement, as in the case of animals, but rather to all conceivable movements ad infinitum. The articulation would not have any determinacy but only an infinite determinability; it would not be formed in any particular way but would be only formable.” - Johann Fichte, philosopher of babbies and the babby form

>>24705294

https://youtu.be/k3OJwGiTVIc?si=ro8Cipf-lJxD8ueM

>>24705301
lol yeah. Have you read any of his post-Jena speculation? I want to learn German just to read all the late stuff. Only the 1804 is available in English.

Fichte sisters… Do we have a response to Hegel?

“With Parmenides as with Spinoza there is no progress from being or absolute substance to the negative. If, nevertheless, there is progress, which can only be accomplished in an external manner, then this progress is a second beginning. This Fichte’s absolutely primary, unconditioned principle, A=A, is thesis, the second is antithesis. This latter is supposed to be partly conditioned, partly unconditioned (an internal contradiction). This is a progress by external reflection which, having negates the absolute with which it began, straightaway expressly converts its second conditioned into an unconditioned. But if there were any justification for the progress, then this first would have to be of such a nature that an other could connect itself with it, and therefore it would have to be determinate. But neither being nor even absolute substance claims to be such. On the contrary being is the immediate, the indeterminate.”

>>24705317

>In what way can we conceive the primal act of knowing? As a conscious action from our being, or as a natural result of our being in conscious space? If we are to suggest that the acquisition of our conscious reality is, in itself, a conscious act then we must determine how the conscious actor wills its reality into being. Yet, if we are to suggest that the acquisition of reality is a passive aspect of our inherent nature, then there is no imposition required for the manifestation of reality by our conscious will. Do we choose to know, to impose reality on ourselves, or does the reality beyond our power impose itself on our conscious mind? First, we must examine the stream of knowing as a work, an effort, that is beyond ourselves or within us. The construction of a determined field of space expetience as a product of our will or as a product imposed on our passive conception by the constantly unfolding form of truth.

>>24705422

>The living mind must either construct from itself a stream of knowing by the willful act of the conscious mind or receive in its innate nature the very same by its own faculties and state of being in the space of experience. That is, to give forth from its archetypal structures the full form of an individual reality or to receive a collective reality through the space of experience into its achetypal structures to form the basis of known, conscious experience. We will continue to construct and deconstruct this mental structures out of thin air for the next ten, twenty, two thousand pages until we have a solid tome which can be sold to a publisher and for which very, very smart men may pick apart and build upon in a very long and very important tradition of winding philosophy that neither reaches a satisfying conclusion nor truly answers the largest questions of human existence. This exercise in taking the mind through winding passages for its own sake will constitute the economic basis of the very real and conscious field of pop tart object forms in the constructed space known as my kitchen pantry.

>>24705434
based pop tart enjoyer

>>24705434
Top kek.

Fichte shot himself in the foot in many ways. One is his unapologetic use of technical language which makes him sound insane and which he barely explains. Take “eternal striving” - so many form this bogus mental picture of what he meant by that. They imagine Fichte bolting out of bed at 4:30am, then he runs down to his home gym to lift weights (you have an indirect duty to take care of your health). He’s doing bench presses, grunting, on his fingers wrapped around the bar you see his tattoo: “SEMPER… STREBEN”. After a spartan breakfast he’s off to the local Lutheran church for a charity bake sale. After, he stays behind to discretely move the pastor in a more philosophical direction. Then he rushes home to write a blistering response to Forberg’s latest (you have a duty to attack unfair critics, he says this is SoE). It’s only 11am and Fichte’s already sweating (partly from all the snuff desu) but he’ll keep going til midnight (duty only requires 4 or 5 hours of sleep). He never stops, an idealistic dynamo, a force of nature. SEMPER… STREBEN.

>>24705434

>The philosopher comes home from another long shift at the philosophy factory. His clothes ragged and face stained from crushing and reforming theoretical concepts from the ideology mines into new and novel forms. His legs tired from standing at the ontological deconstruction machine for another 10 hour shift, turning views of knowing and being into mind-wobbling subjects to reconstruct at the ideological construction machine at the end of the production floor. And for what? Just 30 Deutsche Marks an hour and a steady supply of brooding leather jackets and tasteful spectacles.

>>24705454

>One is his unapologetic use of technical language which makes him sound insane and which he barely explains

Is that not what philosphers do? They basically invent their own systems of thinking and present them as known facts in a way that turns language itself into an abstraction of the mind and an object to reckon with.

>eternal striving

No explanation needed. A being must strive eternally. The philosopher must publish to earn his bread as a philosopher. The powerlifter must lift heavy to win the tournament prize.

Learn German.

>>24705466
Yeah but most philosophers give their readers more of a hand than Fichte did. But no eternal striving isn’t directly about constantly becoming better and better, or never resting, it’s more fundamental - we’re always finite, there’s always something “to do”, we never stop acting. Contemplation, rest even, are still forms of acting.

>>24705524
So of course Fichte thought we should improve ourselves but striving isn’t manic, it isn’t hopeless either as in “oh I keep trying to be good but the goal keeps receding, no matter how much I try I’m still le bad” which is how many read it. Fichte’s the guy who thought you really could be good, that’s his big break with Kant.