HOLY SHIT
SCHOPEGOD ABSOLUTELY DESTROYS FICHTE. FICHTARDS WILL NEVER RECOVER.
>Opposed to the system we have explained, which starts from the object in order to derive the subject from it, is the system which starts from the subject and tries to derive the object from it. The first of these has been of frequent and common occurrence throughout the history of philosophy, but of the second we find only one example, and that a very recent one; the "philosophy of appearance" of J. G. Fichte. In this respect, therefore, it must be considered; little real worth or inner meaning as the doctrine itself had. It was indeed for the most part merely a delusion, but it was delivered with an air of the deepest earnestness, with sustained loftiness of tone and zealous ardour, and was defended with eloquent polemic against weak opponents, so that it was able to present a brilliant exterior and seemed to be something.
>But the genuine earnestness which keeps truth always steadfastly before it as its goal, and is unaffected by any external influences, was entirely wanting to Fichte, as it is to all philosophers who, like him, concern themselves with questions of the day. In his case, indeed, it could not have been otherwise. A man becomes a philosopher by reason of a certain perplexity, from which he seeks to free himself. This is Plato's θαυμαξειν, which he calls a μαλα φιλοσοφικον παθος. But what distinguishes the false philosopher from the true is this: the perplexity of the latter arises from the contemplation of the world itself, while that of the former results from some book, some system of philosophy which is before him. Now Fichte belongs to the class of the false philosophers. He was made a philosopher by Kant's doctrine of the thing-in-itself, and if it had not been for this he would probably have pursued entirely different ends, with far better results, for he certainly possessed remarkable rhetorical talent. If he had only penetrated somewhat deeply into the meaning of the book that made him a philosopher, "The Critique of Pure Reason," he would have understood that its principal teaching about mind is this. The principle of sufficient reason is not, as all scholastic philosophy maintains, a veritas aeterna — that is to say, it does not possess an unconditioned validity before, outside of, and above the world. It is relative and conditioned, and valid only in the sphere of phenomena, and thus it may appear as the necessary nexus of space and time, or as the law of causality, or as the law of the ground of knowledge. The inner nature of the world, the thing-in-itself can never be found by the guidance of this principle, for all that it leads to will be found to be dependent and relative and merely phenomenal, not the thing-in-itself. Further, it does not concern the subject, but is only the form of objects, which are therefore not things-in-themselves. The subject must exist along with the object, and the object along with the subject, so that it is impossible that subject and object can stand to each other in a relation of reason and consequent.
>But Fichte did not take up the smallest fragment of all this. All that interested him about the matter was that the system started from the subject Now Kant had chosen this procedure in order to show the fallacy of the prevalent systems, which started from the object, and through which the object had come to be regarded as a thing-in-itself. Fichte, however, took this departure from the subject for the really important matter, and like all imitators, he imagined that in going further than Kant he was surpassing him. Thus he repeated the fallacy with regard to the subject, which all the previous dogmatism had perpetrated with regard to the object, and which had been the occasion of Kant's "Critique." Fichte then made no material change, and the fundamental fallacy, the assumption of a relation of reason and consequent between object and subject, remained after him as it was before him. The principle of sufficient reason possessed as before an unconditioned validity, and the only difference was that the thing-in-itself was now placed in the subject instead of, as formerly, in the object. The entire relativity of both subject and object, which proves that the thing-in-itself, or the inner nature of the world, is not to be sought in them at all, but outside of them, and outside everything else that exists merely relatively, still remained unknown.
Anonymous
9/13/2025, 1:41:32 AM
No.24719408
[Report]
Just as if Kant had never existed, the principle of sufficient reason is to Fichte precisely what it was to all the schoolmen, a veritas aeterna. As an eternal fate reigned over the gods of old, so these aeternæ veritates, these metaphysical, mathematical and metalogical truths, and in the case of some, the validity of the moral law also, reigned over the God of the schoolmen. These veritates alone were independent of everything, and through their necessity both God and the world existed. According to the principle of sufficient reason, as such a veritas aeterna, the ego is for Fichte the ground of the world, or of the non-ego, the object, which is just its consequent, its creation. He has therefore taken good care to avoid examining further or limiting the principle of sufficient reason. If, however, it is thought I should specify the form of the principle of sufficient reason under the guidance of which Fichte derives the non-ego from the ego, as a spider spins its web out of itself, I find that it is the principle of sufficient reason of existence in space: for it is only as referred to this that some kind of meaning and sense can be attached to the laboured deductions of the way in which the ego produces and fabricates the non-ego from itself, which form the content of the most senseless, and consequently the most wearisome book that was ever written. This philosophy of Fichte, otherwise not worth mentioning, is interesting to us only as the tardy expression of the converse of the old materialism. For materialism was the most consistent system starting from the object, as this is the most consistent system starting from the subject. Materialism overlooked the fact that, with the simplest object, it assumed the subject also; and Fichte overlooked the fact that with the subject (whatever he may call it) he assumed the object also, for no subject is thinkable without an object. Besides this he forgot that all a priori deduction, indeed all demonstration in general, must rest upon some necessity, and that all necessity is based on the principle of sufficient reason, because to be necessary, and to follow from given grounds are convertible conceptions.[6] But the principle of sufficient reason is just the universal form of the object as such. Thus it is in the object, but is not valid before and outside of it; it first produces the object and makes it appear in conformity with its regulative principle. We see then that the system which starts from the subject contains the same fallacy as the system, explained above, which starts from the object; it begins by assuming what it proposes to deduce, the necessary correlative of its starting-point.
>Just as if Kant had never existed, the principle of sufficient reason is to Fichte precisely what it was to all the schoolmen, a veritas aeterna. As an eternal fate reigned over the gods of old, so these aeternæ veritates, these metaphysical, mathematical and metalogical truths, and in the case of some, the validity of the moral law also, reigned over the God of the schoolmen. These veritates alone were independent of everything, and through their necessity both God and the world existed. According to the principle of sufficient reason, as such a veritas aeterna, the ego is for Fichte the ground of the world, or of the non-ego, the object, which is just its consequent, its creation. He has therefore taken good care to avoid examining further or limiting the principle of sufficient reason. If, however, it is thought I should specify the form of the principle of sufficient reason under the guidance of which Fichte derives the non-ego from the ego, as a spider spins its web out of itself, I find that it is the principle of sufficient reason of existence in space: for it is only as referred to this that some kind of meaning and sense can be attached to the laboured deductions of the way in which the ego produces and fabricates the non-ego from itself, which form the content of the most senseless, and consequently the most wearisome book that was ever written. This philosophy of Fichte, otherwise not worth mentioning, is interesting to us only as the tardy expression of the converse of the old materialism. For materialism was the most consistent system starting from the object, as this is the most consistent system starting from the subject. Materialism overlooked the fact that, with the simplest object, it assumed the subject also; and Fichte overlooked the fact that with the subject (whatever he may call it) he assumed the object also, for no subject is thinkable without an object. Besides this he forgot that all a priori deduction, indeed all demonstration in general, must rest upon some necessity, and that all necessity is based on the principle of sufficient reason, because to be necessary, and to follow from given grounds are convertible conceptions. But the principle of sufficient reason is just the universal form of the object as such. Thus it is in the object, but is not valid before and outside of it; it first produces the object and makes it appear in conformity with its regulative principle. We see then that the system which starts from the subject contains the same fallacy as the system, explained above, which starts from the object; it begins by assuming what it proposes to deduce, the necessary correlative of its starting-point.
Anonymous
9/13/2025, 1:45:41 AM
No.24719421
[Report]
>>24719429
>>24719397 (OP)
What phentoype is this?
>>24719421
Two parts Teuton to one part Balt and one part Pole, with trace Jewish undertones
Die Kreatur von Ostelbien
Anonymous
9/13/2025, 1:53:39 AM
No.24719435
[Report]
>>24719550
>>24719429
may Valhalla welcome you
Fichte did not deny the Kantian claims Schopenhauer opposes to him. Fichte isn’t going beyond experience, he’s working out how the world looks if you believe in freedom, a metaphysics of freedom, which doesn’t oppose experience or transcend the limits of reason any more than Kant’s does. Like Kant, it’s a philosophy of the subject (no God in the traditional sense etc) and how the nature of the subject necessitates a certain sort of world - bleeding into political radicalness in Fichte’s case. This is another cheap “gotcha!” attack from the pseud Schopenhauer who didn’t make it past page 10 of the Grundlage.
Anonymous
9/13/2025, 2:23:02 AM
No.24719465
[Report]
>>24719487
>>24719445
You didn't read the whole thing copelet
>>24719465
Yes I did. Later on he confuses Fichte’s third grundsatz as the psr, as if Fichte is engaging in precritical metaphysics. It is too retarded to be properly answerable, it’s like he never read Fichte’s books.
Anonymous
9/13/2025, 2:36:49 AM
No.24719496
[Report]
>>24719538
>>24719487
>It is too retarded to be properly answerable
Typical Fichtarded "I'm too smart I don't have to prove anything" mindset.
Anonymous
9/13/2025, 3:00:08 AM
No.24719536
[Report]
>>24719553
Can Schop bro help me with this?
>>24717044
>>24717106
Schop bros need help disputing this. Mostly what this is in reply to, but the post itself contains the problems outlined that I need remedied.
Does Schop still solve hume even tangentially, despite moving away from Kant?
Anonymous
9/13/2025, 3:01:08 AM
No.24719538
[Report]
>>24719547
>>24719496
You’re quite the master debater.
Anonymous
9/13/2025, 3:06:45 AM
No.24719545
[Report]
>>24719397 (OP)
Fichteniggers know all this, they're sophists. Probably jewish as well.
Anonymous
9/13/2025, 3:07:14 AM
No.24719547
[Report]
Anonymous
9/13/2025, 3:09:51 AM
No.24719550
[Report]
>>24719435
kek is this a veiled anti Indian post?
Anonymous
9/13/2025, 3:10:49 AM
No.24719553
[Report]
>>24719536
They can’t answer you, they’re illiterate monkeys.
Anonymous
9/13/2025, 3:11:27 AM
No.24719555
[Report]
>>24719397 (OP)
>>24719399
>>24719404
>>24719417
Damn its genuinely so crazy how Lucid and Clear Schopenhauer is, that even with only a passing understanding of Kant from lectures by professors, and a limited understanding of Schopenhauer only from his essay, I can almost entirely understand the critique hes making nonetheless.
Anonymous
9/13/2025, 3:13:49 AM
No.24719562
[Report]
>>24719572
Fichtard knows SCHOPEGOD is right. That's why we can't actually respond. He is in shock. His entire worldview has come crashing down thanks to THE SCHOPENATER
Anonymous
9/13/2025, 3:21:37 AM
No.24719572
[Report]
>>24719562
g-g-gawdlike...i kneel
>if he had only penetrated somewhat deeply into the meaning of the book that made him a philosopher, "The Critique of Pure Reason," he would have understood that its principal teaching about mind is this. The principle of sufficient reason is not, as all scholastic philosophy maintains, a veritas aeterna — that is to say, it does not possess an unconditioned validity before, outside of, and above the world. It is relative and conditioned, and valid only in the sphere of phenomena, and thus it may appear as the necessary nexus of space and time, or as the law of causality, or as the law of the ground of knowledge. The inner nature of the world, the thing-in-itself can never be found by the guidance of this principle, for all that it leads to will be found to be dependent and relative and merely phenomenal, not the thing-in-itself. Further, it does not concern the subject, but is only the form of objects, which are therefore not things-in-themselves. The subject must exist along with the object, and the object along with the subject, so that it is impossible that subject and object can stand to each other in a relation of reason and consequent.
This nigga just succinctly put Critique of Pure Reason into a paragraph.
Anonymous
9/13/2025, 3:38:27 AM
No.24719611
[Report]
>>24720774
>>24719599
nta, but how so?
Anonymous
9/13/2025, 3:41:04 AM
No.24719616
[Report]
Anonymous
9/13/2025, 7:01:28 AM
No.24719920
[Report]
Anonymous
9/13/2025, 6:47:00 PM
No.24720774
[Report]
>>24721375
>>24719611
The Critique is like 800 pages.
Anonymous
9/13/2025, 7:20:34 PM
No.24720820
[Report]
>>24720859
Fichtards been real quiet lately.
Anonymous
9/13/2025, 7:48:25 PM
No.24720859
[Report]
Anonymous
9/13/2025, 7:49:39 PM
No.24720861
[Report]
Anonymous
9/13/2025, 11:42:06 PM
No.24721282
[Report]
>>24719487
>>24719445
The idealist anons win again. Schopenpseud never even read Fichte.
Anonymous
9/14/2025, 12:20:30 AM
No.24721375
[Report]
>>24721385
>>24720774
704 in the Cambridge edition including the preface and both the A and B versions, excluding appendix.
Schopenhauer captures the central theme of the book in a few sentences.
The fact he’s able to this in an intelligible way shows a master level understanding of Kant’s work.
But if you think you can do better then go for it.
Anonymous
9/14/2025, 12:23:56 AM
No.24721385
[Report]
>>24721396
>>24721375
>Schopenhauer captures the central theme of the book in a few sentences.
no he does not smooth brain
Anonymous
9/14/2025, 12:25:33 AM
No.24721389
[Report]
>>24719397 (OP)
Shut the fuck up you worthless all caps niggerhead
Anonymous
9/14/2025, 12:29:52 AM
No.24721396
[Report]
>>24721385
Ok bozo. Read it again
Anonymous
9/14/2025, 12:30:28 AM
No.24721398
[Report]
>>24719590
If you can’t reason about the subject (the principle of sufficient reason is inapplicable) I wonder how Kant wrote the critiques in the first place lol. Again, Schopenpseud reads Fichte as if he were a precritical idealist. He hears that the I posits the not I and thinks this means the I is a God creating the world. This is because Schopenpseud was stuck in sensuous thinking.
