The tragedy is Fichte rushed through a bullshit version of his system in 1794 because he needed the money. Then he got so buttblasted by the hostile response to this gimp of a published metaphysics that he never publicly completed it. So he’s a footnote when he ought to be a main character. Hegel’s system is formal and reaches an artificial conclusion. The amnesty of absolute spirit would be subject to its own dissolution, and Fichte grasps the eternal motion and instability of consciousness in his I=I. Hegel wants to sublate this movement in a final reconciliation, but it’s impossible.

Here’s a typical “hot take” on the categorical imperative from the most pro-Kantian of the three, Fichte: “This proposition is purely heuristic: I can very well and very easily employ it as a test…. It is however by no means constitutive. It is by no means a principle, but only an inference from a true principle [the original principle of morality as such in human nature which we do not experience as a proposition]. Who is it that judges whether something [accords with the ci]? I myself. And according to what principles?”

Fichte, Schelling and Hegel all end up moving closer to traditional virtue ethics and away from the CI, in different ways, and that’s a vast oversimplification.

>>24452427
>so just anecdotally I have plenty of reason to believe in God through practice.
A Kantian is born. Praise Reason.