/lit/ - Literature

Is Fichte the endgame?
The best quantum physicists are only catching up to him.

Teach me everything about the philosophy of Fichte in every aspect.
Does god exist outside of our mind?
Where does our mind come from?
Most importantly in what order should I read his works?

>arrives
>utterly BTFOs Kant

Why did he do it, /lit/ bros?

has zizek ever mentioned fichte

Yes and no! I can determine myself by freedom to think, for instance, the Thing in itself of the Dogmatists. Now if I am to abstract from the thought and look simply upon myself, I myself become the object of a particular representation. That I appear to myself as determined in precisely this manner, and none other, e.g. as thinking, and as thinking of all possible thoughts—precisely this Thing in itself, is to depend exclusively upon my own freedom of self-determination; I have made myself such a particular object out of my own free will. I have not made myself; on the contrary, I am forced to think myself in advance as determinable through this self-determination. Hence I am myself my own object, the determinateness of which, under certain conditions, depends altogether upon the intelligence, but the existence of which must always be presupposed. Now this very “I” is the object of Idealism. The object of this system does not occur actually as something real in consciousness, not as a Thing in itself—for then Idealism would cease to be what it is, and become Dogmatism—but as “I” in itself; not as an object of Experience—for it is not determined, but is exclusively determinable through my freedom, and without this determination it would be nothing, and is really not at all—but as something beyond all Experience.

The object of Dogmatism, on the contrary, belongs to the objects of the first class, which are produced solely by free Thinking. The Thing in itself is a mere invention, and has no reality at all.

In what order should I read the works of Fichte?

>>17536546
HEGEL DIDN'T UNDERSTAND HIM.

what parts of the critique of pure reason should i pay extra attention to in order to understand this guy the best?

im guessing chapter 3 of the analytic of principles is the main one?

Where do I start with this champ?

I've recently finished reading Kant. Now I'm starting Fichte. I have a question concerning the intellectual intuition of the pure I. When Fichte says the pure I is an activity, does he mean an activity in the sense that it acts as the categories (the activity of putting itself in the posited form of not-I in opposition to a set of rules that eventually (in the argument) make it a factual cognition), or does he mean it in the sense that it is pure self-consciousness (the activity of being alive/conscious). What I mean to ask is, is the pure I equivalent to being-there, as in, being conscious of oneself as existing, or is it instead the principle of identity (the totality of the categories) that makes of the (self?)given (intuition) a cognition?
Also, transcendental idealism thread in general. (I would like to discuss Kant with people, but none of my friends have read it.)

Is he to blame for the Second World War?

>Fidsht
>>11824405
It's: [don kiˈxote]

>>10922417
more like
Spinoza>Descartes>Leibniz>Kant>Fichte>Hegel>Schelling>Marx>Nietzsche
for real though, reading Fichte makes Hegel easier to comprehend, although he's just as abstruse, and that's why you should start with Kant to understand the German Idealism.

ITT we trivialize a philosopher's thought by compressing it into a single sentence

>dude what if the world depends on my thoughts and everything else is like not me

what the hell is this fuck on about?

thread theme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGpl1Utbqzw

>A supreme power over a free being could come about only if several free beings were to unite, for there is nothing in the sensible world
more powerful than a free being (precisely because it is free and can reflectively and purposefully direct its power); and there is nothing more powerful than an individual free being except for several free beings. Their strength therefore would consist solely in their being united.

What did he mean by this?

Start with Hegel's dad. He's the Schopenhauer of Idealism

>>7432174
>>7432171
>>7432168

you people are such plebs s m d h

Stop arguing assholes this could be a cool thread. Nobody is impressed that you don't consider someone lesser known. Case in point:

>Johann Gottlieb Fichte

A reaction to Kant and basically began the German Idealism movement, influenced Schelling and Hegel. His most interesting work is on consciousness, both individual and universal. Specifically “the I posits itself as an I” was his. There are tons of holes, like how he used "intuition", which is why the existentialists criticized him, but still worth a read.

Hey /lit/ can you help me understand Fichte?

I'm trying to move through German idealism one person at a time and I've spent the last 6 months months or so casually reading Kant (a lot of secondary texts) and I took a class on him last year so I feel fairly confident with the basics of his trancendental idealism.

What I'm having a hard time understanding is the ground of Fichte's philosophy ("The I posits itself") and how this is a fundamental turn from the nomena/phenomena distinction of kant.

This is what I'm getting so far, basically Fichte thinks that philosphy can only start in one of two places, by positing the matter as the ground of reality or by positing 'self' as the ground (though I'm not sure exactly what he means by 'self'). He sees kant's project as somewhat of a failure because it tried to incorporate both starting points into one system and thereby was doomed to fail.

Fichte's "the I posits itself" is a way of getting rid rid of nomena by saying that, like space and time, the intuition of a self is a priori.

Am I on the right track? If so, here's what I don't get: why does positing intellectual intuition get rid of nomena? Doesn't the intuition still need something to act on? I have a feeling I'm trying to think in terms of subject/object and he's trying to convince me not to and that's where I'm getting hung up.

Anyway
>German idealism general
Contribute or tell us how stupid and useless the whole movement was! Either way works.

Also I'll do my best to answer introductory questions on Kant

I want to read some of the lesser known philosophers of German Idealism, ie anyone other than Hegel and Schopenhauer.

How do you go about getting into Fichte?