AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Anonymous No.15668964]

[Anonymous No.15668990]

>>15668964

His Addresses To The German People have quite a lot of interesting stuff that's relevant to the present day. I can't say I found his ramblings on Kant very interesting.

[Anonymous No.15669013]

>>15668964
Who’s that? Fichte? What’s his deal? Romantic daddy, yeah?

[Anonymous No.15669214]

based Ich

[Anonymous No.15669273]

I though that I'll be safe after finishing Kant (until Hegel, obviously). I got filtered so hard by Fichte that I started to miss Kant. I still miss that lil nigga...

[Anonymous No.15669293]

>>15669273
Fichte and Schelling are based, don't even spend time on Hegel - he's a pseud-magnet for juveniles

[Anonymous No.15669332]

>>15669293
Schelling fucked himself over, drastically changing his system over the years. I remember the paragraph (I'll try to find the book if you want) saying how during/after WW2 they found Schelling's books, almost completely forgotten during 100 years before that (I have a strong feeling that I wrote that incorrectly).

[Anonymous No.15669336]

>>15669332
I think I recall my resident Schelling expert enumerating seven different Schellingian systems during the course of his authorship.

[Anonymous No.15669338]

>>15669332
>>15669336
Unsystematicity and change is the sign of a good philosopher

[Anonymous No.15669343]

>>15668964
= A

[Anonymous No.15669399]

>>15669338
If the first 'phase' of someone's system was so inferior it had to be changed, what makes the changed system immune to the same necessity of change?

[Anonymous No.15669623]

>>15669273
Fichte is the most intelligent of all german Idealists and Kant.
He might not have an as grand a system as Kant or have preached gnosis as well as Hegel but damn that dude was superhuman. He completed Kant's system to initiate German Idealism.
Grundlagen der gesammten Wissenschaftlehre is the most dense philosophical book, fight me.

[Anonymous No.15669669]

>>15669623
Dense in what way? It kinda felt like it was repeating itself. Yes, he was explaining more and more things, but it was all intertwined and similar that I often lost track. It is dense in that way, but there's not a lot of it. I feel like Critique of Pure Reason or Phenomenology of Spirit are more, let's say, important considering how broader they are. Is there a book which concerns itself with more topics than PoS?

[Anonymous No.15669703]

>>15669669
>It kinda felt like it was repeating itself
He wasn't though, and he didn't employ dialectics to make it appear this way.
Not simply being able to repeat but to have understood all the moments of the Ich requires great philosophical insight. Frankly the premise alone A=A and the following two are concepts one can't simply jump into head first. Obviously Kant must have been read beforehand but it is necessary to see how and why Fichte's conceptions directly follow Kant and finish the last elements to finish Kant's epistemological system in it's pure a priori sense.

How do you not see that PoS and GrundlagendgWL are completely different appraoches and employ vastly different language?

[Anonymous No.15669846]

>>15668964
You know he's based because /lit/ gets filtered by him.

[Anonymous No.15669854]

>>15669338
>Unsystematicity

[Anonymous No.15669858]

>>15669703
I feel like you misunderstood me. I said that I felt like he was repeating himself because it is dense in a very specific topic, saying so much about such a specific topic will inevitably lead to confusing terminology, wording and reasoning, which itself leads to getting easily lost and feeling like you're going in a circle.
I mentioned CoPR and PoS as a different kind of dense philosophical book, concerning itself with a much broader sense of philosophy.
That's why I started with "Dense in what way?".

[Anonymous No.15669869]

>>15669854
Not him, but that's an English word.

[Anonymous No.15669892]

Fichte is the father of German nationalism. He was idolized by the Nazis, so most modern audiences don't like him.

I tried to read him, he is easily the most hard to understand philosopher ever.

[Anonymous No.15669955]

>>15669623
>complete system
>when the finite I runs after his absolute self forever

[Anonymous No.15669988]

>>15668964
fichte is the only clear german idealist philosopher. i respect hum for that. problem is, his philosophy is all wrong.

[Anonymous No.15670089]

>>15669988
Why does it matter though?
He enriches my soul

[Anonymous No.15670113]

>>15668964
Oh yes, a great philosopher, the first in Germany to discover self-consciousness is a social phenomenon. Something very few have accepted still.

[Anonymous No.15670139]

>>15669892
Also an anti-semite

[Anonymous No.15670676]

>>15669858
>I said that I felt like he was repeating himself because it is dense in a very specific topic, saying so much about such a specific topic will inevitably lead to confusing terminology, wording and reasoning, which itself leads to getting easily lost and feeling like you're going in a circle.
For the most part Fichte is articulating exactly what Hegel does in PoS. Hegel jsut adds a little extra, like the theology part can go by missunderstood and appear excessive.
I don't know how else to say this but all the moments of the Ich are not a repitition of the same or even similar things at all. Anything Hegel more fastidiously elaborated on, Fichte tried to evince in his work.

it is not a specific topic
it is not confusing terminology, wording and reasoning (last point is specifically what shows Fichte to be a genius)
He is not going around in circles.

>Not meant to cause offense with my response.

[Anonymous No.15670730]

>dude thesis antithesis synthesis lmao

how did he get away with plagiarizing hegel like this??

[Anonymous No.15671219]

>>15670730
shitposters used to be funny

[Anonymous No.15671720]

>>15669892
>>15670139
based

[Anonymous No.15671904]

>>15668964
Fichte is great. I've read Schelling and Hegel since but they haven't changed my opinion that Fichte has the more attractive system. It's very appealing to me that he tries to deduce everything from idealist self-consciousness, Fichte also sees himself as being relatively faithful to Kant in the way Plotinus did with Plato. His idea that the I somewhat depends on the Thou is also really interesting, Levinas and Buber cover some themes sort of like that but Fichte did it first. The idea that we can progress toward perfection is very appealing to me as well, even if Hegel thinks Fichte's infinite striving is a bad thing.

[Anonymous No.15673523]

b