Johann Gottlieb Fichte

[Anonymous No.22090558]

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?

[Anonymous No.22090632]

>>22090558

[Anonymous No.22090645]

>>22090632
please read The Vocation of Man before reading the Wissenschaftslehre to get an understanding of Fichte's general project otherwise you will get filtered

[Anonymous No.22090772]

>>22090632
This is offensive nonsense, literally just go ahead and read Kant's first critique, all the background info you need, his interlocutors, are introduced and explained by Kant in the introduction and in various sections when necessary - If you feel confused about Kant invoking Berkely, or Hume, or Aristotle, then just google what Kant meant, because Kant does not dedicate lengthy discussions revolving around any of these philosophers
Just read, stop being a retarded pussy and looking for "guides"

[Anonymous No.22090994]

>>22090772
retard take. that guide is kino. especially recommend knowing some leibniz.

[Anonymous No.22091669]

>>22090994
>recommend knowing some leibniz.
care to elaborate on that? why is Leibniz important to understand Fichte? is more important than Kant?

[Anonymous No.22092173]

>>22090994
No it's not, unlike most of the LARPers here I have read Leibniz and a lot of Kant, you need exactly zero understanding of Leibniz to understand Kant
I can't judge the Fichte guide, but the Kant section is as retarded as "start with the Greeks", stop lying you retard

[Anonymous No.22092330]

>>22092173
Especially since Kant wrote a prolegomena expressly to make himself understood by everyone.
But faggots want to feel intellectual.

[Anonymous No.22092369]

>>22092330
>Kant wrote a prolegomena expressly to make himself understood by everyone
holy fucking pseud. it literally says in the FIRST FUCKING PARAGRAPH of the prolegomena that it's not a popular work and it's meant for future professors not "everyone", go back.

>These Prolegomena are destined for the use, NOT OF PUPILS, but of future teachers, and even the latter should not expect that they will be serviceable for the systematic exposition of a ready-made science, but merely for the discovery of the science itself.

[Anonymous No.22092682]

>>22092369
That isn’t what that paragraph says. Kant elsewhere says that the exact purpose of the prolegomena is an introduction to and clarification of the long and obscure critique, because everyone was complaining about it’s difficulty at the time. The critique was relatively unknown until the release of the prolegomena and the work by reinhold.

I mean, do you even know what “prolegomena” means?
But of course, you are not being genuine with your criticism but just being an intellectual persnickety to feel better about yourself.

[Anonymous No.22092689]

>>22092369
Wait, are you raging because you thought anon mean literally everyone? Extreme autism.
>heh, you thought kant was writing for toddlers? Checkmate atheists

[Anonymous No.22092734]

>>22092682
>you are not being genuine with your criticism but just being an intellectual persnickety to feel better about yourself.
the irony

[Anonymous No.22092746]

>>22092173
>you need exactly zero understanding of Leibniz to understand Kant
pseud take

[Anonymous No.22092755]

>Fichte
it took Schopenhauer 2 pages to refute his entire body of philosophical work