New-York tribune., 1885-07-06
SCIENCE OF KNOWLEDGE.
AN EXPOSITION OF FIcHrEs PROBLEM.

AN EXPOSITION OF FlCHIEo 1hO
v,c,,r,.s e1,rxcE OF KNOWLEDGE. A Critical Ex-
position BY G. EvERErr D. d. crigsss German
Srges S,gIInSncs lea Clssscs edited by George Morri'l
E,ch,e has not won SIX professed disciples IN tne
last fftv wears in all probability His only Aherr
can follower of any note died few years ago ai'er
completing translatIons Of many OF bis ihas'e,
.vorts These facts instead of detracting from the
significance of the first complete exposition III
English of Fichtes 81 Science of Knowledge only
add to- They show that the philosophical ino'c.
ments of the Continent are making themsci'ee "0
home hero; that the United States Is depehui's
more upon Germany than England Tor lts eAVeIi-
ments in higher education; that Its students 20 W
Germany and not to Great Britain for .nei, au-
yanced training in the arts and sciences has long
been known. II we may judge from many recen'
discussions in theology, religious leaders are
moro likelv TO follow German than English lnhu-
ences And this book and the series OF when IL Is
n worthy representative are signs that the higher
PHILOSOPHICAL thinking of America is more hKcy
TO root itself in German antecedents thah W any
itself with the isolated If not insuiar course VI
thought in Great Britain. Not the least OF 'ho
MANY merits of the exposition of Dr. Everetts are
the firmncss with which the historical connection
of Kant is grasped, and the skill and 1orce WIN
which the particular elements OF the cohhec.ioh
are drawn from their hiding places in the iaoori-
BUSINESS of Fichte's statements and SET d'stihc.'y
before the reader. To appreciate the skiii WIN
which the author has brought home to the common
con.ciousness the extremely remote and even far
fetched statements of Fichte requires an acquant-
ance with the philosopher which but few possess.
Examples of the force and vividness with whlch
the work of Fiche historically considered are laio
hold of by DR.. Everett found in the second
chapter of his book, where he treats OF the prop
lens considered in relation to Kant, ana III inc
final chapter, where he compares Fichte WIN
SchopenlIauer and Hegel, and gives the limitations
of Fichte. Both chapters are popular III syie
without ceasng to be phllosophic In character.
The root of difficulty in all philosophical EXPOSE
tion is the statement of the problem The average
reader sees no meaning in the results OF thinking
simply because he cannot sec the questions which
that thinking is trying to answer. This difficulty
is increased tenfold in tho case of writer IKE
Ficate who possessed of his subject, punges us
at once in medas res and then proceeds by amethod
SO abstract and Technology so Scholastic, tha.,
with his "Egos" and "Non-Egos" and "posits
and Ks and o. the unframed reader concludes that
Fichte equally with himself has no meaning. The
deftness and ingenuity with which these diihcui-
ties are avoided or surmOunted by Dr. Everett may
be seen by referring to the section on Uiti-
mate Reality" pa ges 5O-64l and the pages (169-
the objective world from the Ego. Very rarely
are the difficulties escaped by slurring them over.
1t will undoubtedly seem to many readers that
the centre of the question would have been better
reached by a more constant and complete reference
to sclfconscousness constituting both the nature
of the Hchtean problem and the unity Oh the
method by which the attempt to solve the proolem
is made. Here, and here only, does the work seem
+o Ms to suffer by comparison with the account OF
Ficbte given by Adamson in the B'ackwood Series.
But even here it is probable that the psychol oglca
treatment which DIR. Everett has adopted Is the
better calculated to reveal to the readers to whom
the book will most largely appeal the reality OF
Fichte's problem and of the method by which he
ATTEMPTED to deal with it, A specific criticism Is
that the connection of the material of knowledge,
the objects of consciousness with themOra activity
of the SELF is not brought into as explicit connec-
ton with Kant's theory of Practical Reason as the
ST ate ofthc case warrants. The close relation be-
tween the two is of course recognized, but the es-
sential unity of Kant aud Fichte with regard 10
the mutual relations of the form and the matter OF
knowledge IS not apparently fully realized DIV Dr.
Everett The connection between the Crtique OF
the Pure Reason and that of the Practical is the
core of Kant, and vet ii is the point least UNDER
stood. Heine's epigram that Kant introduced the
Practical Reason in order to satisfy his old servant
generally is often taken representing the facts
II is opposed that the Practical Reason is intro
duced only in order to smuggle in for belief and
action what knowledge cannot attain. But their
actual relation is organic, not splicing Kant IN
the Critique of Pure Reason finds no way OF ac-
counting for the material content of knowledge.
This question is therefore laid one SIDE by its
hypothetical attribution TO thing-in-itself, whose
nature is left undetermined In the Crtique OF
Practical Reason it is found that man has the
moral CONSCIOUSNESS that these thngs-in-them-
selves are Rational Wills, forming kingdom oil
end which on the one hand is the ground of the
phenomenal and on the other hand can realize IT.
self only through this phenomenal world. In
short, while in the Critque of Pure Reason the
phenomenal character of known objects is merely
supposed to depend upon an unknown reality, In
the Practical Reason their phenomenal nature is
shown to be moral necessity in order that the
tbing-in-itself the free Rational Will, may have
q sphere and theatre in which to act and manifest
it's nature. The sense-wOrld has reality only that
the moral world may get ground for It's stnvlngs
and thereby become real. That is Kant and that
Is Fichte. What is peculiar to Fichte Is that he
will have the connection between the world OF
sense aud the world of moral action " out OF one
and the same piece" as he said while the con-
nectlon TO Kant is got at now from ono point and
now from another. This is all implied to be sure
in DR.. Everetts treatment in the eighth chapter OF
his exposition, but the insistence upon special
aspects of it, as the Immortality OF the soul and
the existence of God, has somewhat obscured the
fundamental principle. That which will strike
even the neophyte in philosophy as the weakness
of the book the treatment of method is, OF course,
Fichte's weakness and not that of his expositor.
In fact one OF the virtues of the book is the extent
TO which the appearance Of arbitrarincss has been
shorn from the treatment.
l,f sacrifcirn labor and the