Talk:Johann Gottlieb Fichte

message: I would be interested to know more about Schopenhauer's description of a second, absolute consciousness. It may come as a surprise that I cannot find mention of such an activity in any of Schopenhauer's writings.
Lestrade 15:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That mention could mean Schopenhauer's 'will' considered as a universal force rather than a direct relation to an individual ego. Nagelfar 21:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schopenhauer 

message: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~shaked/Holocaust/lectures/lec4.html
German nationalism burdened with a romantic quixotic aspect was founded by Johann Gottlieb Fichte. in 1807 -romantic nationalism; proclaimed German ethos to be the seedbed for human perfection; argued against Jewish emancipation. 1808: delivered series of ‘Addresses to the German Nation,’ rallied German-speaking people to resist French, & spoke of the superiority of the Germans. Anti-intellectual, anti-democratic sentiment woven into German fabric; destructive chauvinism
http://www.ajr.org.uk/pastjournal52.htm
Fichte, a fervent democrat, excluded Jews from equality.
http://members.surfbest.net/shsaltzman/Dawidowicz.html
Called the father of German nationalism, Fichte has also been called the father of modern German anti_Semitism. His celebration of German nationalism was matched by his denigration of Jews. In 1793 he had argued against Jewish emancipation, characterizing the Jews as a state within a state that would undermine the German nation. Jewish ideas were as obnoxious as French ideas. The only way in which he could concede giving rights to Jews, he said, would be "to cut off all their heads in one night, and to set new ones on their shoulders, which should contain not a single Jewish idea."
--Molobo 10:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Molobo is an expert on anti-isms, especially its practical appliance, as shown in his contribs to Wikipedia. --Matthead 22:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm more than half done with Addresses to the German Nation now. Calling it "destructive chauvinism" probably understates the case. No human beings on Earth are capable of original thought, except the German, says Fichte. Chauvinism is definitely the word for it. German is too complicated for non-Germans too learn. Non-Germans might _think_ they've thought of something, but it will never have any impact (like a slyph sleeping on the grass, he says). I sympathize with him, a little bit, he was overrun by Napoleon and wanted to rouse the Germans to get out from under the Corsican-led French. But to basically call everyone else sub-human... well, the fact that it was re-issued in 1922 makes me think that calling him a proto-Nazi isn't out of order. JoshNarins (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: To add

message: Professional philosophers detest psychology with a visceral, burning contempt and hatred. Why isn't Fichte disparaged by them? Next to Berkeley, his philosophy is the utmost in subjectivity and idealism.Lestrade (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychologism

message: Aren't words the most important means of communication here? The title of Fichte's Wissenschaftslehre is commonly mistranslated as Science of Logic. Its correct translation is Doctrine of Science or Science of Knowledge. "Die Wissenschaft" means "science," "learning," or "knowledge." "Die Lehre" means "doctrine," "teaching," or even "science." There is no translation of any of these words to mean "logic."  The Germans have decided to use "Die Logik" to mean "logic." The article should consistently use either the completely erroneous common mistranslation or the correct translation.Lestrade (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Typical sloppy use of words

message: In the "Fichte's philosophical writings" section, there is reference to "'things in themselves', the supra-sensible reality beyond the categories of human reason." Anyone who has opened Kant's book knows that the Kantian categories are pure concepts of the understanding and have nothing to do with reason.Lestrade (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Showing ignorance

message: His biography needs to reference the atheism dispute, where charges of atheisms forced him to resign from the university at jenna. Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi was involved in the dispute and I have started to add it to his page.   لسلام عليكم - يونس الوجدي گونزاليس (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Atheism Dispute

message: Darkstar1: Since Google Books doesn't allow me to read p. 70 of the cited book, you will have to provide a longer quotation here, because I suspect that your interpretation is a misrepresentation of the source. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: actually i do not, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCEACCESS#Access_to_sources.  however, since you are the first person to actually engage me on a source, i will be happy to do so.  Darkstar1st (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 2nd paragraph, p70  "in his 1800 , the closed commercial state, fichte imagines the good life in terms of an achieved (and eventually seal-off) state which, in closing itself off to worldy competition, would dispel all conflict and exist in peace and happiness.  *more too come  Darkstar1st (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: cont*   the state would be socialistic in that what a citizen has and can expect to have is determined by need; economics function by 'an absolute balance or value' of resources, overseen by the state, rather than by a drive to profit; and the stability of the whole is guaranteed by the state which unifies all its disparate elements ( the individuals who make it up) by 'a great deal of business and many calculations and inspections in order to keep a stable equilibrium.'   *more  Darkstar1st (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: cont*    this closed state, according to fichte, will also produce a robust national feeling; in it 'a high degree of national honour and a sharply distinguished national character are bound to arise very quickly.  As robert nisbet argues, fichte extended the idea of the nation-state from a legal-political entity to one in which all human needs, including moral and spiritual ones, could be met:  'he is the true author of national socialism.'   Darkstar1st (talk) 09:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: the reason you gave was "misrepresentation of source" after admitting you did not read the source.  your revert was at 9:22, at 9:24 you make the above post.  how can you claim i misrepresented the source if you didn't read it?   Darkstar1st (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I had browsed the pages that I was allowed to read in Google Books of the cited book, and as such suspected it. And I was partly correct. The quotation you provided does not directly link Nisbets claim with a further support for the idea. Nisbets claim still stands alone, and as such is probably fringe. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

text: do you have a source for the fringe claim?    Darkstar1st (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not how it works. If it is a fringe claim it would not necessarily be mentioned by other scholars. You will need to find further sources that backs up the claim made by Nisbet. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, "The same holds the causes of National Socialism—although since the Nazi regime went so horribly wrong, there is perhaps some reluctance to name names. Yet naming names is sometimes crucial if we are going to get to the historical heart of the matter. What philosophers can we cite in the case of the Nazis? Several names are candidates: Georg Hegel, Johann Fichte, even elements from Karl Marx.", Stephen Hicks, Ph.D  Darkstar1st (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just data mining for sources to support a POV.  Olive Schreiner and the progress of feminism is not an obvious source for a an article about a German philosopher.  Darkstar1st misrepresents the source which says "Nisbet called him the true author of national-socialism" to Nisbet declared him "the true author of National Socialism" (with a piped link).  Nisbet was referring to the 19th century German ideology, not Nazism which is clear to anyone who reads the section in the book or Nisbet, who wrote, "It is no wonder that Lasalle and a good many other proponents of national-socialism would for a long time treat Fichte with reverence".  Clearly he was writing about the 19th century ideology of Ferdinand Lasalle, not the 20th century ideology of Nazism.  TFD (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: tfd, you may have confused the article on the nazi party or nazi germany with the article on national socialism.  it is not up to us to interpret the rs, rather report it.  i choose Olivia to use as the source when i could have simply sourced nisbet himself.  my effort was an attempt to avoid typing out the entire passage by providing a link anyone could verify online.  if you would read olivia your opinion of the relevance feminism and socialism would certainly change.  your above claim amounts to me using the word "declared", instead of "called", exactly how is that a misrepresentation?  would you be satisfied if i changed the word back?  Darkstar1st (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The piped link national socialism goes to Nazism which is not even mentioned in the writings used as a source.  Nisbet used the term "national-socialism", not "national socialism".  It is misleading to imply to readers that they are the same thing.  It is interesting that you feel so passionately about trying to prove that Nazism=socialism yet are unable to find any sources to support your view.  This is not the place to publish your original opinions.  TFD (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nisbet 

message: The article translates "setzen" as "set." It is usually translated, in articles about German Idealism, as "posit" in the sense of "postulate" or "assume the existence of." Fichte and the German Idealists were prolific positers.Lestrade (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Setzen

message: I just deleted the criticism section, which was very small and extremely vague, and added this comment: "Criticism is extremely vague, so I am deleting it. It consists of merely one author classifying a group of thinkers as the basis for......x (in this case, authoritarianism). We've seen it all before, cf. Walter Kaufmann's chapter on Popper's view of Hegel in his From Hegel to Existentialism."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caute AF (talk • contribs) 02:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I recently edited the nationalism section to reflect the most recent Fichte scholarship. Hopefully the changes will satisfy everyone here. To summarize the changes: (1) the contents of the Address to the German Nation are more clearly summarized, (2) Fichte's adoption by Nazi thinkers and the way in which this coloured readings of his nationalism in the post-war period is discussed, (3) the contemporary scholarship and its views on Fichte's nationalism and his supposed antisemitism are discussed with both sides of the argument being laid out. Hopefully this will make everyone happy. 2607:FEA8:620:4F2:F491:3D2C:A747:72B8 (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What's with the part that says Fichte couldn't have been motivated by Prussia's defeats? Berlin was captured in 1806. 97.88.151.165 (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationalism Section 

message: (Advance apologies for making two new sections). This article needs some attention from a serious Fichte scholar. I've fixed the nationalism section to the best of my ability, but the sections on the main aspects of Fichte's philosophy are astoundingly bad. There is no serious discussion of Fichte's philosophy of right or his ethical system, which were the only two parts of his philosophy which were completed. His Science is considered by some contemporary Fichte scholars to be incomprehensible in places because it was never finished; that's not a slight against Fichte, just an observation that its weird the article focuses on his incomplete work but makes no mention of the parts of his system which were complete. In fairness this is not surprising - because historically scholars gave Fichte's Science undo priority over his over works - but it does need to be fixed. I would do more but I'm not a Fichte scholar, just some grad student in unrelated areas of philosophy. 2607:FEA8:620:4F2:F491:3D2C:A747:72B8 (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fichte's Philosophy 

message: Is it just me, or does the tone of the Nationalism section come across as a thesis-driven persuasive essay defending Fichte from accusations of having an ideology like the Nazis'? Some sentences are phrased as if they are responding to accusations, and to some extent the subsection's structure is too.
Take this sentence: "Furthermore, his nationalism was not aroused by Prussian military defeat and humiliation, for these had not yet occurred, but resulted from his own humanitarian philosophy." I have a few concerns: (1) who claimed that his nationalism came from Prussian military defeat and humiliation? If somebody did, then we should cite them; if not, why include the sentence? (2) Calling his philosophy "humanitarian" strikes me like an endorsement of, or at least compliment to, his philosophy -- like calling his philosophy "benevolent."
A minor example is the phrasing "The nationalism propounded by Fichte in the Addresses would be used over a century later by the Nazi Party." Calling it "over a century later" sounds like the kind of phrasing I would use to emphasize the distance Fichte from the Nazis rather than a neutral description.
The most egregious example is at the end: "While recent scholarship has sought to dissociate Fichte's writings on nationalism with their adoption by the Nazi Party, the association continues to blight his legacy, although Fichte, as if to exclude all ground of doubt, clearly and distinctly prohibits [...] genocide and other crimes against humanity." Why do we need to assert that he "clearly and distinctly" opposes genocide? Again, it feels like defending against an accusation.
Maybe it is totally fine that the section is written in this tone/framing, IDK. But it strikes me as inconsistent with NPOV. GregConan (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationalism Section feels thesis-driven