Read “The Fate of Reason” for a full context upon the pantheism controversy and its effects upon the enlightenment and sturm und drang (hamann, goethe, herder, etc), which is the bigger originator of nihilism. Beiser provides much more context. Nihilism is about the overextension of theoretical reason into solipsism and spinozism. The pantheism controversy is why kant got popular (he provided a middle way and limited rationalism into knowing nothing aka dogmatic rationalism) and also basically spawned german idealism and romanticism, thus bringing in fichte (originally a spinozist), schelling (blended spinozism into his philosophy), hegel, etc. Also that photo is not jacobi, its his relative.
Very good exposition of Fichte's Ego-philosophy and Jacobi's response. One thing that is missing, however, is Fichte's relation to Spinoza's pantheism, which I think helps explain Fichte more than the influence of Kant's philosophy. Three other issues: a) Christianity does not "anthropomorphize" the so-called Absolute Ego. That vulgar misinterpretation of Christianity is the error of Feuerbach. Contrary to this view, God in Christianity is an absolute Person, not an unknowable Acting Ego. b) Fichte put a lot of effort into relating his philosophy to the three laws of logic: identity, contradiction, and excluded middle. There is very little discussion of his views on logic in this lecture, despite its heavy use in Wissenschafstlahre. c) Fossils: Fichte makes a distinction between the ego as subject and the ego as object. So, history is a matter of the ego as object, not as subject. The subject is more like Kant's transcendental unity of apperception, an ego that is part of a justificatory system rather than an empirical psychology or history. Still, aside from a few misunderstandings, one of the better discussions of Fichte out there.
You guys are going a great job Personally am interested in Hegel, material dialectics: i.e, Marxism, as well Taoism, Buddhism, & Sufism… I thought am the only hold such combination of interests ‼️
On the other hand, maybe having some understanding of Hume, Kant, Spinoza, and the ideas being responded by the thinkers you are attempting to explained would be helpful in not totally mischaracterizing them. Just a thought.
I dont think he understood the hard problem of consciousness. How do you from neurons firing experience the color red there is no tv in your head. where is the information your neurons produce being processed? Its just information how is it being turned into thoughts, sounds, sensations, and taste that you experience without being processed by something?!?! Evolution doesnt have an explanation for that. Is there some type of field that interacts with the signal your brain sends and produces your conscious experience? But where did this field come from and why does it even exist? Which brings us right back to the metaphysical, why does anything exist at all? You did an amazing job simplifying fitche. I was banging my head into a wall trying to understand what his theory was saying in simplified English. Thank you!!!!
Even though i understand the criticism regarding "heaven as a place very similar to earthly kingdoms" , i think it's a bit unfair. When describing the physical manifestation of something like "the kingdom of heaven" you can see it as concepts to communicate. An gate for example, is used to convey an idea/concept, namely, an entrance. It manifests in front of eyes as a gate, but that's only the physical symbol of an idea. In another era or culture another manifestation can be used. This is also why in different religions a same entity can have a different shape or description. The reason i bring this up is because you can throw the same criticism towards something like an "all knowing and unknowable ego". This clearly is not the same as a "normal ego" yet that is used as starting point to convey an idea. There is nothing wrong with that i think. It's simple a mechanism of language and communication.
The issue is that most, if not all, Christians believe heaven to be a real tangible place, not just symbolism. Fichte's "I" is a philosophical device. Heaven is not.
We'll probably dissect "Elements of the Philosophy of Right" first to inform our conversations about states and then "The Phenomenology of Spirit" when we start our series on consciousness. Stay tuned!
I have never listened to such unqualified persons give a presentation on the topic of German idealism. I don't know if this channel is picking these big topics for discussion because they are personally interested in them, and believe they've acquired enough insight & knowledge to accurately teach and inform others about them, or whether they just want to appear intelligent and "big-brained", and they know most normies understand so little about these topics themselves that they can get away with saying just about whatever they want with very little risk of being called out? My initial impression is leaning towards the latter but I will give them another few minutes before I have to turn this off.
Says the person with 0 videos and 2 subscribers. Make a better video. We'd love it. If a better video existed which accomplished what we're trying to accomplish here, we wouldn't have made this one. We're not perfect. We'd never claim to be. We're doing the best we can. If you want to critique and shame solely for the purpose of critiquing and shaming without adding anything constructive, you can move on. No one here has time for that.
I am not trying to be mean or insulting, a lot of the misconceptions and misinterpretations I am hearing are common amongst English speakers who do not know any German yet attempt to attain a deep understanding of these idealists using only poorly translated source material that is buried underneath a mountain of other bad interpretations of the translation which has confused at least the last 100 years of academics. To this day, the substantial portion of German idealist philosophy remains untranslated, FYI - for that very reason, to make a proper "translation" that is not _heavily_ annotated to attempt and explain the inferences the author is making and the structural similarity within German between this word and that word which do not exist in English, as well as all the words for which there are no translation, etc, etc.
@@MrAM4D3U5 Re-read the initial message. You were both "mean" and "insulting" while offering 0 exemplary or in-depth critique. That's fine. It's TH-cam comments, we're used to it and aren't thin-skinned. The problem is when you were called out, you "victim" shifted while also rationalizing your take via the r/gatekeeping technique. The irony, is that there's nothing less "nihilist" than your behavior here. Carry on.
@@MrAM4D3U5 See, that's a great valid, and valuable comment. You're absolutely right. Thank you for contributing. Why not start with that instead of the shitty snide one?
Cave! There are many missconceptions within the podcast. Jacobi's and Fichte's dispute is not the birth of nihilims. In fact, it marks a certain end of a dispute, on going from 1781. The term "nihilism" appears in the text of many other authors. Jacobi just adopted it. The interlocutors assure you with cocky self-asurance what the timeline of nihilism is.
"The term "nihilism" appears in the text of many other authors." - As we clearly explain at 6:18 you dunce. In fact every complaint you have we clearly explain in the episode.
@@RevolutionandIdeology In fact, at 6:18 you claim, that nihilism is used for the first time in the modern sense in "Jacobi an Fichte" (Hamburg 1799). That very statement is not true at all. If you would do your research at first, you would know that probably. Insteat you try to intimidate critiques and oppositional opinions through insaults. What is wrong with you. You even are not able to interpret a comment; how should you be enabled to interpret German Philosophy from Fichte to Nietzsche. I do not see that. With all good will - I cannot. Before you name me a dunce, name yourself an intellectual fraud.
"There is some dispute about where the term ["nihilism"] first originated; some credit its creation to J.H Obereit (1787), while others point [D]. Jenisch (1796) or Fredrich Schlegel (1797). All agree, however, that word first received sustained philosophical attention in the first decade of the nineteenth century in the debates about the implications of German idealism. It was Jacobi who either borrowed or coined the term to characterize what he regarded as the unpleasant consequences of the regnant philosophical school, transcendental idealism, in his Sendschriften an Ficthe." Karen L. Carr, "The Banalization of Nihilism: Twentieth Century Responses to Meaninglessness" (Albany, NY: State University of New York Free Press, 1992), 13. "The first to use the term in print was apparently F. L. Goetzius in his "De nonismo et nihilismo in theologian" ( 1733). This work, however, was relatively unknown and apparently played no role in the later reappearance and development of the concept. The term reappeared in the late eighteenth century when it was used by J. H. Obereit and more importantly D. Jenisch, who characterized transcendental idealism as nihilism in 1796 in his "On the Ground and Value of the Discoveries of Herr Professor Kant in Metaphysics, Morals, and Aesthetics". He uses the term to describe the work not of Kant (or even Fichte) but of the extreme Kantians who teach that the things-in-themselves are nothing for our cognition. While Jenisch employs the term, however, he never really develops a concept of nihilism. This was the contribution of Jacobi, who first used the term in a published letter to Fichte of 1799 : "Truly, my dear Fichte, it should not grieve me, if you, or who ever it might be, want t o call chimerism what I oppose t o idealism , which I reproach as nihilism."" Michael A. Gillespie, Nihilism before Nietzsche (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 66. Take your nitpicking elsewhere. I've no patience for it.
"The kingdom of God which happens to look a lot like the kingdoms which where around at the time" Might be the most uninformed statement I have ever heard in my entire life 🏆👏
Read “The Fate of Reason” for a full context upon the pantheism controversy and its effects upon the enlightenment and sturm und drang (hamann, goethe, herder, etc), which is the bigger originator of nihilism. Beiser provides much more context. Nihilism is about the overextension of theoretical reason into solipsism and spinozism. The pantheism controversy is why kant got popular (he provided a middle way and limited rationalism into knowing nothing aka dogmatic rationalism) and also basically spawned german idealism and romanticism, thus bringing in fichte (originally a spinozist), schelling (blended spinozism into his philosophy), hegel, etc. Also that photo is not jacobi, its his relative.
Danke.
Interesting. Dealing in the metaphysical vs physical is a labor of determining each of our "present" definition's conditions.
Great discussion.
Very good exposition of Fichte's Ego-philosophy and Jacobi's response. One thing that is missing, however, is Fichte's relation to Spinoza's pantheism, which I think helps explain Fichte more than the influence of Kant's philosophy. Three other issues:
a) Christianity does not "anthropomorphize" the so-called Absolute Ego. That vulgar misinterpretation of Christianity is the error of Feuerbach. Contrary to this view, God in Christianity is an absolute Person, not an unknowable Acting Ego.
b) Fichte put a lot of effort into relating his philosophy to the three laws of logic: identity, contradiction, and excluded middle. There is very little discussion of his views on logic in this lecture, despite its heavy use in Wissenschafstlahre.
c) Fossils: Fichte makes a distinction between the ego as subject and the ego as object. So, history is a matter of the ego as object, not as subject. The subject is more like Kant's transcendental unity of apperception, an ego that is part of a justificatory system rather than an empirical psychology or history.
Still, aside from a few misunderstandings, one of the better discussions of Fichte out there.
I am looking forward to the coming episodes in this series.
Glad to hear it!
You guys are going a great job
Personally am interested in Hegel, material dialectics: i.e, Marxism, as well Taoism, Buddhism, & Sufism… I thought am the only hold such combination of interests ‼️
On the other hand, maybe having some understanding of Hume, Kant, Spinoza, and the ideas being responded by the thinkers you are attempting to explained would be helpful in not totally mischaracterizing them. Just a thought.
I dont think he understood the hard problem of consciousness. How do you from neurons firing experience the color red there is no tv in your head. where is the information your neurons produce being processed? Its just information how is it being turned into thoughts, sounds, sensations, and taste that you experience without being processed by something?!?! Evolution doesnt have an explanation for that. Is there some type of field that interacts with the signal your brain sends and produces your conscious experience? But where did this field come from and why does it even exist? Which brings us right back to the metaphysical, why does anything exist at all? You did an amazing job simplifying fitche. I was banging my head into a wall trying to understand what his theory was saying in simplified English. Thank you!!!!
thanks! that was an interesting point to start to access the problem of nihilism;
Even though i understand the criticism regarding "heaven as a place very similar to earthly kingdoms" , i think it's a bit unfair. When describing the physical manifestation of something like "the kingdom of heaven" you can see it as concepts to communicate. An gate for example, is used to convey an idea/concept, namely, an entrance. It manifests in front of eyes as a gate, but that's only the physical symbol of an idea. In another era or culture another manifestation can be used. This is also why in different religions a same entity can have a different shape or description.
The reason i bring this up is because you can throw the same criticism towards something like an "all knowing and unknowable ego". This clearly is not the same as a "normal ego" yet that is used as starting point to convey an idea. There is nothing wrong with that i think. It's simple a mechanism of language and communication.
The issue is that most, if not all, Christians believe heaven to be a real tangible place, not just symbolism. Fichte's "I" is a philosophical device. Heaven is not.
I can't wait for more deep dives into Hegel and any modern responses to German Idealism.
We'll probably dissect "Elements of the Philosophy of Right" first to inform our conversations about states and then "The Phenomenology of Spirit" when we start our series on consciousness. Stay tuned!
I have never listened to such unqualified persons give a presentation on the topic of German idealism.
I don't know if this channel is picking these big topics for discussion because they are personally interested in them, and believe they've acquired enough insight & knowledge to accurately teach and inform others about them, or whether they just want to appear intelligent and "big-brained", and they know most normies understand so little about these topics themselves that they can get away with saying just about whatever they want with very little risk of being called out? My initial impression is leaning towards the latter but I will give them another few minutes before I have to turn this off.
Says the person with 0 videos and 2 subscribers. Make a better video. We'd love it. If a better video existed which accomplished what we're trying to accomplish here, we wouldn't have made this one. We're not perfect. We'd never claim to be. We're doing the best we can. If you want to critique and shame solely for the purpose of critiquing and shaming without adding anything constructive, you can move on. No one here has time for that.
I am not trying to be mean or insulting, a lot of the misconceptions and misinterpretations I am hearing are common amongst English speakers who do not know any German yet attempt to attain a deep understanding of these idealists using only poorly translated source material that is buried underneath a mountain of other bad interpretations of the translation which has confused at least the last 100 years of academics. To this day, the substantial portion of German idealist philosophy remains untranslated, FYI - for that very reason, to make a proper "translation" that is not _heavily_ annotated to attempt and explain the inferences the author is making and the structural similarity within German between this word and that word which do not exist in English, as well as all the words for which there are no translation, etc, etc.
@@MrAM4D3U5 Re-read the initial message. You were both "mean" and "insulting" while offering 0 exemplary or in-depth critique. That's fine. It's TH-cam comments, we're used to it and aren't thin-skinned. The problem is when you were called out, you "victim" shifted while also rationalizing your take via the r/gatekeeping technique. The irony, is that there's nothing less "nihilist" than your behavior here. Carry on.
@@MrAM4D3U5 See, that's a great valid, and valuable comment. You're absolutely right. Thank you for contributing. Why not start with that instead of the shitty snide one?
I dont like Hegel...
lol Ok?
Amazing episode! Thank you 🌟
Thanks for this video
Thank you for watching!
I doubt that it fits the definition. It's totally a voice recording with a background picture.
Cave! There are many missconceptions within the podcast. Jacobi's and Fichte's dispute is not the birth of nihilims. In fact, it marks a certain end of a dispute, on going from 1781. The term "nihilism" appears in the text of many other authors. Jacobi just adopted it. The interlocutors assure you with cocky self-asurance what the timeline of nihilism is.
"The term "nihilism" appears in the text of many other authors." - As we clearly explain at 6:18 you dunce. In fact every complaint you have we clearly explain in the episode.
@@RevolutionandIdeology In fact, at 6:18 you claim, that nihilism is used for the first time in the modern sense in "Jacobi an Fichte" (Hamburg 1799). That very statement is not true at all. If you would do your research at first, you would know that probably. Insteat you try to intimidate critiques and oppositional opinions through insaults. What is wrong with you. You even are not able to interpret a comment; how should you be enabled to interpret German Philosophy from Fichte to Nietzsche. I do not see that. With all good will - I cannot. Before you name me a dunce, name yourself an intellectual fraud.
"There is some dispute about where the term ["nihilism"] first originated; some credit its creation to J.H Obereit (1787), while others point [D]. Jenisch (1796) or Fredrich Schlegel (1797). All agree, however, that word first received sustained philosophical attention in the first decade of the nineteenth century in the debates about the implications of German idealism. It was Jacobi who either borrowed or coined the term to characterize what he regarded as the unpleasant consequences of the regnant philosophical school, transcendental idealism, in his Sendschriften an Ficthe."
Karen L. Carr, "The Banalization of Nihilism: Twentieth Century Responses to Meaninglessness" (Albany, NY: State University of New York Free Press, 1992), 13.
"The first to use the term in print was apparently F. L. Goetzius in his "De nonismo et nihilismo in theologian" ( 1733). This work, however, was relatively unknown and apparently played no role in the later reappearance and development of the concept. The term reappeared in the late eighteenth century when it was used by J. H. Obereit and more importantly D. Jenisch, who characterized transcendental idealism as nihilism in 1796 in his "On the Ground and Value of the Discoveries of Herr Professor Kant in Metaphysics, Morals, and Aesthetics". He uses the term to describe the work not of Kant (or even Fichte) but of the extreme Kantians who teach that the things-in-themselves are nothing for our cognition. While Jenisch employs the term, however, he never really develops a concept of nihilism. This was the contribution of Jacobi, who first used the term in a published letter to Fichte of 1799 : "Truly, my dear Fichte, it should not grieve me, if you, or who ever it might be, want t o call chimerism what I oppose t o idealism , which I reproach as nihilism.""
Michael A. Gillespie, Nihilism before Nietzsche (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 66.
Take your nitpicking elsewhere. I've no patience for it.
@@martinwalter5759You got fukked by the video maker's plausible and well researched response, you narcissist.
"The kingdom of God which happens to look a lot like the kingdoms which where around at the time"
Might be the most uninformed statement I have ever heard in my entire life 🏆👏