Sárospataki Füzetek 2. (1998)
1998 / 1. szám - Dr. Frank Sawyer: Is there a place for God int he inn of Philosophy?
JOHANN GOTTLIEB FICHTE (1762-1814) Fichte was an important student of Kant, but he went in another direction than Kant could approve. Kant was a universalist, in the sense of believing in values which count for everyone. Kant believed in the moral autonomy and responsibility of the individual, but this was within the framework of universal values. Fichte, however, took a large step toward subjectivism and is a bridge between Kant and Nietzsche. While Kant emphasized that knowledge depends not merely on the structure of things in themselves, but on the forms of human understanding, for Kant these forms of human understanding are universal, while for Fichte and many following, what counts is ’my understanding’, ’my choice’, 'my perspective’. When we go from Kant to Fichte we move from ’transcendental idealism’ to ’subjective idealism’. Or: Romanticism - which means abstract reason must recede and individual intuitions and emotions must increase. Kant took away the basis for philosophical metaphysics and ’objective’ epistemology (as it had been understood by earlier philosophy). Kant took a large step toward an anthropocentric view of things. From now on many would suppose that the human mind does not ’discover’ reality, but ’constitutes’ or ’composes’ reality. Yet Kant thought that the mind’s categories were universal; soon philosophers would say that there are many sets of categories (many mind-sets, perspectives, choices). Kant emphasizes reason; Fichte emphasizes that it is ’my reason’. In other words: Romanticism and then later Existentialism would say that ’pure reason’ is a myth. Romanticism was not interested in timeless objective categories, but in history and in change (action). Different views on things were no longer thought of as a logical contradiction, but rather as in dialectical tension and changing. What a difference between Enlightenment rationalism and Romantic ’Sturm und Drang’ (’Storm and . Stress’)! For the Enlightenment what counted was calm, clear, logical explanation and the glorification of science. For the Romantic movement what counted was Titanic activity, the superiority of the will, the glorification of the genius as ’actor’. Here general norms seem pale when there is an exaltation of personal choices. Over against the dogma of absolute reason there is then a regained idea of freedom, which becomes a new dogma: absolute freedom. While of course not always so stated or applied, this was the tendency. So the problem becomes: if one begins with either reason (Enlightenment) or freedom (Romantic movement), 2)/'. UranT Sawyer
