Table Of ContentNorthwesternUniversityPress
www.nupress.northwestern.edu
Copyright© 2008byNorthwesternUniversityPress. Published2008.Allrights
reserved.
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
MterJena:newessaysonFichte'slaterphilosophy/ editedbyDanielBreazeale
andTomRockmore.
p.em.- (Topicsinhistoricalphilosophy)
Includesbibliographicalreferences.
ISBN-13:978-0-8101-2407-3 (cloth:alk.paper)
ISBN-I0:0-8101-2407-6 (cloth:alk. paper)
ISBN-13:978-0-8101-2408-0 (pbk. :alk.paper)
ISBN-I0:0-8101-2408-4 (pbk. :alk. paper)
1.Fichte,JohannGottlieb,1762-1814. I.Breazeale,Daniel.II.Rockmore,
Tom, 1942- III.Series:NorthwesternUniversitytopicsinhistorical
philosophy.
B2848.A382008
193-dc22
2007035883
c§Thepaperusedinthispublicationmeetstheminimumrequirementsofthe
AmericanNationalStandardforInformationSciences-PermanenceofPaper
forPrintedLibraryMaterials,ANSIZ39.48-1992.
Introduction
Tom Rockmore
n recentyears,attentionhasincreasinglybeenpaidto thewritingsofthe
I
!GermanidealistphilosopherJ. G. Fichte,a centralfigure inGermanide
alism and one of the small number of truly significant philosophical
thinkers. Fichte's career divides easily into two parts: the Jena period
(1794-99), where he assumed the recentlyvacated chair ofcritical phi
losophyatthe UniversityofJena,which atthe timewasrapidlyemerging
as the capital ofthe new German philosophy; and the postjena period,
afterheleftJenaforBerlin.
Thefocus ofFichtestudiesinFrenchandGermanandin the English
speakingworldisverydifferent.InEurope,Fichte'scomplexGermanand
dense writing style presentcomparativelyless ofan obstacle than in the
English-speaking world. Over the last decade, European Fichte studies
haveincreasinglyshiftedtowardFichte'spost-Jenawritings.Yetinpartbe
causeoftheirrelativeinaccessibilityfqrsomeonewhosegraspofGerman
texts iseithernonexistentoratleastnotstrong-much ofFichte's philo
sophicaloutputhasstillnotbeen translated-students ofFichteworking
in English tend tofocus on hisJenawritings, especiallytheFoundation
theEntire Wissenschaftslehre (1794-95), which was originallynot intended
for publication butwas written as an aid for Fichte's students, while ne
glectinghislatertexts.
In the English-language community, Fichte's postjena work has re
ceivedcomparativelylittleattention. ThisisunfortunatesinceFichteisa
major thinker, whose position continued to develop in a number ofim
portant texts after he leftJena. These include (but are not limited to)
"popular"writingssuchas thewell-known TheVocation ofMan (1800); an
interestingtextonpoliticaleconon1Y(TheClosedCommercialState, 1800);a
number offurtherversions ofthe Wissenschaftslehre (The ScienceofKnowl
edge;1804, 1805, 1807, 1810, 1811, 1812, 1813,and 1814) that, with the ex
ception of the Presentation ofthe General Outlines ofthe Wissenschaftslehre
(1810),wereunpublishedduringhislifetimeandareonlynowappearing
inGermaninthedefinitivecompleteeditionofhiswritingseditedbythe
BavarianAcademyofSciences;1a textintended to showthe implications
ofhisviewoffreedom for the philosophyofhistory (The Characteristics
vii
viii
INTRODUCTION
thePresentAge, 1806); a treatise on religion (Guide to theBlessedLife, orthe
DoctrineofReligion, 1806),andhiscelebratedbutcontroversialAddressesto
theGermanNation (1808). Hence, there ismuchmaterial to attracttheat
tentionofascholarofGern1anidealism,orofsomeonemerelyinterested
in theworkofafirst-rate philosophicalmind.
The papers collectedin thisvolume,which are drawnfrom a biennial
meetingofthe NorthAmericanFichte Societyheldin Montrealin 1999,
allfocusindifferentwaysonFichte'spost-:Jenaphilosophy.Mostoftheau
thors are established Fichte scholars, some are on the way to making a
name for themselves in this domain, and others are considered among
therankingstudentsofFichtein theworldtoday.
These essays fall into three related categories: Fichte's development,
hisviewofreligion,andotheraspectsofhis"popular" (ornotsopopular)
philosophy. Fichte'scomplexdevelopmentreflects the overallphilosoph
ical concerns at the time he was active, the specific debates to which he
contributedandwhichheinfluenced, and the complexeventsofhisown
philosophicalcareer.
Thefirstpartofthevolume,whichisdevotedtoFichte'sdevelopment,
contains contributions by Daniel Breazeale, Violetta Waibel, Gunter
Zoller, Steven Hoeltzel, Michael Vater, and George Seidel. Breazeale's
"Towarda Wissenschaftslehre moregeometrico (1800-1801)" provides a close
reading of Fichte's precise tr~ectory during the crucial period of
1800-1801, focusing especially on his New version ofthe Wissenschaftslehre
(NeueBearbeitungderWissenschaftslehre). Breazealeusefullyturns toletters
.andunpublishedmanuscripts,aswellasthisparticularversionofthe Wis
senschaftslehre, inwalkingus painstakinglythrough thevariousobjections
toFichte'searlierexpressionsofhisphilosophicalprojectandincharting
waysinwhich hisresponses to these objectionsimpactedhis thinking. In
"Structures of Imagination in Fichte's Wissenschaftslehre 1794-1795 and
1804,"Waibel offers a more schematic, butphilosophicallyveryinterest
ingargumentforthecontinuityofFichte'sJenaandPrussianperiods.The
chapter is organized into three parts: problen1s with Kant's philosophy,
the theoryofimagination in the early Wissenschaftslehre, and the changes
in the structure and intentofthe basic position in the 1804 Wissenschaft
slehre.ThefirsthalfofZoller's"ThinkingandWillingintheLaterFichte"
gives a broadreviewofFichte's treatmentofthe relation ofthinkingand
willing, firstinlecturesofthelate 1790sand then in the secondJenaver
sion ofthe Wissenschaftslehre. Zoller demonstrates the fundan1ental dual
ityofthe I throughout the attempt to think the absolute ground ofsub-
jectivity in the Wissenschaftslehre nova methodo, as well as the shift that
occursvia the reclassification ofthe I, formerly the ground, as aform or
mode and the identification ofthe groundassomethingindependentof
ix
INTRODUCTION
the I. The centralcontributionofthis chapterisitssketch ofthe exciting
contentsofthe TranscendentalLogicandthelaterSystemofEthics (1812).
BothHoeltzelandVaterdiscusstherelationofSchellingandFichte.In
"TowardorAwayfrom Schelling?On theThematicShiftinFichte'sLater
Philosophy," Hoeltzel makes a persuasive case for the fascinating claim
thatFichte's 1801 Wissenschaftslehrehas strongaffinitieswith the position
Schellinghadinitiallyadoptedaround1795.Furtherlightontherelation
betvveen Schelling and Fichte is thrown byVater's "Fichte's Reaction to
Schelling's IdentityPhilosophyin 1806." This controversial claim is tem
pered byVater, who argues that after he leftJena, Fichte explicitly tar
getedSchellingamongthosewhomisunderstoodhisposition.Vater,who
analyzesatextFichtewrotein1806,butwhichwasunpublishedinhislife
time, focuses onFichte'sreaction to earlycritics ofhis position aswell as
on his partlyvitriolic denunciation ofSchelling's philosophyofidentity.
HeconcludesbysuggestingthatdespitetheinterestofSchelling'sphilos
ophyofbeing, it can onlyilluminate the objective pole ofcognition. In
Kant'swake, Fichte mustbe preferred to Schellingfor his potential con
tributioninbringingtogetherthe disunityleftbyKant's three Critiques.
Seidel's "The LightThat Lights the Seeing ofthe Light: The Second
Wissenschaftslehreof1804" examines the relation betvveen theviewin this
text and its earlierformulations. According to Seidel, despite the many
changes, two aspects remain constant in the Wissenschaftslehre of 1804.
First, being is still posited being, and second, there is still the Sollen (or
"ought") ofFichte'smoralidealism.InSeidel'saccount,Fichteanswersthe
question aboutwhatwe seekin seekingthe truth bysuggesting thatreli
gion,aboveallChristianity,isthecontentofwhichphilosophyistheform.
ThesecondpartofthisvolumecontainschaptersbyYolandaEstes,Ernst
Otto Onnasch, Kevin Zanelotti, Johannes Brachtendorf, and Holger
Zaborowski that discuss Fichte's philosophy of religion. Fichte initially
madeanameforhimselfwhenhisearlyAttemptataCritiqueofAllRevelation
(1792), for reasons that have never been satisfactorilyexplained, was pub
lishedwithouttheauthor'snameandpreface.Thisbook,whichwasmistaken
as Kant's long-awaited work on religion, immediately called attention to
Fichte and led quickly to a prestigious chair at the University ofJena for
him.Fichte,whothenturnedasidefrom thephilosophyofreligioninwork
ingouthis theoreticalphilosophy, camebackto thistheme nearthe endof
hisstayinJena,whenhewassuddenlyaccusedofatheism.Itisthenironicthat
inthewakeoftheso-calledAtheismControversy(Atheismusstreit) of1798-99,
theverythinkerwhohadinitiallycalledattention to himselfbecause ofhis
interestinreligionwasforced toresignhispostonsuspicionofimpiety.
Mter he leftJena, Fichtereturned to andfurtherworked out his phi
losophyofreligion. Indeed, some observers believe he strengthenedhis
x
INTRODUCTION
personal link to religion in thewake ofthis controversy. In their respec
tive chapters, Estes, Onnasch, and Zanelotti address the complicated
theme ofhowbest to interpretFichte's Guideto theBlessedLife, ortheDoc
trineofReligion (DieAnweisungzumseligenLebenoderauchReligionslehre). In
"Mterjena:Fichte'sRelig;lonslehre,"Estesidentifiespointsofcontinuitybe
tweenFichte'slaterphilosophyofreligionandhisoverallJenaphilosoph
ical perspective. She argues that Fichte's position, despite some alter
ations in his views ofmorality and religion, remains consistentwith his
earlier,jenaviewsofGodandphilosophy.Shebeginsbyreviewingtheac
countofblessednessin the Religionslehrebefore comparingitwith earlier
discussions ofn10ral consciousness. She then reviews the transcendental
philosophy of religion presented in the Religionslehre with the Wis
senschaftslehrenova methodo. The chapterconcludeswith a differentiation
of the Religionslehre from absolute idealism, mysticism, and dogmatic
theology. Onnasch offers, in "Fichte's Conception ofthe System ofPhi
losophyinDieAnweisungzumseligenLeben,"acarefulstudyofFichte's1805
lectures on philosophy of religion with particular attention to Fichte's
metaphysical commitment in those lectures. He carefully navigates the
wayinwhich Fichte consistentlypresents two potentiallyconflictingcon
ceptionsofbeing:asdeterminedbyconsciousnessandasanexternalized
appearance ofabsolute being as manifested in and through conscious
ness. Zanelotti's"HowNottoReadFichte'sDieAnweisungzumseligenLeben
(1806):Againstthe Mystical Reading" provides a powerful.attack against
AnthonyPerovich'swell-known reading ofthe Anweisungandforthe sig
nificance ofFichte'slaterworkas a departurefrom the Wissenschaftslehre.
Mterstipulatingacanonicallyacceptedconceptionofmysticismandelab
orating Perovich's claim that Fichte espouses a weak, introverted mysti
cism, Zanelotti recounts Fichte's own statements that contrastmysticism
with transcendental philosophy. In the second part of the chapter he
makesatrenchantcasefortheincompatibilityoftheAnweisungwithmys
ticisn1 and thatatthe same time explainswhyithas beenso interpreted.
The explanation, on Zanelotti'sreading, lies in thewayinwhich the An
weisungdeparts from the Wissenschaftslehrebyposing the problem ofthe
one and the many in a way that transgresses transcendental idealism in
countenancing "an ontology that grounds finite existence in the neces
sarymanifestationoftheAbsolutefrom itself."
Thesecondhalfofthesectiononreligioncontainsmoregeneralessays
byJohannesBrachtendorfandHolgerZaborowski.Itisoftenclaimedthat
in his laterwork Fichte reverts to a pre-critical metaphysical stance and
therebyundermines thecentralcontributionofhisjenawritings. Bracht
endorf's comparative study ofFichte's theory ofbeing, "The Notion of
Being in Fichte's Late Philosophy," brings much-needed clarity to this
xi
INTRODUCTION
question,intheprocessclarifyingsomedifficultsectionsinFichte'stexts.
Heoffersaveryclearaccountofthe transitioninFichte'saccountofsub-
jectivity. In "Fall and Freedom," Zaborowski provides a verywell-written
andextremelythoroughsurveyofFichte'smature philosophyofreligion
with a critical eye toward demonstrating the ways in which Fichte's phi
losophyofreligionisdevelopedinconversationwiththedoctrineoforig
inalsin. Zaborowski's theologicalanalysisofSaintPaul'saccountoforigi
nalsinshows howthe issue oforiginalsininformsFichte'sphilosophyof
historyandhissecularizedaccountofhumanredemption.
ThethirdandfinalsectionconsidersFichte'slater"popular"andnotso
popularphilosophyincontributionsbyAndrewFiala,AngelicaNuzzo,and
Ton1RockmorethataredevotedrespectivelytoFichte'sviewsoflanguage,
history, and knowledge. In "Fichte and the Ursprache," Fialapoints to the
connectionbetweenFichte'sphilosophyoflanguageandhumanfreedom
andcompareshisearlyphilosophyoflanguagewiththetheoryoflanguage
underlyinghisAddressestotheGermanNationgivenduringtheFrenchoccu
pation.Fialadoesagoodjobofshowingthewayinwhichlanguageshapes
human subjectivity. At the beginning ofthe last century, En1il Lask, wh.o
influencedHeidegger,Lukacs,andKronerinhisshortcareer,madeanim
portantcontributionto ourgraspofFichte'svievvofhistory. Nuzzoexam
ines "'The Logic ofHistorical Truth': History and Individual in Fichte's
Late Philosophy of History" in the course of concentrating on Fichte's
CharacteristicsofthePresentAge(1804). The resultisastrongcasefora cer
tainreadingofFichte'sphilosophyofhistory,anotherimportantaspectof
his work "afterJena." Nuzzo's reading supports Lask's and extends to
include an inquiryinto the general systematic conditions for a theory of
history.·Rockmore's "Fichte on Knowledge, Practice, and History" traces
Fichte'streatmentofknowledgeandhistoryagainstthebackgroundofthe
criticalphilosophy. He suggests thatFichte contributes to this movement
in reformulating the ahistorical Kantian position on the basis ofthe pri
macy of practical reason, which is finally understood historically. He
furthersuggeststhatthoughFichtediffersfromKant,Fichte'sconceptions
ofknowledgeandhistoryareapriori,andhenceahistorical.
Note
1.SeeJ. G.Fichte,Johann GottliebFichte: GesamtausgabederBayerischenAkademie
der Wissenschaften, ed. Reinhard Lauth, HansJacobs, Hans Gliwitzky, and Erich
Fuchs (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann, 1964-), 32 volumes to date. This
completeeditionofFichte'swritingsiscitedas GAinthenotes.
Abbreviations
WorksbyJohannGottliebFichtearecitedinthenotes (andoccasionallyintext)
bythefollowingabbreviations:
AGN AddressestotheGermanNation, trans.R.F.JonesandG.H.Turnbull
(Chicago:OpenCourt,1922).
ASL DieAnweisungzumseligenLeben, oderauchReligionslehre,ed.Hansjiirgen
Verweyen (Hamburg:FelixMeiner, 1994).
CPA CharacteristicsofthePresentAge,inSignificantContributionstotheHistoryof
Psychology, 1750-1920,ed.DanielN.Robinson,vii-290 (Washington,
D.C.:UniversityPressofAmerica, 1977).
EPW Fichte:EarlyPhilosophicalWritings, ed.andtrans.DanielBreazeale
(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1988).
FrP Fichte:FoundationsofTranscendentalPhilosophy(Wissenschaftslehre)nova
methodo(1796/99),ed.andtrans.DanielBreazeale (Ithaca:Cornell
UniversityPress, 1992).
FW FichtesWerke, ed.ImmanuelHermannFichte, 11vols. (Berlin:De
Gruyter, 1971).ThisisanintegratedreprintofNWandSW(seebelow).
FZR J G.FichteinzeitgenossischenRezensionen,ed.ErichFuchs,Wilheln1G.
Jacobs,andWalterSchieche (Stuttgart-BadCannstatt:Frommann
Holzboog,1995).
GA JohannGottliebFichte:GesamtausgabederBayerischenAkademiederWis-
senschaften,ed. ReinhardLauth,HansJacobs,HansGliwitzky,and
ErichFuchs (Stuttgart-BadCannstatt:Frommann,1964-),32volumes
todate.Successivenumbers (separatedbyperiods) designatetheseries
andthevolumeofthisedition,respectively,andthe number (ornum
bers) afterthecolonrefertothepagenumbers;forexample, GA
1.4:183.
GGZ DieGrundzugedesgegenwiirtigenZeitalters(Hamburg:FelixMeiner,
1978).
IWL IntroductionstotheWissenschaftslehreandOtherWritings(1797-1800), ed.
andtrans.DanielBreazeale (Indianapolis:Hackett, 1994).
xiii
xiv
ABBREVIATIONS
NW JohannGottliebFichtesnachgelasseneWerke, ed.ImmanuelHermann
Fichte,3vols. (Bonn:Adolph-Marcus, 1834-35).
RL DieAnweisungzumseligenLeben, oderauchderReligionslehre(1806),ed.
FritzMedicus (Harnburg:!vIeiner,1910).
SW Johann GottliebFichtessiimmtlicheWerke, ed.ImmanuelHermannFichte,
8vols. (Berlin:Veit, 1845-46).
TL UberdasllerhiiltniJ3derLogikzurPhilosophieodertransscendentaleLogik,ed.
ReinhardLauthandPeterK.Schneider,withthecollaborationofKurt
Hiller (Hamburg:Meiner,1982).
VM TheVocationofMan, ed.andtrans.PeterPreuss (Indianapolis:Hackett,
1987).
VOM TheVocationofMan, trans.WilliamSmith,rev. anded.RoderickM.
Chisholm (Indianapolis:Bobbs-Merrill,1956).
VVBL TheWay TowardstheBlessedLife, ortheDoctrineofReligion,trans.William
Smith,inSignificantContributionstotheHistoryofPsychology, 1750-1920,
ed.DanielN.Robinson, 291-496 (Washington,D.C.:UniversityPress
ofAmerica, 1977).
WLNM Wissenschaftslehrenovamethodo:KollegnachschriftK. Chr.Fr. Krause1798/99,
ed.ErichFuchs (Hamburg:FelixMeiner,1982;2nded.,1994).
WZV DieWissenschaftslehre:ZweiterVortragimJahre1804vom16.Aprilbis8.
Juni, ed.R.LauthetaI., 2nded. (Hamburg:Meiner, 1986).
Toward a Wissenschaftslehre more
geometrico (1800-1 801 )
Daniel Breazeale
On the "Development" of Fichte's Philosophyand
the Problematic "Unity ofthe Wissenschaftslehren"
TheissueofthedevelopmentofFichte'sphilosophy-sometimesreferred
toasthe problemofthe "unityofthe Wissenschaftslehren"-haslongbeen
central to Fichte studies. Even during his own lifetime, Fichte had to re
spond to charges-notably Schelling's-that he had abandoned the
standpointofhisearly,]enasystemforaradicallydifferentone.l Though
some excellent scholars-for example, Loewe, Fischer, Leon, and
Wundt2-haveagreedwithFichteonthispoint,andhavearguedthatthe
differences between the various presentations of the Wissenschaftslehre
concernonlytheexternal"form"ofaphilosophicalsystemtheunderlying
principlesandcontentofwhichremainedunchangedfrom beginningto
end,manyothershavebeenconvincedthatthestrikingdifferencesofvo
cabulary and of presentation between, for example, the Grundlage der
gesamten Wissenschaftslehreof1794-95, theDarstellungderWissenschaftslehre
of1801-2, and the Wissenschaftslehreof1810, are indications ofprofound
differences in the underlying contents of the same. These same inter
preters, however, disagree among themselves concerning the precise
numberofsignificantlydifferent"stages"or"periods"toassign to the de
velopmentofthe Wissenschaftslehre. Shouldone,forexample,in theman
nerofErdmann,Windelband,Medicus,Weischedel,Schmid,Heimsoeth,
Janke, Rohs, and many others, simplydistinguish between "earlier" and
"later" Wissenschaftslehren, separated by an alleged "turn toward the ab
solute"?3 Orshould one, in the manner ofRickert, Lask, and Drechsler,
also distinguish a "middle period"?4 Or should one make even finer
grained distinctions within each ofthese two (or three) main periods,5
emphasizingthedistinctivecharacterofeachofFichte'sfifteen orsoindi-
vidualpresentationsofhisphilosophy?6 .
3
4
AFTER JENA
Even among thosewho concede thatthere are substantialdifferences
among at least some ofFichte's presentations ofhis philosophy there is
disagreement concerning the precise significance of these differences,
with some concluding that theyrepresentsharp breaksin the continuity
ofFichte'sthinkingandothersarguingfor theslowandcontinual"evolu
tion" of the Wissenschaftslehre from one presentation to the next. Inter
preters ofthe former sort, ofwhom Gueroult is a good example, some
times associate Fichte's apparent shift fron1 one standpoint to another
with certain external events, such as the ''Atheism Controversy," or with
the criticismsorinitiativesofotherphilosophers,suchasJacobiorSchel
ling.7Incontrast,thosewhoemphasizethecontinuitybetweenthevarious
Wissenschaftslehren usually interpret the differences between them as ex
pressions ofa certain imm,anent-"logical" or"dialectical"-development
ofFichte's own thinking, and thus they try to sh.ow how each successive
versionrepresentsaneffortonFichte'sparttoclarifyissuesleftobscurein
earlierversionsandtosolvenewproblemsraisedbyhisprevioussolutions
toolderones.Thisisthecoursetakenby,amongothers,Gurwitsch,Hart
mann, Radrizzani, andLauth.8
Whatmost "evolutionary" approaches to the Wissenschaftslehrehave in
common is a tendency to view the laterversions as the more "definitive"
ones and thus to interpret the earlier ones in their light9-which is, no
doubt, howFichte himselfeventuallycame toview them. This, however,
does not mean that wehave to read these texts in this way. Indeed, one
mightwellarguethatthe"spirit"ofthevariousversionsissodifferentthat
onedoesirreparableviolence to thesamewhenoneuses, say, thesecond
Wissenschaftslehre of 1804 for clues for interpreting the 1794-95 Grund
lage-apointtowhichIshallreturnatthe conclusionofmyremarks.
Thescholarlydebateovertherelationshipbetweentheearlierandlater
Wissenschaftslehren has been complicatedbyseveralfactors, including the
incomplete and unsatisfactory state·of the documentary evidence. Not
onlyweremanyofthelatermanuscriptversionsofthe Wissenschaftslehreun
available to earlierscholars, butthose thatwere availablewere oftenpub
lished in incomplete and defectively edited form. Another complicating
factorisa tendencyto confusequestions concerningthe internal, system
atic development of the Wissenschaftslehre with biographical issues con
cerning external, often highlydramatic, changes in Fichte's external cir
cumstances and career. Dazzled by the visibility and drama ofmany of
these biographical events, son1e scholars have felt an almost irresistible
temptationtoemployFichte'sbiographyasthekeytohis philosophy.
Though it would be absurd to suggest that the dramatic changes in
Fichte's external circumstances had noconsequenceswhatsoeverfor the
developmentofhis philosophy, the dangers ofsuch an approach should
