|
21970
|
Philosophy attains its goal if one person feels perfect accord between their system and experience [Fichte]
|
|
Full Idea:
If even a single person is completely convinced of his philosophy; ...if his free judgement in philosophising, and what life obtrudes upon him, are perfectly in accord; then in this person philosophy has completed its circuit and attained its goal.
|
|
From:
Johann Fichte (works [1798], I:512), quoted by A.W. Moore - The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics 06.4
|
|
A reaction:
Interesting to hear a famous idealist offering accordance with real life as a criterion for philosophical success. But that is real life, but not as you and I may know it.... His criterion is very subjective. A bad philosopher might attain it?
|
|
21964
|
Reason arises from freedom, so philosophy starts from the self, and not from the laws of nature [Fichte]
|
|
Full Idea:
Not by any law of nature do we attain to reason; we achieve it by absolute freedom. ...In philosophy, therefore, we must necessarily start from the self. The materialists' project of deriving the appearance of reason from natural laws is impossible.
|
|
From:
Johann Fichte (works [1798], I:298), quoted by A.W. Moore - The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics
|
|
A reaction:
I blame Descartes' Cogito for this misunderstanding. The underlying idea (in Kant, and probably earlier) is that pure reason needs pure free will. Modern thought usually sees reason as extremely impure.
|
|
21968
|
Abandon the thing-in-itself; things only exist in relation to our thinking [Fichte]
|
|
Full Idea:
We must be rid of the thing-in-itself; for whatever we may think, we are that which thinks therein, and hence nothing could ever come to exist independently of us, for everything is necessarily related to our thinking.
|
|
From:
Johann Fichte (works [1798], I:501), quoted by A.W. Moore - The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics 06.3
|
|
A reaction:
Some statements of idealism are understandable, or even quite plausible, but this one sounds ridiculous. The idea that if human beings die out then reality ceases to exist is absurd humanistic vanity.
|
|
21965
|
Spinoza could not actually believe his determinism, because living requires free will [Fichte]
|
|
Full Idea:
Spinoza could only think his philosophy, not believe it, for it stood in immediate contradiction to his necessary conviction in daily life, whereby he was bound to regard himself as free and independent.
|
|
From:
Johann Fichte (works [1798], I:513), quoted by A.W. Moore - The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics 06.2
|
|
A reaction:
This seems to be invoking Kant's idea that we must presuppose free will, rather than an assertion that we actually have it.
|
|
6866
|
It is disturbing if we become unreal when we die, but if time is unreal, then we remain real after death [Le Poidevin]
|
|
Full Idea:
For the A-theorists called 'presentists' the past is as unreal as the future, and reality leaves us behind once we die, which is disturbing; but B-theorists, who see time as unreal, say we are just as real after our deaths as we were beforehand.
|
|
From:
Robin Le Poidevin (Interview with Baggini and Stangroom [2001], p.174)
|
|
A reaction:
See Idea 6865 for A and B theories. I wonder if this problem is only superficially 'disturbing'. Becoming unreal may sound more drastic than becoming dead, but they both sound pretty terminal to me.
|
|
6865
|
A-theory says past, present, future and flow exist; B-theory says this just reports our perspective [Le Poidevin]
|
|
Full Idea:
The A-theory regards our intuitive distinction of time into past, present and future as objective, and takes seriously the idea that time flows; the B-theory says this just reflects our perspective, like the spatial distinction between here and there.
|
|
From:
Robin Le Poidevin (Interview with Baggini and Stangroom [2001], p.174)
|
|
A reaction:
The distinction comes from McTaggart. Physics seems to be built on an objective view of time, and yet Einstein makes time relative. What possible evidence could decide between the two theories?
|