NorthwesternUniversityPress 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