Steven Hoeltzel

In this essay I argue that in order to secure some of his system’s key commitments, Fichte employs argumentation essentially patterned after the technique of practical postulation in Kant. This is a mode of reasoning that mobilizes a distinctly Kantian notion of nonepistemic justification, which itself is premised upon a broadly Kantian conception of the nature of reason. Succinctly stated, such argumentation proceeds essentially as follows. (1) By the basic nature and operations of rationality, every rational being is, as such, committed to E as an ultimate end (final purpose, highest goal). (2) E can be understood as actually attainable only if descriptive proposition P is assented to. (3) We cannot, in principle, possess genuine evidence for or against P; therefore, (4) while we do not have (and never could have) good epistemic grounds for assenting to P, we do have (and always will have) perfectly sufficient rational grounds for doing so. While this assent has no basis in pertinent evidence, it nonetheless has an unshakeable foundation in the basic operations and requirements of rationality. This is so because this assent (a) sustains a commitment integral to rationality as such, and (b) affirms a proposition that no evidence could ever discredit. I proceed to discuss what I take to be two instances of this sort of argumentation in Fichte: first, The Vocation of Man's unusual argument for belief in the real existence of a world transcendent to human representations, and second, the same work's subsequent depiction of that world as strictly mentalistic (immaterial, intellectual, teleological) in its true constitution. VM portrays both positions as decisive determinants of the overall upshot of the Wissenschaftslehre (WL), and explicitly casts them as articles of “faith” or “belief” (Glaube), grounded in unshakeable ethical conviction, by contrast with items of “knowledge” (Wissen).

Proceeding along lines laid out in Kant’s Critiques, this essay gradually homes in on one way of understanding what the ultimate unity of pure reason might consist in. On this model, (i) pure reason, as such, is the power to originate and instate pure organizing forms—including, originally and preeminently, a self-legislated ultimate aim of complete (unmitigated, absolute) rational ordering—but (ii) this originally undifferentiated commitment to the untrammeled implementation of self-originated ordering forms is contingently confronted and qualified by empirical givens that belong to two importantly distinct sorts (roughly: the sensory and the affective), and (iii) it is this duality in the given, arational phenomena that accounts for reason’s resulting ‘double specialization’ in theoretical explanation and practical orientation. Thus there is really only a single pure reason, with a single pure-rational project, but it has what can appear to be two distinct manifestations and implementations, as the result of the basic qualitative duality in the arational phenomena with which it is contingently confronted and which it has always already appointed itself to organize aright. I argue that this conception of the ultimate unity of reason (i) is importantly underwritten by Kant’s Critiques—although not of course entailed by them, let alone explicitly articulated in them, and (ii) is key to Fichte’s post-Kantian theory of subjectivity, as a largely implicit but systematically central commitment.

This essay defends an account of Fichte’s philosophy according to which The Vocation of Man’s theological commitments, along with some related metaphysical claims, prove to be not only consistent with, but even strongly supported by, the transcendental idealism of the Jena Wissenschaftslehre. The key to this account is its focus on Fichte’s longstanding commitment to a strong notion of non-epistemic justification, which derives from his post-Kantian conception of the practical dimension of pure reason. On this view, one can have rationally unimpeachable grounds for assent to descriptive propositions pertaining to issues that, given transcendental idealism, are epistemically intractable. Chief among such rationally-mandated assents is belief in the supra-subjective reality of God, qua unconditioned, autonomously purposive rational activity, sustaining what truly is and ordaining what ultimately ought to be. This essay shows, in addition, that the content of that conception of divinity is intimately interwoven with the first principles of Fichte’s system.

I argue that Fichte’s account of pure reason and its supreme self-wrought Idea is, in its transcendental essentials, very much modeled on Kant’s. The key difference between their positions, I suggest, is simply that Fichte operates with a more abstract understanding of the transcendentally basic elements of finite rationality; consequently, he arrives at a conceptually more concentrated understanding of pure reason’s preeminent Idea. In section one, I supply some context for that comparison. In section two, I recount Fichte’s depiction of “the I as an Idea” and note some importantly related concepts and claims. In section three, I examine a pair of interestingly different approaches taken by Kant to understanding and identifying the Ideas engendered by reason’s basic aims and operations. Finally, in section four, I suggest that the Jena Wissenschaftslehre reflects Fichte’s tacit appropriation of the transcendentally more fundamental of those two Kantian approaches.

Fichte’s Jena Wissenschaftslehre is often thought to occupy a standpoint from which claims about what there really is, as opposed to claims about how we necessarily represent things to be, are metaphilosophically prohibited or methodologically precluded. This essay argues that for Fichte a transcendental account of the necessary conditions for knowing supports an accordant understanding of the basic nature of being. These are linked by a reconception of the nature of rationality, and thus of rational justification, that Fichte’s transcendental epistemology secures and which his ontology draws on and develops. In particular, his account of the nature of rationality issues in a distinctive form of nonevidentialism, according to which we possess unimpeachable rational grounds, albeit not narrowly evidential ones, for assent to certain metaphysical claims.

Part One of Fichte’s 1794/95 Foundation of the Entire Wissenschaftslehre sets forth three basic principles (Grundsätze) as the founding claims of a ‘theory of science’ that should continue and consolidate Kant’s work by vindicating and integrating the theoretical and practical essentials of the Critical philosophy. These principles (my translations) are: (1) “The I originally absolutely posits its own being.” (2) “A not-I is absolutely opposed to the I”; ergo, “opposition in general is absolutely posited by the I.” (3) “In the I, the I opposes a divisible not-I to the divisible I.” This essay explores the ways in which these principles both (i) structure Fichte’s own post-Kantian position and (ii) seek to neutralize some important criticisms of the broader Kantian project. In particular, I argue that Fichte’s principles draw upon a distinctively Kantian conception of pure-rational activity, as the autonomous origination and instatement of pure order-inducing forms: non-sensory notions that inform all truth-apt cognition, and affect-independent norms that orient all autonomous volition. Accordingly, the principle, “the I originally absolutely posits its own being” describes the transcendentally most basic instance of such activity: that pure-rational act upon which all other such acts – ergo, all articulate cognition and all principled agency – ultimately depend. For Fichte, this is an act in which the I conceptually positions rational activity as such, in its strict purity and unmitigated autonomy, as both essentially constitutive of and unconditionally normative for its own existence. Thus the first principle of Fichte’s system figures the most basic pure-rational act as both theoretically determinative and practically legislative – with the consequence that even our most basic cognitive accomplishments depend upon a broadly ethical vocation intrinsic to rationality itself. After making the case for that interpretation, I also, more briefly, discuss the ways in which Fichte’s principles underwrite his responses to some trenchant criticisms of the broader Kantian project: the ‘Humean skepticism’ of G. E. Schulze and the ‘Kantian skepticism’ of Salomon Maimon.

Fichte offers separate analyses of the conditions for the possibility of representing or referring to (i) material objects and (ii) other minds – extra-subjective entities of importantly distinct sorts. These analyses are importantly akin, in that both postulate, as a necessary condition for the mental accomplishment under consideration, some sort of basic incapacity or limitation that is partly constitutive of human rationality. But the two accounts also involve interestingly different understandings of the nature and implications of the basic constraints in question. As a first approximation, we can say that, for Fichte, (i) a rational being posits a putatively mind-independent object only if that being’s self-initiated mental activity encounters a pre- or proto-objective “check” or “affront” (Anstoß), and (ii) a rational being can first become concretely conscious of its own capacity for rational self-determination only as the addressee of a “summons” (Aufforderung) that calls upon it to actuate that very capacity. In this essay I roughly reconstruct the indicated arguments. In the process, I endeavor to show that Fichte does not suppose that either argument firmly backs philosophical assent to the existence of material objects or of other minds. On the contrary: the goal of his professed ‘deductions’ of our everyday ‘convictions’ concerning such things is not to philosophically legitimate those prephilosophical beliefs. Instead, the aim of these arguments is to vindicate Fichte’s transcendental idealism – which, if anything, epistemically undermines said beliefs – by demonstrating that any experience that is putatively ‘of’ such things has, as its necessary and sufficient conditions, nothing but states and activities of the I. Thus, in the case of material objects, a radical difference manifest within the I – self-initiated rational activity versus “simple sensation” – is ‘set forth’ (vorgestellt) in a representation (Vorstellung) of an extra-subjective bearer of sensed qualities. And – much more controversially – in the case of other minds, a demand that the I (qua pure reason, constitutively committed to its own unlimited self-activity and efficacy) makes upon itself (qua rational individual capable of intelligent self-determination) is outwardly depicted as an appeal originating from an extra-subjective source.

In this book’s first half, Ryan S. Kemp and Christopher Iacovetti argue that the history of post-Kantian idealism “can be productively read as a sustained attempt to explain how radical value transformation occurs” —and thus as a sustained attempt to solve a problem posed by Kant’s inconclusive ruminations, in Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason, regarding the nature and possibility of radical moral conversion. The book’s second half then recounts Kierkegaard’s contribution to this debate—a debate which Kemp and Iacovetti take Kierkegaard to have effectively settled, and to have done so, moreover, in such a way as to have established that “the modern ethical project is, by its own standards, untenable.” My review offers a rough recounting of the book’s overarching historical narrative, calling attention, along the way, to some of the authors’ more noteworthy claims. I then conclude by pointing out some possible problems with the approach that Kemp and Iacovetti have taken to conceptually framing their material.

This essay argues for a unifying and clarifying analysis of Fichte’s diverse and unusual characterizations of the nature of reason and rational normativity. Fichte equates or closely associates reason with “I-hood,” “positing” (especially self-positing), “acting” (as opposed to being), “self-reverting activity,” and “subject-objectivity.” He also claims that reason, qua reason, harbors “an absolute tendency toward the absolute” – and even that, in the final analysis, “only reason is.” I argue that we can readily grasp the meaning, interconnection, and putative justification of such claims, if we suppose that, for Fichte, reason is the self-initiated instatement of self-wrought ordering forms, the first and foremost of which is the idea of precisely this type of activity in a pure and uncompromised (independent, “self-sufficient”) form.

This essay exhibits and explains a range of claims, each of which is central to Fichte’s “theory of science” (Wissenschaftslehre) and all of which importantly anticipate existentialism. The claims in question are the following: (1) The nature of selfhood or subjectivity is an issue of fundamental philosophical importance. (2) The self is not a thinking substance or knowing subject; it is a self-conscious project of self-actualization. (3) Qua self-conscious project, the being of the self is an ongoing interrelating of freedom and finitude. (4) Qua project of self-actualization, the self is not a causally conditioned object but a self-transparently self-realizing activity. (5) This activity involves a striving for the self’s actuality. (6) Knowing is an activity founded upon and steered by that striving. (7) Qua striving for _the self’s_ actuality, the self’s activity harbors an orientation toward authenticity. (8) Qua striving for the self’s _actuality_, this activity aims for a humanly unreachable goal.

This Handbook provides a comprehensive single-volume treatment of Fichte’s philosophy. In addition to offering new researchers an authoritative introduction and orientation to Fichtean thought, the volume also surveys the main scholarly and philosophical controversies regarding Fichtean interpretation, and defends a range of philosophical theses in a way that advances the scholarly discussion. Fichte is the first major philosopher in the post-Kantian tradition and the first of the great German Idealists, but he was no mere epigone of Kant or precursor to Hegel. His work speaks powerfully and originally to a wide range of issues of enduring concern, and his many innovations importantly anticipate major developments, including absolute idealism, phenomenology, and existentialism. He is therefore not only a path-breaking thinker but also a pivotal figure in Western intellectual history. Wide-ranging, well-organised and timely, this key volume makes Fichte’s work both accessible and relevant. It is essential reading for scholars, graduate researchers and advanced students interested in Fichte, German Idealism, and the history of nineteenth-century philosophy in the West.

1. Kant on the “Conditions of the Possibility” of Experience -- Claude Piché // 2. Plato and Kantian Transcendental Constructivism -- Tom Rockmore // 3. Kant and Fichte on the Notion of (Transcendental) Freedom -- Violetta L. Waibel // 4. Fichte, Transcendental Ontology, and the Ethics of Belief -- Steven Hoeltzel // 5. Transcendental Philosophy as “Therapy of the Mind”: Fichte’s “Facts of Consciousness” Lectures -- Benjamin D. Crowe // 6. From Transcendental Philosophy to Hegel’s Developmental Method -- William F. Bristow // 7. How Transcendental Is Cohen’s Critical Idealism? -- Halla Kim // 8. Heidegger’s Failure to Overcome Transcendental Philosophy -- Eric S. Nelson // 9. Others as the Ground of Our Existence: Levinas, Løgstrup, and Transcendental Arguments in Ethics -- Robert Stern // 10. Raising Validity Claims for Reasons: Transcendental Reflection in Apel’s Argumentative Discourse -- Matthias Kettner // 11. Transcendental Arguments Based on Question-Answer Contradictions -- Yukio Irie // 12. Consequences of the Transcendental-Pragmatic Consensus Theory of Truth -- Michihito Yoshime // 13. On Jürgen Habermas’s Cognitive Theory of Morality -- Yasuyuki Funaba

My dissertation is a detailed exploration of the concept of transcendental subjectivity as proto-conscious intellectual activity, originated in Kant's work from the 1780s and innovated in Fichte's and Schelling's writings of the mid- to late 1790s. Focusing on central epistemological and ontological issues bound up with each author's conception of subjectivity's role in the constitution of experience, I exhibit and explain important dimensions of conceptual continuity as well as subtle but crucial divergences that heretofore have either gone essentially unnoticed or been insufficiently worked out. More particularly, I argue that careful attention to this developmental dynamic reveals that Kant's position is challenging and radical in ways unrecognized by the currently prevailing interpretations, and that a quite cogent rationale underlies both Fichte's move beyond Kant and Schelling's move beyond Fichte. ;All three authors aim to provide an illuminating a priori explanation of basic organizing structures manifest in human experience. Moreover, each purports to do so by postulating a proto-conscious subjectivity, the activities of which function as necessary conditions for the generation of our structured episodes of awareness. Yet each author's approach to this explanatory endeavor is informed by certain distinct theoretical commitments; consequently, their ultimate conclusions, although broadly affiliated, are importantly different. ;For Kant, the a priori activities of transcendental subjectivity are grounded in an entity whose being is not reducible to the performance of those activities, and whose ultimate nature is in principle unknowable. For Fichte, by contrast, such a priori activities both originate and exhaust the being of transcendental subjectivity; subjectivity is ultimately grounded in proto-conscious activity which is radically free but fundamentally finite. For Schelling, however , subjectivity is ultimately grounded in a self-realizing activity which is radically free, perfectly unlimited, and entirely indeterminate

This paper examines the content of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal exam (1980). Our report is not a statistical review. We find the content of this exam defective in a number of areas. The exam consists of five “tests” of 16 questions for a total of 80 questions. Of these, we cannot recommend test 1, test 2, test 4, and test 5; and, we cannot recommend questions 4, 5, 14, 16, 37, 45, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, and 67. As shown in this report, the exam creates confusion and makes basic errors in critical thinking in a number of areas, and therefore, lacks content quality in these areas. Hence, no statistical results pertaining to the administration of these areas to students can be informative. We find the remaining areas acceptable as to content. But until the problems are corrected, we can only recommend that those who may use the exam remove the defective parts from test administration or from data collection and reporting. We recommend the former, because of the wasted time involved in the latter. This would amount to administering only 14 questions, i.e. test 3 with questions 37 and 45 eliminated.We also find the scope of the exam to be quite limited, but allow that this may be unavoidable for any instrument designed to be completed in about an hour. We further recommend the use of several tests, rather than one; and, that any such results be understood only as a measure of minimal competency (below which remediation likely is needed) for the skills tested, but not as an adequate measure of critical thinking.

Marked by a lucid mixture of historical detail and analytical acumen, this study of the earliest stages of Fichte’s philosophical career offers much to our understanding of the sources and significance of Fichte’s core commitments. With pointed reference to important early texts, Martin argues that Fichte’s idealism is best understood not as an attempt to disclose the ontological ground of all being in an infinite subjectivity but, instead, as an incisive challenge to naturalism in the theory of representation.

1. Self-Love, Sociability, and Autonomy: Some Presuppositions of Kant’s Account of Practical Law -- Jeffrey Edwards // 2. The Virtuous Republic: Rousseau and Kant on the Relation between Civil and Moral Religion -- Günter Zöller // 3. Kant, Pistorius, and Accessing Reality -- Halla Kim // 4. Kant, Fichte, and Transcendental Idealism -- Tom Rockmore // 5. Fichte’s Project: The Jena Wissenschaftslehre -- Daniel Breazeale // 6. The Unity of Reason in Kant and Fichte -- Steven Hoeltzel // 7. Idealism and Nihilism -- Benjamin D. Crowe // 8. Fichte and Semantic Holism -- Yukio Irie // 9. “In and Of Itself Nothing is Finite”: Schelling’s Nature (or So-called Identity) Philosophy -- Michael Vater // 10. Conceptual Schemes, Realism, and Idealism: A Hegelian Approach to Concepts and Reality -- Christian Tewes

This paper examines the content of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal exam (1980). Our report is not a statistical review. We find the content of this exam defective in a number of areas. The exam consists of five “tests” of 16 questions for a total of 80 questions. Of these, we cannot recommend test 1, test 2, test 4, and test 5; and, we cannot recommend questions 4, 5, 14, 16, 37, 45, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, and 67. As shown in this report, the exam creates confusion and makes basic errors in critical thinking in a number of areas, and therefore, lacks content quality in these areas. Hence, no statistical results pertaining to the administration of these areas to students can be informative. We find the remaining areas acceptable as to content. But until the problems are corrected, we can only recommend that those who may use the exam remove the defective parts from test administration or from data collection and reporting. We recommend the former, because of the wasted time involved in the latter. This would amount to administering only 14 questions, i.e. test 3 with questions 37 and 45 eliminated.We also find the scope of the exam to be quite limited, but allow that this may be unavoidable for any instrument designed to be completed in about an hour. We further recommend the use of several tests, rather than one; and, that any such results be understood only as a measure of minimal competency (below which remediation likely is needed) for the skills tested, but not as an adequate measure of critical thinking.