He would say that these two are the same thing, but you must distinguish between absolute existence and absolute knowledge. Absolute existence definitely comes first. Just like a teacup and a desk are two completely different things, but the problem is that absolute existence is a prerequisite for absolute knowledge.
Absolute existence does not mean that God exists absolutely, not a personified God, he only means that existence permeates oneself. Absolute existence becomes knowledge and self-awareness through a person's understanding of reality.
Later on, Hegel followed this path, which is the absolute spirit of human beings. Through the understanding of human self and consciousness, he also conducted his own self-awareness of himself. This whole idea was already started by Fichte here.
There is no doubt that absolute existence is not a static absolute being. It is for self infiltration, in other words, it is for self-expression. Its self-expression and self infiltration are manifested as our absolute knowledge.
The surface represents absolute knowledge, and therefore, includes some limited rational individuals. Humans are not external to absolute existence, but rather the concept of absolute existence is of course infinite. However, he includes us rational people as limited, but infinity includes us rational people within himself. Why?
Because our knowledge of existence is the existence of self-knowledge, in Hegel's view, our knowledge of absolute spirit is absolute spiritual self-awareness, and our thinking is the same. At the same time, Fichte insisted that absolute existence cannot be fully understood or grasped by a limited mind. On the one hand, our limited people, including those in absolute existence, cannot be equated.
One is finite, and the other is infinite. Limited people cannot fully grasp the existence of infinity. Although we are included in it, we cannot grasp it infinitely. There is still a fundamental difference between finite and infinite. Therefore, in a sense, God is indeed a transcendent, surpassing our souls.
He is infinite, we can know him, but we can never reach him. I don't know if I can understand this sentence. You can know him, but it's impossible to fully grasp him. He will always be outside.
Let's give an example. Actually, using an example from our Journey to the West, we can understand this very well. The palm of the Buddha's hand is infinite, and no matter how great Sun Monkey's somersault ability is, it is still limited. No matter how you flip, Buddhism is always outside of you, and you are within him. However, he always surpasses you, and you can never achieve it.
So, God is also like this. As an absolute being, God is definitely outside of our limited hearts. We can know Him, but we cannot absolutely or completely grasp Him. Some people believe that Fichte's theory has a clear difficulty?
On the one hand, he said that absolute existence permeates itself into absolute knowledge; However, on the other hand, it seems that we cannot obtain absolute knowledge because knowledge can only be understood through our limited mind, and a limited mind cannot fully grasp infinite existence, as if there is a difficulty in it.
Someone has said that if we have two paths to create at this time, one path, we acknowledge the theism of Christianity, and I acknowledge the benefits of theism. In Christianity, it is believed that God does not rely on human knowledge, but has complete self-knowledge, which is absolute existence and absolute knowledge. Why?
God doesn't need to rely on anything else at all. He can fully support himself, but Fichte doesn't think so completely because he would say that absolute existence comes from knowing us humans.
Another path, which many scholars later believed, was that Fichte's ideas should ultimately follow Hegel's path in logic in order to make things clear. Absolute knowledge permeates absolute essence, which is absolute and a form of absolute self-awareness
That is the position that Hegel gave to philosophical knowledge, but Fichte did not do so. Otherwise, we would have said that Fichte is Hegel, and ultimately he still said that existence itself is indeed beyond our human life. So, this is also something that I am particularly interested in. He speaks of existence or transcendence, surpassing our human trust and our cognitive psychology.
As far as we Chinese people are concerned, the unity of heaven and man is outside of us, or it is a transcender for us. There is no internal transcendence problem. It is an external transcendence. Why
You can never wait for him to sit on an equal footing, this is his path, and Hegel took another one. It seems that he is under a bit of pressure. In his later work "The Mission of Man," he still insists on images. The images we recognize are not existences, but when we recognize them, they are images presented to us. Of course, images are real, and there is no problem with images. However, he still needs to set, or insist on setting, an external transcendent, or a transcendent for us.
And this is a question worth delving into. It's because we are lawless today and haven't even considered that the West and China are the same, there's no one who can surpass us. So, some people say that Fichte's revolution was not thorough, and the weakness of the bourgeoisie, he had his own considerations because it was easy for him to follow Hegel's path. He just had to stick to his early position and not change. God's knowledge is my knowledge, and my knowledge is the knowledge of the emperor. He just needs to persist.
I think he is a consideration because for him, it is completely different positions. We can borrow what we now call the New Confucian theory of inner transcendence. Transcendence is not just within us, but within ourselves. Then, we can distinguish between the big self and the small self, whether the big self and the small self are still the same. This problem is solved, but why doesn't he take it? He needs to go from the early stage to the later stage. This is worth thinking about.
In 1801, it was "Explanations of the Theory of Knowledge", and in 1804, he wrote "Lectures on the Theory of Knowledge of Society", emphasizing the concept of absolute existence, which is the concept of light. Returning to Plato and metaphysics and Plato's tradition, living light, light is living, and in its radiance is God. He divided himself into existence and thought, and God transformed himself into existence, that is, existence, by emitting light.
In the end, there is absolutely a differentiation that occurs through the emission of light, which means in the early stages, the separable self and the separable non self. He is called a transcendent god, while the early third proposition of me is not transcendent, or at best, internally transcendent.
When reading his works, one should be particularly cautious. Some people believe that the first three propositions represent Fichte, but in fact, Fichte's later years are truly tragic. He has thought deeply and his thinking is a Platonic way of thinking. However, he still said that despite this, conceptual thinking cannot grasp absolute existence itself, and rational thinking is conceptual thinking, which he has abandoned.
Of course, Haig's conceptual thinking is dialectical, but at least for Fichte, conceptual thinking cannot be grasped. Absolute existence itself is beyond his grasp, and he referred to the uncertainty of absolute existence or God as the negation of concepts. He ultimately negated concepts, which is related to his early rational intuition.
Because of his rational intuition, we cannot grasp his basic ideas in an intellectual way for the ultimate absoluteness, we can only use rational intuition. However, here the concept is completely negated, and this is not a conceptual issue.
In this way, he is a negation of concepts, as if one would come to the conclusion that the human spirit approaches absoluteness through negation. Of course, this is not the intended meaning. He has made many affirmative statements about the negation of concepts and the affirmation that existence, life, and essence are the same thing, and absoluteness itself cannot be separated. These words have all been spoken about.
The only thing that can be divided is the absolute ontology itself, which is inseparable. It is a seamless block, absolute, and separable phenomena, which can only be divided in the radiation of light. He fully accepted the overflow theory of Plato and Neoplatonism, and made an explanation.
This is a lecture on the epistemology of behavior in 1804. In 806, he wrote "On the Mission of the Scholar", in which he linked existence, God, and life together. The concept of life, which is equivalent to the meaning of existence and the concept of existence, actually originated from Fichte. In "On the Mission of the Scholar", he clearly told us that the divine existence is life, and life itself is immutable and eternal. How could it become human life?
He externalized it in human life through time, and German philosophy has inherited from classical times to the present. To say that it is innovative is actually because we do not have enough understanding of tradition. If we understand enough, tradition can be traced step by step.
He said, 'A life of infinite self-development, always moving towards higher self realization in an endless stream of time.' This path is also the Hegelian path, spiraling upwards and constantly advancing towards his higher self realization. In other words, the external life of God is advancing towards the realization of an ideal, which can be described as God's ideas and fundamental concepts when creating the world, God's purpose and plan for the world.
He ultimately had a purpose, in this sense, the sacred concept, which is the ultimate and absolute foundation of all phenomena. This is Plato's thought.
Philosophy is very realistic for us. Today, whether we are in the East or the West, in the South or the North, what is the biggest problem that humanity faces?
Life has no foundation. Parents sent you to college, and what they want you to pursue is the purpose of making a living. You can go to the journalism school or the management department to earn a better income in the future and live a relatively affluent life. This is not the purpose of life, it is a purpose of making a living, which is different from the purpose of life.
