In fact, Wenderban mentioned in his tutorial on the history of philosophy that if you are interested, go to the library to borrow it and take a look again.
The first principle is an action guided by norms, a fundamental mode of doing things, and the foundation of all other norms, including our theoretical understanding of norms. Because when I was talking about Kant's view of truth, how did Kant break through a fundamental flaw of the conformity theory of truth? He turned the concept of truth into a clear indication to us, or rather to reiterate that the concept of truth itself is a normative concept, not a factual concept.
If it is a factual concept, of course, truth must be a subjective and objective conformity. If our concept of truth is a factual concept, we can only understand truth in this way. However, if truth is a normative concept, then of course, we can reasonably break through the original truth view that conforms to human concepts and enter into a new concept of truth.
Fichte is in place, but he wants to continue down Kant's path, which now involves not only truth but also facts. When we determine the final fact, it is a basic mode of doing things, which leads to our normative regulations on various things later on. Where did they come from?
Coming from such a regulated guidance and action, it seems insufficient at the moment, but don't worry, I won't delve into it because Fichte hasn't even written his work yet. This is just a small book review, and his ideas have not been fully developed. I have only talked so much in order to highlight Fichte's uniqueness. Remember that his questions are not in current textbooks, and the philosophical history that is popular today may not have these things. I suggest that your books may not be helpful to you, and I will provide you with these clues to further look at the original work.
So, the distinction and connection made by such a subject, dividing things into subject and object, can also be said to add a third representation. He said that this distinction is a factual distinction, but a comprehensive action based on normative rules. It is a normative distinction, not an actual descriptive distinction. Things themselves have a distinction between subject and object, just like those of us who have not received philosophical education or taken our classes today. He would think that this is a basic fact in the world. I am the subject, and others are the objects. This is a fact.
The distinction between subject and object, myself and others, is actually an artificial distinction, and this distinction is not a description of facts, but a regulation of facts, it is a normative thing. It was the contribution of German classical philosophers, which the British did not see. Here it involves the distinction between things, why do we reasonably say that there is such a distinction between subject and object, including the addition of appearances? Fichte tells us that this is a normative and comprehensive action, rather than derived from any basic facts.
Like our official philosophy, it tells us that things distinguish themselves. Of course, there is a distinction between black and white things, and the distinction is their own, not something we give. Kant said that this is certainly not a fact, and there is no distinction between white and black things themselves. This distinction is our normative distinction. Hushuls' criticism of Leibniz and Kant's interpretation of the thing in itself as the basis of our perception of things is contradictory. In Fichte's view, it is wrong, why?
Because Fichte's own starting point is that we cannot understand the subject, he is a rather stubborn Hume, and he stands from Hume's position. Kant, you are assuming that when you say 'thing in itself', our feelings are contradictory.
Fichte believes that Hu Suls' criticism is wrong, why?
Because you believe that we cannot truly understand things in themselves, what we can only know with great certainty is our mental state, which is Humeism.
However, in Fichte's view. In fact, Hume and Kant made a common mistake in discussing issues around the concept of things in themselves or the concept of things in themselves, with one singing the black face and the other the white face. What is Fichte?
Fichte's idea of cutting off the entire thing in itself with a fast knife is just a whimsical fantasy. Later on, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel all had to solve the problem that things themselves are ourselves, but this understanding cannot be understood as any idealism.
Whether it is materialism or the old classical idealism, it holds that there is an idea of the thing in itself, which is detached from us humans and has no relation to the concept of the thing in itself. In Fichte's view, it is a strange idea, a non thought, because in his and later German philosophers' view, the concept of the thing in itself is inappropriate. When we make regulations on it, anything is already a normative regulation for us, and it cannot have the thing itself.
Well, today, our department is making a teacher's inaugural speech, which is also learned from the Germans. At the same time, the Germans began to practice it as early as the 17th and 18th centuries. The professor should have an inaugural speech. Fichte's inaugural speech talked about the concept of knowledge or the so-called philosophy. At this time, he had already put forward the later concept of knowledge.
In the following five years, he focused on constructing his own philosophical system. Fichte has published works such as "The Foundations of All Knowledge Studies", "A Brief Discussion on the Characteristics of Knowledge Studies", "The Natural Law Basis Based on Knowledge Studies", and "The Ethical System Based on Knowledge Studies". Fichte referred to his own works and system as "Scientific Theory" or "Scientific Doctrine", but concerning the doctrine of all forms of knowledge. I need to explain this a little bit. Our Chinese scientific concept since modern times is influenced by the science of modern western philosophy and non German philosophy.
In a word, under the influence of Science, I have seen many works of British and American people, not to mention Germans. The two concepts of natural and science are not equal. There is a significant difference, to the point where it can even be said so. Strictly speaking, Science refers to our current narrow definition of natural science. Later on, it evolved into the current science, which started later.
Moreover, the German natural concept comes from the ancient Greek philosophy concept, which refers to the sum of all knowledge. At Fichte, he inherited the idea that knowledge should not be called knowledge science, but should be called the general theory of science or how. Such a thing is about all knowledge, a form of theoretical knowledge about knowledge, including all our knowledge, all our knowledge, of course, is a very important thing.
We can understand it as the philosophy of knowledge as a whole in the ancient Greek sense. Fichte, and he himself has formed a good tradition, which is that he believes his system is a constantly evolving work that is constantly being revised. He constantly adopts new terminology, new expressions, and his basic ideas. Now we see that Fichte's epistemology has 16 different versions, each of which is different from other versions in key aspects and ways.
However, it can be seen that he is a thinker who demands strict standards of himself. He is not constantly repeating himself, but constantly striving to improve himself, overcome himself, and surpass himself. That's what came to my mind. I attended an art conference that was very informative, far surpassing the so-called academic conferences in our philosophical community.
Over there is the son of Mr. Pan Tianshou, who is currently the president of the Central Academy of Fine Arts and a high-ranking official in our country. He is also a celebrity's son and has a very good painter himself. I heard many foreign and Chinese scholars at the meeting say that he painted better than his father, but of course he said he didn't. His own correct statement is correct.
People who paint in our country are largely engaged in eating, drinking, prostitution, gambling, and doing everything because it is too easy for them to control their wealth. His paintings are really good. If you have time, you can go to Hangzhou now in spring to see his exhibition at the Zhejiang Art Museum. He doesn't need anything else, just a brush and ink. What did he draw like that?
There is only one dominant theme, which is painting residual lotus flowers. If it's not a lotus flower in full bloom, why do you just paint residual lotus flowers,?
He said it's very simple, teacher. Drawing residual lotus flowers is easy to express, let me draw whatever I want. Because there was Yu Qian at the meeting, and people also let me know. The French really thought that there was a kind of Chinese people. We Chinese people either behave as kings, and our profound realm is very small. I don't agree with his speech.
He said that he believed that Westerners are essentialist, Westerners want to paint nude, why don't Chinese people paint nude?
The Chinese also painted nude. There were a lot of nude paintings in the Spring Palace. How could he not paint nude? He did not know enough about China. In addition, when he went to Xi'an later, he dug out the tomb of Emperor Jing of the Han Dynasty. When hundreds of terracotta figures were dug out, they wore clothes. When he saw oxygen, his clothes were gone. The terracotta figures were small, but they were not delicate. There were details about the human body, including the eunuch's castration. However, his smile was very ambiguous. When he went to Taiwan for exhibition, people said that the Mona Lisa of the East, if you really want to look at it under a magnifying glass, his smile is very ambiguous, which is hard to imagine.
Because we think that the realism of Chinese people is different from that of Westerners. Westerners are very realistic. He thinks why Chinese people don't paint naked, because Chinese people don't have essentialism, Chinese people are a bit like what Kant said in his third criticism, beauty can't be said, beauty doesn't have a specific concept, you have to judge for yourself, this is not, he has a misunderstanding of Kant, I want time because I don't have time, I told him that your understanding of the concept of beauty is wrong, at least Kant doesn't understand it that way.
He said that the Chinese do not have such an essential concept. So, he doesn't draw human bodies. Because the human body is not like drawing an orchid, a chrysanthemum, or even a chicken or a fish. You can freely express yourself and even paint landscapes, which is actually not right.
