The problem is that when we talk about first principles, he authorizes himself to set himself. Now there is one, but we also say that if he is in such a normative position, he must be able to accommodate non-A. However, according to what was just said, there is a problem between him authorizing himself to set himself and also being able to set non-A.
Therefore, there must be a third proposition in Fichte's basic principle. The first principle has three propositions, mainly one basic principle. What is the basic principle?
It's the third principle. I or A, this third principle. We might say that the stacked bed structure has confused me, don't you just have two propositions? Why do we have to force ourselves to have three propositions? You seem to explain it clearly. I am in a normative position, and norms must contain negation. What's impossible? Two propositions are not enough, why write a third one, A≠-A？
Fichte needs to address a key issue of subjective idealism. Because if he were to believe that everything in the universe is narrow in the Kantian sense of subject establishment, but he does not exist. Waiting until Fichte during the Berlin period, because he wanted to avoid criticism of his subjective ideas and idealism.
He thinks that here, I can completely regard it as a purely human subjectivity, and then, with human subjectivity, set a non object. And Fichte said the third thing, I'm sorry, humans and non humans are a higher version of me. The higher me, he must have a standard that can accommodate some things in the world, not something I established. I mean that our subjectivity is established, which goes beyond Kant. You can see that we used to think these were all subjective idealism.
Actually, starting from Fichte, German idealism was already on the path of objective rationality. Fichte was not clear about it, but he thought it was good. He believed that we must acknowledge that there are many norms in the world that we humans have established, and we must also acknowledge that some norms can at least establish certain things as their normative status, not by me.
What should we do now?
There must be someone higher than me and not me, and ultimately a higher me. I am different, and under the same person, there is a separate one that can be discussed. Me and not me are just people and things. Do you understand?
So, Fichte's painstaking efforts are not entirely accurate in the textbook we originally wrote. Of course, textbooks describe Fichte as subjective idealism. It is not subjective idealism. He saw from the beginning that it was not enough. To talk about the third point, it tells us that we should not think that we have established everything. In fact, there is another thing above this, the self, which can contain an inseparable non self.
Separable, I am narrow, I am a non self. And his painstaking efforts are here, otherwise it would indeed be absurd, and if it continues to develop to the extreme, it would be absurd. So, the third principle involves assuming a necessary infinite task, what is an infinite task?
We should understand why certain assumptions, such as assuming certain categories, granting authority or responsibility and rights to others, are necessary, and why certain things are unnecessary.
The highest third party, me, is actually included in some final rational judgments, and the judgment of sex has always been here, indicating that the principle of the third principle is actually restrictive. It is to explain why we can conclude that we will accept and bear this set, for example, we can bear these categories. This is the category of the world, and we will give certain rights and responsibilities or authority or responsibility and power to the necessary.
The ultimate explanation is based on the third principle of reality. The theory of knowledge is to clarify these three principles, indicating that ultimately everything containing necessary truth, even mathematics and logic themselves, should be proven to be derived from more fundamental principles, including affirmation and negation.
The fields of truth should be clearly distinguished from the truths of non inevitable experiences, where they mainly involve some inevitable truths. In addition, affirmation and negation themselves must come from the subject inevitability of self-awareness, not from the subject of self-awareness, but from the subject inevitability of self-awareness, which is different.
What is the difference in inevitability between the subject of self-awareness and the subject of self-awareness?
He believes that he has an absolute normative right, and this normative status is something he gives himself. Absolutely, this is absolute. Absolute here means that there is nothing else besides himself that can give him this status. His status is too absolute, he has given an inseparable non self and authorized a divisible self.
Some people may say, when the first principle is, 'I am me', what I mean by setting myself is that I authorize myself to set himself. Do you conflict with the first principle when you are working on the third principle now?
No conflict. Why isn't there a conflict? Because it involves the relationship between heaven and man in Chinese and between God and man in Western. People and people can definitely be separated. However, there is an inherent connection between him and Absolute, and some people may find it difficult to understand such an idea. If there is an internal connection, it cannot be separated, just like when a woman is pregnant, the fetus in their womb has an internal connection with her and cannot be separated.
wrong. The relationship between the child and him is external and cannot be understood in this way. Because yesterday a teacher from the Philosophy Department of National Taiwan University came to Taiwan, and he was working on a topic called "The Relationship between Chinese Political Philosophy and Inner Transcendence". He mentioned that because he talks about inner transcendence, he wants to talk about the unity of heaven and man in China and the relationship between God and man in Western Christianity. He believes that Christianity also talks about inner transcendence. Why?
Because Christianity teaches that God is in my heart, isn't that inner transcendence? God is a transcendent thing, but we can find something in our hearts, isn't that transcendence. I disagree with him on this. Why did I just give him one. There are countless Christian denominations, and the most fundamental education, whether it be Protestant or Lutheran, is that the absoluteness of God and humanity cannot be compared. Regard God and humans as equal, with humans possessing an absolute status like God, and bring them together. That teacher proposed the unity of heaven and man, and then he said the unity of God and man.
To put it bluntly, I'm afraid I can't say it that way. How is the unity of God and man legal? When I say anything about Christianity, he can hear it right away, and he himself admits that it's not appropriate. When I say anything like us, even though we are not believers, we understand that this is the most basic thing of Christianity? I am the Heavenly Father, and you must obey me. You can only worship me, not anyone else?
You would never say that you should worship yourself, Luther is devout, Calvin is devout. We don't know who God has chosen for us, and we can't speculate on His will now. We can only win His favor through our own efforts. How is it possible between the two.
However, on the other hand, we have to mention that the Lord, through his son Jesus Christ, is just like us humans. He has the most basic human nature, having both life and death, to help us. In fact, he has built a bridge between humans and God. There are commonalities between humans and gods, but this does not mean that we can erase a fundamental difference between humans and gods. These are two different things, and indeed, using the concept of intellectual formal logic does not make sense. Either it is like this, or it will come, or it is not related, or it is the same thing, not like this.
The relationship between heaven and man in China is not like this either. The Tao of Heaven has an impact on people, and human nature is the Tao of Heaven. This is not wrong, but people and heaven cannot be the same thing. Later, Guo Xiaodong also said that if you talk about Song Confucianism like this, you may say it like this, because when I was taking a class on the Doctrine of the Mean, I also repeatedly told my graduate students that there was a tendency to transform heaven and man in the Song Dynasty. Zhou Dunyi and Zhang Zai both said that Confucius is heaven, but tradition has never been able to say such things until Dong Zhongshu.
It is impossible to say such a thing. At most, he said that heaven and man are isomorphic, and heaven and man are in harmony. He cannot say that these two are the same thing, and for heaven and man, his absoluteness still exists.
There is definitely a privileged relationship between humans and others. That is to say, in Hegel's view, propositions are manifested as "absolute spirit", which recognizes oneself through human reason and understanding. In this way of expression, it turns out that for many people, absolute rationality is ultimately human. No, you need to connect it with the entire Christian ideology and background. I will make it a bit more complicated here, otherwise some people will be confused here. Why is it necessary?
Why are these two propositions higher than the third one.
Where does Western philosophy go wrong now?
The third point was eliminated, which is that Nietzsche was very decisive. God is dead, there is nothing left, God is dead, absolute will becomes me setting everything. His fault lies in the place, and the fault of the entire Western civilization lies in the place. I later told scholars in Taiwan that these Westerners are now considering, at least considering issues beyond how to settle down and where to settle down. This is a problem.
The activity of self-awareness is a normative setting of oneself, authorizing one's own activities, and through this way, I construct myself as a cognitive thinking self. I, as a cognitive thinker, can only generate a cognitive self by establishing a normative self.
This is truly a big step forward for Fichte compared to Kant, and it is a crucial step. He constructs himself through the normative self, by assuming a set of proofs about the various assertions or claims made by people, and this action of responsibility.
