So, he only has that simple primitive, conscious reflection activity on his own existence, he is not reflecting on his own existence. As people grow older, we pay more and more attention to the world around us, and less attention to our inner world. We pay more and more attention to how the world around us affects my inner world, and less attention to how my inner world affects the external world.
So, why do people say that childhood words are carefree? It's because when I was a child, my words never considered external influences. They only considered my inner world and said whatever I wanted. He never cared about the influence of the external world on him, but only cared about the influence of my thoughts on the external world and the influence of my internal thoughts on the external world.
This is completely different, so only in that era, in the infant state of a child, will an absolute self be expanded, and it will give birth to an absolute self-concept.
So, this is what he said about the concepts of "rational intuition" and "factual action".
The terms' self ',' factual action ', and' rational intuition 'actually express the same thing. The factual action discovers itself in the rational intuition, and the factual action or rational intuition is called the self.
So, self-concept must be a form of self reflection here. And self reflection is a reflection on self-awareness. However, once such self-awareness reflection is formed, we can use it to think and understand the things around us, and even to understand ourselves.
So, the process of formation is about reflection on self-awareness. With this basic premise, it will be easier for us to understand the three principles mentioned by Fichte later.
The so-called three principles, in his view, are all the three core contents that make up the so-called epistemology, or in advance. Because his epistemology is composed of three principles and eight theorems. From principles to theorems, we feel that Fichte's philosophical system is not arbitrarily constructed, but a relatively complete and rigorous logical system.
Because philosophy, especially since Kant, philosophers have attempted to construct a so-called systematic philosophy, which requires me to set some basic principles and then use these principles to explain the emergence of all things. This principle itself has normativity and determines the basis for the emergence of subsequent things.
So, once we establish such principles, they can be used to explain the existence of all things, and this philosophy is the most persuasive.
This is what philosophers of systems hope to do. So, from Kant to Hegel, almost all philosophers are doing one thing, which is to construct philosophical systems.
Of course, the idea of constructing a system was completely abandoned by Marx, so Marxist philosophy was the first philosophy without a system.
It is incorrect for us to view Marxist philosophy as a system philosophy today. We have constructed a system for it, stating that starting from materialism, what is materialism in ontology, epistemology is reflection theory, and what is the historical view of historical materialism.
It was later textbooks that constructed a system for it. In fact, Marxist philosophy itself does not have a system, and Marx and Engels firmly oppose system philosophy. Otherwise, Durkheim created a system and was criticized by Engels, saying, 'When are you still working on a system, Mr. Durkheim, we still need to prove that philosophy has value. The only valuable part of it is the system that has been abandoned by people.'.
In fact, Engels mocked Durkheim, but it is true that in the history of German classical philosophy, from Kant to Hegel, including Feuerbach, there is basically a systematic philosophy.
However, Feuerbach's philosophy is relatively weak in terms of system, and by the time of Marxist philosophy, there was no longer a system. However, contemporary philosophy is a philosophy without a system, and philosophers' philosophical ideas no longer want to have a system.
After this interpretation, I believe that we can at least easily or clearly grasp the three principles he mentioned later, and in fact, the three principles given by Fichte are very important. The importance lies in these three principles, which actually reveal the basic development of the entire German classical philosophy in the future, and especially determine the dialectics of Hegelian philosophy.
So, to understand Hegelian dialectics, you must understand how it came about, and one of its sources is Fichte's epistemology.
As we mentioned earlier, regarding the concept of 'I am', 'I am' is a conscious activity set up as an absolute subject, a state of absolute consciousness of the self that already exists before the experiential self of an absolute subject.
Therefore, this state of self-awareness, my concept of thinking here, is equivalent to the concept of "A is" and also to the concept of "A=". If it's just this state, we can't deduce anything because you're just a hypothetical condition. In other words, in this proposition, we can only read out various "I am" statements, which can only be the factual action that Fichte said, that is, the so-called "existence of the absolute self". However, what is the basis for the existence of this absolute self? Or, what method do we use to argue that it is the absolute self?
This is the problem that Fichte wants to solve, and it is also the problem that Fichte's epistemology wants to solve. If we define something as the foundation of all cognitive activities, we must provide an argument to prove its rationality or effectiveness.
In Kant's philosophy, the philosophical basis and foundation given by Kant is the thing in itself that cannot be recognized or can only be thought about, although the "thing in itself" cannot be argued. However, he said a lot about the thing in itself and understood it through the cognition of phenomena. Therefore, he must provide a set of arguments to help us grasp the principle that serves as the foundation of our understanding.
So, for Fichte, he also had to do the same job, which is to establish our knowledge and cognitive activities. Since they come from a priori, absolute, abstract, or universal, such a self aware existence is the existence of "I am". How did it become the foundation of all human knowledge? How can it serve as the self of all experiences, and how can it be established as a prerequisite?
Why do you say that? Then you can't say whatever I want. If you can't doubt it, it will become a dictatorship. Therefore, he must provide a set of arguments to help us prove the correctness of his philosophy.
So, the starting point of all knowledge learning is the existence of the absolute self. But where will all knowledge ultimately fall?
To fall on his argument about the three principles of self. That is to say, I want to argue it, it is just like this. The best way to argue that you cannot refute is to start from the self-concept itself, without relying on anything outside of oneself. This is the best method.
Kant's mistake is that he opposed the activity of knowledge to objects outside of knowledge, and then used the existence of the external world and the phenomenal world to demonstrate the effectiveness of knowledge.
Fichte said, what are you doing with so much effort? You're just looking for trouble for nothing. It's right for you to find something to help you, but the thing you're looking for is already problematic. You can't even explain how it can prove your rationality. You also need to prove whether it's reasonable beforehand before using it to prove whether your thing is reasonable.
Fichte said, I don't need to seek help from foreign aid, I just need to talk about myself.
So, the first principle: self setting oneself (an absolute unconditional principle).
It only needs him to do it himself, that is, "A=A". What other reason are you looking for? If you say A=B, A=C, and I have to ask what B is and what C is, I will directly say "A=A". This is absolutely correct, logically called "uniformity". A=A must be more correct than A=B.
However, even if A=A, this implies something we have not confirmed, which is that A itself must exist, because when we say A=A, or "A=" or "I am", we are not saying anything later. Since you are not saying anything later, I have no responsibility to explain the basis for A's existence, because statements like A is, I am, etc. themselves, are a form of self-awareness. So, we don't need to prove the basis for its existence anymore.
However, when we add something else to it, adding another "I" behind "A is" or "I am", even though this "I" looks the same as the previous "I", you still need to prove why you equate the second "I" with the first "I".
That is to say, you need to prove the rationality of the existence of your second "A". Of course, you would say that its rationality comes from "A=A". Do you still need to prove this?
It needs to be proven that this proof is achieved through self setting, and "A=A" is the process of self setting. So, it is self imposed itself, which takes us a step further towards the statement 'I am' and 'A=' because it adds a new thing.
When you say 'I am me', the second me and the first me are not the same thing. If you say the second me is the first me, then why do you say it. That is to say, I am divided into two parts, one as the "subject" and the other as the "object".
