Although this debate ended in vain after several years, it actually had a significant impact on later thought because it influenced the entire generation of intellectuals. Although this impact was not very significant at the social level, ordinary people in society were not aware of the situation and published articles in newspapers and magazines, causing a lawsuit. However, it had a great impact on intellectuals.
It not only subverted the commonly understood positive image of Lessing, but also provided a tradition and background of thought for people regarding religious reform.
Subsequently, Fichte expressed his views on atheism, and he wrote a letter called "To Atheists". At this point, we need to mention Fichte's philosophy because Fichte was not an atheist, but he firmly opposed the use of a theism like that of Christian Catholicism to advocate that everyone must accept religious theology.
So, although he didn't really oppose atheism, it caused a stir at the time because his letter to atheists actually attempted to indicate that he was standing within atheism, which was not the case. However, this also led Fichte into a debate about theism and atheism.
It can be said that the entire German philosophy of the 18th century faced a question of how to treat religion, just like in political movements, to make a statement, you must express your attitude, whether you support one side or oppose the other, or what, you must express your attitude.
So, among the philosophers of the 18th century, there was no philosopher who did not discuss religious issues. It can be said that the discussion of religion was both a major battlefield for them and an important foundation for the establishment of their philosophy. So, even Kant is no exception. Kant wrote multiple articles on religious issues, and even spent a long article discussing the proof of the existence of God. Therefore, the issue of religion was a core problem in German philosophy throughout the 18th century.
Of course, Jacobi and Schelling also had a dispute, and we will introduce the details later when we talk about Schelling. Through this discussion on religious issues, German philosophy differs from French philosophy and British philosophy.
In the realm of French philosophy, although religion is not a primary subject of discussion, it is a subject of criticism. It can be said that almost all philosophers dare to stand up and say that I am a naturalist, I am against Christianity, I do not agree with the current way of religion, I do not agree with the church, etc. They dare to speak up like this.
But for German philosophers, they are cautious and always uphold the Christian tradition. So, Marx saw this very clearly. He said that the German philosophers of the Enlightenment movement were basically people with tails between their heads. They were afraid that the church and government at that time would catch their little braids. Therefore, once a little different opinion was revealed, they immediately had to defend themselves.
This was a characteristic of German experts at that time, so I dare not admit it. It was also closely related to the culture and social background of the entire Germany at that time. Since the first half of the 18th century, Germany has established a strict censorship system for books and newspapers, which was regarded as an important reason for imprisoning German thought until the time of Marx's censorship.
The censorship of books and newspapers is very strict, so even when Kant writes any article, he must carefully first dedicate the title and write it at the beginning, saying 'Dedicated to the Emperor, Dedicated to Your Excellency', and then say, 'What I am saying below is not intended to offend Your Excellency, but I am based on human reason and I want to discuss the issue.'. He must put this sentence at the beginning, just like we said today that when we write any article, we must first write a set of clich é s to show that we are not heretical.
And when it comes to realizing the danger of his viewpoint, he should also come out and defend himself, saying, 'I am not dangerous, do you think I am dangerous? I think it's normal not to be dangerous.'.
And strengthening this defense itself precisely exposed the political cowardice of German thinkers and philosophers in that era, because thinkers have always been giants of theory and dwarfs of action. They cannot use their theories to oppose the government, because they cannot resist the government. Therefore, they can only be dwarfs in action, indicating the giants of theory.
In the intellectual environment of France, it can be said that compared to the social environment of Germany, it is relatively open and free, although this is also controlled by the church and regulated by the king in France. This is especially true in the UK, so only in a social context like Germany can we see a society having an impact on the emergence of human thought. We can understand why focusing on society, not just on the abstract nature of human beings, becomes the core issue of German philosophy.
So, the fourth aspect of understanding people and society became an important part of Germany's Enlightenment philosophy. The debate between legal studies and politics, as well as the distinction between law and morality.
Finally, the discussion of human nature and humanitarianism is completely different.
Because the theory of human nature expresses a discussion of human nature and provides a definition of human nature, it is just a general statement. Therefore, Lessing had an understanding of human nature, and later Mendelssohn and Kant had their own theories of human nature.
But humanitarianism is different, humanitarianism is a concept directed towards a specific content. It is precisely aimed at the contempt and suppression of human nature by religious theology. So, humanitarianism is aimed at religious theology, often referring to a fundamental direction or idea of philosophy or thought advocated by philosophers from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment.
So, in this sense, humanitarianism has more specific and concrete content, while human nature is relatively broad. Therefore, when we use these two words today, they both refer to specific content and cannot be used arbitrarily.
There was once a Japanese philosopher who evaluated Kant's philosophy in this way, saying, 'Kant's philosophy is like a reservoir, and the water in the reservoir can never run out.'.
Most of us today are still enjoying the continuous supply of water from the reservoir.
In addition, Kant's famous biographer, also a philosopher from the former Soviet Union, was named Grignard. He wrote a biography of Kant, in which he wrote, 'What a philosopher leaves to the world is not his anecdotes or personal life. What a philosopher leaves to future generations should be his works and his ideas. It is precisely because of these ideas and his works that we understand this philosopher.'.
This statement is not only true for Kant, but also for all philosophers in the history of philosophy. In other words, we may not have much interest in the personal lives of philosophers, but we will never forget their ideas and the influence they have had.
For Kant, his personal life was very simple and could be described as dull. Bored to the point where his neighbors could set his schedule based on his daily routine, so dull that he had hardly ever left the city of Korsberg where he lived.
That is to say, from the perspective of personal life, there are no interesting anecdotes or gossip news for Kant. He provided us with important reflections on human reason itself for future generations.
Therefore, I remind everyone to read Kant's works, especially the second edition preface of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, which includes the first edition preface and its introduction, as well as his book Introduction to Metaphysics as a Future Science. I don't know if everyone has read it. If you haven't read it, you won't be able to understand what I'm talking about. If you haven't read it, you won't know what I'm really talking about. Of course, you can't even understand what Kant is trying to say?
For contemporary philosophers, the importance of Kantian philosophy does not only mean that he criticized pure reason, but also that countless philosophers later criticized or endorsed Kant's ideas.
The importance of Kantian philosophy lies precisely in its ability to grasp the fundamental way in which humans observe and understand the world. It can reconstruct the external world from the perspective of the subject, the observer, and the knower.
In other words, the entire construction of metaphysics is that humans can grasp external objects based on their own cognitive form, or intellectual form. When we see the understanding of the world and the question of the sources of knowledge that we often discuss in modern philosophy, that is, in philosophers before Kant, we often feel that there are only two ways of thinking.
The first one is to believe that the world is the way we experience it. Therefore, our understanding of the world comes from our experience with the external world. Knowledge comes from experience, while also returning to experience, which is the fundamental way of thinking of empiricism that we are familiar with.
Another way of thinking is to believe that human cognitive activities mainly come from a certain innate talent concept that humans possess. The concept of human talent influences and governs our understanding of the external world. So, in this sense, the concept of innate talent is higher or better than our experiential activities themselves. The formation of human knowledge lies in our ability to grasp external objects through innate concepts.
