Your statement about emotional rationality is all contained in my own cabinet, so my cabinet is not small, it is a big cabinet. Because it contains all the things that need to be locked in the cabinets behind it. After Kant finished making all the cabinets, he said that my cabinet is empty and there is nothing inside except for the emotional drawer where one thing is lying inside, and everything else is gone. Then you fill all the things in those cabinets, using all the materials in your own cabinet to fill them. This is the work done by Fichte.
And when it comes to Xie Lin, it turns out that you can still think of having a self, and that this self can survive and produce other things. Okay, this is good. This idea is very advanced compared to Kant. Kant didn't expect that because Kant didn't have a self, what should he do with the things in the cabinet? If he wanted them, he had to go outside and find them. He had to walk out of the pharmacy. His things were no longer inside, so he had to go to the pharmacy to find them. After finding them, he would classify them and put them in different cabinets.
Fichte said, you don't need to look for it anymore. I have already asked the farmer to carry all the medicine and put it in my cabinet, so you don't have to look for it outside. I have already prepared it.
Xie Lin came in and said, 'This is good. Fichte is very smart. There's no boss who wants to be a farmer himself. As a pharmacy owner, you have to distribute medicine. You can't just let the pharmacy owner do everything.' Therefore, Xie Lin highly praised Fichte's approach.
However, after expressing his admiration in this way, he still felt that it was not right. He said there are too many things in your cabinet, and you put everything inside yourself, including non self. You put non self and self together, and the name of the cabinet is written with the words' self 'and parentheses (non self).
It's like writing about a researcher and then using parentheses (bureau level). On a business card, write 'researcher' and the parentheses must be written as bureau level. He said you're putting something together, but in reality, you're putting something that shouldn't have been put together. He said, 'I'm not myself,' how can I put it together with myself.
Fichte said, 'You children don't understand, your intelligence level is not good. If you can understand me, then you're not you anymore. That's Fichte. You should study for two years first, and then come back and learn from me.'. Xie Lin said, 'I'm a few years younger than you, and I don't understand anymore. Your arrangement was already flawed. It's not right for you to put me and myself together.'. You shouldn't put two things together for him anymore. How to distinguish it?
Xie Lin came up with a trick. Let's put it this way, Xie Lin. I don't put myself and myself together. In the end, I create something called 'absolute'.
It is neither self nor non self. You are not putting yourself there and saying, 'I am making something else called absolute.' I am not making a cabinet in front of myself, I am making another cabinet on top of myself, not a cabinet next to him. I am making a row of cabinets on top of it. This cabinet is flat, not long, and there is no empty space.
But this is called absolute. What does' absolute 'mean?
This absolutely means that I place all of your self, non self, subjectivity, objectivity, thoughts, objects, thoughts, and existences, all of these oppositions, in an absolute concept. Because when you talk about the relationship between self and non self, you are still talking about the unity of opposites. When you talk about deriving non self from self, you are just talking about two aspects of the same thing. The reason why I exist is because of the existence of non self. Therefore, I need to acknowledge non self in order to understand myself and so on.
This means that we subjectively first understand the objective, and the reason why we understand the objective is because we humans can use the way we understand the subjective to grasp the objective, so that it can enter into the subjective. Aren't you still talking about the opposition between subjectivity and objectivity, or the opposition between thinking and existence? Are you just talking about this thing.
He said, 'What's so strange about this? I won't talk about myself or not, can I talk about something else?'. For example, when I talk about the relationship between thought and existence, or the relationship between object and subject, it is also a truth. I say that the subject can actually construct an object. Here, the subject is the self and the self is the same truth. I don't need to insist on setting a self and then setting another non self for me. It's so troublesome.
So, children are just children, they find it troublesome, they think it's too much trouble, so they might as well choose me to be one level higher than you. I built another one on top, like building a rooftop. My pharmacy contained a lot of things, but in the end, I said I couldn't do it. Don't you have many cabinets? Did you put this main body in front of me? I'm sorry, I said this one still doesn't work. I said I'll create another cabinet, which is flat and covers all of your cabinets. I've covered all of them.
And what is it called inside? Call it absolute. But there's nothing in this cabinet, what is there?
Prescription.
On a piece of paper is written the opposition between the first self and the non self. The opposition between the second subject and the object. The opposition between the third object and its name. And the opposition between the fourth thought and existence, he writes it all for you, and you look for it on it. If you say a new guy doesn't know how to prepare medicine, and you say that when I see the thing on it, it looks the best, it's definitely absolute, and I look for it, he will directly steal something from the absolute. Because what he stole was not the thing itself, it was just a concept, just a concept.
Of course, there is still the non self within the self, and there are materials for both the self and the non self. All the raw materials are inside, and various medicines are contained inside. However, the medicine within the self can only stay on specific objects or materials, and absolutely, it transcends all materials. I don't need any materials anymore.
So, in the future, I won't open a traditional Chinese medicine shop anymore. I will directly open a pharmacy and a hospital. I don't need a pharmacy in the hospital. If I open a hospital, I just write prescriptions for others and tell them what medicine to take and what medicine to use. Then I can change the pharmacy to a hospital or give it to a clinic. Because clinics do not provide medication, they only provide prescriptions.
What is the prescription?
The concept of prescription. I'm just giving you a concept, and then you follow that concept to search for things, that's the process. So, as soon as Xie Lin entered the room, he had to renovate Fichte's pharmacy and turn it back into a clinic.
Do you want Fichte to be willing?
Of course not. Others are also unwilling, saying that I originally wanted to get medicine, why did I switch to a clinic. I know what's wrong with me, but when I go to the pharmacy, I need to buy medicine. I'm not here to see a doctor. I have a headache and a cold, and I know what I need. Why should I go see you again and ask your doctor to give me a prescription? After the prescription is given, don't I have to go to the pharmacy to get the medicine?
So, they hope to have a pharmacy, not a clinic.
So, more of us hope for concrete content rather than just concepts. And Xie Lin said, 'I'm just playing with concepts, I'm creating concepts, so you can't blame me. I'm doing this, so I turned your pharmacy into a clinic.'.
Xie Lin couldn't do it with a pharmacy, but later with this clinic, he still needed medicine, which he called natural philosophy. So, after he established the clinic, he created another pharmacy, and this prescription was set up by himself. Its natural philosophy system.
Why is Xie Lin's philosophy called an objective idealism instead of subjective idealism?
He clearly stated this point from the beginning of his book 'The System of Transcendental Idealism'. Because in the introduction of the system of a priori philosophy, the first section is called the concept of a priori philosophy.
The first sentence here is that all knowledge is based on the consistency between objective and subjective things, because humans only know the real things, and truth is generally recognized as the consistency between appearances and their objects.
This sounds like Marx's viewpoint, with a bit of epistemological reflection theory. All human cognitive activities are based on the consistency of subjectivity and objectivity. Don't you think Marx is right? All knowledge is transferred to the object we reflect. The correctness of human knowledge depends on whether we truly reflect objective situations and facts. The objective facts we reflect are called truth. Without objective facts, it is called a fallacy.
Isn't this what Marx said? It seems that Schelling and Marx have a fate, or did Schelling or Marx read Schelling's words before expressing his own views. Because Marx was later than Schelling, and he read Schelling's books, isn't that correct?
We need to move on and not just focus on the first sentence. Just looking at the first sentence, you must think it's right. It depends on what he says next.
He said that the entirety of all the purely objective things in our knowledge can be called nature; Conversely, the whole of all subjective things is called self or reason. These two concepts are in opposition to each other, reason was originally considered as something used only for appearances, while nature was considered as something that can only be given appearances.
The former is considered conscious, while the latter is only considered unconscious. However, in any knowledge, there must be some kind of convergence activity between the two. Therefore, philosophical topics need to explain this convergence activity.
How does philosophy explain the activity of convergence?
He said that in the activity of knowledge, that is to say, when self-awareness occurs, objective and subjective things are unified, so we cannot say which one comes first?
I don't know how everyone will feel after reading this sentence. He first confirmed that all our knowledge activities should depend on being in line with objective nature. If they don't, then there is no such thing as cognitive activity.
