Subject: RE: Fichte
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 12:52:24 +0200
From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl>




-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: allen scult [mailto:allen.scult-AT-drake.edu]
Verzonden: maandag 1 september 2003 19:29
Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Onderwerp: RE: Fichte


>Accused of atheism, Fichte had to flee from Jena in 1799.
>The German king did not order to burn him, but received
>him kindly in Berlin. A new 'Wissenschaftslehre' was
>presented in private lectures. Saved lists show they were
>visited by the first string - wich is still sthing else
>than first string today. I only mention the name of the
>Prince of Metternich.
>
>In an announcement Fichte invites the interested to hear
>the oral execution of his Wissenschaftslehre .. "that is
>of the complete solution of the riddle of the world and
>of conscience with mathematical evidence. (Hegel said
>his system contains the thoughts of God before the creation
>of the world.)
>
>In one of the first hours he calls the 'I' the true result
>of both Kant's and his own philosophical occupation, 'I'
>conceived as the (absolute) point of unity of Being and Thinking.
>The 'I', the subject  (enlarged compared to Descartes, Leibniz, Kant)
>as the principle of the understanding of the world, is precisely
>the negative point of departure of BT.

Rene,

Thinking of Fichte's "I" as an enlargement of the Cartesion ego by means of  a
return to the Greek unity of being and thinking, especially in Parmenides
(as Michel suggests) is I think, very helpful.


  Allen, not in the light of the Greek (although they are invisible in the
  background), but in the light of FICHTE'S thinking as a *reflexive* ('I')
  posing of S and D, as he writes, of a Sein, that is never without a thinking,
  and of Denken, which is never without its Being. Sein therefore is here
  meant as objectivity, Thinking as subjectivity. As in Hegel they are
  extreme (absolute) oppositions, that demand a unifying. But precisely a
  constructing unifying, that Heidegger destructs in I&D as a means to
  think the belonging together of man and Being.

I'm wondering, though, if Fichte's "I" might be more closely aligned to the
Situation- Ich , Heidegger's earlier version of the hermeneutical situation.
This is then followed later a few years later  by the move to Dasein as the
locus of understanding, with the implication you suggest.
  
  Good question, and sometimes they sound litterally the same, esp. when it
  comes to enactment, to the *really* doing it oneself, but this likeness
  is to be destructed, and a sameness, if any, is to be delayed till after
  a confrontation, litt. a aus-einander-setzung, setting each one apart.
  Enactment to Fichte is production, Would this also go for the early 
  Heidegger, then the way to Dasein would be blocked. So, if Dasein is
  different, already 'factical life' must be different. (or in Hoelderlin's
  words: already the beam of light that hit the newly-born, must have been
  different.)  
  That Geschichte is the releasing instance, would mean that we need explicitly
  these opposing, juxtaposing 'historical' moves, in order to get into view Dasein
  itself. To the Heidegger of BT this would mean, that, on account of the missing
  of the geschichtliche dimension, Dasein (H1) is there continually endangered by the
  force of objectification (Vorhandenheit), and that, merely with the means of BT,
  one cannot find into Da-sein (H2). 

  regards

  rene
  

 
Regards,

Allen




     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---