A completely new chapter in Fichte's ontology has begun. For the first time, the viewpoint of finite entities has been fully discarded. More likely, Fichte adds, it has dialectically destroyed itself, since the finite has shown itself as merely sustained by infinity. The positive infinite or absolute has cancelled the finite in its separation, but also raised it into a true reality. This is, Fichte thinks, the correct foundation for the ontology, and it properly begins only here, when the standpoint of ontology has become one of synthesis or one of absolute. If the task of philosophy is to consider things in their relation to truth, Fichte insists, this means knowing them from this standpoint, and specifically in ontology, according to absolute form. The first part of the ontology, he explains, is then only an ontological justification of this true speculative high point, just like the first part of the whole system was an epistemological proof of it.
Now that the absolute is determined as essence, Fichte continues, it is inevitably involved with relation, which is supposed to be the characteristic of all concepts of this second part. Thus, he insists, the essence must be defined only in opposition to what is not essential, while the inessential can be understood only in relation to the essence. Fichte admits that we did find examples of such reciprocal determining already in the previous book, and indeed, one might even think that this new opposition means a relapse into similar antithesis. The difference is, he explains, that at the level of essence the opposition does not appear from outside, but is posited with the original concept. Thus, in order that an essence can be an essence, it has to have in itself implicitly the other that it then actualises into an opposition with itself and divides thus itself into a fundamental duality that still is unity.
The first and most formal determination of this concept, according to Fichte, is that the essence is the true being that remains always the same, while against it lies something infinitely self-destroying and changeable that is not being, but only seems to be or even is an illusion (Schein). Such a seeming being is not just nothing, he explains, just like essence is not merely being. Instead, essence is against other and even itself becomes something else, but also asserts itself and persists in unity with this difference and change. Similarly, the merely unessential or merely seeming to be shows in itself only what seems to be the essence. Here the infinite and finite become again separated, because the essence excludes what just seems to be from itself. Still, Fichte emphasises, what is purely nothing cannot seem to be anything. The seeming is then caught in the contradiction, he notes, that it seems even an appearance (Erscheinung) of essence, but then it would not be mere seeming.
Despite this self-refutation, Fichte says, the notion of seeming provides the starting point for all speculation: the absolute alone is truly the essential, while the finite sense world is in comparison only seeming. Thus, the absolute remains eternally the same or invariable throughout the variation of the finite world, and just like what seems to be still shows the essence, variation can also exist only through the invariable. The finite world is thus not ejected out of the absolute, as if the world would exist outside the absolute in any sense, but its independent existence is in general denied.
The essence appeared as the opposite of inessential that therefore was designated as what just seems to be. This seeming then annihilated itself and was proven to be just the appearance of essence. Thus, Fichte states, the inevitably shifting distinction or the infinite seeming is derived from the essence, and only because of this derivation is the essence not empty or just quantitative abstraction, but the qualitative fullness of positive infinity. The inessential or the seeming is fully eradicated, or it has changed itself into the fullness or the infinity of essence. In other words, Fichte explains, all that seems uncovers the essence, which presents its fundamental basis or ground (Grund) in what seems to be. Thus, the essence is to be next determined as a ground of its infinitely seeming distinctions.
Seeming distinctions are thus grounded in the infinity of essence itself, Fichte summarises. Just like the essence cannot be without grounding distinctions, all distinctions also appear only as unveiling or appearance of the hidden ground, thus, he concludes, the essence is complete only in both the ground and in its infinite unveiling, since only with this relation it is not anymore empty or abstract. Fichte points out that the word ground has here, and indeed, in the common use of language, two meanings. Firstly, ground refers to the foundation (Grundlage) that lies hidden under what appears. In this sense ground is contradictory, because it expresses itself in appearance, but also doesn’t. This contradiction leads, Fichte thinks, to the second meaning of the word, according to which ground is the sufficient reason or the explanatory principle (ratio) of an appearance. With such a ground, the appearance should immediately appear from it as its consequence, and only in combination with its consequence the ground is fully thought of.
From the essence immediately appears something else without any particular assistance, through the mere characteristics of the essence. What follows from the essence, Fichte suggests, could be called the absolute characteristic of the essence itself. By having this something or consequence follow from it, the essence becomes ground, and indeed, wouldn’t otherwise be a ground. Thus, Fichte concludes, ground and consequence are simply inseparable, and they reproduce the relation of finite and infinite in a more fundamental level. The difference is that the finite and the infinite are still more in the shape of opposition, while the unity of the ground and the consequence is already more intimate. The consequence appears from the invariable nature of ground, like it would flow out of or emanate from the unmoving rest of its being.
Fichte finds here a new definition for the concepts of finite and infinite. The finite should be determined as not a ground of itself, but a consequence of something else, while the infinite or the essence is, on the contrary, in general a ground, thus also a ground of itself. Fichte calls the infinite even the Ur-ground or absolute ground, which grounds itself and everything else: the absolute is through itself, while the finite is through the absolute. Then again, when we look at an individual or determined finite, he points out, it has to have a ground outside itself, and in this context the ground can be found only in other determined individuals. This returns us to the already familiar relation of other against other, but in a new form, where the different individuals are grounds and consequences of one another.
Thus, a determined individual is taken as a ground of another individual with a different quality. Indeed, Fichte says, ground must always be in some sense different from consequence, or if they would be thought as having identical determinations, they wouldn’t be thought as ground and consequence. He points out that such a relation must be based on an implicit and unjustified axiom that something can be generated as a consequence from a ground, although it is not present in this as such. This means that not just the being of the individual consequence, but also its characteristics should appear from its ground and that this wouldn’t be a ground, if both couldn’t be explained from it. Fichte takes this as the common philosophical understanding of this relation, expressed in the so-called proposition of sufficient reason, where an individual is not to be arbitrarily taken as a ground of another, but only if the being and the determination of this other can be sufficiently or completely explained from it.
Fichte thinks that the proposition of sufficient reason can be refuted through a familiar endless regression into the empty or negative infinite. In other words, in order to explain a determined individual b through another individual a, the a as a determined individual has to be again explained through a third x, which is again only an individual further to be explained, and so backwards in infinite. Each individual, Fichte concludes, would require for its grounding an infinite regress, or the sufficient reason is never achieved, because it would require endless individual grounds. The mistake, he thinks, is to attempt explaining an individual from an individual, since nothing individual can be a sufficient ground or reason for another, just as little as an individual can be a mere consequence of another individual.
The sufficient ground of an individual can lie only in an infinity, which was just presented in a mere quantitatively endless series of individual grounds. Yet, Fichte insists, this infinity should be understood positively and in its fulfilment. He suggests that this touches the earlier question, how from a ground can appear something other as its consequence, which is not contained in the ground. A ground should bring forth from itself what it itself is not, and similarly a consequence is neither the corresponding ground nor its part. Indeed, precisely this difference makes one the consequence and the other its ground, or if something had generated just itself, it itself would not be a ground nor would what appears from it be its consequence. Yet, Fichte insists, this bringing forward something that is not contained in the ground is a contradiction that should find its dialectical solution.
According to Fichte, the contradiction lies again in taking individuals as grounds and their negations as corresponding consequences. Finite individuals have already appeared as void and cancelled in the positive infinity, and indeed, it should be the characteristic of the current standpoint to not admit finite as final truth, thus, it would be foolish to remain with individual grounds. In other words, Fichte explains, there are no individual grounds or individual consequences, but every consequence is an infinite complex of grounding, just like conversely it itself is not just a consequence, but in another context again a ground. When all these one-sided notions are cancelled, we find the true, positive infinity, which is now understood as the sufficient and complete ground in all seemingly individual relations of grounds and consequences. This sufficient ground is once again the absolute essence.
Absolute is not just an Ur-essence, which could still be understood as remaining beyond and outside the inessential, Fichte insists, but an Ur-ground that uses the opposition of determinations to reproduce its internal infinity. If the finite was earlier opposed to essence as what only seems to be, here it is the inseparable consequence of essence or its immediate externalisation (Äusserung). This makes, Fichte says, Ur-essence into Ur-ground, which is thus not abstract and empty, but contains the infinite fullness of such externalisations. In Ur-ground the seeming becomes expressly the appearance of essence, since the absolute brings out its hidden essence into an infinitely unfolded externalisation. Fichte calls this a genuinely speculative worldview, although it still uses very abstract categories, which must be enlivened with symbolic expressions. It is a step forward, he thinks, because the finite world is not separate from the Ur-ground that reveals its essence in the immediacy of finite things, but unsatisfying, because the supposed revelation of hidden seems still just a nonsensical expression.
Ground and consequence can be comprehended only through one another. This means, Fichte explains, that when our understanding of one side changes, the other side must also be expressed differently. The immediate way to understand their opposition, he continues, is to see the ground as the inner core of the externalised consequence. Ground as internal is the hidden and invisible foundation that does allow a manifold of appearances to flow out from itself, but always retains a remainder that is not uncovered. Thus, Fichte argues, the externalisation of the essence can never adequately match its interior. The current standpoint asserts a separation between both halves, where the essence expresses itself in its externalisation only imperfectly, leaving behind an unexpressed interior, but the exterior is still not completely detached from the essence as a seeming illusion without any reality. The relation between internal and external is so one of ambiguity, where the internal appears in external and does not or the both are opposed and also not. Despite this ambiguity, Fichte insists, this relation is a necessary conceptual moment in the development of ontology, and indeed, used in other sciences (for instance, psychology of his time spoke of the interior of human mind being expressed imperfectly in their external behaviour).
When the internal essence and its externalisation are kept strictly opposed, Fichte suggests, their relation is shown to be contradictory. Essence as a ground determines itself in general into external and therefore its interiority is inseparable from its external side. In fact, Fichte says, the essence is the common element, while internal and external are only inseparable moments of the same essence as ground. Thus, he argues that the internal side cannot be called more essential than the external side, since the ground is equally present in both. We have thus managed to mediate the opposition of internal and external, but they still remain also distinguished.
The invisible internal is understood as determining itself into visible external. Fichte thinks that this relation corresponds to the common opposition of supersensuous and sensuous or ideal and real. In other words, everything external, immediate or given in the visible world should have an invisible internal ground lying beyond this immediacy. Essence is thus at this stage purely ideal, Fichte underlines, but as a ground it infinitely determines and realises itself in immediate actuality, and indeed, it is the original source of everything actual. Yet, he points out, the distinction between the ideal interior and the real exterior is becoming more and more non-existent, therefore, the ideal should itself be real and not unreachable beyond. The ideal should also be the only principle of actuality, Fichte adds, and especially sensuous individuals are not their own principles.
The relation of internal, hidden and invisible ground and external consequence has highlighted the side of separation, although ground does become visible in its externalisation. Still, Fichte assures us, internal and external are not anymore completely separated, but more like two sides of the same coin and they just have to be mediated. Indeed, he explains, internal and external are not separated, but only distinguished from one another. Thus, Fichte concludes, the absolute inseparability of both sides should be expressed more clearly: the internal ground is to be seen as the qualitative and ideal content that is shaped by the external consequence or form and thus made visible.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti