From the concept of infinite, Fichte continues, appeared the notion of essence that posits in itself infinite number of to each other related Ur-determinations. The relations of these Ur-determinations to the essence, he explains, are expressed in the relational concepts of the second part. Thus, the absolute essence was at first the infinite realising and specifying itself in these concepts and relations, whereby the essence was distinguished into the infinite content and in the eternal and universal form, while at the same time the unity and inseparability of both was shown overall. Their distinction, Fichte suggests, made the ontology as the science of pure form possible, while their inseparability showed that the ontology requires complementing through more concrete philosophical knowledge, involving determination in space and time. The form and the content converged again as the third main category in the sphere of ground collected in itself all the previous concepts: the essence was the capacity of infinitely specified self-actualisation that made its actuality into a continually renewing self-act. Thus, Fichte entered the sphere of actuality, where from the dialectics of contingent, possible and necessary appeared the absolute necessity of self-determination, but also the real possibility overcoming each of its necessary-actual self-shapings. According to him, this revealed the main result of the whole ontological investigation that must be expressed more sharply at the threshold of the third epoch of essence: everything actual is what it is only through self-actualisation or through its own real capacity. This implies, Fichte states, that all chance and external coercion is excluded, when uniqueness overcomes necessity. Instead, everything contains an infinity of possible actualisations that cannot be exhausted through any individual shapes.
Fichte is now entering a new field of categories, in which both of the earlier fundamental determinations of essence or absolute capacity of an infinite content and its actuality are complemented by an essential concept that is for the first time in a position to completely solve and bring to perfect unity the earlier opposition of both first concepts. When the concept of actuality appeared from the dialectic of capacity, he reminds the reader, it seemed to completely substitute the capacity, so that all actuality was merely the actualised presence of essence and the absolute capacity of essence appeared completely absorbed and perfected in its rigid actuality. Then, he notes, in the dialectics of actuality was found the correcting addition that in actual remains the real possibility as capacity to opposites, thus, that this capacity is never exhausted in any individual self-actualisation. This concept of the unity of actuality and superactuality or infinite ideality, Fichte states, is the new relation that attempts to join both the earlier opposites into a unity, but still itself requires development and justification.
Fichte describes this new beginning as the fundamental concept of substantiality. Substantiality remains an infinite real capacity, since it is exhausted in none of its self-actualisations: it is always varying and new effects arise relentlessly from its infinity, while it remains the essence comprehending evenly both possibility and actuality. The essence according to this new fundamental determination, Fichte states, is the synthesis of possible and actual and thus both the persisting substrate of its infinity and its unceasingly creative act.
Substantiality means, Fichte concludes, precisely this that the essence remains in itself with its infinite self-determinations and distinctions that thus are lowered into the status of mere accidents. These accidents inhere at the substantial essence or the substance, but none of them forms it, since each of them is only in the unity of substance that is not abstract, but infinitely itself actualising and still remains the substrate of its accidences.
Substance is the unifiedness in the totality of self-given distinctions: the truth of this most general definition, Fichte states, can appear perfectly only at the end of this stage of investigation, but now it sheds light on the main moment of the whole epoch from a new perspective by letting us perfectly recognise a concept, which has been prepared through all parts of ontology, ever since it appeared at the end of the first part that each finite individual by itself or unrelated to a positing-comprehending unity is a contradictory concept. In all earlier categories this form of isolation or immediacy appeared as contradictory and dissolved in the comprehending unity, which has been described as infinity, essence, ground etc.
We seem to have merely reproduced an older concept, Fichte admits, but adds immediately that the thoroughly prevailing fundamental unity receives here still a higher sense. In other words, he explains, this unity is not merely externally comprehensive unity, in which the distinctions are just externally beside one another, like subconcepts are in the general concept, where this logically abstract unity is to be found in each of subconcepts only as externally unifying common sign. At least earlier, Fichte suggests, the unity of essence could also be grasped in this external manner, because its concept was not yet perfectly developed. Now it is expressly raised to a substantial unity, since it is the totality of its distinctions that are united in it as intertwined to one another. In this manner, Fichte insists, the manifoldness is not just taken in the unity, whereby the two sides of unity and manifoldness should be thought as combined, but still distinguished. As substance, the unity itself actively unifies its manifold, since as one and whole it is present to all its individual actualisations and remains against each of them a real possibility of its opposite.
The distinctions, the actualisations or self-realisations of this substantial unity, which Fichte takes as different names for the same issue, are merely accidental for the substance. In other words, he clarifies, they are what varies, disappears or moves at this persisting unity. Thus, each individual can as well not be or it can transition into another accidental shape, without the substance changing in itself or becoming essentially other. These actualisations and distinctions as individual, Fichte continues, are merely external and inessential to the substance, and each accident by itself appears both unindependent or the negation of substantiality and inessential, that is, not sufficient for exhausting the internal essence of substance that remains as the real possibility relentlessly moving over each of its individual shapes.
Fichte notes that this is the immediacy of the relation of substance and accidentality. He adds that we should not take anymore as valid the superficial and completely unspeculative concept, where the accidents appear as something merely externally added or contingent at the substance. Still, Fichte insists, as individuals these accidents still appear as inessential: each of the accidents by itself could also be lacking from the substance without impairing its essence, since it expressly contains the possibility of opposites in itself. Thus, Fichte concludes, the externally varying accidentality with the internally persisting substance is the first and most immediate manner of understanding their relation.
The most immediate and therefore still most undeveloped expression of substantiality relation is, Fichte says, that the substance is understood as the substrate of immediately and externally combined qualitative determinations that are raised to inhering properties of this collective unity or thing. Thing means at first, he explains, merely this immediate unity or the combination of such externally lined up determinations or the sum of certain joined realities, whereby their internal unification is not yet expressly brought to consciousness. These determinations or properties appear only as accidental to the thing or they occur so or also otherwise, but the thing in itself is essentially not determined or changed through their possible change. Thus, Fichte notes, the properties are contingent, external and changeable, while the thing remains internally determined as a unity.
The thing changes itself or varies its properties, but remains itself essentially what it is. According to Fichte, this relation involves a familiar, dialectically far back lying concept. Indeed, he takes it as a sign, how superficial in its immediacy this relation is. What here is designated as inessential, varying property of a thing remaining same through all changes is, Fichte suggests, same that according to an earlier distinction was called characteristic against the one internally changeless Ur-determination. Thus, the accidental is merely the external side of the thing appearing from its relation to an infinity of others. Fichte makes the pun that when the thing asserts its original determination and remains changelessly in itself, it receives in relation to every other thing a characteristic that corresponding to its uniqueness is to be called proper (Eigenes) to it or property (Eigenschaft). Here the manifoldness and the variation of properties of a thing is to be explained from the relations, in which the unvarying Ur-quality of thing enters to the other Ur-qualified things. Fichte interprets this move by saying that the opposition of essential and inessential has, like earlier, progressed to that of essence and what seems. In other words, the difference of properties of a thing is only what appears and not the real side of the thing, because it is based merely on the varying and contingent relations, which the one quality of thing has to an infinity of others, while in itself the thing has no variation and no manifoldness.
The concept of essence as a hidden, abstract being-in-itself has long ago been refuted, thus, Fichte argues, so should also the notion of a thing that is not actual or knowable in its properties. Instead, he insists, the thing has its truth and actuality only in the field of its properties, or it exists merely as their full, worked out unity. In the discarded view, the unity of thing was abstract simplicity, excluding all manifoldness and all variation from itself, but as substantial unity it was also the manifoldness or the distinction that still dissolved itself in unity, since it could be only in this unifying relation. When the concept of simplicity of thing is refuted, Fichte suggests, at the same time is refuted the notion of a by itself subsisting, unrelated distinction. Instead, they converge as the extreme ends of abstraction: the isolated distinction becomes itself simple, but it is only in the reciprocal relation with other distinctions, since what remains unrelated is not anymore distinction. Thus, Fichte concludes, nothing is here distinguished, without being twined into a unity, while all unities sustain in themselves distinctions as their own actuality. The thing is not anymore an external sum or a substrate of its properties, but it is the nature of distinctions to be intertwined into the unity of thing, just like the nature of thing is to carry in itself these distinctions. The distinctions become then properties and even essential properties of the thing.
Fichte points out that now all variation of properties seems to be erased from the thing, since each property plays an indispensable part at the essence of the thing, which is actual and present only in the whole, undivided fullness of its distinctions, without allowing any variation and change of them. The variation is then again subject to the inessentiality or it is external and untrue, while the old contradiction is merely pushed further, but not solved. Fichte suggests that we must now distinguish in the thing real or essential and seeming or inessential properties, without still knowing how the latter can be called properties in the sense of being proper to the thing. Hence, the essential properties are the actuality of the essence of the thing, but exclude thus all variation, and inessential properties are external to its essence, while also being inseparable from its concept. Thus, Fichte notes, the manifoldness of properties is established in the thing, but not the variation that still has appeared as its essential moment in the whole earlier series of categories.
Fichte identifies the essential and unchangeable properties of the thing with the real possibility of essence. Such a real possibility, he points out, contained two sides, corresponding to the opposition found in the notion of thing. On the one hand, the real possibility forms the embodiment or the totality of essence and is so identical with the real necessity, but on the other hand, it is not exhausted in any of its actualities, but keeps itself as a unity against them. This relation perfectly corresponds, Fichte thinks, to that of essential and inessential properties of the thing: essential properties present the real possibility and inessential properties its actualisations. Thus, just like a real possibility, essential property is the capacity for opposed and varyingly each other excluding actualisations, any single one of which could fail to exist or change to its opposite, but which in their totality have the character of essentiality and necessity. In other words, Fichte explains, it is essential and necessary that the essence of the thing actualises itself, but not what individual details the actualisations have.
Fichte finds here a more satisfying expression for inessential properties. They are, he suggests, the varying accidents, which are not external to the essence or inessential, while the thing is the infinite self-actualisation, which is never frozen in necessity, but in all parts retains the same possibility for opposites. The thing is thus the substantial unity of the essential properties, but this is only the side of its real possibility. Hence, it is also essential for the thing that these essential properties are infinitely specified. In the varying determinations of these specifications lies also their actuality, while the same substantial unity remains present in all the individualisations of its actuality.
The dialectics of thing and its properties, Fichte continues, has more and more clearly pointed to the concept of distinctions that are only in each other and of unifiedness that is only in the totality of its distinctions. Thus, he suggests, the thing is also a whole, while its essential and inessential properties form its parts that intertwine and complement each other. Fichte thinks, then, that the relation of the whole and its parts is the nearest developed expression after the relation of thing and properties. This new relation consciously underlines the notion of unified substance, he insists, but since it is a relational concept that can at first be grasped only as opposition, it requires further development.
The whole and the parts, Fichte begins, understood in their opposition to one another, seem relatively independent. The whole can at first be thought independent of its parts, since the parts regarded individually seem to assume an external, inessential relation to the whole. Thus, Fichte explains, the specific essentiality of the whole subsists, even if this and that part comes off or is undeveloped. Indeed, he insists, the more powerful and ordered the whole is in itself, the more individual parts can be lacking from it. Fichte notes that we can then divide parts again into essential and inessential, where the latter are dispensable, and even if removed, allow the essence of the whole remain independently of them, while in the former lies the true meaning of the whole, which becomes something else, if these are withdrawn from it or changed.
Then again, Fichte adds, parts are also relatively independent of the whole, since each part has an internal determination independent from the whole and from the other parts, which allows this part to subsist in itself. Each part divorces then itself from their whole, because it does contribute to the existence of whole, but does not conversely require the whole for its own existence. Thus, Fichte concludes, parts subsist outside the whole, but the whole does not subsist outside them. He points out that this is the familiar category of a whole being composed of parts, where the whole is understood as an aggregate of such otherwise existing determinations. These determinations appear again as partial wholes and are thus thought as separable into other previously existing determinations, as long as inseparable atoms have not been reached. Hence, Fichte argues, such a view of the whole must lead back to atomism of isolated finite entities, which he takes to be a long ago refuted notion. Indeed, he insists, if parts can exist independently of the whole, their substantial unity is eradicated and as a breaking whole is a whole no more, while the independent parts are not anymore parts and cannot even be thought as determined, because determination requires relating them in a system.
Fichte concludes that the whole by itself is expressly an empty, void and contradictory abstraction, or whole is only as ordering itself into its parts, and if it would miss one of them, it would not be this whole. The whole forms then its parts and the parts their whole, he concludes, and neither can the whole be separated from the parts nor conversely the parts from the whole or also any single part from the others. Indeed, Fichte suggests, the whole is not just mathematically equal to its parts and these equal to their whole, but the whole and the parts are simply identical or a unifiedness that divides into manifoldness.
Fichte thinks that we must now understand the whole as an active unification of its parts, hence, as keeping its indivisible self in each part and continuing as totality of these distinctions. He suggests calling this notion of active unifiedness with the Leibnizian expression of monad. This monad, Fichte notes, is itself its totality, so that we need not anymore search something that would develop it to a manifold, but as a unifying power it is itself partly manifoldness and partly it collects its distinctions in itself and mediates them into a whole. The monad is then designated as manifoldness and it still must negate the manifoldness and be expressed as a complete indivisibility. Fichte admits that this duality can easily develop into a contradiction, but before attempting to find its full solution he suggests comparing this notion to the previous stages and seeing what earlier uncompleted problems might have found their solution in it.
At the end of the first book of Fichte's ontology appeared the concept of the Ur-position that could be conceived as specifically determined only in infinite relation to others and as asserting itself in this relation. The opposition of these infinite being for other and being for itself, Fichte reminds us, was mediated through the concept of comprehending and reciprocally relating infinite or absolute. Now, he suggests, this provisional conclusion has found its satisfying expression in the notion of monad. The Ur-positions were shown to be more than abstractly simple or they were able to become something else because of the opposition of their unchangeable determination with their changing characteristic. Here, Fichte points out, this notion of becoming something else converges with what was first called the accidents in the substance and now in a more developed manner the ideal and intertwined distinctions in the monad. Furthermore, he continues, the concept of substantial unity or monad has also integrated the categories of ground and of real possibility. Thus, as a real possibility monad raises its distinctions into an intertwined unity or into a free identity remaining with itself. Since the monad is also a self-actualising ground, this real possibility places itself against the actuality of varying individuals that never exhaust the possibility, which remains as their ideal background.
The concept of monadic unity has fully developed itself, Fichte states, since it has assumed in itself its opposite or its distinctions are now what they are through one another and so grow together into their unity. Monadic unity is thus no more a collective substrate or thing and not even a bond joining parts into a whole, shortly, no particular externally related to its distinctions. Instead, Fichte emphasises, it is the inseparable and indivisible unity, in which the distinctions mutually require and presuppose one another. He notes that we have thus discovered a higher concept of individuality than earlier, where it meant only an Ur-determination specified according to both content and form. Now, this Ur-position is a unity in manifoldness and thus a totality of its moments or monad, but also simply individual, partly as it is completely unique and similar only to itself, partly as it absolutely asserts itself and remains similar in this uniqueness, when its distinctions are internally joined by being inseparable from one another. This individual unity subsists, according to Fichte, because it asserts itself in the infinite variation of becoming. Indeed, he thinks, every entity in the world is such a closed and completely determined peculiarity, which can be developed and reshaped, but not broken or fundamentally changed and is therefore justifiably called indivisible. This indivisibility, Fichte says, is the internal or real necessity of this entity, which converges with its real possibility and is thus the root of its freedom. The notion of real possibility joined with necessity that is above all its actualisations, but still produces infinite distinctions and is thus sameness that continuously becomes dissimilar to itself and distinction that eternally remains a unity, he thinks, does not contain at this stage any contradiction and not even an unresolved opposition, because this monadic unity has shown itself as a substance of all its distinguishing activities and asserts itself in them as an indivisible whole. According to Fichte, this monadic unity is the true result of the previous development of categories that will not anymore be abandoned, but only developed.
Fichte suggests that this concept of individuality is inseparable from an infinite relation to others outside it and that only in this relation does this individual receive and assert its specific Ur-determination. This relation, he adds, is not just a dead separatedness of mere quantitative joining, but more like the comprehension of seemingly isolated finities into the concept of infinite or essence. Now, Fichte clarifies, this cannot anymore be thought as merely external comprehension nor as an abstract ground or as a self-actualising necessity, but only as a substantial unity of internal distinctions that themselves are unities or as absolute monad of finite monads. In other words, the infinite is also actual only as an individual, just like finite. The monads as specified, but thus infinitely related unities, Fichte describes, converge themselves again in higher unities or central monads that finally are infinitely mediated in the absolute unity of the Ur-monad.
Fichte identifies the essential and unchangeable properties of the thing with the real possibility of essence. Such a real possibility, he points out, contained two sides, corresponding to the opposition found in the notion of thing. On the one hand, the real possibility forms the embodiment or the totality of essence and is so identical with the real necessity, but on the other hand, it is not exhausted in any of its actualities, but keeps itself as a unity against them. This relation perfectly corresponds, Fichte thinks, to that of essential and inessential properties of the thing: essential properties present the real possibility and inessential properties its actualisations. Thus, just like a real possibility, essential property is the capacity for opposed and varyingly each other excluding actualisations, any single one of which could fail to exist or change to its opposite, but which in their totality have the character of essentiality and necessity. In other words, Fichte explains, it is essential and necessary that the essence of the thing actualises itself, but not what individual details the actualisations have.
Fichte finds here a more satisfying expression for inessential properties. They are, he suggests, the varying accidents, which are not external to the essence or inessential, while the thing is the infinite self-actualisation, which is never frozen in necessity, but in all parts retains the same possibility for opposites. The thing is thus the substantial unity of the essential properties, but this is only the side of its real possibility. Hence, it is also essential for the thing that these essential properties are infinitely specified. In the varying determinations of these specifications lies also their actuality, while the same substantial unity remains present in all the individualisations of its actuality.
The dialectics of thing and its properties, Fichte continues, has more and more clearly pointed to the concept of distinctions that are only in each other and of unifiedness that is only in the totality of its distinctions. Thus, he suggests, the thing is also a whole, while its essential and inessential properties form its parts that intertwine and complement each other. Fichte thinks, then, that the relation of the whole and its parts is the nearest developed expression after the relation of thing and properties. This new relation consciously underlines the notion of unified substance, he insists, but since it is a relational concept that can at first be grasped only as opposition, it requires further development.
The whole and the parts, Fichte begins, understood in their opposition to one another, seem relatively independent. The whole can at first be thought independent of its parts, since the parts regarded individually seem to assume an external, inessential relation to the whole. Thus, Fichte explains, the specific essentiality of the whole subsists, even if this and that part comes off or is undeveloped. Indeed, he insists, the more powerful and ordered the whole is in itself, the more individual parts can be lacking from it. Fichte notes that we can then divide parts again into essential and inessential, where the latter are dispensable, and even if removed, allow the essence of the whole remain independently of them, while in the former lies the true meaning of the whole, which becomes something else, if these are withdrawn from it or changed.
Then again, Fichte adds, parts are also relatively independent of the whole, since each part has an internal determination independent from the whole and from the other parts, which allows this part to subsist in itself. Each part divorces then itself from their whole, because it does contribute to the existence of whole, but does not conversely require the whole for its own existence. Thus, Fichte concludes, parts subsist outside the whole, but the whole does not subsist outside them. He points out that this is the familiar category of a whole being composed of parts, where the whole is understood as an aggregate of such otherwise existing determinations. These determinations appear again as partial wholes and are thus thought as separable into other previously existing determinations, as long as inseparable atoms have not been reached. Hence, Fichte argues, such a view of the whole must lead back to atomism of isolated finite entities, which he takes to be a long ago refuted notion. Indeed, he insists, if parts can exist independently of the whole, their substantial unity is eradicated and as a breaking whole is a whole no more, while the independent parts are not anymore parts and cannot even be thought as determined, because determination requires relating them in a system.
Fichte concludes that the whole by itself is expressly an empty, void and contradictory abstraction, or whole is only as ordering itself into its parts, and if it would miss one of them, it would not be this whole. The whole forms then its parts and the parts their whole, he concludes, and neither can the whole be separated from the parts nor conversely the parts from the whole or also any single part from the others. Indeed, Fichte suggests, the whole is not just mathematically equal to its parts and these equal to their whole, but the whole and the parts are simply identical or a unifiedness that divides into manifoldness.
Fichte thinks that we must now understand the whole as an active unification of its parts, hence, as keeping its indivisible self in each part and continuing as totality of these distinctions. He suggests calling this notion of active unifiedness with the Leibnizian expression of monad. This monad, Fichte notes, is itself its totality, so that we need not anymore search something that would develop it to a manifold, but as a unifying power it is itself partly manifoldness and partly it collects its distinctions in itself and mediates them into a whole. The monad is then designated as manifoldness and it still must negate the manifoldness and be expressed as a complete indivisibility. Fichte admits that this duality can easily develop into a contradiction, but before attempting to find its full solution he suggests comparing this notion to the previous stages and seeing what earlier uncompleted problems might have found their solution in it.
At the end of the first book of Fichte's ontology appeared the concept of the Ur-position that could be conceived as specifically determined only in infinite relation to others and as asserting itself in this relation. The opposition of these infinite being for other and being for itself, Fichte reminds us, was mediated through the concept of comprehending and reciprocally relating infinite or absolute. Now, he suggests, this provisional conclusion has found its satisfying expression in the notion of monad. The Ur-positions were shown to be more than abstractly simple or they were able to become something else because of the opposition of their unchangeable determination with their changing characteristic. Here, Fichte points out, this notion of becoming something else converges with what was first called the accidents in the substance and now in a more developed manner the ideal and intertwined distinctions in the monad. Furthermore, he continues, the concept of substantial unity or monad has also integrated the categories of ground and of real possibility. Thus, as a real possibility monad raises its distinctions into an intertwined unity or into a free identity remaining with itself. Since the monad is also a self-actualising ground, this real possibility places itself against the actuality of varying individuals that never exhaust the possibility, which remains as their ideal background.
The concept of monadic unity has fully developed itself, Fichte states, since it has assumed in itself its opposite or its distinctions are now what they are through one another and so grow together into their unity. Monadic unity is thus no more a collective substrate or thing and not even a bond joining parts into a whole, shortly, no particular externally related to its distinctions. Instead, Fichte emphasises, it is the inseparable and indivisible unity, in which the distinctions mutually require and presuppose one another. He notes that we have thus discovered a higher concept of individuality than earlier, where it meant only an Ur-determination specified according to both content and form. Now, this Ur-position is a unity in manifoldness and thus a totality of its moments or monad, but also simply individual, partly as it is completely unique and similar only to itself, partly as it absolutely asserts itself and remains similar in this uniqueness, when its distinctions are internally joined by being inseparable from one another. This individual unity subsists, according to Fichte, because it asserts itself in the infinite variation of becoming. Indeed, he thinks, every entity in the world is such a closed and completely determined peculiarity, which can be developed and reshaped, but not broken or fundamentally changed and is therefore justifiably called indivisible. This indivisibility, Fichte says, is the internal or real necessity of this entity, which converges with its real possibility and is thus the root of its freedom. The notion of real possibility joined with necessity that is above all its actualisations, but still produces infinite distinctions and is thus sameness that continuously becomes dissimilar to itself and distinction that eternally remains a unity, he thinks, does not contain at this stage any contradiction and not even an unresolved opposition, because this monadic unity has shown itself as a substance of all its distinguishing activities and asserts itself in them as an indivisible whole. According to Fichte, this monadic unity is the true result of the previous development of categories that will not anymore be abandoned, but only developed.
Fichte suggests that this concept of individuality is inseparable from an infinite relation to others outside it and that only in this relation does this individual receive and assert its specific Ur-determination. This relation, he adds, is not just a dead separatedness of mere quantitative joining, but more like the comprehension of seemingly isolated finities into the concept of infinite or essence. Now, Fichte clarifies, this cannot anymore be thought as merely external comprehension nor as an abstract ground or as a self-actualising necessity, but only as a substantial unity of internal distinctions that themselves are unities or as absolute monad of finite monads. In other words, the infinite is also actual only as an individual, just like finite. The monads as specified, but thus infinitely related unities, Fichte describes, converge themselves again in higher unities or central monads that finally are infinitely mediated in the absolute unity of the Ur-monad.
Fichte notes that we have once again found a familiar duality of interconnected relations or the relation of an individual to another individual and the relation of all of these individuals to the comprehensive absolute, where the relation of individuals can itself be thought only in the infinite comprehension, while this comprehension is possible only as specifying itself into relations between individuals. Thus, each monad, or more precisely, what it is or its Ur-determination and what it becomes or the series of its actualisations is such only in an absolute relation to the infinity of others. Hence, Fichte underlines, the fundamental specification of the monad and its varying determinations are nothing in themselves, but only in relation to all others. The system of monads is thus reflected in the individuals and, he adds, each individual monad carries the mark of this system and especially of such monads that are related more nearly to it by the higher centralising monad to it. This perception or representation of the infinite system in each individuality forms, on Fichte’s opinion, one of the most essential moments in the concept of monad, and only through this representation of all others it secures what it is and what it becomes, just like these others are what they are through this monad. The deepest independence of the monad, he concludes, is thus combined with infinite dependency from the others, or what it is through its own act is still only the mirror of the whole infinity outside, which seems like another contradiction to be solved.
The monad actualises itself from its own positive Ur-determination and thus appears to be absolutely independent or active, but it is also originally related to others and thus seems to become only through this infinitely reflecting relation or with absolute passivity. Fichte starts looking for the solution of this conflict by sharply distinguishing the positive Ur-determination of the monad or its real possibility from its actualisations. As a real possibility, he says, the monad can be thought neither as active nor as passive, or the field of activity and passivity begins only with its actuality. Yet, Fichte adds at once, according to its real possibility monad is still not completely without any relations, since its Ur-disposition is posited by the infinitely specifying absolute and this position can only happen in being ordered into a system of infinite specifications or individual monads. In a sense, monad is then both independent and related, both grounded by all others and conversely grounding these others.
Beyond its general relation to all others, Fichte adds, a monad enters into a special relation to a determined monad that it represents more closely. In this sense, he explains, the monad becomes a ground of a series of consequences in this other and thus actively transfers it, but on the other hand, the relation occurs to the other direction and the second monad reflects this influence back to the first. Thus, Fichte describes, what appeared as consequence becomes again a ground, just like the first ground becomes a consequence. The result of self-actualisation of monads, he suggests, is then not purely derived from their own absolute activity, but they at the same time assume the influence of others in themselves, but also actively appropriate it. This dual relation, Fichte suggests, is the solution of the contradiction of activity and passivity, so that no moment of actuality is mere action or mere reaction, but reciprocal intertwining of both.
To fully understand this relation of monads to one another, Fichte thinks, we have to still bring up one point. The monads acting and reacting to one another, he insists, presuppose a common field or a sphere of existence and action comprehending all of them. This common sphere, Fichte suggests, has been named in the discussion of content and form as the specific form that the content gives itself, when it steps from mere capacity in the realisation. Here, he states, the content is the self-actualising monad that specifies itself from real possibility into a specific form, but this specific form is only the quantitative expression that is inseparable from every qualitative content. This form is then the sphere of the specific actualisations of the monad, but also its determined relations to others, while changes in the form are only variations of these relations or interactions between monads. The system of these forms is generated from the variation of combining and dissolving these relations. Fichte concludes that in general the fundamental form inseparable from all monads is this common sphere, in which monads encounter each other in interaction.
Fichte reminds the reader that the form is known to be the quantitative expression of content. Thus, specifying itself qualitatively it specifies itself also quantitatively, that is, it gives itself determined extension and intensity in space and time. Space and time, Fichte suggests, are then the universal form of specification and the sphere of existence and action for monads. He also points out that space and time are in no sense independent, but as mere forms exist only through the infinitely itself specifying content or the monads.
By specifying themselves, monads give themselves their extensively and intensively determined quantity, that is, create their space and their temporal duration. Fichte points out that this quantitative specification in general is a determination common to all monads or their fundamental form, just like categories, although they are not categories and thus not properly dealt in ontology. Because the monad is known as the principle creating its form, he argues, it must be partly thought absolutely free of this form, but partly it is actual only in this form. As real possibilities, monads are simply independent or negative toward the form, but in their self-actualisation they must fill this form of space and time through causal relations with other monads, which form the next topic of investigation in Fichte’s ontology.
To fully understand this relation of monads to one another, Fichte thinks, we have to still bring up one point. The monads acting and reacting to one another, he insists, presuppose a common field or a sphere of existence and action comprehending all of them. This common sphere, Fichte suggests, has been named in the discussion of content and form as the specific form that the content gives itself, when it steps from mere capacity in the realisation. Here, he states, the content is the self-actualising monad that specifies itself from real possibility into a specific form, but this specific form is only the quantitative expression that is inseparable from every qualitative content. This form is then the sphere of the specific actualisations of the monad, but also its determined relations to others, while changes in the form are only variations of these relations or interactions between monads. The system of these forms is generated from the variation of combining and dissolving these relations. Fichte concludes that in general the fundamental form inseparable from all monads is this common sphere, in which monads encounter each other in interaction.
Fichte reminds the reader that the form is known to be the quantitative expression of content. Thus, specifying itself qualitatively it specifies itself also quantitatively, that is, it gives itself determined extension and intensity in space and time. Space and time, Fichte suggests, are then the universal form of specification and the sphere of existence and action for monads. He also points out that space and time are in no sense independent, but as mere forms exist only through the infinitely itself specifying content or the monads.
By specifying themselves, monads give themselves their extensively and intensively determined quantity, that is, create their space and their temporal duration. Fichte points out that this quantitative specification in general is a determination common to all monads or their fundamental form, just like categories, although they are not categories and thus not properly dealt in ontology. Because the monad is known as the principle creating its form, he argues, it must be partly thought absolutely free of this form, but partly it is actual only in this form. As real possibilities, monads are simply independent or negative toward the form, but in their self-actualisation they must fill this form of space and time through causal relations with other monads, which form the next topic of investigation in Fichte’s ontology.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti