Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T10:31:33.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

In Defense of Bad Infinity: A Fichtean Response to Hegel's Differenzschrift 1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2015

Wayne M. Martin*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Essex CO4 3SQ, wmartin@essex.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

Hegel's very first acknowledged publication was, among other things, an attack on Fichte. In 1801, Hegel was still laboring in almost complete obscurity, while Fichte was an international sensation, though already somewhat past the peak of his meteoric career. In the 1801 Differenzschrift, Hegel cut his teeth by criticizing Fichte's already widelycriticised Wissenschaftslehre, and by demonstrating that Schelling's philosophical system was not simply to be equated with it. Fichte himself never bothered to respond to Hegel's criticisms; indeed he never publicly acknowledged their existence. This was not because he was unconcerned with criticisms of his views; quite the contrary. But at the time he had bigger fish to fry. He responded to Jacobi's criticisms, and to Schelling's; he replied in great detail to critical questions raised by Reinhold, and with vituperative intensity to objections raised by skeptics and purportedly loyal Kantians. But Hegel's Differenzschrift was left without a Fichtean rebuttal. This is a pity, both because of the missed opportunity to illuminate by controversy central issues at stake in the post-Kantian period, but also because it made it easier for Hegel simply to reiterate his youthful criticism as if it were the last word. And reiterate it he did: in one form or another Hegel's early criticisms of Fichte reappear at every subsequent stage of his career: in the Phenomenology, in the Science of Logic, in the Encyclopaedia, as the final chapter in Hegel's History of Philosophy, and in countless other minor works and documents from the Nachlass and correspondence.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

Abbreviations used in this paper:

DZ: G.W.F. Hegel, Differenz des Fichte'schen und Schelling'schen Systems der Philosophie [Jena 1801] references are to The Difference Between the Fichte's and Schelling's Systems of Philosophy Cerf and Harris trans., Albany New York: SUNY Press, 1977.

SL: G.W.F. Hegel, Wissenchaft der Logik references are to Hegel's Science of Logic A. V. Miller trans., New York, Humanities Press, 1969.

LH: G.W.F. Hegel Lectures on the History of Philosophy in Three Volumes, Haldane and Simson trans., Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1995.

GW: J.G. Fichte, Grundlage der gesamten Wissenschaftslehre, Jena: 1794-95, in Erich Fuchs, Reinhard Lauth, Hans Jacobs, and Hans Gliwitzky eds., G. Fichte: Gesamtausgabe der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann, 1964 —.

References

Arthur, Christopher (2004) ‘The Infinity of Capital’, Studies in Marxism V [originally 1998], The New Dialectic and Marx's Capital. Leiden: Brill, 137152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camus, Albert (1955) ‘Le mythe de Sisyphe’ [originally 1942], O'Brien, Justiny trans., The Myth Of Sisyphus, And Other Essays. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Cantor, Georg (1915), Contributions to the Founding of the Theory of Transfinite Numbers, Jourdain, Philip trans. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Fichte, J.G. (1988), ‘Some Lectures Concerning the Scholar's Vocation’ [originally 1794], Breazeale, Daniel trans., in Fichte: Early Philosophical Writings. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Flett, G. L. and Hewitt, P. L. (2002), ‘Perfectionism and Maladjustment: An Overview of Theoretical, Definitional, and Treatment Issues’, Perfectionism: Theory, Research, and Treatment. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, Paul (1971) ‘Intention and Uncertainty’, Proceedings of the British Academy 57:263279.Google Scholar
Harris, H.S. and Giovanni, G. di (1985), Between Kant and Hegel. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Heath, Peter and Lachs, John (1982), J. G. Fichte: The Science of Knowledge [originally 1970]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G.W.F. (1979), Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. Miller, A.V.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Houlgate, Stephen (2006) The Opening of Hegel's Logic: From Being to Infinity. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
Kekes, John (1984), ‘Ought Implies Can and Two Kinds of Morality’, Philosophical Quarterly 34:459467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludwig, Kirk (1992), ‘Impossible Doings’, Philosophical Studies 65:3:257281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Wayne (1997), Idealism and Objectivity: Understanding Fichte's Jena Project Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl (1973) Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy; Nicolaus, Martin trans. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Mele, Alfred R. (1986), ‘Intention, Belief and Intentional Action’, American Philosophical Quarterly 26:1930.Google Scholar
Moore, A.W. (1990), The Infinite. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pinkard, Terry (1981), ‘Hegel's Philosophy of Mathematics’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 41:4:452464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, Robert (2004), ‘Does ‘Ought’ Imply ‘Can’? And Did Kant Think it Does?’, Utilitas 16:1:4261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006), ‘Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism: Approaches, Evidence, Challenges’, Personality and Social Psychology Review 10:295319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, B.A.O. (1973) ‘ The Makropulos Case: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality’, Problems of the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar