知識学の宗教的意義
- 言語:
- 英語
- 状態:
- 完全な作品
- 著者性:
- 著者自身による
- テキストの状態:
- 良好なテキスト
- 分量:
- 約 10,700 語 · 51 節
この作品を引用
- APAヨハン・ゴットリープ・フィヒテ. (n.d.). 知識学の宗教的意義. SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/ja/works/johann-fichte/the-religious-significance-of-the-science-of-knowledge
- MLAヨハン・ゴットリープ・フィヒテ. "知識学の宗教的意義." SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/ja/works/johann-fichte/the-religious-significance-of-the-science-of-knowledge.
- Chicagoヨハン・ゴットリープ・フィヒテ. 知識学の宗教的意義. SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/ja/works/johann-fichte/the-religious-significance-of-the-science-of-knowledge.
何についての本か
『知識学』の宗教的な側面。
背景と歴史
フィヒテが本当に面倒に巻き込まれた地点である。一七九九年、神を人格ではなく世界の道徳的秩序と同一視したという理由で無神論の廉に問われ、イェーナを追われた。その争いの土台がこれである。 古い英訳である。目録にはドイツ語のフィヒテもあり、引用は原文によるべきである。
これは編集上の背景であり、引用できる典拠ではありません。作品本文の一節とは異なり、これらの記述はコーパスで検証できません。
They were occasioned by charges preferred against accusing him of teaching atheism. The clear manner in which these fragments set forth the religious significance of the science of knowledge, determined us to give them this place in the present work. OF THE He who wishes to understand my doctrine of religion sufficiently to have a competent judgment respecting it, must accurately know, and, as I believe, possess the system of transcendental idealism, and the pure moralism inseparably united therewith. I say, must possess it, that is, must occupy the transcendental stand-point. For, so far as I have been able to observe in my experience, though I would not definitely decide upon it, the mere historical knowledge of that system is not sufficient. For, whenever it is to be concretely applied, it is often forgotten, and those who talk about it as the only truth, suddenly let go their hold of it, and fall back upon the stand-point of realism. I also say, he who wishes to understand it so as to have a competent judgment respecting it. Students may exercise themselves upon all parts of transcendental idealism, and seek to penetrate it from every side; but unless they have comprehended the complete series of grounds, and finished the whole extent of that system, they only understand it halfways, or historically. Perhaps they may be attracted by the system, may not find it so very uneven; but they have no decisive judgment respecting it, unless they have fully comprehended it in all its parts. Add to this the many philosophical presuppositions from which critics start. Unless the critics first agree with us concerning the fundamental principles, we can not dispute with each other. It is only concerning the deductions that discussions may be entered into.