知识学的宗教意义
- 语言:
- 英语
- 状态:
- 完整作品
- 作者归属:
- 作者本人所著
- 文本状况:
- 文本清晰
- 篇幅:
- 约 10,700 词 · 51 个段落
引用本作品
- APA约翰·费希特. (n.d.). 知识学的宗教意义. SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/zh/works/johann-fichte/the-religious-significance-of-the-science-of-knowledge
- MLA约翰·费希特. "知识学的宗教意义." SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/zh/works/johann-fichte/the-religious-significance-of-the-science-of-knowledge.
- Chicago约翰·费希特. 知识学的宗教意义. SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/zh/works/johann-fichte/the-religious-significance-of-the-science-of-knowledge.
内容简介
知识学的宗教面向。
背景与流传
正是在这一点上费希特惹上了真正的麻烦:1799年他因把神等同于世界的道德秩序、而不是等同于一个位格,被以无神论的罪名逐出耶拿。这里就是那场争论的地基。 一个旧英译本。目录中也有德文的费希特;引用应以原本为准。
这是编辑性背景,不是可引用的来源:与作品本身的段落不同,这些说明无法在语料库中核对。
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.