Chapter Three: A Critical Interpretation of Fichte’s Political Philosophy

3.1 Introduction

This section exposes Fichte’s philosophical contribution to the idea of whether it is legally right to revolt against a government that represses its citizenry. His philosophy has been associated with the French Revolution that was majorly informed by the enlightenment project. According to the observations of Wood[1], the philosophical standpoints of Fichte informed the French Revolution. It formed a new basis of the history of human species upon which prior human nature and activities on the planet were regarded as preparatory. Fichte was a firm follower of Immanuel Kant and he was also proceeded by Hegel who recommended the philosophy by arguing that a revolution was made in Germany based on the philosophical contributions of Fichte[2]. Since the contemporary world is still ruled by social requirements of modernity such as progress, freedom, justice, and so on, it is imperative to assess Fichte’s philosophical contributions to inform the debate on whether it is legally right to revolt against an unjust government. Therefore, before discussing the politico-historical situation under which he philosophised, it is imperative to briefly highlight the life of Fichte as a way of laying a firm groundwork towards a robust understanding of how this philosophy would help in solving the paradox aforementioned.

Born to a humble family on May 19, 1762, Johann Gottlieb Fichte struggled to pursue his education and did not even obtain a formal degree from any university for financial reasons. He dropped out from two universities namely Jena and Leipzig. During his early life, the philosopher did not even know about the Kantian philosophy, something that reformed his thinking of human freedom and determinism later. He particularly came across Kantianism in 1790 while tutoring a student when he was living in Leipzig. According to Wood[3], Fichte gave testimony that his immersion to Kantian writings reformed his deterministic view of the world by reconciling human freedom with determinism. He later on decided to meet Kant himself but he did not create a good first impression. However, in 1791, Fichte surprised Kant with a manuscript addressing Critical philosophy concerning divine revelation, Kant’s topic of interest that he had not put in print before. Therefore, he arranged for his publisher to bring out the work under the title of An Attempt at a Critique of All Revelation[4]. This publication suddenly rose him to prominence. His main contribution to Kantianism is that he extended Kant’s philosophical thoughts on morality and religion to divine revelation thus proofing to be his firm follower.

However, it is worth noting that his sudden rise to prominence was closely related to a strategy that was laid by Kant himself: the title An Attempt at a Critique of All Revelation omitted his name and profile from the preface and for a long period, people thought that the work was of Kant himself. When it later emerged that the author of the work was Fichte, he mysteriously rose to prominence as an important philosophical figure in Germany. During his period of initial prominence, he also anonymously published two political works namely Contribution to the Rectification of the Public’s Judgment of the French Revolution[5] and Reclamation of the Freedom of Thought from the Princes of Europe, Who Have Oppressed It Until Now[6]. The two works added further value to his philosophical system that he had begun to develop secretly. When the University of Jena discovered his philosophical contributions from the perspective of Kantianism, they called him to replace an empty chair of philosophy that was evacuated by Karl Leonhard Reinhold who was also a firm follower and interpreter of Kant’s philosophical contributions. During his time at Jena which lasted up to 1799, Fichte got an opportunity to publish numerous philosophical manuscripts that established his reputation as an iconic philosophy figure in Germany for instance the Wissenschaftslehre [7].

Breazeale Daniel remarks that Wissenschaftslehre

does not refer to any particular stage or presentation of Fichte’s philosophy, and still less to any particular book, it refers instead to Fichte’s overall system, to the general orientation of his thinking in the broadest and most encompassing sense… it is synonymous with philosophy itself[8].

This chapter will also offer a comprehensive discussion on this system by focusing on its foundations with particular emphasis on how he defined the concept of subjectivity. Besides, this section will discuss Fichte’s philosophy of state and society as a way of advancing the dialogue on human rights in the enlightenment era. Afterwards, while focusing on the idea of whether it is legally right to revolt against an unjust government, the philosophical contributions of Fichte shall also be used in establishing the difference between idealism and dogmatism, terms that are often confusedly used interchangeably by other modern political philosophers. Also, before providing a critique of his philosophy, this section will attempt to highlight how he views the primacy of practical reason both as a problem and an issue of humanity. Afterwards, the discussion will be oriented towards understanding his prominent Gelehrtenrepublic. Also, this section will crack to determine how different or similar was Fichte from Kant. Overall, the role of this chapter is to elucidate on Fichte’s philosophical contributions that will offer novel ideas on whether it is legally right to revolt against a government that represses its people.

3.2. Politico-historical Situation under which Fichte Philosophised

Various political philosophy scholars have argued the importance of history in the development of the theory. Some like Jonathan Floyd[9] have dismissed that political philosophy is based on timeless political principles hence the concept is not too a-historical. On the other hand, some others like Gabriele De Angeles[10] have disbanded the argumentation of Jonathan Floyd by claiming that philosophy theory is based on a decisive clue and in most cases, this idea is based on historical data. Floyd supported the Universalist view whereas De Angeles focused on reconciling universalism with historicism in the explanation of political philosophy. It is worth noting that their argument differed on the extent history plays a role in the development of philosophy theory. Floyd emphasised that it does not play a huge role as per the popular view whereas De Angeles approved the widespread opinion but also accepted that universalism is another significant determinant of its development. Whichever the case, historical data is crucial in determining the roots and foundations of a given political philosophy theory. Therefore, it is also important to establish the politico-historical situation under which Fichte philosophised. By so doing, it will be easy to extend his philosophical standpoints to the current discussion on whether it is legally right to revolt against a government that represses its citizenry.

In the introduction section 3.1, it was indicated that Fichte first started philosophising after dropping out of Jena due to financial reasons. This was around 1790. His political philosophies were also in close conformity with those of Emmanuel Kant whereby he even extended his theory of morality and religion. In this case, the major starting point for the discussion on the politico-historical situation would be the context of the late 1790s, a period when he even gained huge prominence as an iconic political philosophy figure in German.

Since there are arguments that Fichte’s philosophical contributions informed the French Revolution and yet he was born in Germany, it is imperative to begin by examining whether he was a nationalist or not[11]. Johann Gottlieb Fichte developed his philosophical ideas during a tumultuous period in European history. He lived and worked in the late 18^th and early 19^th centuries, a time marked by the aftermath of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. Prussia, Fichte’s homeland, was experiencing significant political and social upheaval as it grappled with modernization and the threat of French domination[12]. The Enlightenment’s ideals were being challenged by Romanticism, influencing intellectual discourse across Europe. Fichte’s philosophy emerged as a response to Immanuel Kant’s critical idealism and was shaped by the nationalistic fervour sweeping through German-speaking lands. His famous “Addresses to the German Nation” (1808) reflected the growing sense of German cultural identity in opposition to French hegemony[13]. Fichte’s work thus embodied the intersection of philosophical inquiry with political activism, as he sought to reconcile individual freedom with collective national purpose in a rapidly changing Europe.

3.2.1 The rise of peasant emancipation in Germany

Political philosophy gained prominence in Germany during the 18th century, emerging from the fragmentation and conflicts among the numerous small states that constituted the German territories in the 17^th century. Initially, German culture was strongly influenced by classical ideals and Enlightenment principles[14]. However, as the region splintered into multiple minor states, many came under the rule of authoritarian leaders who hindered intellectual and rational development. This political landscape of division and oppression set the stage for. In mid-18th century Germany, King Frederick William I ruled, implementing policies of centralization and militarisation. This was part of a succession of monarchs named Frederick William who shaped the nation’s political landscape[15]. The country was also occupied by a dense rural population of about 3 million[16], who endured the consequences of a highly centralised government. Although wars continued during this time, they were no longer enormously devastating to the civilian and at the same time epidemics such as famine did not occur. The agricultural sector flourished leading to more births with fewer deaths. Hence, the population of Germany also grew significantly during this period.

It is also worth noting that it is during the 1700s that the numerous small states that comprised of Germany were dissolved into two larger territories namely Prussia and Austria[17]. The main political tensions of Germany were rivalry between Prussia and Austria on which to lead to Germany. For instance, between 1740-48, the War of Austrian Succession emerged leading to Maria Theresa successfully taking the throne but later ceded 95 per cent of Silesia to King Frederick Willian II, the Great, of Prussia during the Silesian Wars and the Seven Years’ Wars[18]. In 1763, the Peace of Hubertsberg united Prussia, Austria, and Saxony[19]. However, merely a few months later, a new rivalry emerged between Prussia and Austria after Prussia became a European power after the peace deal. It is also during this time that the concept of enlightened absolutism emerged in Prussia and Austria after nobility and citizenry resisted the conduct and policies of the two monarchs. Enlightened absolutism referred to policies and conduct of the monarchs after the resistance that was informed by the principles of enlightenment because they were the precepts that were highly acknowledged and recommended by the political philosophers of that era[20]. Some of the reforms that took place include the abolition of torture and the improvement of the status of Jews. This period also marked the beginning of peasant emancipations that slowly emerged whereby even compulsory education was also instituted[21]. Therefore, up to this point, it is important to examine how the concept of enlightenment was conceived in Germany. Overall, Fichte philosophised during the early years of enlightenment in Europe, and particularly in Germany. His prominence was probably supported by the fact that the classical culture of Germany was highly aligned with the principles of enlightenment hence its high levels of acceptance by the civilian.

A Complete Chapter 3 is presented in the attached PDF file below