Johann Gottlieb Fichte

Expressions researched:
"Fichte"

Philosophy Discussions

Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte:

Śyāmasundara: We're discussing this German philosopher, Fichte. Last... We had discussed the whole philosophy then we lost the last half of the tape so I'll just start where we left off. Just to review slightly...

Prabhupāda: Then why don't you, whatever you have got, you get it transcribed and send it to Hayagrīva Prabhu.

Śyāmasundara: Well, I'm pretty much going to have to edit this because...

Prabhupāda: Then we'll edit. All right.

Śyāmasundara: Fichte's idea is that the world is a rational unified system which is directed toward a purpose and that the self-consciousness...

Prabhupāda: It is opposite to that philosophy. He said there is no purpose.

Śyāmasundara: Yes.

Prabhupāda: He said there is a purpose.

Śyāmasundara: This man is coming about 1800, 1820. Sartre's contemporary. In those times...

Prabhupāda: Before him.

Śyāmasundara: Much before him, about 150 years ago. He takes as the absolute first principle the self-consciousness or the evil(?), "I am", the awareness that I exist as an absolute a priori first principle.

Prabhupāda: That is Vedānta. We are studying what I am. That is Vedānta philosophy, to study what I am. And the answer is given by us, Vaiṣṇava philosophers, that you are eternal servant of God. This is Vedānta. Everyone is searching what I am, we are giving the answer: "You are eternal servant of God." Now let them refute this that he's not servant, he's absolute(?). Our answer is there. Athāto brahma jijñāsā, to inquire about Brahman, the spirit soul. What is this spirit soul, what I am. What is the supreme. So, Caitanya Mahāprabhu's answer is already there, jīvera svarūpa haya nitya kṛṣṇa dāsa (Cc. Madhya 20.108-109). The real identity of the living entity is that he's eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa.

Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte:

Śyāmasundara: We're discussing this German philosopher, Fichte. Last... We had discussed the whole philosophy then we lost the last half of the tape so I'll just start where we left off. Just to review slightly...

Prabhupāda: Then why don't you, whatever you have got, you get it transcribed and send it to Hayagrīva Prabhu.

Śyāmasundara: Well, I'm pretty much going to have to edit this because...

Prabhupāda: Then we'll edit. All right.

Śyāmasundara: Fichte's idea is that the world is a rational unified system which is directed toward a purpose and that the self-consciousness...

Prabhupāda: It is opposite to that philosophy. He said there is no purpose.

Śyāmasundara: Yes.

Prabhupāda: He said there is a purpose.

Śyāmasundara: This man is coming about 1800, 1820. Sartre's contemporary. In those times...

Prabhupāda: Before him.

Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte:

Śyāmasundara: This Fichte actually comes to that conclusion because he borrows from Kant and develops this idea of the dialectic that there's thesis, the antithesis and it becomes combined in synthesis. He puts forward the idea that the ego, the subjective identity that the thesis has given and opposing that is the antithesis or material nature. Just like my body is the antithesis of my ego, so it is non-ego. So he says ego, non-ego, there's a continuous struggle.

Prabhupāda: When I think that I am this body, that is false ego. That is false ego. Because I am not this body. So those who are falsely identifying this body, (indistinct) they're animals. They're (indistinct).

Śyāmasundara: So he sees that the world is made up of a combination of continuous struggle of dialectic between the opposing elements of ego and non-ego. My subjective identity and the objective world are continually locked in struggle, endlessly, and this is the way things are going on.

Prabhupāda: Not endlessly, but if you understand that you are not this body, then this ignorance is ended, immediately. So you cannot say it is endless.

Śyāmasundara: He says that there is a gradual evolution towards self-realization if one uses his reason.

Prabhupāda: Yes, that is gradual process of evolution is from animal kingdom to human life. When one comes to the human form of life then the realization (indistinct) is there.

Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte:

Śyāmasundara: They term nature as the unfolding of events, as a thing in itself. They don't understand that beyond that is the controller.

Prabhupāda: That is lack of knowledge, poor fund of knowledge. So these persons with poor fund of knowledge, they should not take the position of a philosopher. This is misguided, misleading. That is going on. Mental concoction, speculating, without any authority.

Śyāmasundara: This idea of Fichte means duty...

Prabhupāda: And what is the duty? Unless there is superior order, you ask me to do something, then where is your duty?

Śyāmasundara: Well, to do our duty is to do what ought to be.

Prabhupāda: Who has prescribed that this is ought to be?

Śyāmasundara: Well, the world order prescribes what ought to be.

Prabhupāda: World order, what is that world order? Is it blind?

Śyāmasundara: Harmony, whatever causes harmony...

Prabhupāda: What is harmony, who will define? You say this is harmony, I say this is harmony. Therefore our philosophy is perfect. We are taking our duty from the Supreme. Sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66), that is authority, only to surrender to Kṛṣṇa and abide by His order.

Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte:

Hayagrīva: This is Fichte. He's not as important as Kant or Hegel, but he followed pretty much in the footsteps of Kant. His first work was entitled Our Belief in a Divine Government of the Universe, and he writes, "Our belief in a moral world order must be based on the concept of a supersensible transcendental world."

Prabhupāda: But thing is that what is morality? If he cannot define what is morality, simply saying on moral principles, what is this morality? First of all you have to understand what is morality. Simply imaginary moral principle. We want practical understanding what is morality. That they have not defined.

Hayagrīva: Not, not specifically.

Prabhupāda: Then what is immoral? Everyone will say this is morality. Just like we say, following the Vedic scripture, we say kṛṣi-go-rakṣya-vāṇijyam (BG 18.44), go-rakṣya, to give protection to the cows. So according to the scripture we would say it is morality, and somebody will say no, killing a cow in some religious place, mosque or synagogue, this is morality. So which one is morality?

Hayagrīva: Well he, following Kant, he emphasized inner reality...

Prabhupāda: He may, he may follow Kant and I may follow Kṛṣṇa, but if there is contradiction, then which one is morality? How it will be decided, and who will decide? He may follow somebody. That this question I asked Professor Kotovsky in Moscow, that "You are following Communism, and we are following, say, Kṛṣṇa-ism, but your leader is Lenin and our leader is Kṛṣṇa, that so far the philosophy is concerned we have to accept a leader." So there is no difference in the basic principle of philosophy that we must have a leader. Now who shall be the leader and who will decide it? Regards to both of us, we have got a leader. Now which leader is perfect? If both of them are perfect, then why there is difference of opinion—one leader does not agree with the other leader? So who will answer this question that who is the best leader? Leader you have to follow. That you cannot avoid. Either you follow Kant or you follow Kṛṣṇa. Either you follow Lenin or you follow Kṛṣṇa. What is the answer? Who is the perfect leader? You cannot avoid leader, either you say according to Kant, I say according to Kṛṣṇa.

Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte:

Hayagrīva: For Fichte the world has no objective reality outside of its being an instrument for the enactment of morality. He calls the world of the senses "the stuff of duty."

Prabhupāda: This is all vague. There is no definite direction.

Hayagrīva: He says our duty is revealed in the world of the senses. There's no definition of duty as such.

Prabhupāda: That means I can manufacture my own duty, you can manufacture your own duty. There is no standard. But our standard is, Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śar... (BG 18.66), whatever you, rascal, whatever you have manufactured, give it up. The Bhāgavata says that dharmaḥ projjhita atra kaitavaḥ, that all cheating type of religious system is kicked out. Here is the religious system, satyaṁ paraṁ dhīmahi (SB 1.1.1). What is that satyam? Oṁ namo bhāgavate vāsudevāya. Everything is clear. And where is that clear understanding? Simply speculating. That is the difference, the Vedic standard knowledge and this speculative philosophy. So, so far we are concerned, we refer to the Vedas, śabdaḥ pramāṇam. Śabdaḥ means Vedas, śabdaḥ brahman. So whatever action we do, if it is approved by the Vedic injunction then it is standard and confirmed.

Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte:

Hayagrīva: Well in this sense Fichte is closer to Kṛṣṇa consciousness than most impersonalists, because most impersonalist advocate inaction and meditation on the void, but, uh...

Prabhupāda: No, impersonalist...

Hayagrīva: ...but how can you have action without action directed toward a person or toward...?

Prabhupāda: Yes. Just like here in India, impersonalist, they have got also action. Just like the Māyāvādīs, they have also the same principle. The Śaṅkarācārya is teaching vairāgya, "Sit down under the tree, take thrice bath," so many vairāgya instruction. Rather, their instruction are more difficult than Vaiṣṇava. So vaivāgya-vidyā's teaching. Ours is also, Caitanya Mahāprabhu taught by His personal example. There is no question of inaction, sitting idly and gossiping about God imagination. Even an impersonalist or personalist, they are fully engaged. Just like the impersonalist in India, they are reading Vedānta-sūtra, they are trying to understand. They are not idle.

Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte:

Hayagrīva: For Fichte, faith is innate in all men. He says, "So has it been with all men who have ever seen the light of the world. Without being conscious of it, they apprehend all the reality which has an existence for them through faith alone."

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Hayagrīva: "This faith forces itself on them simultaneously with their existence."

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Hayagrīva: "It is born with them. How could it be otherwise?"

Prabhupāda: Yes. Therefore we should have faith by experience that everything has got some proprietor, so why not the whole cosmic manifestation has proprietor? This is faith. You may not have seen the, who is the proprietor, but it is a question of faith. Everything I see has got a proprietor or owner, so who is the owner of this whole cosmic manifestation? This depends on faith. You may not have seen it. One says, "Who is that God? I don't see any proprietor." Then wherefrom it comes? "Ah, by accident." Is that any explanation? That is faith, that as everything has got some proprietor or some manufacturer, so why not this whole cosmic manifestation a proprietor? But you cannot say that "I am proprietor." There is some proprietor. That is faith. Just like we go, strolling in the morning, by the path. The (indistinct) park is part of high government. You know it is the property of the government. That just three yards after there is sea, now who is the proprietor of this sea? If this land is..., proprietor is the high government, now who is the proprietor of the water? There must be somebody. I may not know. That is faith. It is common sense. If the land is the property of somebody, so whose property is the sea? But there must be somebody. That is faith. Common sense. But they have no common sense even.