What Breed Are Kate Beckinsale's Dogs

Perpetual Poet Consciousness distinguishes true faith atheism, in a letter of Fichte

The true atheism, disbelief true, the real lack of faith

and impiety is that one does not wish to obey the voice of their conscience ...

When no more listen to the demands of a vain, but

interroguéis your inner self, you will discover that the moral world order is

absolutely first of all objective knowledge ...

The author of this article acknowledged a long time ago, its obligation to present the results of his philosophical reflection on the subject mentioned above, which stated in your classroom - also the broad philosophical public, to be discussed and examined in common. The author wanted to do this in the rigor and precision, the sacred character which is subject to many spiritual people, requires every writer, among other works have so consumed the time and the implementation of resolution was postponed again and again.

That which so far has puzzled almost universally say, and perhaps continue for a long time puzzling is that the moral test called philosophical or other proof of divine Providence, it is true test, and seems to admit that faith in God, in virtue of these demonstrations should first be introduced in humanity and be of demonstrated. Poor philosophy! If not already in human beings, I would at least know from where, then, your own representatives, who incidentally are also only human beings that make us want to take by force your test?, or if these representatives are actually beings of a higher nature, how do you want to find an access to us and help us understand others, without assuming in us something akin to their faith? Not so. Philosophy can only explain facts and under no circumstances can produce by itself, except that it produces itself as fact. Just as no philosopher will happen to persuade human beings to think, in future articles, as matter, as ordered in space and its transformations as occurring ordered in time, just as no makes sense to want to persuade you certainly believe in a divine providence. Both Similarly happen without his intervention, he presupposes as a fact, and he is there only to deduce these facts from the procedure itself must all be rational. Consequently, we want our reasoning in no case be taken by a persuasion of the unbeliever, but a deduction from the conviction of the believer. We have nothing to do but answer the causal question: how can the human being is faith?

The turning point that will determine the answer is that this faith should not be presented in the response as an arbitrary assumption that human beings could accept or not as he pleases, under a free choice, hold as true what the heart desires, because the heart desires, in addition to or in replacement of the hope of finding grounds to be convinced. What is based on reason is absolutely necessary, and it is not necessary is precisely why, contrary to reason. argue that this is true is an illusion and dream, as vain as something that can be dreamed.

Where will look, then, the philosopher who assumes this faith, the necessary foundation for it is possible to demand? Maybe on the alleged need to deduct an author rational from the existence or the constitution of the material world? In any case, since he knows very well that only a philosophy lost in pregnancy of having to explain any thing whose existence can not deny, but whose real cause is hidden it is capable of a similar conclusion, never the original understanding, which is under the guardianship of reason and under the direction of its mechanism. Or look at the world of sense from the standpoint of ordinary consciousness, which can be referred also the point of view of natural science, or from the transcendental viewpoint.

Lithograph Johann G. Fichte
Humboldt University of Berlin - Universitätsbibliothek

In the first case the reason is bound to remain in being in the world, as an absolute, the world is simply because it is simply because they were. From this point of view of an absolute being and absolute being is precisely this world, both concepts are identical. The world becomes a whole based on itself, perfect in itself, and precisely why, in an organized and the organizing, which contains in itself the cause of all phenomena that occur in him and his immanent laws. An explanation of the world and its ways from that proposed for intelligence, to the extent that only the world and its ways should really be explained and where, consequently, we are in the field of pure-pure-say natural science, is a complete nonsense. Furthermore, the statement: "intelligence is the author of the sensible world", not the least helps us forward and not a single line, because it is completely incomprehensible, and gives us a couple of empty words instead of responding the question should not be raised. Determinations of intelligence are, in effect and no questions, concepts, how could they turn on whether, in the monstrous system of a creation ex nihilo, either modify the existing material into the system more fair, where only models an autonomous matter eternal? Has not yet said first word understandable in this respect.

Considering the sensible world from the transcendental point of view, of course all these difficulties disappear, then there exists a world in itself: in all that we do not look in the eyes ore than the simple reflection of our own inner activity. But you can not ask for the foundation of what is not, it is not possible assume something that is beyond what is not to explain it. It would be therefore necessary to ask the foundation of the self itself.

There is no possible way that starts from the sensible world, leading to admit a moral world order, if one adheres to think only in the sensible world, without assuming, as these philosophers have made an order moral world. It is therefore our own conception of a supersensible world which should be founded this faith.

such a concept exists. I recognize myself free from any influence of the sensible world, therefore, quite active in myself and myself while a higher power above all sensible things. However, this freedom is not unlimited, it is your goal, only that she did not get outside, but it is imposed under itself. Me and my goal needed constitute the supersensible.

I can not doubt that freedom and their determination not to give up myself.

I can not doubt, I say, I can not even imagine the possibility that not, that inner voice fool you, it has to be approved and funded from outside, I can not, therefore, to further reasoning , doing tricks, giving explanations. This statement is there's quite positive and categorical.

I can not keep wondering if I will not destroy my inner being I can not continue because I can not want to continue. Here lies what sets the limit on the rebellious flight of reasoning, linking the spirit because it links the heart. Here is the point that unites mind and will and brings harmony to my heart. I could certainly continue to doubt whether I would like to get in contradiction with myself, because the argument has no inherent limit in itself, is freely to infinity and must be able to do so, for I am free in all my statements and only I can impose a limit under the will. So, the moral conviction of our determination arises because of our moral disposition, and it is faith. And with just cause they say: faith is the foundation of all certainty. That was it, for morality, while it is this, can not ultimately become, but by itself and not, for example, under a constraint intended.

I could go on wondering if I would also like crashing through purely theoretical considerations in the unfathomable unlimited, and if I wanted to give absolutely everything solid foothold and whether consent would find it completely inexplicable certainty that that accompanies all my thinking and deep feeling without which could not even hope for a moment of speculation. For there is no fixed point other than the specified support and is founded, not on logic but on the moral disposition: if our reasoning, or not part of it, or exceeds it, then we are in an ocean without limits where every wave drags another.

Realizing this goal I have set myself under be, and make it the real goal of my action, I put at the same time as possible realization for real action. Both propositions are identical, therefore, I propose something as a goal, means, I get real in some future time. However, in actual reality is necessarily also fantastic possibility. If I will not deny my being, I have to propose first the possibility of achieving this goal: the same way, I have to admit the second, the possibility of its realization: it is not itself something here first and some second but something absolutely one, both are in fact two acts, but one and indivisible act precisely the same spirit. It should be noted here, on the one hand, the absolute necessity of mediation, if I can still for a moment consider the possibility of realization of the moral goal as something mediated. This is not a desire, a hope, a reflection and weigh the arguments for and against, freely admitting something whose contrary is also believed possible. This course, under the condition of having made the decision to obey the law inside, it is absolutely necessary, it is immediately contained in this decision is the decision itself.

Then there is the order of development of thought itself. It does not follow the reality of the possibility, quite the contrary. It is not said I should because I can, but I I can because I must. The fact that it must and So I owe it thoroughly first, most immediate. This requires no explanation, no justification, no authorization, is known to himself and true to him. Is not determined by any other truth, however, rather every other truth is determined by this. Too often ignored this development of thought. He says: I have first to know if I can, before they can judge whether what I have to, or deleted the primacy of moral law and therefore the moral law itself if considered this way in the practice area, or completely unknown place so if the original judge and speculatively.

I have just

to impose the goal of morality, its realization is possible, it is possible thanks to me, means, after a simple analysis, that each of the actions that must be met, and my statements that condition, act as means for the goal I is proposed. My whole existence, the existence of all moral beings, the sensible world, while our common scenario, now maintain a relationship with morality and order derives entirely new order in which the sensible world with all its immanent laws is only the stationary base. This world is quietly its course as its eternal laws to build a sphere of freedom, but does not have the slightest influence on morality or immorality, the less force on being free. That plane, autonomous and independent, plans over all nature. The goal of the reason can only become real under the action of being free, but achieving the goal of the reason may be reached in safety thanks to a higher law. It is possible to act correctly, and each situation is expected on the basis of this higher law, the moral action is successful inevitably, if one conforms to this provision and fails inevitably immoral action. The whole world has taken our eyes look completely different.

This transformation of the world will look even more clearly if we rise to the transcendental standpoint. The transcendental theory says the world is nothing more than the vision of our own inner turned-sensitive activity under the laws understandable reason, an activity that consists of a mere intelligence is exercised within the limits of which are incomprehensible locked , and humans should not be blamed if he felt restless and completely sinking ground. Indeed, these limits are, by origin, incomprehensible. But what will it matter?, Practical philosophy says, what they mean is is most clear and more true, they are your particular place in the moral order of things. That which you perceive through them is really the only reality that concerns you and there for you, is the continuing interpretation of the mandate of duty, the living expression of what you should because you should. Our world is our obligation to sensitive material, that's the really real things, the real raw material of all phenomena. The obligation which the faith in the real world imposes on us is a moral obligation, the only possible for a moral being. Nobody can, not destroy it, give so much to their moral determination not save, even more within these limits, in view of the greatest finishing in the future. This revelation can certainly call the beginning of this belief in a world of sense, if it is seen as the result of a moral world order. It reveals that it is our obligation.

This is the true faith, this is the divine moral order which we admit. True faith is built on the work properly. This is the only profession of faith can: meet gay and naively what the growing mandate claims, without doubts and quibbles about the consequences. So it really comes to life and God for us, each of our actions assuming it meets the divine and all the consequences of our actions are only preserved in it.

The true atheism, disbelief true, the real lack of faith and impiety are that one argue with quibbles about the consequences of his actions and did not want to obey the voice of conscience while not created to predict the success of their actions, so you raise your own opinion above those of God and one God makes himself. Who wants to do evil that it is a wicked good. In a moral world order can never be good from evil, and as you believe in the moral world order, so surely you can not think that. You have no right to lie, even if the world will collapse. But this is just a manner of speaking, whether you would seriously believe that the world will collapse, you would simply be inconsistent and would destroy itself. But you do not believe this, or what you believe, you know that the plan of conservation of the world is, indeed, provided the lie.

Faith just is simultaneously also deduct the full and perfect faith. This moral order, living and acting is the same God we do not need no other God, and we can not get another. There is, in reason, no basis for leaving the moral world order and support, through reasoning to conclude that it is founded on its basis, a particular being the cause of this reasoning, therefore the original understanding does not make this deduction and certainly not aware of any particular being similar, just a wrong philosophy itself can. Is this order is not therefore the result of chance, such that it could be or not, this could be as it is, or otherwise, that would have to be explained first of its existence and nature for a foundation and have to justify the faith in him only after having shown their merit? When no more listen to the demands of a vain, interroguéis but your inner self, you will discover that the moral world order is the absolute first of all objective knowledge, the same way as your freedom and your moral determination are absolutely subjective knowledge first of all, that all other knowledge should be objective founded and established on this, but it can never be absolutely certain about something else, because there is nothing beyond it. You can not even attempt this explanation without undermining the status of this case and without hesitation it. Its range lies in being absolutely certain under itself and tolerate no quibbles. You rely on the do your tricks.

How, then, your tricks are successful, then you have undermined the immediate conviction, for which the consolidáis? Oh, your faith is weak if the mere assertion that basis that you do them, you can at once affirm and must leave it just the foundation crumbles.

Well, if you let out this conclusion, and under it assume that a particular being is the cause of this moral world order, what exactly you would have supported this assumption? This being must be different from you and the world, he must act in the latter according to concepts, he must be able concepts of acting, he should have a personality and a conscience. But, what you call it, then, personality and consciousness? "It is undoubtedly why you find yourselves in yourselves, that we have apprehended in yourselves and you have called with that name? However, less attention that you put the fact you do not expect that and that you can not quite think without limits and finitude, can teach you the way you build the concept. For the attachment of this attribute do this being a finite being, like you, and you have not thought of God as You wanted, but you have only multiplied yourselves in thinking. A from this being can not explain the moral world order, nor could you explain it from yourselves and all remains as unexplained as before, in fact, pronouncing these words, you have not thought at all, but only have shaken the air with an empty noise. You could provide would be so effortless. You are finite, how can the finite embrace and understand the infinite?

Thus faith is tied to what is immediately given and remains unshakable: if it does rely on concepts, it is weakened, as this concept is impossible and full of contradictions.

So it is a mistake to say, it is doubtful if there is a God or perhaps it is not. That there is no doubt, however, is the surest thing there is and is the foundation of all other certainty, the only thing absolutely and objectively true is that there is a moral world order, that every rational individual is assigned a determined in this order and getting their work, that each of its destinations, to the extent not caused by their own behavior is the result of this plan without this order does not fall off even a hair of your head and in its sphere of activity no bird falls, that any really good action is successful, that any evil action certainly fail, and that all things must attend the best for those who love the good directly. On the other hand, there can be no doubt for anyone who wants to reflect for a moment and confess honestly the result of his reflection, the concept of God as a particular substance is impossible and contradictory, is allowed to say this sincerely and silence the babble Scholastic to flourish true religion, the religion of joyful work properly.

Two great poets have already expressed inimitably this confession of faith of the wise and good man.

Who is authorized to say I believe in God? ¹ Who is authorized to call (look for a concept and a word to him) and I confess I believe in Him? Who dares to sit down and say, do not believe in Him? Universal, (after it has first arrested under a moral sense, and not, for example, by theoretical speculation, and is considered the world as the stage of being moral) the curator of all things, Does not preserve and sustains you, me, himself? Is not the sky is arched up there? Is not the earth firmly under it? And do not rise contemplating the stars eternal friendly there?

Do not you look eye to eye and do not get all the way through the head and the heart and moves into the eternal secret invisible and visible at your side? Do you feel your heart there, as big as it is, and if you're animated in full by that feeling then you name it, call it happiness! Heart! Love! God! I have no name for it. The feeling is everything, the name is sound and smoke, burning blue confusing.

And the second poem:

A godly will live as well as human tremor ² , For the time and space moves higher thought alive, and if everything is surrounded by eternal change persists in moving a calm spirit.

Ueber den Grund eine unsers Glaubens an Wetlregierung göttlicher ,

JG Fichte, Gesamtausgabe, Bavarian Academy of Sciences, 1798

NOTES

1. Is an excerpt from the first part of Goethe's Faust-Goethe Werke , Hamburger Ausgabe, Bd III, pp . 109-110.

2. Finally, a verse by Schiller: Die Worte des Glaubens, Words of Belief - Schillers Sämmtliche Werke, hrsg. K. Foedeke, Stuttgart, Cotta Bd I , p. 235.