3

De revolutionibus orbium coelestium.'" Copernicus's work in its original form, Eureka found it somewhere in the forest today. Now we're going for a walk; the sun will soon set and the stars will rise. We'll watch them move across the firmament. Oh! Watch out for the peanuts. Rene is lurking under the table, and John seems to be preparing to snatch his prey. Without waiting for a reaction from his guest and wife, he left. After a moment of consternation, my aunt continued, as if forgetting what was on the table. Many strange things were happening in this house, so she saw no reason to dwell on it any longer.

"So you see, I only referred to Kant for one reason. He treated the knowing person as an 'objective person.' The point is that he contrasted 'knowledge' with 'freedom.' A person became a slave to what he knew. In my opinion, the point is that the entity he dealt with as part of his knowledge was constantly 'in his head,' and until he solved the problem, it imprisoned him." You've probably had this experience more than once: when something intrigued you, you kept thinking about it. But let's stop there. We won't discuss Kant any further. He's a very interesting figure, but now we'll focus on his student, Fichte. According to him, the "I" is what truly exists, what everyone finds in their own consciousness. A kind of self-knowledge.

(Now my work begins, I must provide some source from which my aunt draws her knowledge and at the same time proof of what she says, listen:

"Fichte conceives of the I not as a general or absolute, but as only a human I. What uniquely and truly exists is the I that each person finds in his or her consciousness. Everything is established for each person only by his or her I. By virtue of this transcendental act, that is, the act that conditions the empirical awareness of the preceding I, by virtue of this act of self-knowledge, the entire universe is established for each person, which precisely for this reason exists only in consciousness." (FWJ Schelling, System of Transcendental Idealism ) – I hope this will suffice)

And identity is the "I" that allows us to realize that we are a whole.

(We go: "This being, however, should not be confused with identity. If I say: I am I, then the subject (I) and the object (I) are not connected in such a way that no division can be made without harming the essence of what is to be divided; on the contrary, the I is possible only through this separation of the I from the I. How can I say I! Without self-knowledge? And how is self-knowledge possible? By the fact that I oppose myself to myself, I separate myself from myself, and despite this division in what I oppose to myself, I recognize myself as the same. But how much the same? I can, I must ask this; for in another aspect it is opposed to itself, and therefore identity is not such a connection of object and subject that would be absolute, and therefore identity is not equal to absolute being." (Johnan Gottlieb Fichte, Urteil und Sein , part two: Sein )

Now we come to the concept of "You." In his philosophy, Fichte opposes "You" as "Anti-Self," although "I" and "You" are not defined as opposites. The possibility of overcoming the inconsistency between "I" and "Counter-Self" exists thanks to ethical law. For the "I," another person is not merely a thing, but is above all a person. This crucial distinction is linked to the concept of "practical philosophy."

(This can be found in Fichte's work: Das System der Sittenlehre ).

The ultimate goal of man is his connection with culture, which Fichte considered a guarantee of the realization of a moral act. By acting, the individual adapts the external sensory world to the requirements defined by ideas, reason, and freedom. Man is therefore identical with the subject's moral will. Man's duty is to perfect himself by combating the individual traits that differentiate people and by drawing closer to the universal spiritual community. Each person has their own individuality and their own place in the ethical world order. However, in each person, ethical law expresses itself differently, because each person has their own conscience. Establishing "You" is a necessary condition of my consciousness. "You" has been experienced as a specific body placed in space. Then my encounter with this "You" is not much different from contact with a "thing." "You, like the "I," is not opposite a closed world, but within it. It is a body distinct from others and becoming a part among other parts. In summary, this is how we arrive at the conclusion that a person is experienced, not deduced."

(a collection of Fichte's works from before 1795)

"Wow... I didn't know it was so complex! But go on, interesting!" Filip, a little confused, interrupted his aunt's monologue.

"Now we'll move on to the language." Auntie smiled. "But maybe we should take a short break for a moment? Want to stretch your legs? Because this is going to be a long conversation..." I get the idea, she winked at the boy.

"You can still talk. For now, I'm not running away with my thoughts." Rene jumped onto the boy's lap and dug into the peanuts. Since no one protested, the confident parrot also joined in the devouring. Auntie continued.

"So, language... The mutual influence of 'I' on 'You' and 'You' on 'I' takes place through language."

"Revelatory, really..." the boy became interested in the animals.

"Listen further." Fichte conceptualized language in terms of meaning and being. He believed that the fundamental problem of language as a sign is to cause knowledge, without restricting the freedom of the person being spoken to or the person speaking. The product of language is, on the one hand, a means of causing knowledge, because the 'You' wants to evoke a cognitive attitude in the 'I' through speaking. On the other hand, it is also the goal of knowledge, because the 'I' wants to understand what has been said. Mutual influence is the condition of humanity, because it creates community.

(Oh, I have a brilliant quote! "This interplay through signs is the condition of humanity, because man is not alone, but creates a community. And so, just as there are certainly people, so there are signs; where there are people, there are more of them – they are connected to each other through concepts mediated by signs. This interplay is language in the general sense, without which man cannot exist." (Fichte's statement in one of his many works.))

- Auntie, what about writing? I remember once deciding that I wouldn't say a word at school. It was difficult, because sometimes even words like "I'm sorry" would slip out of my head...

- It's good that they slipped out of your head. It simply shows that you are very empathetic and that you were raised with proper etiquette.

- Thanks.

- Don't thank me, thank your parents.

- Fine, I'll definitely do it, but now please listen to me. I had to write down what I wanted to say more than once because I absolutely couldn't communicate!

- Writing is simply a record of speech. As if capturing a sign—speech—in a sign—writing. And what, the definition of "speech" as a "sign" surprised you, right?

- Yes, but everything's clear now!

- I like your smile so much I don't want to break it. But I want to warn you that this is only the first of three creators of the concepts of "I," "you," etc. Now we'll focus on the second one—Ludwig Feuerbach.

- It doesn't put me off in the least. On the contrary, it's beginning to fascinate me.

- I'm glad. So let's begin! Ludwig Feuerbach studied Fichte's works, but he didn't agree with them.

"Guys, I didn't expect anything more could be discovered in the concept of 'I.' I thought he'd only supplement it! Sometimes I wonder what the point of such thinking is. Just thinking for the sake of thinking. For centuries, people didn't think about it, and suddenly they started discovering something that's generally useless. Strange, but I'll listen..."

"You see, Philo, I disagree with you here. For centuries, people thought the Earth was flat, and what, were they having a bad time? Look at what your uncle left on the table.

" "Well... the work of Copernicus.

" "Exactly. If someone hadn't dealt with this, so-called "unnecessary" concept, who knows if we'd be sitting here sipping tea today.

" "Could it have had such consequences?

" "If we consider string theory and chaos theory, then...

" "Is that what you're saying?

" "I'm saying that." The animals emptied the entire bowl of nuts. Descartes went to his box near the ceiling, and Locke flew to his nest on the bookshelf. They retired for the night. "Okay, the animals won't bother us anymore, so I can continue with Feuerbach.

" "You're welcome.

" "From the beginning." Ferdinand Ebner called Ludwig Feuerbach the "discoverer of dialogue." Feuerbach studied Fichte's works, but used the "I" as the basis for a "new philosophy." He used the I-principle, the principle of deduction. He opposed Fichte's theism with his atheism, and speculative idealism with speculative empiricism. Feuerbach wanted to abolish the dualism between soul and body. For him, man is a unity. He treated the "I" differently than Fichte. For him, it wasn't thinking, pure consciousness. He treated the "I" as feeling, body consciousness.

(My aunt once read Feuerbach's Uber den Afang in der Philosophie in the original . That's where she got this idea from)

According to him, theology was limited to anthropology. The essence of man is the logos. He believed it is common to all people. It is one, infinite. But consciousness dominates it. Reason is the primary self-awareness. Reason can be defined as cognitive thinking, directed towards the object. Consciousness precedes self-awareness. It is the pure form of consciousness. It is abstract, non-concrete. It manifests itself in the form of thought. For Feuerbach, the thinking person rejected individuality. Why? Because objects stimulate the senses! For many people, they can be exactly the same objects. Visually, for example. Let's say a cell phone. How you perceive it, no one else will perceive it the same way. Let's say you don't like its shape and the size of its display. You won't be able to communicate your own observation. Of course, only if you don't use something derived from speech or speech. It is your perception, and only yours. The same is true the other way around. I might not like this phone call, and you might like it. But we won't be able to find out from each other.

" "As long as we don't use speech.

" "Exactly!" Auntie raised her index finger heavenward. "Another person can only understand this through thinking! According to Feuerbach, the unity of people is found in thinking." Auntie fell silent for a moment. Her expression seemed to be searching for her thoughts. She remembered the finger raised on her hand somewhere between the absolute and the gaia. She squinted, adjusted her glasses on her nose with her other hand, and noticed a bit of earth under her fingernail. She lowered her hand and dug the dirt out. Ignoring Filip, she went to the kitchen to wash her hands. From there, as soon as her apron disappeared behind the doorframe, the words reached him: "Feuerbach recognized such a phenomenon as 'love.'" When a thinking individual falls in love, they disappear into universal reason, but also unite in a specific community of that reason. Love elevates the individual's corporeality to the spiritual realm. – The sound of water flowing from the tap severed the connection between my aunt's throat and Filip's mind. Zofia, drying her hands with a cloth, returned to the room. She tossed the cloth over the back of the armchair and sat down. She stretched both hands heavenward to examine whether she had scrubbed them thoroughly. Finally, she calmed down and continued. – Through such deduction, Feuerbach arrived at the concept of the "man-God relationship." But he did not recognize its de facto existence. He believed that God was only a formal difference in the "man-man" relationship. God contains the same definitions as man, only he is on an indeterminately higher level. He is the ideal case. A limes to strive for.

((…)only a formal difference arises between God and man, (…) in God there are the same definitions as in man, only in God they are realized to an infinitely higher degree than in man (…) for man recognizes only himself in God (…) L. Feuerbach,Selected Writings )

- Auntie, please, not mathematics!

- Ha, ha, ha. What, you don't like it?

- I do, but not limits! I absolutely cannot fathom that zero can be two-sided, or that infinity can be different from infinity...

- Fine, I'll explain it to you another time. Let me continue now, or I'll lose the thread.

- Please.

- Feuerbach contrasted his sensualism with Hegel's certainty of origin. His idealism and rationalism. He wanted to separate what belongs only to nature from what belongs only to man. Feuerbach did not consider monologue with himself to be thinking. He understood thinking as a fundamental function serving to communicate with others. But he emphasized that what you think, for example, does not have to be immediately understood by all of humanity. It is enough that one person understands you; the rest can downplay it and consider it heresy.

(A thought borrowed from L. Feuerbach's " Gott, Freiheit und Unsterblichkei vom Standpunkt der Anthropologie

") The certainty of things is the certainty of needs, defined dialectically. The world is that which satisfies human needs. Feuerbach considered experience to be a boundary separating not only man from man but also from other creatures. He divided the world into two zones:

1. The zone of people and interpersonal contacts

2. The zone beyond human, of other creatures.

I remembered the Wolf.

"What wolf?

" "The one you dreamed of.

" "But I didn't dream of it, I met him on the path, just like that, he was...

" "Yes, yes...

" "Auntie!

" "Okay, he was," she smiled. "We'll even prove it. Then we have to deal with his case.

" "What case?

" "Love.

" "But we've already discussed that... you already mentioned God.