How is this absolute ego to be conceived? As early as 1797 Fichte
had begun to see that the ultimate basis of his system was the
absolute ego, in which is no difference of subject and object; in 1800
the Bestimmung des Menschen defined this absolute ego as the
infinite moral will of the universe, God, in whom are all the individual
egos, from whom they have sprung. It lay in the nature
of the thing that more precise utterances should be given on this
subject, and these we find in the Thatsachen des Bewusstseyns and in
all the later lectures. God in them is the absolute Life, the absolute
One, who becomes conscious of himself by self-diremption into the
individual egos. The individual ego is only possible as opposed to a
non-ego, to a world of the senses; thus God, the infinite will, manifests
himself in the individual, and the individual has over against
him the non-ego or thing. “The individuals do not make part of
the being of the one life, but are a pure form of its absolute freedom.”
“The individual is not conscious of himself, but the Life is conscious
of itself in individual form and as an individual.” In order that
the Life may act, though it is not necessary that it should act, individualization
is necessary. “Thus,” says Fichte, “we reach a
final conclusion. Knowledge is not mere knowledge of itself, but
of being, and of the one being that truly is, viz. God.... This one
possible object of knowledge is never known in its purity, but ever
broken into the various forms of knowledge which are and can be
shown to be necessary. The demonstration of the necessity of these
forms is philosophy or Wissenschaftslehre” (Thats. des Bewuss.
Werke, ii. 685). This ultimate view is expressed throughout the
lectures (in the Nachgel. Werke) in uncouth and mystical language.
It will escape no one (1) how the idea and method of the Wissenschaftslehre prepare the way for the later Hegelian dialectic, and (2) how completely the whole philosophy of Schopenhauer is contained in the later writings of Fichte. It is not to the credit of historians that Schopenhauer’s debt should have been allowed to pass with so little notice.
Bibliography.—Fichte’s complete works were published by his son J. H. Fichte, Sämmtliche Werke (8 vols., Berlin, 1845–1846), with Nachgelassene Werke (3 vols., Bonn, 1834–1835); also Leben und Briefwechsel (2 vols., 1830, ed. 1862). Among translations are those of William Smith, Popular Writings of Fichte, with Memoir (2 vols., London, 1848–1849, 4th ed. 1889); A. E. Kroeger, portions of the Wissenschaftslehre (Science of Knowledge, Philadelphia, 1868; ed. London, 1889), the Naturrecht (Science of Rights, 1870; ed. London, 1889); of the Vorlesungen ü. d. Bestimmung d. Gelehrten (The Vocation of the Scholar, by W. Smith, 1847); Destination of Man, by Mrs P. Sinnett; Discours à la nation allemande, French by Léon Philippe (1895), with preface by F. Picavet, and a biographical memoir.
The number of critical works is very large. Besides the histories of post-Kantian philosophy by Erdmann, Fortlage (whose account is remarkably good), Michelet, Biedermann and others, see Wm. Busse, Fichte und seine Beziehung zur Gegenwart des deutschen Volkes (Halle, 1848–1849); J. H. Löwe, Die Philosophic Fichtes (Stuttgart, 1862); Kuno Fischer, Geschichte d. neueren Philosophie (1869, 1884, 1890); Ludwig Noack, Fichte nach seinem Leben, Lehren und Wirken (Leipzig, 1862); R. Adamson, Fichte (1881, in Knight’s “Philosophical Classics”); Oscar Benzow, Zu Fichtes Lekre von Nicht-Ich (Bern, 1898); E. O. Burmann, Die Transcendentalphilosophie Fichtes und Schellings (Upsala, 1890–1892); M. Carrière, Fichtes Geistesentwickelung in die Reden über d. Bestimmung des Gelehrten (1894); C. C. Everett, Fichte’s Science of Knowledge (Chicago, 1884); O. Pfleiderer, J. G. Fichtes Lebensbild eines deutschen Denkers und Patrioten (Stuttgart, 1877); T. Wotschke, Fichte und Erigena (1896); W. Kabitz, Studien zur Entwickelungsgeschichte der Fichtehen Wissenschaftslehre aus der Kantischen Philosophie (1902); E. Lask, Fichtes Idealismus und die Geschichte (1902); X. Léon, La Philos. de Fichte (1902); M. Wiener, J. G. Fichtes Lehre vom Wesen und Inhalt der Geschichte (1906).
On Fichte’s social philosophy see, e.g., F. Schmidt-Warneck, Die Sociologie Fichtes (Berlin, 1884); W. Windelband, Fichtes Idee des deutschen Staates (1890); M. Weber, Fichtes Sozialismus und sein Verhältnis zur Marx’schen Doctrin (1900); S. H. Gutman, J. G. Fichtes Sozialpädogogik (1907); H. Lindau, Johann G. Fichte und der neuere Socialismus (1900). (R. Ad.; X.)
FICHTELGEBIRGE, a mountain group of Bavaria, forming
the centre from which various mountain ranges proceed,—the
Elstergebirge, linking it to the Erzgebirge, in a N.E., the Frankenwald
in a N.W., and the Böhmerwald in a S.E. direction. The
streams to which it gives rise flow towards the four cardinal
points,—e.g. the Eger eastward and the Saale northward, both
to the Elbe; the Weisser Main westward to the Rhine, and the
Naab southward to the Danube. The chief points of the mass
are the Schneeberg and the Ochsenkopf, the former having a
height of 3448, and the latter of 3356 ft. The whole district
is pretty thickly populated, and there is great abundance of
wood, as well as of iron, vitriol, sulphur, copper, lead and many
kinds of marble. The inhabitants are employed chiefly in the
iron mines, at forges and blast furnaces, and in charcoal burning
and the manufacture of blacking from firewood. Although
surrounded by railways and crossed by the lines Nuremberg-Eger
and Regensburg-Oberkotzau, the Fichtelgebirge, owing
principally to its raw climate and bleakness, is not much visited
by strangers, the only important points of interest being Alexandersbad
(a delightfully situated watering-place) and the
granite labyrinth of Luisenburg.
See A. Schmidt, Führer durch das Fichtelgebirge (1899); Daniel, Deutschland; and Meyer, Conversations-Lexikon (1904).
FICINO, MARSILIO (1433–1499), Italian philosopher and
writer, was born at Figline, in the upper Arno valley, in the year
1433. His father, a physician of some eminence, settled in
Florence, and attached himself to the person of Cosimo de’
Medici. Here the young Marsilio received his elementary
education in grammar and Latin literature at the high school
or studio pubblico. While still a boy, he showed promise of
rare literary gifts, and distinguished himself by his facility in
the acquisition of knowledge. Not only literature, but the
physical sciences, as then taught, had a charm for him; and he
is said to have made considerable progress in medicine under
the tuition of his father. He was of a tranquil temperament,
sensitive to music and poetry, and debarred by weak health
from joining in the more active pleasures of his fellow-students.
When he had attained the age of eighteen or nineteen years,
Cosimo received him into his household, and determined to make
use of his rare disposition for scholarship in the development
of a long-cherished project. During the session of the council
for the union of the Greek and Latin churches at Florence in
1439, Cosimo had made acquaintance with Gemistos Plethon,
the Neo-Platonic sage of Mistra, whose discourses upon Plato
and the Alexandrian mystics so fascinated the learned society
of Florence that they named him the second Plato. It had been
the dream of this man’s whole life to supersede both forms of
Christianity by a semi-pagan theosophy deduced from the
writings of the later Pythagoreans and Platonists. When,
therefore, he perceived the impression he had made upon the
first citizen of Florence, Gemistos suggested that the capital
of modern culture would be a fit place for the resuscitation of the
once so famous Academy of Athens. Cosimo took this hint.
The second half of the 15th century was destined to be the age
of academies in Italy, and the regnant passion for antiquity
satisfied itself with any imitation, however grotesque, of Greek
or Roman institutions. In order to found his new academy
upon a firm basis Cosimo resolved not only to assemble men of
letters for the purpose of Platonic disputation at certain regular
intervals, but also to appoint a hierophant and official expositor
of Platonic doctrine. He hoped by these means to give a certain
stability to his projected institution, and to avoid the superficiality
of mere enthusiasm. The plan was good; and with
the rare instinct for character which distinguished him, he
made choice of the right man for his purpose in the young
Marsilio.
Before he had begun to learn Greek, Marsilio entered upon the task of studying and elucidating Plato. It is known that at this early period of his life, while he was yet a novice, he wrote voluminous treatises on the great philosopher, which he afterwards, however, gave to the flames. In the year 1459 John Argyropoulos was lecturing on the Greek language and literature at Florence, and Marsilio became his pupil. He was then about twenty-three years of age. Seven years later he felt himself a sufficiently ripe Greek scholar to begin the translation of Plato, by which his name is famous in the history of scholarship, and which is still the best translation of that author Italy can boast. The MSS. on which he worked were supplied by this patron Cosimo de’ Medici and by Amerigo Benci. While the translation was still in progress Ficino from time to time submitted its pages to the scholars, Angelo Poliziano, Cristoforo Landino, Demetrios Chalchondylas and others; and since these men were all members of the Platonic Academy, there can be no doubt that the discussions raised upon the text and Latin version greatly served to promote the purpose of Cosimo’s
