file:///home/shell/Documents/notes/philosophy/POL/Fichte%20–%20Foundations%20of%20Natural%20Right%20(Summons).pdf Anyone who has talked to me about philosophical-adjacent topics can tell you I loathe subjectivity. I view it as an empty, nihilistic assertion, and a poison to deeper thought. In reading Fichte, I’ve discovered a more eloquent argument in his language. I am new to his work, so forgive (or correct!) any inaccuracies.

Fichte was working directly out of the Kantian tradition. With this tradition comes very specific language to describe our faculties. Quickly lets define 3 words object:
subject: anstoss: For Fichte, objects are distinguished via their difference from the self. You recognize the external world by identifying what is not you. this is called anstoss.

Now we can describe the error in the subjectivist’s language. They describe the concept (morals, justice, etc) without an object/intuition, retracting the (I) from the statement. The I is the very justification of the noumenal world.

The statement says nothing in relation to the self, and therefor does not check (anstoss).

For Kant, and the greater idealist world, there is no difference between saying “This is a chair” and “I think this is a chair.” This is because the subjective nature of the statement is already acknowledged

Looking at the word “subject” makes it clear why this is an error. “subjective” concerns the difference in subject between selves, but we often aren’t talking about the subject, we are talking about the object or the self. for example, if i asked “what is justice?” a difference in subject would be what justice is. a difference in object would be not

you aren’t making a claim, you’re saying it isn’t knowable. or in other words, you’re saying it doesn’t matter. it is a content-free statement. this is how it lends itself to nihilism. it is the natural platue of anyone who has thought about it, and it is a very dangerous place to be. it silences any further discussion. it’s a denial of the question dressed in the clothing of an answer.

perhaps the error is more clear with an example. if i were to ask: “What is justice in a world without perceiving minds?” the question itself is flawed in the same way that the claim of subjectivity is flawed. the subject of justice requires the object of definition, and the (I) to make the judgement in the first place.