Johann Gottlieb Fichte and Protestant Theology
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The author’s scope and goal is ambitious, as it blends both Fichte scholarship with the history of theology.
I would suggest revisions. That said, I’m a philosopher by training and this paper is more of a religious studies/theology paper in terms of its methodology and form. To that end, I understand that some of my suggestions might not fit.
First, there were sometimes when the broad strokes descriptions of societal and religious change struck me as super-general and lacking reference to evidential support. Also, there was terminology (bordering on jargon throughout) that challenged comprehension. As one example:
“Idealism is not so much regarded as a valid philosophy of a final foundation that has to be reconstructed to this day, but rather as a self-observation of the modernizing society that can be explained in contemporary history.” (p. 1)
I’m puzzled by what “self-observation of the modernizing society” could possibly mean. Does a society “self-observe”? Is a society a subject? On what grounds can this claim be made in such an assertive manner? I end the questions here, but at many points there was discourse that struck me as challenging to grasp. Such language also seemed to rise above technical terminology from a discipline not my own. But I might be wrong.
Further, I found that I often lacked a point (or two) of orientation throughout as I was reading. That is, I was missing how the entire paper was a making an argument for some position (which I take to be that Fichte’s philosophy needs to be taken more seriously as having an influence on our understanding of protestant theology and “usually” done). That said, despite the set up, I often found myself lost as to how the various sections were supporting this claim. More signposting I think would help make it easier for a reader to follow. I should add too that the article will be a daunting read for anyone who is not well-versed in Fichte and religious studies. All the more reason to hammer home through reiteration and frequent references to an Ariadne’s thread throughout.
One aspect on the Fichte exegesis. When the author discusses the various viewpoints from Anweisung, there is no mention as to how Fichte places Kant on the second wrung of the ladder towards the highest Weltansicht. Given the frequent references to Fichte’s reception and wrestling with Kant’s moral religion, I thought that this might be an important point to thematize.
Next, two minor points.
First, on p. 14, the author poses the question: “Did Fichte sacrifice freedom to God at the beginning, and freedom to God at the end?” I believe that the author forgot to reverse the first clause. Should it not read: “Did Fichte sacrifice God to freedom at the beginning, and freedom to God at the end?” At least that is more of how I understand the shift of position post Bestimmung, as espoused in particular in Anweisung, where one ought to “melt” into pure being, etc.
Second, the author notes when it comes to Fichte reception the following remark vis-à-vis philosophers:
“Conversely, the philosophers ask themselves whether the late ‘Wissenschaftslehre’ can be philosophically accepted at all or whether it is only a disguise of beliefs.” (p. 15)
As a philosopher, I think that this presents a false dilemma. Perhaps there are some hard-nosed Fichte scholars who take such a choice seriously. But one it seems to me can appreciate his later phase as both philosophical and religious. The current renaissance of philosophy of religion, I believe, attests to the fact that philosophers can treat arguments for belief as philosophically viable.
Finally, I would provide a better conclusion that more clearly summarizes the major point(s) of the paper and points to where the author wants to see further work.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI got the sense throughout that the author was not a native English speaker. To that end, I would recommend revising it further and having a native English speaker with knowledge of academic norms double check before publication. The English was understandable, but awkward throughout and very jargony.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the comments in the attached document
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author
Thank you for this interesting paper. I am particularly impressed with the breadth and depth of engagement with secondary literature. The paper tells a compelling narrative of Fichte's reception in theology and in doing so can make an important contribution to the Fichte scholarship in English.
I have two main suggestions to make. The first is regarding the English. I suggest a further-read through and amending of several passages. In particular, the following:
‘In this way…knowledge’ (line 20-1) is opaque to me; similarly ‘immediate self-confidence’ (line 21-2) (I think the latter might be supposed to be ‘self-positing’ but unsure)
Line 25 – ‘relecture’ is not the right word
Line 51-3 – the sentence is ungrammatical
Line 163 and 547 – should be ‘neo-Spinozistic’
Line 347 – should be ‘Knowledge-reflection’
Line 597 – should be ‘fivefold synthesis’ instead of ‘synthetic fivefold’
Line 714 – Karl Holl, instead of ‘Holls’
Line 715 – I don’t think ‘implacable’ is the right word
Line 855 and 857 – ‘self-setting’ should be ‘self-positing’
Generally I think the article would benefit from another read through.
My second point is that pages 13-14 could benefit from a discussion of Fichte's account of Jesus, as he says quite a bit about Jesus in the Anweisung. How does what Fichte says about Jesus square with what the author says? I don't think this should cause the author any trouble, but I do think it should be taken account of, as far as is possible respecting word limits.
See above for specific examples where the writing can be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
