There is another piece to the book review I found interesting. The reviewer states that Fichte states that part of his purpose in writing “Attempt at a Critique of All Revelation” is to clear up some of the misunderstood or murky parts of Kant’s Critical philosophy. He says that Fichte was trying to make the philosophy more clear and inclusive of individuals. He then goes on to say that’s Fichte’s work remains so murky so he is not sure how well he has accomplished his task.
I think he misunderstood Fichte’s point. He didn’t want to make the philosophy easy to understand, although the easier to understand it was the better I’m sure. He wanted to make it accurate. In order to make it accurate he wanted to make it more inclusive, not in understanding but in the way it treats individuals (its equity one might say). I wouldn’t know if this is actually the case, I haven’t read Kant’s Critical philosophy nor intend to soon. That’s the impression I get however and it’s a mistake I’ve run into often. Making the philosophy more clear would not happen if it was less accurate. Therefore if it still appears convoluted I’m sure it could easily be because the philosophy needs to be that complex.
Lastly, I don’t imagine the philosophy is actually all that complex. For the most part it is probably intuitive. There probably are people living it currently that wouldn’t recognize it as such simply because they haven’t put the thought into deciphering life into a philosophy themselves or that isn’t their teleological imperative.
So, that’s the part I missed. Hope it was enjoyable.