Johann Gottlieb Fichte's "fictional" Daemonic Encounter

I have just started reading Fichte's The Vocation of Man and came across a really fascinating section. In the introduction to book 2 (Knowledge) Fichte describes and amazing encounter between Fichte and 'a wondrous shape'. The 'shape' explains to Fichte why it is that reality is not as real as he (Fichte) believes. Now I am fully aware that 'dialogue' such as this has been used a philosophical tool since Socrates but for a second suspend belief and assume that Fichte is describing a real event. Could this not be considered a Daemonic Encounter? Indeed does this not remind you of two particular scenes in that most Itladian of movies, Vanilla Sky? ( the scene in the bar where David Aames (Tom Cruise) first encounters the 'guide' implanted in his mind to tell him that the world he thinks is real is an inwardly generated illusion, and the final scene where the 'guide' convinces Aames that everything is really an illusion and that his only option is jumping off the building):

Chagrin and anguish stung me to the heart. I cursed the returning day which called me back to an existence whose truth and significance were now involved in doubt. I awoke in the night from unquiet dreams. I sought anxiously for a ray of light that might lead me out of these mazes of uncertainty. I sought, but became only more deeply entangled in the labyrinth.

Once, at the hour of midnight, a wondrous shape appeared before me, and addressed me: -

"Poor mortal," I heard it say, "thou heapest error upon error, and fanciest thyself wise. Thou tremblest before the phantoms which thou hast thyself toiled to create. Dare to become truly wise. I bring thee no new revelation. What I can teach thee thou already knowest, and thou hast but to recall it to thy remembrance. I cannot deceive thee; for in every step thou thyself wilt acknowledge me to be in the right; and shouldst thou still be deceived, thou wilt be deceived by thyself. Take courage - listen to me, and answer my questions."

I took courage. "He appeals to my own understanding. I will make the venture. He cannot think his own thoughts into my mind; the conclusion to which I shall come must be thought out by myself; the conviction which I shall accept must be of my own creating. [356] Speak, wonderful Spirit!" I exclaimed, "whatever thou art! Speak and I will listen. Question me, and I will answer."

The Spirit. Thou believest that these objects here, and those there, are actually present before thee and out of thyself?

I. Certainly I do.

Spirit. And how dost thou know that they are actually present?

I. I see them; I would feel them were I to stretch forth my hand; I can hear the sounds they produce; they reveal themselves to me through all my senses.

Spirit. Indeed! Thou wilt perhaps by and by take back the assertion that thou seest, feelest, and hearest these objects. For the present I will speak as thou dost, as if thou didst really, by means of thy sight, touch, and hearing, perceive the real existence of objects. But observe, it is only by means of thy sight, touch, and other external senses. Or is it not so? Dost thou perceive otherwise than through thy senses? and has an object any existence for thee, otherwise than as thou seest it, hearest it, &c.?

I. By no means.

Spirit. Sensible objects, therefore, exist for thee, only in consequence of a particular determination of thy external senses: thy knowledge of them is but a result of thy knowledge of this determination of thy sight, touch, &c. Thy declaration - 'there are objects out of myself,' depends upon this other - 'I see, hear, feel, and so forth?'

This dialogue continues for some time and in the end "I" (Eidolon) is convinced by "Spirit" (Daemon) that 'reality' (Bohmian IMAX) is an illusion.

Here we have Fichte being presented with one itladian theme (the Bohmian IMAX) by a being very similar to our Daemon in a very similar set of circumstances (late in a sleepless night) to those described by Friedrich Nietzsche:

“What if a demon were to creep after you one night, in your loneliest loneliness, and say, 'This life which you live must be lived by you once again and innumerable times more; and every pain and joy and thought and sigh must come again to you, all in the same sequence. The eternal hourglass will again and again be turned and you with it, dust of the dust!' Would you throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse that demon? Or would you answer, 'Never have I heard anything more divine'?”

Could it be that both Nietzsche and Fichte had minds very open to their respective daemons and that these daemons gave clues to the itladian nature of reality?

(the painting at the top of this post is The Wanderer by Casper David Friedrich.

Philosophical Support of CTF

I have been reading a good deal of philosophy recently. I have always been interested in German Romantic painting - particularly the art of Casper David Friedrich. this has lead me to the philosophical underpinnings of the romantic movement in the early 19th century. I know that Susan Marie has written about the similarities between ITLAD and Kant and it therefore came as no surprise to me to find that central to Kant's philosophy is that the entire world as we experience it (the phenomenal world) is dependent upon our apparatus for experiencing it. As such he argued that things as thy appear to us are not identical with the things as they are in themselves ( the noumenal world). This position is known as transcendental idealism and sounds very similar to me to The Copenhagen Interpretation of Bohr.

However I was really surprised (and quite delighted) to recently come across the writings of another German philosopher of that period, Johann Gottleib Fichte (1762-1814). Fichte took Kant's transcendental idealism to its logical (and profoundly itladian) conclusion in suggesting that if reality is beyond all possibility of apprehension, as Kant claimed, then we have no grounds for claiming that there is anything out there at all. The entire phenomenal world is therefore not an independent reality, but the creation of the individual ego that creates this world for itself. Fichte argued that at his death his world will cease to exist with him. His world needs him as its observer to continue being. However he also argued that other people also exist in their own worlds and somehow we all exist independently but also interrelated. (Bohmian IMAX and Implicate Order).

Clearly ITLAD argues that there is a Kantian noumenal world that exists external to the observer. This has to be in order for the LeMarcsian Virgin Life to take place. The challenge is understanding how that relates to later iterations of the Bohmian IMAX which one could reasonably argue is a phenomenal model (I have aways considered ITLAD to be phenomenal, now I know why).

I need to read more of this guys stuff. I have ordered a copy of his book The Vocation of Man and I will work my way through it. Indeed I am now stimuated to write something (article, book?) on the philosophy of Itlad and how it reflects the ideas of many famous thinkers of the past.