This paper argues that epistemic smothering is not a form of epistemic paternalism. In this sense, it refutes the claim recently made by Valerie Chock and Jonathan Matheson, who defend epistemic smothering as epistemically permissible form of epistemic paternalism. After an outline of what is meant by epistemic paternalism and epistemic smothering, based on the work by Kristoffer Ahlstrom-Vij and Kristie Dotson on these topics, the paper argues against the identification of epistemic smothering as a form of epistemic paternalism. In (...) the conclusion, it also calls for a reconsideration of how exactly to conceive of epistemic paternalism. (shrink)

The inquiry analyses how Fichte rejects the reproach of founding the Wissenschaftslehre from the perspective of the individual I-subject in his lectures about the facts of consciousness, held in Berlin between 1810 and 1813. Instead it becomes clear that according to Fichte, the crucial instance of “I” has to be considered as transindividual. Its individualisation matters only as far as causal effects on material bound reality are concerned, while the individuals join again the absolute life’s unity by speculative thought and (...) moral acting.Der Beitrag untersucht, wie Fichte in seinen Berliner Vorlesungen über die Tatsachen des Bewusstseins der Jahre 1810 bis 1813 den Vorwurf zurückweist, von einem individuellen Ich-Subjekt aus die Wissenschaftslehre zu begründen. Statt dessen wird deutlich, dass die entscheidende Ich-Instanz Fichte zufolge überindividuell verstanden werden muss. Ihre Individualisierung ist nur mit Blick auf das kausale Wirken in der materiellen Wirklichkeit von Bedeutung, während die Individuen im spekulativen Denken und im sittlichen Handeln wieder zur Einheit des absoluten Lebens zurückfinden. (shrink)

The Heythrop Journal, Volume 63, Issue 2, Page 325-326, March 2022.