One of the great idealist philosophers of the end of the eighteenth and for part of the nineteenth century, was born at Rammenau in upper Lusatia (Ober Lausitz) May 19, 1762. Lusatia, a district between the Elbe and the Oder, was then a part of Saxony. In the settlement after the Napoleonic wars in 1815 it became part of Prussia.

​

Fichte had the best of education at the famous school at Pforta and at the Universities of Jena and Leipzig. After leaving the university he acted for a time as a private tutor and teacher in different families in Saxony, Zurich, and Leipzig and, for a time, in Warsaw. After many ups and downs of fortune, he visited Kant at Konigsberg. To attract Kant's attention, he wrote an essay entitled "Essay toward a Critique of all Revelation" in which he applied the principles of Kant's critical philosophy to investigation of the conditions under which religious belief was possible. Kant approved the essay and helped find a publisher. It was published anonymously in 1792 and was generally attributed to Kant.

​

Kant corrected the mistake, commended the essay, and the reputation of the author was established. In 1793, he became professor of philosophy at Jena and at once proved an outstanding teacher. During the next five years he published several books, which make up his system of philosophy.

​

In 1798, as editor of the Philosophical Journal, he received from a friend a paper on the "Development of the Idea of Religion" which he prefaced with a paper on "The Grounds of Our Belief in a Divine Government of the Universe" and printed in the Journal.

​

Theological ideas were rigid at that time, and a bitter controversy arose as a result of which Saxony and all the German states except Prussia suppressed the Journal. Fichte in 1799 resigned his professorship and went to Berlin. He lived in Berlin until 1806, except that he lectured at Erlangen in the summer of 1805. While in Berlin he wrote some of his most important books.

 

But in 1806, the French occupation drove him out, and he lectured for a time at Konigsberg and at Copenhagen.

He returned to Berlin in 1807 and on the founding of the University of Berlin (for which he had drawn up the plan) he was its first rector (1810-1812). In one of the epidemics of typhus which accompanied the Napoleonic Wars, he was taken with what was called hospital fever, and died on January 27, 1814 – at the age of fifty-two.

Fichte was made a Mason in Zurich in 1793, the year in which he went to Jena as professor of philosophy [one of his pupils was Krause]. But in Jena there had been no lodge since 1764, so he affiliated with the Gunther Lodge of the Standing Lion at Rudolfstadt (in Thuringia, 18 miles from Jena) of which the reigning Prince was patron. When he went to Berlin in 1799, he met Fessler, the Deputy Grand Master of the Grand Lodge Royal York of Friendship, in which he soon became active.

 

In 1802, Fichte, at Fessler's instance, wrote two lectures on the philosophy of Masonry, the manuscript of which he gave to Johann Karl Christian Fischer, the Master of the Inner Orient, who published them as "Letters to Constant" in 1802-1803. The first lecture develops the idea of a separate society for general human development and so comes to the setting up of a theory of social harmony. The second lecture develops the form of Masonic instruction through myth and ritual for the purpose of making cultivated men for that society.

 

Why two lectures on the philosophy of Masonry written originally for a lodge were changed to sixteen "Letters to Constant" – addressed to "an imaginary non-Mason," named Constant?

In those times, the limits of permissible public discussion of Masonic matters were not clear, [remember what happened to Krause!] and the liberty of the individual Mason to interpret for himself was not generally conceded. Fischer in 1803 thought it wise that the two Masonic lectures be published under the form of letters addressed to a non-Mason by one who professed only to know what, on philosophical principles, Masonry ought to be. It is not known for certain why the recipient of the letters was called Constant.

​

Let's go back to the three fundamental questions of Masonic learning – one at the time:

• What is the nature and purpose of Masonry as an institution?

Masonic literature of the time did not discuss the question. Mostly derived from or elaborated on the basis of the Old Charges, it had to do with a largely mythical story of the transmission of civilization from the biblical patriarchs and by the Hebrews, the Phoenicians, the Greeks, and the Romans to the Middle Ages.

​

Preston's Illustrations of Masonry, from French discussions of the symbols, and from some pious discourses which had begun to appear, could not satisfy a philosopher – this is amply clear from the very first paragraph of Fichte's letters:

"You cannot reasonably ask that I concede to you any other acquaintance with the order than that it exists. What you would know from your books as to the nature of its existence I cannot recognize since all this literary trash has begotten no knowledge in you and has only entangled you in contradiction and doubt. What writers are you to trust if you have no measure by which to test them and no means to reconcile them? And as to what you believe or, as you say, you may find more or less likely by a historical critique, I appeal to your own feeling as I assert that your actual knowledge of the matter, taken strictly, extends to no more than the existence of the order… But this is complete enough for me and I invite you to add to this sure knowledge conclusions quite as sure. Then shall we find what the order of Free Masons is in and of itself? No, not that. But what it can be in and of itself, or, if you like, what it ought to be."

​

Pound tells us that philosophical systems grow out of attempts to solve concrete problems of a time and place. The philosopher finds a satisfying solution and puts it in abstract, universal terms. Then he or his disciples make it or seek to make it a universal solvent, equal to all problems everywhere and in all times.

​

Accordingly, Fichte starts with the urgent concrete problem of Masonry in his time. It appeared to be hopelessly divided into systems and sects and rites. In England, the schism of the self-styled Ancients had produced two Grand Lodges, each claiming to be the true successor of the Masonry which had come down from antiquity through the Middle Ages. On the Continent, and Germany in particular, things were much worse with the pulling and hauling of rival sovereign bodies, the claims of self-constituted leaders to property in the high degrees and the downright peddling of them, had produced an even worse condition. Therefore, it was necessary to go back to the first principles and determine (in reason) what Masonry could be and what it ought to be.

​

What in reason an immemorial universal brotherhood could do and should be doing?

​

In answering this question Fichte had before him the social, political, and economic condition of Europe, and in particular of Germany in his time – and his philosophical dream of an ideal of human perfection or, if you will, civilization. What impressed him as a child growing up through adversity was the gulf between the cultivated, professional man, the less cultivated practical man of business, and the uncultivated man in the humbler walks of life, each, however wise in his calling and however virtuous, suspicious of the others, unappreciative of the others' purposes, and very likely intolerant of the others' plans and proposals. Thus, there was in society the same unhappy cleavage, which he saw in the Masonry of the time.

​

He saw the same phenomenon also in the political order. The medieval academic ideal of political unity of Christendom had broken down in the sixteenth century and had been superseded by nationalism. Since that time Christendom had been torn by successive wars between nations seeking political hegemony, and, when Fichte wrote, the wars of the French Revolution and empire were still waging.

​

Society in Western Europe seemed hopelessly divided into states unable to work together except in fluctuating alliances and then not toward any common goal of humanity or of civilization but only toward political self-aggrandizement.

​

In Germany, not yet unified politically, but divided into more than two dozen states, in a more or less constant strife with each other, the political condition of Europe was reflected in aggravated form.

​

A like phenomenon was appearing in the economic order. The organized society of the Middle Ages had broken down. The French Revolution had put an end to feudal society in France and it was spreading to central Europe. Economic freedom of the middle class was increasingly given this class political control.

​

The proletariat was emerging to class-consciousness and was making continually increasing demands. Thus, there was emerging a class-organized society which has been a conspicuous feature of the economic order following industrialization, which has gone on everywhere since the end of the eighteenth century. States, classes, professions, and walks of life alike were suspicious of each other, intolerant of each other.

​

Society in Europe, which was culturally a unit and had inherited a universal tradition from the Middle Ages, was in chaos and in a condition of internal strife and conflict which stood in the way of the progress of civilization. Even the unity of the church, which had held men together to some extent during the Middle Ages, had disappeared at the Reformation, and sects and denominations were suspicious, and intolerant among themselves.

​

Thus, Fichte looked at the problem presented by the condition of Masonry in his time as part of a problem of all humanity and sought a solution that would enable Masonry to meet or help meet a great need of mankind. Indeed, according to Pound, Fichte's Masonic philosophy is in a sense a part of a larger social and political philosophy in which it is now considered that he laid the foundation of much of the social philosophical thinking of today.

​

In those days, each man was trained for some profession or vocation and, as he perfected himself for the purposes of that profession or vocation, he narrowed his outlook upon the world and came to look upon his fellow men as it were through the visual filter of his profession. Looking at other callings through these lenses, he became suspicious, prejudiced, and intolerant and so largely incapable of assisting in the maintaining and furthering of civilization. In Fichte's words:

"Now every individual develops himself specially for the station in life which he has chosen. From youth on, either through choice or chance, he has been destined exclusively for one vocation. That education is held best which prepares the boy most suitably for his future calling. Everything is left on one side which does not stand in the nearest relation to this calling or, as we say, cannot be used. The young man destined to be a scholar spends his whole time learning languages and sciences, indeed with choice of those which further his future breadwinning and with careful putting aside of those which promote the general development of scholarship. All other stations in life and activities are foreign to him, as they are foreign to each other. The physician directs his whole attention only to medicine, the jurist to the law of his country, the merchant to the particular branch of trade in which he is engaged, the manufacturer only to the making of his product. In his specialty he knows with much clearness and thoroughness what he needs to know. It is especially clear to him. He looks on it as his acquired property. He lives in it as in a home. And all this is good. In this way everyone does his duty. The reverse would not promote all the advantages of society but would be ruinous to the individual as well as to the whole.

​

But out of this there arises necessarily with all a certain incompleteness and one-sidedness which commonly, though not necessarily, passes into pedantry… Thus, one-sidedness prevails everywhere, useful here and injurious there. Thus, each individual is not simply a learned man; he is a theologian or a jurist or a physician. He is not simply religious; he is a Catholic or a Lutheran or a Jew or a Mohammedan. He is not simply a man; he is a politician or a merchant or a soldier. And so everywhere the highest possible development of vocations hinders the highest possible development of humanity, which is the highest purpose of human existence. Indeed, it must be hindered since everyone has the indispensable duty to make himself as perfect as possible for his own special calling, and this is almost impossible without one-sidedness."

​

There was need therefore, according to Fichte, of an organization separate from the greater society, in which men were to be given or led to an all-round development, instead of the one-sided vocational development, which they acquired in a society based on division of labor.

​

In Fichte's words:

​

"We have recognized it as an evil that education in the greater society is always bound up with a certain one-sidedness and superficiality which stands in the way of the highest possible, i.e., purely human, development and hinders the individual man as well as mankind as a whole from a happy progress to the goal…We now have a purpose: … To do away with the disadvantages in the mode of education in the greater society and to merge the one-sided education for the special vocation in the all-sided training of men as men.

​

This is a great purpose since it has for its object what is of most interest to man. It is reasonable in that it expresses one of our highest duties. It is possible since everything is possible that we ought to do. It is almost impossible to attain in the great society, at least exceedingly hard, since walk of life, mode of living, and relations entangle man with fine but fast ties and pull him around in a circle, often without his being aware of it, where he should go forward. Hence the purpose is only to be attained by getting apart. But not by an ever during departure, since a new one-sidedness would arise from that; since thereby the advantages for society of what has been won for pure human development would be lost; and since thereby we disregard that we are to merge both forms of training and thereby to elevate the needful training for vocations. Nor are we to attain the purpose by turning back to isolation, since this would strengthen our one-sidedness more than it would remove it and overlay our heart with an egoistic crust. Therefore, we shall attain the purpose only through a society distinct from the greater society which does no injury to any of our relations in that greater society, which has prepared us to see and take to heart in time the purpose of humanity, to make it intentionally ours, and which works through a thousand means to wean us from our vocational and social crudities and raise our development to a purely human one.

​

This or none is the purpose of the society of Freemasons; so certainly, the wise and virtuous man may occupy himself with it. The Mason who was born a man and has been shaped through the training for his vocation, through the state, and through his other social relations, may be developed again on this platform wholly and thoroughly to a man. This only can be the purpose of a separate society, and it answers the question put to us: What is the order of Freemasons in and of itself, or, if you prefer, what can it be?"

​

To Fichte then, the purpose of Masonry must be an all-round development of men; not merely as fellows in a calling, citizens of a state, members of a class or members of a denomination, but as men conscious of the duty to rise above suspicion, prejudice, and intolerance, and appreciate and work sympathetically with their fellowmen in every walk of life, of every political allegiance, and of every creed.

 

Says Fichte:

​

"This, as I think, is the picture of the ripe, developed man: His mind is free from prejudices of every sort. He is a master in the realm of ideas and looks out over the region of human truth as widely as possible. But truth is for him only one – a single indivisible whole, and he puts no side of it before another. To him, development of the spirit is only a part of the whole development, and it does not come into his mind to have entirely completed it, even so little as it comes into his mind to wish to be deprived of it. He sees very well and does not hesitate to acknowledge how much others in this respect behind him are backward, but he is not overzealous about this since he knows also how much here depends upon luck. He obtrudes his light, and much less the full shine of his light, upon no one, while yet he is ever ready to give to anyone who asks it so much as he can carry, and to give it to him in such dress as is most agreeable to him and does not mind if no one asks enlightenment of him. He is righteous throughout, scrupulous, strict against himself within himself, without externally making the least fuss about his virtue and obtruding it upon others through assertion of his integrity through great conspicuous sacrifices, or affectation of high seriousness. His virtue is as natural, and I might say modest as his wisdom; the ruling feeling as to the weaknesses of his fellow men is good-hearted pity; in no wise angry indignation. He lives in faith in a better world already here below, and this faith in his eyes gives value, meaning and beauty to his life in this world; but he does not press this faith upon others. Instead, he carries it within himself as a private treasure.

​

This is the picture of the perfected man; this is the ideal of the Mason. He will not ask nor boast a higher perfection than mankind everywhere can attain. His perfection can be no other than a human and the human perfection. Each man must be busied continually in approximation to this goal. If the order has any efficacy, every member must visibly and consciously occupy himself with this approximation. He must keep this picture before his mind as an ideal set up and laid next to his heart. It must be, as it were, the nature in which he lives and breathes.

​

It is very likely that not all, yes perhaps no one, of those who call themselves Masons will reach this perfection. But who has ever measured the goodness of an ideal or only of an institution by what individuals do actually attain? It depends on what they can attain under the given circumstances; on what the institution through all given means wills and points out that its members should attain."

​

Perhaps this is just a coincidence, but it is interesting to note that this very thought is found 150 years later in the Ritual of the Degree of Apprentice Mason authorized in 1947 by the Gran Logia de Cuba A.L. y A.M.. There, before his initiation, the candidate is admonished:

​

"Profane, in this Temple you are among men of honor who will help you as guides, as they are committed to support you through the difficulties in life. By your free will and accord you have come to a society that you do not know, bringing with you only your genuine desire to do good… [But] you do not come, profane, to a perfect society, because in all that is human - perfection does not exist; but you have come to an Institution where are found pure and virtuous men from every country who seek, without the political antagonisms nor the intransigence of religions, universal brotherhood and progress by means of instruction, love and charity, that will make brothers of all rational beings, be it in the joys of happiness, as in the pains of misfortune."

​

Why the need for an organization apart from the greater society? Fichte's answer:

"Moreover, I do not say that Masons are necessarily better than other men, nor that one cannot reach the same perfection outside of the order. It is quite possible that a man who had never been taken into the society of Freemasons could resemble the picture set forth above, and there actually comes to mind at this moment the picture of a man in whom I find it eminently realized; and he at most knows the order only by name. But the same man, if he had become in the order and through it what he has become by himself in the greater human society, would be more capable of making others the same as he is, and his whole culture would be more social, more communicable, and directly, also, essentially modified in its inner self. What comes into being in society has in practice more life and strength than what is produced in retirement."

​

• What is (and what should be) the relation of Masonry to other human institutions, especially to those directed toward similar ends, and what is its place in a rational scheme of human activities?

​

Fichte's conception of individual personality and its value led him to oppose any idea of merging or excluding the moral units in the political or any other organization. Thus, each of us may be in any number of groups or associations or relations and continue to be an efficient professional or man of business, a faithful worker, a loyal citizen, a devout churchman, and a Mason at the same time. Masonry is not to supersede calling, government, or church; it is to supplement them. It is to help us be complete, well-rounded men as well as the efficient, patriotic, devout men which we are or should be outside of the Order.

​

As to the relation of Masonry to the church, we must remember that down to the Reformation and in parts of Europe much later, and down to the French Revolution, the church had vigorously repressed freedom of thought and free science and had by no means made for the development of man's personality to its highest unfolding. The church, says Fichte, cannot make men devout. The man who is devout from fear or from hope of reward only professes devoutness. Devoutness is an internal condition, an enduring frame of mind, not a temporary product of coercion or cupidity of reward or emotional excitement.

​

Like the state, the church may be an agent of social control in restraining men's instinct of aggressive self-assertion. It can point out to men their relation to the life to come and the duties they ought to be adhering to for the very and sole reason that they are duties. At the same time Fichte warns us that religious militancy and intolerance (which should not be the primary function of churches) compounds the one-sidedness of men – the very condition from which Masonry had the task of delivering them. To be sure, Fichte does not identify Masonry with religion, as Oliver did.

​

As to morality, it will be remembered that Krause considered that the purpose of Masonry was to put the organization behind morals, as the church was an organization behind religion and government or the state an organization behind law.

 

Fichte holds that morality means the doing of one's well understood duty with absolute inner freedom, without any outside incentive, simply because it is his duty. Consequently, there is no specific Masonic morality, and morality needs no special organization behind it.

​

• What are (or should be) the fundamental principles by which Masonry is governed in attaining the end it seeks?

 

Fichte:

​

"All that looks to differences among men, whether to skill in art or learning or virtue, is before Masonry profane. But Masonry itself is profane in comparison with moral freedom since that is the all-holiest compared to which even the holy is common. This conception, firm and thoroughly defined and clear in itself, we must undoubtedly make a canon of Masonry and a principle of critique of everything Masonic if we have to set up such a critique…Another is, to be sure, to put it shortly, the training of the spirit and the impetus to receptivity for morality, the training of external morals and of external uniformity to law. This of course belongs to Masonry.

​

Now the picture of Masonry, as it is in and of itself, or uniquely can and should be, will govern your soul. I draw this picture as yet with few strokes. Here men of all walks of life come freely together and bring into a hoard what each, according to his individual character, has been able to acquire in his calling. Each brings and gives what he has: the thinking man definite and clear conceptions, the man of business readiness and ease in the art of living, the religious man his religious sense, the artist his religious enthusiasm. But none imparts it in the same way in which he received it in his calling and would propagate it in his calling. Each one, as it were, leaves behind the individual and special and shows what has worked out within him as a result. He strives so to give his contribution that he can reach every member of society, and the whole society exerts itself to assist this endeavor and, in this way, to give his former one-sided training a general usefulness and all-sidedness. In this union each receives in the same measure as he gives. Just through this that he gives it is given him, this is to say, the skill to give."

​

Both from his knowledge of the institutions of antiquity and from the Old Charges, Fichte had learned that throughout recorded history there had been systems of secret instruction designed to perfect those who were inducted. These secret instructions, systems of mysteries or a brotherhood have supplied the deficiencies of the one-sided training in society.

​

Such instruction, he holds, can properly be given orally (in contrast with academic training which may use books or manuscripts), may be dogmatic, and imparted by myths, allegories, and symbols.

​

Let me conclude with Fichte's own words, words which, in my view, should be cast in stone at the entrance of every Masonic Temple:

​

"One who in viewing the deficiency in human relations, the unserviceableness, the perverseness, the corruption among men, drops his hands and passes on and complains of evil times, is no man. Just in this that you are capable of seeing men as deficient, lies upon you a holy calling to make them better. If everything was already what it ought to be, there would be no need of you in the world and you would as well have remained in the womb of nothingness. Rejoice that all is not yet as it ought to be, so that you may find employ and can be useful toward something."

 

On closing, my brethren, let me remind you that what I have given you this evening is by no means the entire Philosophy of Masonry as seen by Preston, Krause, Oliver, Pike, or Fichte - To do that it would take a long, very long time. I just gave you a taste of it.

​

At your initiation the Junior Warden declared unto you that "Masonry is not only the most ancient, but the most moral human institution that ever existed, as every character, figure and emblem has a moral tendency and serves to inculcate the practice of virtue in all its genuine professors."   While walking on the Mosaic Pavement you were exhorted to act by REASON, to cultivate HARMONY, to practice CHARITY, and to live in PEACE with all men.   At the closing of his lecture the J. Warden informed you that the Tenets, or fundamental principles of Ancient Freemasonry are Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth.

 

• Brotherly Love – This tenet, or fundamental principle, is an essential element which binds all Masons to each other, as they have pledged themselves to exercise it and it is one of the greatest duties of a Freemason. On this principle, Masonry unites men of every country, religious belief, and opinion in a bond of true friendship. Brotherly Love also manifests itself in the second tenet of relief, which is one form of charity.

​​

• Relief – Masonic relief takes for granted that any man may be in temporary need of a helping hand. It can take many forms, such as alleviating misfortune, soothing calamity, helping to restore peace to a troubled mind, and so on. This is one of the natural and inevitable acts of Brotherhood.

​​

• Truth – Truth is a vital requirement if Brotherhood is to endure. As Masons, we are committed to being honest and truthful with other people. The Masonic Fraternity teaches a man to be faithful to his responsibilities to God, his Country, his fellow man, his family, and himself. The Masonic principle of Truth also teaches a man to pursue knowledge and to search for wisdom and understanding. For only in this way can he grow and become a better person.

​

Also, perhaps you have forgotten, when you graduated from Apprentice to Craftsman (too soon and too easily in our Grand Jurisdiction) you affirmed, not quite sure of what you were saying, that Freemasonry is "a system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols."  

​

As Fellowcrafts, you were prompted to extend your researches into the hidden mysteries of nature and science.   In your search and pursuit of knowledge you may stumble upon questions and find no answers. Well, go to your older brethren in your lodge — as Master Masons they were charged to give you assistance.   If you find them not much more knowledgeable than yourself, then make use of the research others have provided in online forums, such as this, or this; there you will find much information on the history of Freemasonry, its philosophy and its organization.

​

If you are motivated, satisfied and proud of being a freemason, offer an opportunity to those who you love and respect to partake in the experience.   No matter the race, station, or creed, all just and upright men, free by birth, of mature age, sound judgment and strict morals may seek membership in our Institution.   The institution (perhaps not so much in our Grand Jurisdiction) offers these men the tools necessary to generate in themselves the inner process of intellectual, moral, and spiritual transformation.   Aiming for this transformation, the institution generally guides and provides a methodology which enables each member to generate his own inner light and to reach full and complete mastery of his existence.   But the depth and height reached by each member depends on his own efforts, perseverance, and commitment.   The goal is clear: to make of himself a new and better man, tolerant of the diversity of others, and desirous of contributing to the progress of all humanity.

​

​

Notes:

 

Johann Gottlieb Fichte

 

Other Relevant Sources:

Masonic Philosophy

The Builder Magazine 1915 - 1930.

A Concise History of Freemasonry

The Organization of Freemasonry

Masonic Authors "The Bad, the good and the ugly" by Bro. Alain Bernheim 33•