In a section titled, "Deduction of Religion in General," the author requires that God produce a "complete congruency" between the moral law and the happiness of finite rational beings, asserting he must be "totally just.
Early in this work, the author distinguishes between Gluck and Gluckseligheit, though he concludes that neither can be universally valid as both rest on solely empirical principles. That discussion serves to explain the various characterizations of the "sensuous impulse" and deduces that moral law cannot contradict itself by abrogating the justifications of that impulse. In a section titled, "Deduction of Religion in General," the author requires that God produce a "complete congruency" between the moral law and the happiness of finite rational beings, asserting he must be "totally just." This work shows that a test of congruency does not hold for the doctrine of Original Sin, but it does not explicitly target Christianity. First mistaken for a work of Kant, for ten points name broad criticism of religion by Johann Fichte.
Early in this work, the author distinguishes between Gluck and Gluckseligheit, though he concludes that neither can be universally valid as both rest on solely empirical principles.
An {Attempt} at a {Critique} of All {Revelation}