Abstract: This article analyzes the role of university education, its goals, objectives, and the organization of the university as a social institution according to a philosophical concept of one of the leading idealist philosophers of the early 19th century, Johann Gottlieb Fichte. The article briefly describes the precursors to the ideas of the German philosopher and highlights his vision of science as an art and a vocation. In achieving the primary aim of nation-building, higher education as a vocation is embodied in the lifestyle of a scholar who serves science and society. The article discusses the role of the state in realizing this goal, as well as the internal organization and functioning of the university. It identifies means of achieving these objectives, including the reform of the faculty system, where philosophy is intended to play a dominant role. The methods of interaction between professors and students, as well as the internal organization of the university community, are described. The conclusion suggests that the term “professorial seminary” best encapsulates the organization of university life in achieving the educational and training goals set forth by the German philosopher.

 

Every society requires a social institution that ensures cultural continuity while effectively preparing individuals for life. Throughout human history, few institutions have accomplished this task as successfully as the university. The history of the university, particularly in Europe, spans about a thousand years, during which it has undergone several fundamental transformations. Some scholars designate the period from the 12th to the 19th century as the classical university era, the early 19th to mid-20th century as post-classical, and the modern stage as the “mass university,” characterized by globalization and universal accessibility. Contemporary universities retain many significant features, both corporate and academic, from their predecessors. To a certain extent, the university serves as a mirror of society, reflecting the present based on the past—what we refer to as tradition—while also laying the groundwork for the future, which might be called novelty.[1] Examining the history of the university as an idea is essential to grasping its role in society.

 

“University education, institutionalized in the 12th century, only achieved a developed form of theoretical reflection by the mid-19th century, as seen in the analysis of its idea as a collection of concepts about the fundamental values, goals, and limits of the functions of educational institutions.”[2] Although the university as a phenomenon in European history dates back to the 12th century, “the first experience of conceptualizing the idea of university education was the establishment of a research university in Berlin, as embodied by Wilhelm von Humboldt.”[3] His ideas, along with those of his associates and successors, including Johann Gottlieb Fichte, the rector of Berlin University, later became the foundation for the creation of the modern university. Humboldt envisioned the newly formed Berlin University as a center for science, culture, and education, serving as a model for emulation. He emphasized philosophical, natural science and mathematical education, with the university primarily tasked with the pursuit of truth. Achieving this aim demanded ensuring academic freedom and the unity of research and teaching within the university. Thus, engaging in science was intended to foster the spiritual and moral development of the individual and the nation.

 

According to Humboldt, the university should serve as a primary venue for individual development. However, he views specialized professional training, which seems paramount today, as at least secondary in importance. He envisioned the university as a place that unites objective science with subjective education, ensuring the holistic development of individuals by inspiring them through example, among other factors. In this way, the university should play a crucial role in socializing youth, aiming not only to form intellectuals but also to cultivate conscious citizens.[4]

 

Humboldt saw the purpose of higher education institutions as integrating objective science with subjective education and integrating completed schooling with independent study or facilitating the transition from one to the other.[5] He argued that universities should remain free from external pressures that seek to exploit them for practical gain at the expense of scientific research and educational activities. The knowledge imparted within their walls should focus more narrowly on scientific inquiry rather than universal concepts. Consequently, universities should receive a degree of autonomy from state control.[6]

 

Humboldt intended to implement his vision of the ideal at Berlin University, newly established in 1809. The institution’s educational model rested on three fundamental principles: first, rejecting an exclusively utilitarian approach to education; second, opposing the purely empirical side of science, which contrasts with the pursuit of fundamental theoretical knowledge; and third, asserting the dominance of the humanities as essential for the comprehensive development of the individual.[7] This encapsulates the idea of the university: the synthesis of research, education, and teaching will guide European thought in conceptualizing the university as such.

 

The decision to establish Berlin University occurred on August 16, 1809. Shortly thereafter, Wilhelm von Humboldt took on the leadership of the diplomatic corps of the Prussian kingdom in the Austrian capital, while Johann Gottlieb Fichte, a close adherent and ideological successor to Humboldt’s vision for the modern university, received an invitation from the king to become the rector. This great philosopher, a prominent figure in German classical philosophy, is associated with one of the most intriguing theories about the university’s purpose and structure.

 

Johann Gottlieb Fichte was born in Rammenau in 1762 to a poor peasant family. His adolescence was marked by poverty. However, thanks to Baron von Militz, Fichte graduated from the theological faculty of Jena University. After discovering the works of Immanuel Kant, the leading philosopher of his time and the founder of idealism, Fichte became so immersed in Kantian thought that by 1791, after tutoring in Warsaw, he wrote “An Attempt at a Critique of All Revelation.” He applied the principles of criticism so effectively that the work was worthy of presentation to Kant himself. Ironically, the authorship of this anonymously published work was initially attributed to Kant, but the integrity of the Königsberg philosopher ultimately led to Fichte’s recognition, making the younger scholar a world-renowned figure.[8] Kant described the university as embodying the characteristics of both a scientific institution, associated with the quest for truth, and a socially beneficial educational institution. In my view, Fichte successfully conceptualized and unified this dichotomy.

 

Fichte proposed building a new university, outlining his project in the “Deductive Plan for the Organization of Higher Education in Berlin” (1807) and other writings. His ideas traced the fundamental role that German classical philosophers attributed to knowledge and its social function.[9] The university serves as a necessary link in the system of holistic national education, uniting people based on a shared language, culture, and worldview. In his work “Addresses to the German Nation,” Fichte laid the ideological foundation for his educational reform—to elevate the national life of a specific people to the level of humanity while instilling them with an initiative for future creativity, whose results would deserve a place in the universal fund of ideas.[10]

 

When discussing education, particularly higher education, Fichte considers it a vocation, referring to it as an “idea.” He defines this vocation as an all-encompassing destiny that reveals itself in individuals during their studies.[11] This perspective on education would become one of the cornerstones of his vision for the entire university system. The figure of the scholar embodies the peak of this vision, both in external and internal manifestations. Fichte criticizes aspects of bourgeois society, such as the pursuit of pleasure, arguing that the university should aim to cultivate scholars by vocation, with its entire functioning revolving around this goal.

 

Fichte asserts that high-ranking state officials must firmly embed in their thinking the idea that they serve society not merely to live but wish to live to serve society.[12] Achieving this mindset requires a way of life grounded in science. Universities must provide the education that the state needs, thus contributing to national education. Fichte’s fundamental thought emerges here—universities primarily exist to fulfill an educational function, not merely an instructional one. He believed that many early 19th-century universities lacked this essential function.[13]

 

Students and professors must immerse themselves in science to the extent that they can dedicate themselves entirely to it. They should approach science in a way that their thoughts and activities take on a scientific form. When this occurs and when the university achieves this goal, science itself transforms into an art. The university is tasked with teaching this art of science. To ensure national education through this art, Fichte argues, training should not focus narrowly on specialties aimed at profit through practical applications after graduation. Such narrow aims only attract those who lack a true scientific vocation. This mismatch between the university’s objectives and the goals of most students reduces the diploma awarded to a mere tool for self-support and family sustenance. In this scenario, the university, which Fichte describes as embodying the graduate’s free will, can only hope for the goodwill of its students. The new university model aims to cultivate students’ will, directing it toward achieving genuine freedom—true scientific decisions—while minimizing or eliminating the acceptance of choices that contradict the truth. True education aims to create and realize a holistic spiritual existence; if the university fails to foster a mindset directed toward this goal, education remains incomplete. Moreover, the intellectual efforts of such graduates would yield only dogmatic speculations, which do not contribute to developing an innovative approach. The new existence of science demands conscious mastery of scholarship, eliminating the place for teaching that merely provides students with ready-made results recorded in specific formats, especially those developed by previous generations of faculty.

 

Thus, this school of the art of science is necessary and serves as the culmination of the national education system. The university must nurture students’ ability to use their reasoning scientifically, a skill that should develop through knowledge acquired from secondary education.

 

Fichte’s vision of the student-teacher relationship deserves special attention. Students should not remain silent listeners, as was often the case in past universities. Instead, they should engage as lively interlocutors striving for a dialogical form of knowledge acquisition. The ideal form of education resembles the Platonic method, vividly represented in his dialogues, where Socrates facilitates the educational process. Education should take the form of ongoing conversation and dialogue, allowing for independent reflection. Only in this way can students achieve meaningful engagement in their learning, according to Fichte.[14]

 

Students must fully dedicate themselves to the service of science, focusing entirely on it. Therefore, they should detach themselves from the external world with its mundane utilitarian goals and interests. The university’s goal, as stated above, is to cultivate artists of science capable of benefiting society and producing other artist-professors. In this way, the university becomes what might be called a “professorial seminary.” In my view, such a definition best reflects the essence of the ideal that Fichte sets for himself regarding the fundamental goal of the new type of university.

 

The internal life of such a “seminary” should foster a moral climate of detachment from everyday trivialities and needs that could hinder its goals. To achieve this, students must receive all necessary material resources, and as they begin their scholarly activities, they should engage with meaningful content. At the same time, students should work together to manage their responsibilities within the university, fostering and enhancing an internal community where they can actively participate in academic life, share insights, and support one another in their development. In this way, students support one another in perfecting the art of science. To cultivate such a community climate, Fichte suggests separating students studying for the art of science from those pursuing everyday utilitarian goals.

 

To achieve his primary objective, Fichte advocated for the abandonment of the traditional university system—rooted in the Middle Ages—which classified faculties into philosophical, theological, medical and legal disciplines, with philosophy serving as a lower, basic foundation for the other three. Fichte argues that this division is impractical, as theology and jurisprudence intersect with philosophy, philology and history in their use of scientific reasoning. Additionally, medicine is fully aligned with the natural sciences. Thus, there is no need to segregate these fields into distinct faculties.[15]

 

Philosophy, due to its ability to illuminate the essence of every other science, should form the foundation of teaching and not be confined to the role of one of the special faculties. Instead, it should stand apart as a distinct college of philosophical art, shaping the university’s scientific character and catalyzing further scientific development.[16] The task of such a higher school is to learn and teach philosophy. Following philosophy comes philology, which aims to foster mutual understanding among people. The exact sciences, as Kant viewed them, include mathematical and historical sciences.

 

A scholar, recognizing that their work embodies a form of self-consciousness of spiritual substance, undoubtedly represents a moral being. Mastery should be a fundamental quality, and the university community—comprising both professors and students—must create an environment conducive to the development of such scholars, remaining independent from administrative pressures imposed by external entities, including the state and other social institutions. However, Fichte does not propose to completely isolate university structures from the state. The university cannot exist outside the state-political structure; moreover, it should exert a certain influence on society’s formation and cohesion and therefore cannot be entirely autonomous. Fichte reconciles this seemingly contradictory position by suggesting the inclusion of esteemed representatives from the university scientific community in state-political governance after they retire from their active roles within the university due to age. Thus, experienced and knowledgeable scholars would enter the upper echelons of state governance, ensuring a connection between the university community and the political structure.[17] This does not pose a problem for their vocation, as Fichte believes scholars will continue to engage in scientific creativity even after their active roles within the university, since the essence of their vocation transcends both place and age. This solution also presents additional advantages, such as significantly enhancing the competence of members within the state administrative apparatus in the context of absolute monarchy and its bureaucratic structure, as well as establishing a system of representation for the university within state institutions. Such representation could exert influence and safeguard the rights and academic freedom of the university community in pursuing its lofty goals, as the university’s objectives closely align with those of the state, particularly in terms of societal development.

 

Thus, the university model developed by Johann Gottlieb Fichte exemplifies how the leading thinkers of the 19th century sought to address the spiritual and educational demands of their time. In their efforts to unify the tasks of nation-building, education, and the steadfast pursuit of scientific truth, Fichte, like many philosophers and intellectuals of his era, overlooked the deconstructive nature of the notion that scientific research demands abstraction from utilitarian aspirations. They failed to acknowledge the increasing professionalization of various fields of knowledge and practice, their specialization, and the complexity of relationships among different branches of science. Instead, they continued to perceive knowledge through essentially medieval theological models—as a unified whole, whose essence lies in the “theory of everything.”

 

At the same time, some of Fichte’s ideas remain relevant today. The notion that the university, as a general system, should evolve into a somewhat autonomous community of scholars seems particularly pertinent. Without this autonomy, it is difficult to imagine how to increase scholars’ interest and awareness regarding science. Although the idea of completely separating those who pursue science as an art from those who seek it for utilitarian purposes may seem unattainable, certain actions in this direction would positively contribute to university development and scholarly formation.

 

Fichte’s thoughts on enhancing the integration of philosophical disciplines into student education also appear significant. Philosophy, tasked with shaping young people’s thinking, occupies little space in modern humanities faculties and typically concludes after the preparatory period. Addressing this deficiency academically for most students hardly seems feasible moving forward.

 

The pedagogy of education proposed by Fichte is also important. Many professors today lack the vision of students as conversation partners. Instructors often organize the learning process around reading previously recorded lecture materials, resulting in relatively low levels of student comprehension.

 

Fichte’s proposals to provide students with all necessary material support during their studies are noteworthy. If the state aims to cultivate an intellectual elite, it should maximize the time allocated for this formation to be comprehensive. The quality of education depends significantly on students’ material well-being and motivation. When a student’s life lacks material organization, they must spend considerable time securing their basic needs. This situation directly affects their value orientation. If students lack adequate support during their studies and reasonable prospects afterward, they may continue their education solely to ensure a minimally decent existence. Under such conditions, the state’s efforts in the education system may go to waste, resulting in the loss of potential intellectual resources. Fichte fought against such situations by advocating for proper support for students, drawing from his own experiences of growing up in poverty and understanding the challenges faced by students striving for knowledge.

 

Finally, Fichte’s proposals regarding the internal self-governance structure within the university environment appear quite favorable. By conceptualizing the student community as a sort of “seminary,” where each member assists their peers in achieving lofty ideals, Fichte draws upon the well-known experiences of previous generations of students. These student societies united under a shared spirit of Christianity and provided mutual support in their pursuit of intellectual and spiritual goals. The positive example of such societies, both intellectually and morally, was well established by the early 19th century, particularly among the Catholic theological seminaries that had trained clergy since the mid-16th century.

 

 

Bibliography

 

1. Humboldt W.K. von. “On the Internal and External Organization of the Higher Scientific Institutions in Berlin” (O vnutrenney i vneshney organizatsii vysshikh nauchnykh zavedeniye v Berline) in: *Invulnerable Reserve* (Neprikosnovennyy zapas), 2002, No. 2.

 

2. Zakharov I.V., Lyakhovich E.S. “The Mission of the University in European Culture” (Missiya universiteta v yevropeyskoy kul’ture), New Millennium (Novoye tysyacheletiye), Moscow, 1994.

 

3. Ivanenko A.A. “J.G. Fichte on University Education” (I.G. Fikhte ob universitetskom obrazovanii) in: *Bulletin of St. Petersburg State University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies* (Vestnik SPbGU. Filosofiya i konfliktologiya), 2017, Vol. 33, No. 4.

 

4. Kislov A.G., Shmurygina O.V. “The Idea of the University: Retrospective, Versions, and Perspectives” (Ideya universiteta: retrospektiva, versii i perspektivy) in: *Education and Science* (Obrazovanie i nauka), 2012, No. 8 (97).

 

5. Novokhatko A.G., Novokhatko I.M. “On the Historical and Philosophical Preconditions of the Idea of the Classical University” (K voprosu ob istoriko-filosofskikh predposylkakh idei klassicheskogo universiteta) in: *Bulletin of the TSU* (Vestnik TGU), Issue 11 (115), 2012.

 

6. Olshannikova N.A. “The Evolution of the Idea of the University in the Era of Industrialization” (Evolyutsiya idei universiteta v epokhu industrializatsii) in: *Scientific Review. Pedagogical Sciences* (Nauchnoye obozreniye. Pedagogicheskie nauki), 2017.

 

7. Povzun V.D. “The Mission of the University — History and Modernity” (Missiya universiteta — istoriya i sovremennost’) in: *Bulletin of the OGU* (Vestnik OGU), 1. 2005.

 

8. Reale J., Antiseri D. *Western Philosophy from Its Origins to the Present Day* (Zapadnaya filosofiya ot istokov do nashikh dney). Volume 4: From Romanticism to the Present Day (Ot romantizma do nashikh dney), Pneuma, St. Petersburg, 2003.

 

9. Ridings B. The University in Ruins (Universitet v ruinakh), Moscow, 2010.

 

10. Fichte J.G. “On the Essence of the Scholar and his Appearances in the Domain of Freedom” (O sushchnosti uchenogo i yeyo yavleniyakh v oblasti svobody) in: Fichte J.G. Collected Works (Sobraniye sochineniy), St. Petersburg, 2008.

 

11. Fichte I.G. “Addresses to the German Nation” (Rechi k nemetskoy natsii), Science, St. Petersburg, 2009.

 

12. Fischer K. *A History of Modern Philosophy* (Istoriya novoy filosofii). Volume 6: Fichte. His Life, Works, and Teachings (Fikhte. Ego zhizn’, sochineniya i uchenie), St. Petersburg, 2004.

 

13. Fichte J.G. “Deductive Plan for the Establishment of a Higher Educational Institution in Berlin” (Deduzierter Plan einer zu Berlin zu errichtenden hoheren Lehranstalt) in: Founding Texts (Gründungstexte), Humboldt University of Berlin, 2010.

 

[1] Cf. Povzun V.D. “The Mission of the University — History and Modernity” (Missiya universiteta — istoriya i sovremennost’) in: *Bulletin of the OGU* (Vestnik OGU), 1. 2005, p. 13.

[2] Kislov A.G., Shmurygina O.V. “The Idea of the University: Retrospective, Versions, and Perspectives” (Ideya universiteta: retrospektiva, versii i perspektivy) in: *Education and Science* (Obrazovanie i nauka), 2012, No. 8 (97), p. 102.

[3] Olshannikova N.A. “The Evolution of the Idea of the University in the Era of Industrialization” (Evolyutsiya idei universiteta v epokhu industrializatsii) in: *Scientific Review. Pedagogical Sciences* (Nauchnoye obozreniye. Pedagogicheskie nauki), 2017, p. 141.

[4] Cf. A.G. Kislov, O.V. Shmurygina, Ibid, p. 104.

[5] Cf. Humboldt W.K. von. “On the Internal and External Organization of Higher Scientific Institutions in Berlin” in: Invulnerable Reserve (Neprikosnovennyy zapas), 2002, No. 2.

[6] Cf. Novokhatko A.G., Novokhatko I.M. “On the Historical and Philosophical Preconditions of the Idea of the Classical University” (K voprosu ob istoriko-filosofskikh predposylkakh idei klassicheskogo universiteta ) in: Bulletin of the TSU (Vestnik TGU), Issue 11 (115), 2012, p. 260.

[7] Cf. Zakharov I.V., Lyakhovich E.S. “The Mission of the University in European Culture” (Missiya universiteta v yevropeyskoy kul’ture), New Millennium (Novoye tysyacheletiye), Moscow, 1994, p. 52.

[8] Cf. Reale J., Antiseri D. Western Philosophy from Its Origins to the Present Day (Zapadnaya filosofiya ot istokov do nashikh dney). Volume 4: From Romanticism to the Present Day, Pneuma, St. Petersburg, 2003, p. 32.

[9] Cf. Ridings B. The University in Ruins (Universitet v ruinakh), Moscow, 2010, p. 103.

[10] Cf. Fichte J.G. *Addresses to the German Nation* (Rechi k nemetskoy natsii), Science, St. Petersburg, 2009, pp. 208–209, 249–251.

[11] Cf. Fichte J.G. “On the Essence of the Scholar and his Appearances in the Domain of Freedom” (O sushchnosti uchenogo i yeyo yavleniyakh v oblasti svobody) in: Fichte J.G. *Collected Works* (Sobraniye sochineniy), St. Petersburg, 2008, p. 341.

[12] – Fichte J.G. “Deductive Plan for the Establishment of a Higher Educational Institution in Berlin” (Deduzierter Plan einer zu Berlin zu errichtenden hoheren Lehranstalt) in: Founding Texts (Gründungstexte), Humboldt University of Berlin, 2010, pp. 9-123.

[13] Fichte J.G. Ibid.

[14] Cf. Ivanenko A.A. “J.G. Fichte on University Education” (I.G. Fikhte ob universitetskom obrazovanii) in: *Bulletin of St. Petersburg State University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies* (Vestnik SPbGU. Filosofiya i konfliktologiya), 2017, Vol. 33, No. 4, p. 460.

[15] Cf. Fichte J.G. Ibid.

[16] Cf. Ivanenko A.A., Ibid, p. 459.

[17] Cf. Fischer K. A History of Modern Philosophy (Istoriya novoy filosofii). Volume 6: Fichte. His Life, Works, and Teachings (Fikhte. Ego zhizn’, sochineniya i uchenie), St. Petersburg, 2004, pp. 646-648.