Johann Gottlieb Fichte

19 May 1762 – 29 January 1814
J. G. Fichte and a priori Providentialism
Part of a Series on the Philosophy of History
Sunday 19 May 2024 is the 262nd anniversary of the birth of Johann Gottlieb Fichte (19 May 1762 – 29 January 1814), who was born in Rammenau, Saxony, then part of the Holy Roman Empire, on this day in 1762.
Fichte is often remembered in histories of philosophy as an immediate successor to Kant in the German idealist tradition. While still a young man Fichte wrote and anonymously published Attempt at a Critique of All Revelation. This was in 1792 when Fichte was 30 years old. Many believed that Kant had written this work, given Kant’s earlier critiques of pure reason, practical reason, and judgment, so when Kant denied authorship and identified Fichte as the actual author, Fichte experienced the philosophical equivalent of being an overnight sensation.
But Fichte’s life was an unsheltered as Kant’s life was sheltered. He was a born trouble-maker and was willing to touch the third rail of Enlightenment politics by writing and speaking openly about matters of religion, as revealed by his work on revelation. Fichte is sometimes called inflexible and rigid, though we could also say (a little more charitably) that he was principled and not inclined to compromise. Partly as a result of this temperament, Fichte became embroiled in a controversy in German intellectual life remembered as the Atheismusstriet, or Atheism Controversy.
During this controversy Friedrich Jacobi published an open letter against Fichte in which Jacobi coined the term “nihilism” to describe what he took to be Fichte’s position:

“Truly, my dear Fichte, I would not be vexed if you, or anyone else, were to call Chimerism the view I oppose to the Idealism that I chide for Nihilism. I have paraded my not-knowing in all my writings; in my non-knowledge I have prided myself so to be with knowledge, so perfectly and completely, that I am certainly allowed to be contemptuous of the mere doubter.—I have wrestled for truth with zeal and fervour since childhood as few others; as few others have I experienced my powerlessness—and my heart has grown tender for that—yea, very tender, my dear Fichte—and my voice so gentle! Just as I have deep compassion for myself, as human being, so I have it for others. I am patient without effort; but that I am truly patient without effort costs me a lot. The earth will be light above me—it won’t be long.”

Nihilism was to go on to have quite a career as an idea after Jacobi’s letter. While for Jacobi, the nihilism he attributed to Fichte was the inevitable outcome of reason, nihilism did not remain centered on Jacobi’s critique of Kantian philosophy, but came to signify belief in nothing at all.
Fichte’s controversial stance created a problem for the authorities at the University of Jena, where Fichte was employed at the time. Fichte wouldn’t budge, and this was one of the episodes responsible for his reputation for inflexibility, so the University of Jena dismissed him in 1799. At this point, with little to his name and few prospects, Fichte walked from Jena to Berlin—Google Maps says it takes 55 hours to complete this walk—and eventually he became part of the philosophical scene in Berlin.
Fichte attempted, semi-successfully, to support himself with popular books and lectures. For a philosopher coming from a background of Kantian philosophy—the most technical philosophy of its day—this was a bold project, but he gamely attempted to bring his interpretation of Kantianism to the masses. One of the outcomes of this effort was Fichte’s short book The Vocation of Man (1800). Fichte’s academic work was riddled with jargon, but The Vocation of Man is written in plain language and was intended for a popular audience. However, it’s still a demanding philosophical argument. In it, Fichte articulated a conception of human destiny that is universalistic, rationalistic, teleological, and even infinitistic:

“Let us not ask of history if man, on the whole, have yet become purely moral. To a more extended, comprehensive, energetic freedom he has certainly attained; but hitherto it has been an almost necessary result of his position, that this freedom has been applied chiefly to evil purposes. Neither let us ask whether the aesthetic and intellectual culture of the ancient world, concentrated on a few points, may not have excelled in degree that of modern times! It might happen that we should receive a humiliating answer, and that in this respect the human race has not advanced, but rather seemed to retrograde, in its riper years. But let us ask of history at what period the existing culture has been most widely diffused, and distributed among the greatest number of individuals; and we shall doubtless find that from the beginning of history down to our own day, the few light-points of Civilization have spread themselves abroad from their centre, that one individual after another, and one nation after another, has been embraced within their circle, and that this wider outspread of culture is proceeding under our own eyes. And this is the first point to be attained in the endless path on which humanity must advance.”

Notice that Fichte implies a distinction between two kinds of progress: there is progress toward the highest degree of excellence, and here humanity may have backslid, but there is also progress toward broadly distributed high culture, and here Fichte thinks that his time definitely surpassed previous history. Fichte also says that progress, by which he means moral progress, is an endless path, and we have already seen that it is possible for humanity to experience retrograde moral progress, so the pathway to man becoming purely moral, as Fichte sees it, is endless, it can incorporate reversals, and it can be striving to new heights or to wider diffusion.
This and many other passages point to the infinite perfectibility of man, which shows us the extent to which Fichte had imbibed the ideals of the French Revolution—or, we might say, he had imbibed the ideals of the French philosophers who were instrumental in laying the foundations of the French revolution, and were later arguably co-opted by the revolution, as in the case of Condorcet, who wrote this paean to the infinite perfectibility of man while on the run from the revolutionary gendarme. But the infinite perfectibility of man as Fichte imagines it is a teleology with a real history: things can go wrong, we can get sidetracked, we might pursue one form of moral excellence or another, and so on.
And Fichte also transmuted the French concept of the infinite perfectibility of man in the image of German idealism, producing a kind of philosophical spiritualism. Part of this transmutation of ideals came about because of the direction that Fichte saw the French revolution take as it developed. Many philosophers at the time initially supported the ideals of the French Revolution, but came to see it in a different light after the Terror and the Napoleonic Wars. Fichte as well.
Seeking to rally his countrymen after defeats inflicted by Napoleon, Fichte gave a series of public lectures later published as Addresses to the German Nation. This was more than a half century before the unification of Germany as a nation-state. In the twentieth century this work was savaged by George Santayana in his book Egotism in German Philosophy, which I mentioned in my episode on Wars and Rumors of Wars. Santayana called Fichte “an uncompromising puritan” and in Santayana’s fever dream of German expansionism he imagined Fichte as the source of it all:

“…Fichte gives us prophetic glimpses of an idealistic Germany conquering the world. The state does not aim at self-preservation, still less is it concerned to come to the aid of those members of the human family that lag behind the movement of the day. The dominion of unorganised physical force must be abolished by a force obedient to reason and spirit. True life consists in refashioning human relations after a model innate in the mind. The glorious destiny of Germany is to bring forth and establish the world anew. Natural freedom is a disgraceful thing, a mere medley of sensual and intellectual impulses without any principle of order. It is for the Germans to decide whether a providential progress exists by becoming themselves the providence that shall bring progress about, or whether on the contrary every higher thought is folly. If they should fail, history would never blame them, for in that case there would be no more history.”

Many others also have seen Fichte’s work through the lens of the wars of their time, which were the world wars of the twentieth century, rather than through the lens of the wars of Fichte’s time, which were the Napoleonic Wars.
Fichte knew that he was putting his life on the line by publicly speaking out against the French, as he at one time referenced the fate of Johann Philipp Palm. Palm, a book seller, was connected to a pamphlet, Germany in Its Deep Humiliation (Deutschland in seiner tiefsten Erniedrigung), that angered Napoleon. Napoleon ordered his subordinates to try and execute Palm within twenty-four hours. Palm was tried on 26 August 1806 by a French military tribunal, found guilty, and shot within hours of the verdict. Four other book sellers also were tried were not executed. Fichte knew that the same thing could happen to him in publicly speaking out on behalf of the German people. We can see from incidents such as this that Fichte was in the thick of the history of his own time, sometimes riding the wave and sometimes making waves.
Roberta Picardi notes both the derivation and dependence of Fichte’s views from Kant, as well as Fichte’s divergence from Kant:

“Fichte explores the epistemic status and method of history with an aim which is clearly taken from Kant: the purpose of introducing a systematic and scientific method in the infinite field of the empiricism, of which history is a part, together with experimental physics. As we can read in The Characteristics of the Present Age he wants to obtain ‘a sure progress according to rule instead of an uncertain groping in the dark’ from history, i. e., instead of the ‘Herumptappen’ (this is the German word for ‘groping’) that in the second Preface to the Critique of Pure Reason Kant contrasts with the ‘secure path of a science’.”

But the secure path of science isn’t always all that secure, given that there are multiple scientific pathways, and not all pathways lead to the same end. This is the distinction within Fichte’s philosophy of history noted by Angelica Nuzzo:

“Fichte builds his idea of a philosophy of history upon a paradoxical argument. He pushes to the extreme the claim of the bare factual nature of history as a realm of irrational, not-conceptual, and thoroughly contingent reality. Yet he also maintains that philosophical knowledge of history is possible—although neither as deductive, nor conceptual, nor genetic knowledge. Against the fictitious notion of historical Wahrscheinlichkeit (plausibility, probability), Fichte holds on to the notion of ‘historical truth’ and to its ‘logic.’ Despite its radically empirical character, history can be construed a priori.”

Some of the flavor of Fichte’s a priori approach to history can be gained from his primary work on the philosophy of history Characteristics of the Present Age (Der Grundzüge des gegewärtigen Zeitalters, 1806), in which he decomposes history into Five Principal Epochs, based not on historical contingencies, but rather upon human destiny and moral development:

“…we endeavoured to pre-figure the whole Earthly Life of Man by a comprehension of its purpose;— to perceive why our Race had to begin its Existence here, and by this means to describe the whole present Life of humankind:—this is what we wished to do,—it was our first task. There are, according to this view, Five Principal Epochs of Earthly Life, each of which, although taking its rise in the life of the individual, must yet, in order to become an Epoch in the Life of the Race, gradually lay hold of and interpenetrate all Men; and to that end must endure throughout long periods of time, so that the great Whole of Life is spread out into Ages, which sometimes seem to cross, sometimes to run parallel with each other:—1st, The Epoch of the unlimited dominion of Reason as Instinct: —the State of Innocence of the Human Race. 2nd, The Epoch in which Reason as Instinct is changed into an external ruling Authority;—the Age of positive Systems of life and doctrine, which never go back to their ultimate foundations, and hence have no power to convince but on the contrary merely desire to compel, and which demand blind faith and unconditional obedience:—the State of progressive Sin. 3rd, The Epoch of Liberation,—directly from the external ruling Authority—indirectly from the power of Reason as Instinct, and generally from Reason in any form;—the Age of absolute indifference towards all truth, and of entire and unrestrained licentiousness:—the State of completed Sinfulness. 4th, The Epoch of Reason as Knowledge;—the Age in which Truth is looked upon as the highest, and loved before all other things:—the State of progressive Justification. 5th, The Epoch of Reason as Art;—the Age in which Humanity with more sure and unerring hand builds itself up into a fitting image and representative of Reason:—the State of completed Justification and Sanctification. Thus, the whole progress which, upon this view, Humanity makes here below, is only a retrogression to the point on which it stood at first, and has nothing in view save that return to its original condition. But Humanity must make this journey on its own feet; by its own strength it must bring itself back to that state in which it was once before without its own coöperation, and which, for that very purpose, it must first of all leave.”

We can call Fichte’s Five Principal Epochs a “stadial” philosophy of history, since “stadial” refers to stages. In this passage we gain an appreciation of the necessity of the five stages of history as a developmental process that cannot be gotten around: there is no royal road to the end of the history.
In the Second Lecture from Fichte’s Some Lectures Concerning the Scholar’s Vocation, he makes explicit both the a priori developmental history of humanity and the utopian picture of the ultimate end of human development:

“…a very great man has said, life in the state is not one of man’s absolute aims. The state is, instead, only a means for establishing a perfect society, a means which exists only under specific circumstances. Like all those human institutions which are mere means, the state aims at abolishing itself. The goal of all government is to make government superfluous. Though the time has certainly not yet come, nor do I know how many myriads or myriads of myriads of years it may take (here we are not at all concerned with applicability in life, but only with justifying a speculative proposition), there will certainly be a point in the a priori foreordained career of the human species when all civic bonds will become superfluous.”

The editor says in a footnote that the “great man” mentioned was probably an allusion to Kant’s Idea of History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View. We saw in my episode on Kant how Kant saw the teleology of humanity as establishing the perfect civil constitution, though I also speculated that, if we take Kant’s later writings on history in the context of his early pre-critical work on natural history, this Kantian teleology for humanity is nested within a larger cosmological teleology. By my reading, then, Kant is actually the more naturalistic position, while Fichte is the more anthropocentric, and his ideal is a purely spiritual ideal, even an a priori idea. For example, Fichte isn’t in the least interested to even give an estimate of the period of time that will be required for humanity to abolish all government, but he only points out that this is the ultimate end.
Marx also predicted the withering away of the state after communism had been achieved, and Marx, too, emphasized definite stages in human development that would lead to this outcome. With Kant, Fichte, and Marx all predicting the end of formal human governments we might take this prediction as a distinctive feature of a certain class of philosophies of history. Toynbee, too, saw not exactly the end of the state, but the end of universal civilizations, which would cede their place to universal churches, which sounds to me a lot like Kant, Fichte, and Marx anticipating the ultimate abolition of government in a perfect society.
This we can understand as a kind of inverse teleology, in which it is not (or not only) the advent of some future eventuality that is foreseen, but the abolition of some present state-of-affairs in the future as the goal of human development. For Kant, Fichte, Marx, and Toynbee, there is a dual teleological movement, in which some novel state-of-affairs is to unfold, while a present state of affairs is to give way and disappear as the new order comes to replace it. We could call this a stadial philosophy of history, but it is as much a substitutional philosophy of history: one social order is substituted for another; familiar institutions are to be replaced by novel institutions that take their place.
As far as the new institutions are expected to be an improvement over the old, this is also a melioristic philosophy of history. All progressivist philosophies of history are also melioristic, but we can distinguish between gradualistic meliorism, in which iterated reform eventually converges on a perfect society, which could be a finite or an infinitistic process, and stadial meliorism, in which there is a replacement rather than reform of a social order, and this replacement is an improvement.
For a non-stadial, non-teleological philosophy of history, we can turn to Leopold von Ranke, who was critical of Fichte’s five epochs:

“One of the ideas with which philosophy again and again confronts history as an irrefutable claim is that mankind is on an uninterrupted road to progress, in a steady development toward perfection. Fichte, one of the foremost philosophers in this field, assumes five epochs, a world plan as he says – reason ruling through instinct, reason ruling through law, emancipation from the authority of reason, reason as science, and reason as art. If this or a similar scheme were to any extent true, then general history would have to follow the road of progress which the human race followed in the indicated direction from one age to the next. The sole subject matter of history would then be the development of such concepts as they appear and manifest themselves in the world of phenomena. But this is by no means the case. For one thing, the philosophers themselves have extraordinarily varied opinions about the nature and selection of these supposedly ruling ideas. But they very wisely focus only on a few peoples in world history while considering the lives of all the rest as nothing, as a mere supplement. Otherwise it could not be hidden for a moment that from the beginning to this day the peoples of the world have been in the most varied conditions.”

We saw earlier that Fichte by no means argued for an uninterrupted road to progress, but we can set that aside as being of secondary importance. The antagonism between Fichte and Ranke runs deeper. Ranke is often associated with the emergence of historicism, and sometimes he is identified as the source of historicism. Ranke even was willing to express his historicism in theological terms when we said that all ages are equidistant from God. With this view of history as consisting of co-equal periods each with their own integrity it would be difficult, though not impossible, to argue for progress. In Characteristics of the Present Age Fichte rejects the view that an age can be assessed on its own terms:

“Should our view of the Present Age prove to have been a view taken from the standing-point of this Age itself, should the eye which has taken this view have been itself a product of the Age which it has surveyed, then has the Age borne witness to itself and such testimony must be set aside.”

Fichte, then, needs some criterion for his view of the present age other than the present age itself, and he finds it in religion:

“…what has been the nature of this theory, considered in its essential elements, and to what chief department of human thought it has belonged? I answer:—It was a Religious Theory; all our contemplations were Religious contemplations, and our view of things, and the eye which embraced that view, were Religious.”

Fichte goes one better and actually gives a definition of religion in the next paragraph:

“RELIGION consists in regarding and recognising all Earthly Life as a necessary development of the one, original, perfectly good and perfectly blessed Divine Life.”

Both Ranke and Fichte, then, invoke theological sanction for their conception of history, though this conception is starkly different, with Ranke taking each age to be sufficient unto itself, and no less related to the divine than any other age, while Fichte took each age to be dependent upon a larger framework for its meaning. While Ranke the historian insists on the individual uniqueness of each age, while Fichte the philosopher sees each age in relation to the whole of which it is a part. It is the task of Fichte’s Characteristics of the Present Age to provide for his contemporaries this larger framework so that they can understand their place in history, which for Fichte means understanding their place in the moral development of humanity.
Even Fichte’s conception of religion and moral development is strikingly abstract, as we find a little further on in the last chapter of Characteristics of the Present Age: “…Religion is nothing external,—it never clothes itself in any outward manifestation.” And, “…True Religion does not manifest itself outwardly, and does not impel man to any course of external conduct which he would not otherwise have adopted, but that it only completes his true Inward Being and dignity.” This is not necessary an orthodox position, and we’ve already seen how Fichte got himself in trouble with authorities with his views on religion.
It would seem strange to call Fichte’s philosophy of history a providential philosophy of history, as it seems to have little in common with, say, St. Augustine, but by Fichte’s own account, his is a pervasively religious perspective, and his philosophy of history is an account of humanity’s progress toward moral perfection. This progress is a purely inward fulfillment, without any observational consequences, again, by Fichte’s own account. I’ve run into this view in one other thinker, and that is Simone Weil. In my episode on Weil I quoted her criticism of providentialism of a kind that I called vulgar providentialism:

“Divine Providence is not a disturbing influence, an anomaly in the ordering of the world; it is itself the order of the world; or rather it is the regulating principle of this universe. It is eternal Wisdom, unique, spread across the whole universe in a sovereign network of relations.”

I think Fichte would have agreed with this, and with the examples of both Fichte and Weil we can see that there is a place within the conceptual space of philosophy of history for what we could call a pure providential philosophy of history, or, if you like, an a priori providentialism.
Ranke’s criticism of Fichte is predicated upon the necessity of a vulgar providentialism that is reflected in the empirical world. But if, as Fichte said, religion is nothing external, and it does not impel man to any course of external conduct, neither should it impel any course of external conduct on the world. This also resolves the paradoxical argument that Angelica Nuzzo found at the heart of Fichte’s philosophy of history, since the bare factual nature of history can be distinguished from the providentialism that can be construed a priori.

Video Presentation

https://youtu.be/T8eIxZi0LrM
https://www.instagram.com/p/C7LPoSKNdPB/
https://odysee.com/@Geopolicraticus:7/j.-g.-fichte-and-a-priori:6

Podcast Edition

https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/73G2BY64JJb
https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/a31b8276-53cd-4723-b6ad-a39c8faa4572/episodes/306a6446-d4d7-4e24-a447-c89fd310d7a2/today-in-philosophy-of-history-j-g-fichte-and-a-priori-providentialism
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-today-in-philosophy-of-his-146507578/episode/j-g-fichte-and-a-priori-177816272/
​

Wyrmheart was no stranger to challenge, when your significant other is Valkyrie Primarch of the Salamanders it was sorta a thing that just happened and considering their first date was a competition to kill the biggest salamander they could find well approval and challenge became more of a mindset at that point.
But this was different, while Wyrmheart was happy to face anyone when it came to continuing the relationship it became another thing when the entire Salamander chapter threw a collective workshop into the gears. In short the complaint was that “Any mortal who wished to date their Primarch would need to earn the approval of all of them.” When faced with the problem of convincing probably thousands of people at once Valkyrie as always offered the solution. With Wyrmheart on her should she proudly burst into a meeting one day declaring that in order for them to acdept Wyrmheart they would have a chili cook off and if her beloved won they would have to accept them. A single captain was chosen as judge and Wyrmheart would be facing off against a dozen other marines all who had been cooking chili for decades longer.
The competition would take place in two months and during that time Wyrmheart worked tirelessly. With assistance from Valkyrie (mainly in the crafting of an adamantine cooking pot) Wyrmheart sent for ingredients from across the galaxy, rare meats, luxurious spices, and even a few things that to this day don’t have an official name. For two months they crafted their Chili like Valkyrie crafted their relics.
And then the day came. In the great hall any Salamander that could be there was they milled about some chatted with the other chef’s all of whom were certain of their win. Then Wyrmheart arrived their chili pot carefully carried by a pair of Servitors and Wyrmheart in full protective gear fit more for the vilest of death worlds than casual wear such as this.
With a bemused look the judge declared they would try Wyrmheart‘s first to see what this mortal could do. Everyone looked and agreed eager to see how this upstart would fair.
It was over in a single bite, Wyrmheart’s chili was so hot and so spicy it made even the eyes of the marines near it water. Serf’s too close had to be removed the fumes alone were like tear gas filled their bodies. The judge brave as could be took a sacred tortilla chip, dipped it in the pot retrieving a hearty portion and took a bite.
After recovering from being interned in a Dreadnaught, the judge agreed it was quite delicious but should not be eaten. The rest of the Salamanders quickly changed their tune (especially after they witnessed both them and Valkyrie enjoying it after the chaos of their judge dying was finished). And that’s how Wyrmheart estned the approval and respect of the Salamanders and quite a few interested parties who became eager to wanted to learn the recipe to the “Hellfire Chili”. It’s still popular to this day for the Salamanders when facing traitor marines as it can melt through their armor like a melta but still come out of a flamer!
Peace for Valkyrie and Wyrmheart was hard earned… for about three days until a Custodian arrived with a letter. Wyrmheart was gonna have dinner with dad in three days, and they had no right to refuse.

So, meet this girl online over a year ago. Just chatted, nothing to it, and occasionally pep each other up.
Lately she's been using more letters in my name, or saying things that I feel like people with crushes would say to each other.
She's also been willingly sending me pics (normal, nothing else) and trusting me with more personal info.
Due to distance and a bit of an age gap and where we're at in life, I never thought to like her romantically. Now I'm beginning to.
tl;dr
I want to ask, but I don't want to ruin the friendship when it's so easy for her to cut me off of I make her feel uncomfortable.
Is it worth asking?

Hey I wanted to make a new post with the full story. I met this guy off hinge and we started talking immediately he said he was looking for a relationship and I told him if the person seems right I would love to be in one with someone. We go on dates for the first week and I told him I write poetry so he starts writing me love letters and finding my favorite flowers. He also was going to get me a cat bc I told him I wanted a pet but we only knew each other for a week. We were supposed to meet up for a date but he ends up being hours late turns out he was going on a date w another girl every day before me and him would hang out back to back. He even had the paintings they did together hung up on his wall. I confronted him about and he said he was talking to multiple people at once because he gets really obsessed with people and that his friends told him that that would be a good idea so he won’t be obsessed. He then said he was planning on picking me over her but then I was like is that a red flag. But we spend the next five days together and he buys me a bunch of things but I end up going on vacation and the text messages became distant he ends up going to a graduation for this girl he claims is his friend but I’m pretty sure they had something going on. We weren’t texting at the time bc he kept leaving me on read for days. At the graduation he’s screaming my name to get my attention but he’s there for another girl. So after that happened I decided to reach out to him and he ignored me after he was the one screaming for my attention. Why would someone do this what does this mean? Is he crazy for context I’m 22 and he’s 24.

Choosing the right signage should be a top priority for any business, whether you are just starting out or you are a well-established company. Your signage works for you 24/7, telling customers who you are, where you are, and what you do.
Effective business signage should be key components to your marketing strategy to help you promote your products and services. Here are some steps to follow when choosing your signage.
STEP 1: DETERMINE YOUR BUDGET
Your budget will help you determine a number of things when you are choosing signage such as:

• The size of signs you can get
• The quality of materials used in your signs
• The number of signs you can purchase
• The complexity of the design you can choose

When you are setting your budget, keep in mind how cost-effective signage is. It is one of the few types of advertising that, once it is paid for and installed, it keeps working for you without any additional costs except the occasional maintenance tasks.
Also remember that if you invest a little more in a higher quality sign, it will last longer and will not have to be replaced as quickly which will save you money in the long run.
If your budget is tight, then you can invest in a good quality storefront sign first and then add extra signage as the funds become available.
^{STEP 2: CHOOSE THE RIGHT SIGNAGE COMPANY TO WORK WITH}
There are many companies that do custom business signs, so how can you know which one is the best choice for you. Here are some tips to follow:
Choose a full-service company: It's better to work with a company that can design, manufacture, install, and maintain your signage for you. A full-service company will work with you form the start to the completion of your signage.
They will know what you want because they helped you design it, they will make it to your exact specifications, and they will know how to best install and maintain it, because they made it.
Choose a local company: Working with a local company has great benefits as well. They will be familiar with any signage bylaws in your area so you can be sure that your signs will be built according to those guidelines and they will know what permits or other paperwork is required and will help you obtain those.
If anything goes wrong, it's easier to contact a local company than one that is located far away.
Choose a company with experience and a good reputation: You want to find a company that has lots of experience in the signage industry and that has made the type of signage that you want for your business.
Check out the past projects that they have done and check out their online reviews to see what their customers think about their work.
^{STEP 3: CHOOSE THE RIGHT DESIGN FOR YOUR SIGNAGE}
Now that you know how much you can spend and what company you want to work with, it's time to design your signage. Here are some things to consider when choosing your design.
Think about your demographic: If you are targeting a certain type of customer, then you will want to have signage that will appeal to them.
For example, if your demographic is a younger audience, then choose fun and lively colours, fonts, images, and a message that will appeal to that generation. If your demographic is a more traditional then you probably want to choose more traditional colours, images, fonts and messages.
Tell your signage company what demographic you are targeting and they can help you design the right type of signage for that market.
Make sure your signage is visible: Your signage can be an effective advertising tool, but only if it can be seen. Make sure that your sign is large enough to be seen from the distance that you want and that the fonts are easy to read with lettering big enough and properly spaced apart.
If you are in a dark corner or if you want customers to see your signage at night, then you should choose backlit or another type of illumination for your sign.
The colours that you choose also play an important part in making your signage more visible. You want to choose colours with high contrast in both hue and value. If you use high contrasting colours then then can be seen from greater distances than low contrasting colours.
According to the Outdoor Advertising Association of America, "research demonstrates that high colour contrast can improve outdoor advertising recall by 38 percent." Black on yellow and black on white are two very high contrasting colour combinations whereas red on yellow and white on red have a very low contrast.
Choose the right materials: Your signage company can help you choose the right types of materials to use in your sign. Let them know how long you want your sign to last and where it will be put up as this will help determine the best type of materials to use. Some options include:

• Acrylic, plastic, and PVC
• Aluminum and other metals
• Wood
• Fabric such as mesh or vinyl for banners
• Neon or LED Neon

Keep it simple: When it comes to signage, less is usually more. You want to avoid too much clutter in your design and make sure that you include lots of white space. White space simply refers to the empty space around your text and graphics. this empty space can be a colour, it doesn't have to be white.
If your text is too crowded and too long, it will be more difficult to read especially by passing motorists. It is a good idea to leave about 30 to 40 percent of your signage space blank.
The above content is powered by LITASIGN
As a seasoned supplier of illuminated signs, LITASIGN boasts over 20 years of manufacturing expertise. Our professional team combines fine workmanship with innovative design, using only high-quality materials to craft exceptional signs that exceed expectations. With a focus on precision and attention to detail, we deliver stunning, long-lasting products that elevate your brand’s visibility and appeal.
🔜Contact us:
Phone:0086 13632869006
WhatsApp:0086 13632869006
E-mail:[info@litasign.com](mailto:infor@litasign.com)
Web:https://www.litasign.com

My wife is in a degree program at Athabasca and is taking 2 courses at Acadia with permission letters from Athabasca. Those courses are not offered at Athabasca and are specific to teaching elementary school math. She wants to get her B.ED after a degree.
Student loans in Nova Scotia has said that Athabasca must fill out part E of the student loan application; the name of the course and the price. Athabasca gave a curt refusal with no explanation.
So we double checked and student loans said yes, it must be Athabasca doing this. This is a routine thing that happens daily. We forward the letter to Athabasca and also ask why she is being refused.
Another curt refusal from Athabasca arrives. No refusal explanation. This time we ask again and request that Athabasca contact NS student loans and figure out how to get this problem solved. We supply a contact name and number familiar with our case.
This time Athabasca replies that they do not allow funding for classes taken at other universities.
I find this baffling how a Canadian University arbitrarily decides it will not help it's students by taking 2 minutes to fill out a form the government requires for student aid. As my wife is eligible for grants this is costing us thousands of dollars we don't have.
Has anyone run into this problem before? Any advice on resolving it would be much appreciated.

I met up with this guy off a dating app within the first week he was writing me love letters and trying to come to all of my events. I was hesitant bc I barely knew him turns out he was going on dates w another girl before me and the same day later going on dates with me for the next 3 weeks. I decided to confront him about it and he said he will just focus on me but I thought it was weird. He keeps being hot and cold. I started to ignore his texts but then I ran into him at my graduation and he started yelling my name to get my attention then ignored my text later that day. What does this mean

DISCLAIMER: I am new to this. I am not trying to incite violence between secular groups of Christianity. I am simply seeking advice and help from others who have learned in their walk with God. I am curious and want to learn. I have a lot of questions and only want people to reply who have good intentions to help me understand than to talk down on my faith. This is going to be a long post. I thank you in advance for your patience.
So I’ve recently found my way back to God in a way I never have before. I reached an incredibly low point of my life and He was there when nothing else was. While I grew up protestant and going to church I fell out for a long time. I never really read scripture outside of Sunday school when my family would go, and my brother is a non believer entirely now. I struggled with doubt and fell in and out with my faith repeatedly as my life grew more complex. My father died violently and young a few years ago but he was a believer and I questioned how could my God let this happen. I devoted my life to science and medicine and lost sight of my faith in that in combination with all of this. Yet now, I realized my actions had grown so sinful I needed to make a change and I decided to seek God. Now, for the first time in my life I’m reading my Bible, truly, chronologically. My fiancée is supportive of me and the relationship I’m trying to build with Him but I need some guidance.
I’m towards the end of the Books of Moses but I’ve come to a few conclusions I never have before and not all of them are altogether comforting. The Bible teaches us that Jesus is all powerful, loving, and forgiving. Yet what they don’t teach on Sundays that God, in by that, He (Jesus) is also terrifying. He names himself Jealous in Exodus. He is wrathful. He kills for disobedience and I know I have certainly broken more than one of his over 600 laws in the Old Testament. I’ve repented before the Lord, I’ve changed my life, changed my habits and while I struggle to stick to that change I try each and every day and have decided to put forth an effort to build my relationship with God. But I’m still plagued with questions now more than ever, yet now they’re in a sense of I want to understand rather than doubt.
Am I to follow Jesus or know my God? I pray to God in the name of the Son, but who is my relationship with the Son or the Father? Which is God if not both in combination with the Holy Spirit? When I pray which aspect am I praying to? Jesus taught us to pray to our Heavenly Father in his name but I’ve always called myself a follower of Christ. Yet now in my reading I feel as though my relationship should be directed to the Father though I know I can only know him through the Son? I want to have a stronger relationship with Him, but I feel as though I’m failing through sheer ignorance. I want to be hungry for His word, but I feel lesser that I’m almost burnt out or feeling desperate from the OT. I try to pray but I don’t think I’m very good at it and never know what to say aside from the Lord’s Prayer.
But now with all of this I’m learning that the Catholic Church is the church left behind in Jesus’ wake so should I not be a Catholic if I’m truly to follow Scripture to the letter? But the Bible also doesn’t mention intercession with reverence to saints? I thought I was only ever to pray to God and anything else was heresy? Or for another example, if I repent to the Lord why should I need to go to confession to do so? Catholicism teaches to have a relationship with Mary but shouldn’t that be reserved for Jesus Christ? My heart tells me I should be a Catholic based on what I’ve read but so many practices seem contradictory to how I was raised im not sure anymore.
I understand at the end of the day that my faith is to trust and believe that Jesus Christ is my lord and savior, that through him and him alone is the way the truth and the life and that without him I am nothing. But I guess my question is how do I know which denomination to pick? There are many contemporary practices of some Protestant churches that seem to contradict the Bible in some ways but there are also Catholic teachings that seem foreign or strange to me. Purgatory? Saint worship seems almost like pseudo idolatry? The pope being infallible and a line to the disciples ? I’m confused and right now altogether frightened by the God I am coming to know in my study and want to do my best to Follow his word but don’t know how best to do so.
I just want to do the right thing and feel as though these questions are best suited for a Priest but I’m Not sure how to have that conversation with one or how to even set up a time to discuss all of this.
Thank you for taking the time to read all of this, for your patience with me and my questions, your sincerity, and your input.
May God bless you.

My sons name is Calvin Saint Thomas (but not really Thomas, we just say it is for my MIL) We are expecting boy number two and have decided the first name is Franklin but cannot decide on a middle. I really like, Franklin Sir. It’s 11 letters like Calvin Saint. I think they sound cohesive and interesting. I like the noble sounding names and think they pair well with our generic English last name. My husband is just not on board. Our other suggestions are: - Kingsley (too long imo) - Duke (meh)
We like: - Sterling - noble But we know people with those names. Any suggestions are appreciated or just confirming that sir is a good choice😅🫶🏼

Hi everyone,
My family and I have been living to this property owned by NHA for 18 years now. At first, we were renting this place from the 2nd owner, then we finally bought this property from the 2nd owner for 200k pesos 10 years ago. However, we only have the rights for this property, the title was not transferred to my parents since the first owner is not allowed to sell this property to anyone.
Moving on, we received a letter that the 1st owner or the 2nd owner haven't paid his balance and the total balance is around 600k+ pesos. My parents were only able to pay 1000 pesos every month inconsistently for the past few years to NHA (the receipt is named to the 1st owner), there were times that my parents were not able to pay because of financial issues that's why the current balance went up and due to interest as well.
We also tried contacting the first owner so that he can help us transferring the title to us while we try to pay the balance monthly, however we found out that he died already. This year, we already got two notices from NHA and I am afraid that we might get kick out of this place, we have been here for almost 20 years now.
My questions are

• Can NHA kick us out here since we haven't paid the 1st owner balance?
• Is it still possible to transfer the name to us if we pay the full balance amount?

Am I the Asshole? My closest friend (we've known each other for 18 years) and my business partner (for 7 years) recently had their first baby (via surrogate, he's a single Dad). I wasn't able to be with him during the birth as it took place in another country, so we've been texting a lot. The baby was born 4 weeks ago.
During a text conversation a few days ago, I accidentally misspelled his son's name as "Jessie" instead of "Jesse". So I accidentally added an "i" to the name while busily writing out a message about him possibly being underweight because he was premature. I said, "Is Jessie gaining weight fast enough?" My friend replied, "It's Jesse friend-who-should-really-know-that". Now, not having registered that I had misspelled the name, I took this to mean that I should know about newborns' WEIGHT in general. I was confused, I didn't think this was obvious knowledge. So not realising that he was referring to the spelling, I made the "Jessie" mistake again a second time a minute later. He corrected me again and I then realised and apologised. I said it was a simple mistake. He said he didn't care, it's his son's name. Since then I have consciously spelled the name correctly every time.
My friend was very offended by the misspelling. For the last day, we've been having a fight about this - probably 40 long text messages. I've apologised a couple of times. But I've also told him that it's ridiculous to be punishing me with this argument for the mistake, and that he needs to have more understanding. He's said that I should know the spelling (even though we've never talked about how Jessie/e can be spellied several ways until now, I guess he expected me to realise). He's said that I haven't taken enough responsibility and acknowledged how the misspelling made him feel. I've told him to chill out, that this is petty and that he's blown this mistake completely out of proportion. I haven't made the mistake since. He's moved between calling it a misspelling and that it wasn't a mistake, that I entirely "forgot" his son's name. He recently said "a mistake would be calling him Jessr or Jessw because those letters are near the letter e. But you actually spelt out the whole spelling of the alternative name (Jessie) which means you actually thought that was his name."
I've felt shitty for 24 hours because of this. I've apologised twice but he wants more - to acknowledge how I made him feel and acknowledge that this is much worse than how I see it. I just think that's way too much for what happened. As his closest friend for 18 years, who has made Jesse a baby gift, is single-handedly running his business while he's away and has been checking in almost daily (apparently not enough though), I thought he might be a bit more understanding.
Honestly, am I the asshole for misspelling the name?