Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling (1775–1854)

This book came as a response to criticism from a friend of Schelling's, and a notable adherent of the philosophical movement termed "Nonphilosophy": Adam Karl von Eschenmayer. Like Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi, Eschenmayer was critical of Idealism and countered "reason" with "faith". Eschenmayer also criticized the role that the "Absolute" played in Schelling's system, since it basically was a synonym for God. For Eschenmayer, only faith could bridge the gap between the world of created things show more and God. He was also willing to acknowledge some role for the "Absolute" but not as God.
Schelling wrote the treatise here to deal with many of Eschenmayer's criticisms, but it also foreshadowed his essay on human freedom as well. For Schelling, difference and particularity had to come about through some kind of "leap" or "fall" from original undifferentiated divine unity. While on the surface that may seem superficially to recall the Biblical idea of the fall, it seems more to mimic the Valentinian Gnostic myth of the fall of Sophia. He also includes in this "leap" or "fall" the creation of an evil image or "idol" that makes one immediately think of the gnostic myth of the creation of Ialdabaoth. It is hard not to see Schelling and the Idealists as promoters of, if not a gnostic Christianity, at least a very (Neo)Platonist one. Schelling even dedicates a section of this work to endorsing mystery schools and esoteric religion.
Even though I like Schelling, when given a choice on the one hand to believe that God can be grasped by reason and believing knowledge to be salvific, and on the other hand, the Biblical endorsement of faith, hope and love as being the sole means of relationship with God, I will always choose the latter. Hamann, Jacobi and Eschenmayer were certainly choosing the more Christian perspective and Hegel, Schelling and Fichte the more gnostic one. In many ways, the former foreshadowed the Christian existentialism of Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard. I would never want my interest in Idealism, and philosophy in general, to be construed as some metaphysical or utopianist grand scheme or pseudo-religious hope. Unfortunately, the Idealists often had grand hopes and grand designs for philosophy and for their systems; far beyond what was reasonable or appropriate. I think philosophy is interesting and is helpful in exercising the mind God gave us but I would never accord to it what Schelling does in this work. Still, he was always sincere and as with all of his writings, there's some profound ideas here and there. If there was some room for agreement between Schelling's notion of "intuition" and mine, there may be more of value here, because my take on intuition could be allied to faith when it is spiritually lead. The problem is, Schelling's take on intuition is probably similar but not exactly the same as mine given that he accords way too much to an Idealistic process of ratiocination.
This has made me want to read Jacobi and Eschenmayer. Unfortunately, the latter has never been translated into English. Jacobi was translated relatively recently and, thankfully, I have a copy of his works. show less

Along with The Philosophy Of Mythology, this has been the most engaging book I've read by Schelling; and with his essay on human freedom, those three works mark Schelling at his most mature and most original. He hasn't lost all of his dependence on Fichte but it isn't as prominent as it was in earlier works. Here, as with the essay on human freedom, Schelling shows a little more dependence on Jacob Boehme, the Gorlitz mystic. While I do like Boehme to a degree, I have some misgivings show more regarding some of his ideas; and specifically the ones Schelling here uses. These issues do not take up a lot of the book, so it's not enough to affect my rating. His dependence on Boehme isn't all encompassing. It's noticeable in various places, but it's clear that Schelling isn't simply regurgitating Boehme's theosophy. He definitely has some unique ideas here. I don't know if Schelling may be dependent on Franz von Baader in some of his thought. Baader has yet to be translated into English, apart from brief extracts, so I have not been able to research him adequately. It is known, however, that Schelling was influenced by Baader, so some dependence is probably a safe bet.
This work does fit rather well with the lectures that make up his Philosophy of Mythology, which I was quite impressed with. In that work, Schelling investigated the philosophical continuity of revelation through religion and mythology up through Judaism and Christianity. In this work, he more or less investigates theosophy (not in the Blavatskian sense, of course). This book really strikes me as being strongly Neo-Platonist. There is an undercurrent of pantheism, or, at least, panentheism. It's not that I support either, but the investigation I thought was so intriguing I cannot give the book any less than the highest rating. It is clear to me why the Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov (who I am well acquainted with) was a follower of Schelling and this work in particular. This work does seem to be at least partially what the system of sophiology was based on. At least in the case of Solovyov. Bulgakov seems to have been more circumspect in regards to Schelling; but I think Berdyaev probably was influenced by this work.
This concludes my reading of Schelling for the time being. Very good book to end with. I would have to say that even though Fichte was the true originator of German Idealism, Schelling certainly applied it in ways that I think were often more interesting. show less

...The Beginning of the End of the Dialectical., September 15, 2004

This book is important for several reasons. I mention only a few here. Schelling, a great dialectical (in the modern 'German Idealist' sense) thinker/philosopher in these pages makes a crucial admission of the impossibility of overcoming (ancient) esotericism. (Hegel makes a similar admission in the great preface of the Phenomenology.) For the sake of this short note let us think of the esoteric as the unchanging. Schelling show more here admits that there is an unmediated 'basis' that accompanies us through all our dialectical adventures. This 'origin' is subsumed in God but it is not 'overcome' or surpassed. Indeed, this 'basis' rages through (at least!) all things capable (like humans) of spirit. Schelling goes so far as to say that "To separate from God they [all creatures] would have to carry on this becoming on a basis different from Him. But since there can be nothing outside God, this contradiction can only be solved by things having their basis in that within God which is not God Himself, i.e. in that which is the basis of His existence." It is this unmediated basis (within God but forever separate from him, unmastered even by Him!) that accompanies all things through their dialectical adventures. In fact, this unmediated 'pole' (if you will) threatens to drag us down (back! ...A genuine horror for all dialectical thought!) towards it. "All evil strives back towards chaos" Schelling says. [Digressing for a moment I would like to point out that this eerily prefigures Nietzsche's remark that "Everywhere, the way to the beginnings leads to barbarism."] By this Schelling indicates (or at least seems to) that every dialectical step 'forward' can never outrun the shadow of chaos, the negative, the unmediated, the unreasonable. ...Is this the dawn of the postmodern? I would also point out that Schelling, in his later [post 1809] speculations, found something that genuinely caused him unease in this way of thinking. After writing this essay (1809) he publishes next to nothing, though he lives to 1854. Did he foresee the dialectical being swallowed up by the unchanging basis? "Nothing at all in creation can remain ambiguous" - he bravely says. But the uncreated, unknowable, unmediated and unmastered Basis remains in God - and in us all! show less

So this is the fourth book I've read by Schelling. I really haven't read them chronologically; actually quite the opposite. I read the Philosophy Of Mythology first; then his Philosophy Of Human Freedom; then his Philosophy Of Nature, and then this work. I've liked all of them to a degree. Schelling's system developed over time and in the course of a number of works. When he wrote the System Of Transcendental Idealism, he was still very much a disciple of Fichte and this is evident when one show more reads this book. Much of his thought here depends on Fichte's Wissenschaftslehre. Basically, it's a discourse on dichotomous notions of being. Taking the basis from Fichte's system of the "I" and the "not I", Schelling investigates the bridging of opposites, e.g. self/not self, finitude/infinitude, limitlessness/limitedness, unconsciousness/consciousness, passivity/activity, subjectivity/objectivity, etc. A lot of this was investigated in Fichte's works related to the Wissenschaftslehre (loosely translated as the "Science of Knowledge/Knowing"), which I am very acquainted with. I purposely read Fichte thoroughly before reading this work. Both writers seek to make subjective being actively objective in an idealistic manner, rather than in a realistic or empirical manner.
To go over this work in detail would make this review overlong and isn't necessary. I recommend that people who are interested in Schelling, German Idealism, or philosophy in general, read it. I gained a lot from it. I actually probably liked his investigation of art at the end of the work the best. I've also come to appreciate the role that Schelling and Fichte played in the development of psychology as a science. It's hard not to appreciate how much of the ground work was laid by them. show less