/lit/ - Literature

>>23159244
Check his early appearance and compare it to young david icke.

>>23159244
All of his stuff is fairly accessible as long as you have kant, fitche and Spinoza under your belt

Check out the Heideggers History Of Metaphysics essays

>>23159244
Philosophical Inquiries into the Nature of Human Freedom

>>23161261
What should one do with them under the belt? Why are they there?

>>23159244
Why are threads about Fichte and Schelling not more common? Aren't they needed for Hegel, or are they just not very important?

>>23163242
Kant overshadowed all of them, and even today philosophers still feel the need to respond to Kant. Hegel was the last major contributor and took the movement in a different direction, and history has afforded him a corresponding amount of fame. Fichte and Schelling are good reads, you will want to read Kant first though. They were never able to achieve the same level of fame, but that does not mean their ideas lack merit, rather that history has sort of glossed over them.

>>23163242
Schelling's biggest contribution was his influence on Bergson, in Bergson the spirit of his philosophy lives on with a great value to the 20th century philosophers, especiallly husserl and heidegger

>>23159244
>He takes a bath, which refreshes him, and in our breakfast conversation we come via C. Frantz and his Schellingianism to Schopenhauer and his “Will.” Yesterday R. said that everything manifests itself as a hunger, a splendid name Schopenhauer gave to “something hollow and ungraspable.” Sad that so few are capable of accepting this doctrine; because it makes no concessions to politics, ignorant people believe that it inhibits activity. — The fact that human beings fashion laws in accordance with their understanding of things, that does not prove the validity of these laws, nor does it explain the things themselves; “Will” is an explanation.

>R. talks once more about Schelling and C. Frantz, and when somebody mentions the former’s philosophy of mythology and recalls Creuzer, R. says: “All these people like Creuzer saw something, they made mistakes but they saw some thing. Their successors see nothing, just think they ought to say something, too.”
- Cosimas Diaries

>This brings me to the one aspect of your theory which causes me misgivings. You locate the realm of history in the sphere of man’s ‘free will’, whereas I can see the freedom of the will only in the act of denying the world, i.e. in the advent of the ‘kingdom of grace’. If the realm of history were to offer us anything other than the workings of an arbitrary despotism – which certainly does not mean freedom of the will, but rather the will’s subjection to blind self-interest –, it would be most surprising if, for ex., ideas like yours had no influence whatsoever on the course of history.
- Letter to Constantin Frantz