The Greatest Philosopher of All Time

[Anonymous No.17314128]

>Fleshes out Herder and Hamann's anticipation of the linguistic turn
>anticipates Heidegger's ontology and existential analysis of death
>demonstrates God's necessity
>listens to Jesus' Word and discovers the nature of the Father
>btfo Hegel
>completes Kant
>solves mind/body dualism
>gives the first and richest account of the unconscious
>demonstrates the commensurability between mind and matter
>underscores the spiritual dimensions of nature while appreciating theoretical approximations
>isn't terrified of infinity like Kant.


Please remind me why we still do philosophy after Schelling when he has literally solved it?

[Anonymous No.17314134]

>>17314128
>Christcuck philosophy
Yikes

[Anonymous No.17314150]

>>17314134
t: dead Verstandesmensch

[Anonymous No.17314176]

>>17314128
Fichte BTFO'd him at any age

[Anonymous No.17314196]

>>17314176
Fichte's philosophy of freedom is verbose, solipsistic and contingent. Schelling is more coherent, necessary, and far more concise.

[Anonymous No.17314302]

>>17314196
>necessary
Not how this works

[Anonymous No.17314311]

>>17314302
what is 'this'?

[Anonymous No.17314314]

>>17314302
>literally how transcendental philosophy works

[Anonymous No.17314353]

>>17314134
brainlet moment

[Anonymous No.17314420]

>>17314128
>solves the problem of evil

[Anonymous No.17314495]

>>17314128
Based, Schelling doesn't get enough credit for being a supreme but secret influence on Heidegger.

>Many of the most bizarre features of [Heidegger’s] ontology appear to have been lifted right out of the occult aether wherein Schelling developed them: [such as] the historical destiny of the artist-scholars of a coming apocalyptic generation to build a new world whose architectonic is established by singing together their own epic poem.

[Anonymous No.17314530]

>>17314495
There is nothing in Schelling you can't find in Fichte.

[Anonymous No.17314550]

>>17314530
What about his focus on language and poetry?

[Anonymous No.17314649]

>>17314550
He compensated that with political and civic involvement.

[Anonymous No.17314853]

>>17314128

A few months ago, someone posted a passage which they attributed to Schelling. I correctly refuted it.

[Anonymous No.17314919]

>>17314853
The highest point of your career as a scholar

[Anonymous No.17314925]

>>17314128
No amount of shilling will make me read Schelling.

[Anonymous No.17314940]

>>17314128
was schelling /gnostic/

[Anonymous No.17315023]

>>17314649
I know, I like Fichte's speeches, but that's something clearly different that Schelling was doing from Fichte.

[Anonymous No.17316457]

>>17314128
>>completes Kant
???

[Anonymous No.17316486]

>>17314128
Post-Kantian philosophy is just niggas guessing what happens outside of themselves over and over again (aka nonsense).

[Anonymous No.17316572]

>>17314128
Umm no? Compared to Fichte, Schellings philosophy is just mindless scribbles

[Anonymous No.17317187]

>>17316457
Schopenhauer is great, but he does not complete Kant. In fact, Schelling even anticipates and fundamentally argues in Freiheitschrift and Weltalter that Will is primordial Being.

>>17316572
You don't seem to have read Schelling. Schelling writes very lucidly.

[Anonymous No.17317195]

>>17314134
This. But then again when people say the German Idealists were Christians it is usually just a christcuck coping trying to reclaim them.

[Anonymous No.17317205]

>>17314128
>The Greatest Philosopher of All Time
*blocks your path*
Alsp imagine I made the same post I'm making right now but with Bergson instead. Both are better answers.

[Anonymous No.17317215]

>>17317205
Did Whitehead ever complain about how he got systematically ignored by analytic philosophers? They talk about his project with Russell all the time but none ever mentions his later schizo stuff

[Anonymous No.17317226]

>>17317215
I don't remember anything like that no. If Bergson lived to see his reputation prior to Deleuze sort of reviving interest in him I'd imagine he would complain a good deal though lol.

[Anonymous No.17317230]

>>17317195
By all accounts anon, they're Christian in the same way Plato is Grecian pagan.

[Anonymous No.17317240]

>>17317230
Plato was a devout polytheist though. Whereas the German idealists denied the most fundamental of Christian doctrines or they outright were non-Christian.

[Anonymous No.17317242]

>>17317226
I mean, you would expect that at least Quine, who was Whitehead's doctoral student and then taught at Harvard all his life, would say something about his teacher and colleague's philosophical work, but no. It's rather weird

[Anonymous No.17317253]

>>17317240
>denied the most fundamental of Christian doctrines
You have a Calvinist conception of religiosity. Most people would be more concerned with orthopraxy considering the time period.

[Anonymous No.17317258]

>>17317240
If Plato was a devout Polytheist, then the German Idealists, specifically Hegel (as it's easier to concentrate, unless you mean Kant, who is even more obviously classified as a Christian), were devout Monotheists. All of their ideas, looked at in an historical era, are Christian to the very core. Though don't assume I'm saying they can only be used by literal Christians.

[Anonymous No.17317268]

>>17317242
Whitehead is one of those thinkers a lot of people forget like Bergson or Merleau-Ponty (sonce Heidegger and Husserl are so much more well known than he is).

[Anonymous No.17317280]

>>17317268
Bergson and Merleau-Ponty are way more well known than Whitehead, and Bergson all the more, who you find mentioned relatively often (such as by Jung, and many other educated people). But really all of these people are at least known by intellectuals, who doesn't necessarily know of Whitehead because of that term "process philosophy"? It's just no one knows how to professionally deal with Whitehead.

[Anonymous No.17317296]

>>17317280
I mean I guess but I think that just has to do with being overshadowed by other philosophers.

[Anonymous No.17317319]

>>17317280
>>17317296
I had a professor whose research was synthesizing Whitehead with Jewish theology. He would sometimes go on tangents about Whitehead but I can't say I understood any of that kek

[Anonymous No.17317369]

>>17317240
>>17317258
Plato was not a polytheist. At most a henotheist.

[Anonymous No.17317414]

>>17314128
So where does one start with Schelling?

[Anonymous No.17317422]

>>17317414
>where does one start with Schelling?
>https://youtu.be/Ua49yMqUqUQ?t=47

[Anonymous No.17317468]

>>17317414
System of Transcendental Idealism, Freiheitschrift, Weltalter. In that order. All taken together, it's still shorter than reading the CPR and not much longer than the Phenomenology. Extremely concise.

>>17317422
How long did you have to wait to post that video?

[Anonymous No.17317483]

>>17317242
Quine's dissertation was on the Principia Mathematica so it makes sense he'd get Whitehead to be his dissertation adviser.

[Anonymous No.17317503]

>>17317414
>>17317468
Though it should be mentioned that there are three surviving versions of the Weltalter (which is incomplete. It was supposed to be in three parts, the Past, the Present, the Future, but only the Past is somewhat complete while fragments exist of the Present.) The third edition, from 1815 is generally considered the most complete. Suny Press has published two translations, one covering the 1st edition of the Past and some fragments of the Present, and the other covers the 3rd edition. Slavoj Zizek thinks the 2nd edition is the best and gives an extensive introduction in a translation titled The Abyss of Freedom/The Ages of the World. The translation, which is not by him, is good, but his intro is mainly nonsense.

You are also in luck as Schelling scholarship received an excellent comprehensive and systematic English compilation of key extracts by Schelling last year, editied by Benhamin Berger and Daniel Whistler, the Schelling Reader.

[Anonymous No.17317530]

>>17317195
> Following a sharp disagreement with his old friend Hegel over the Phenomenology in 1807, Schelling wrote a short but brilliant essay on human freedom in 1809, after which he never published another word. In the remaining decades of his life (d. 1854) Schelling developed in an increasingly conservative and Christian direction, preoccupied with the relationship between Christianity and metaphysics.
https://www.routledge.com/Schelling-versus-Hegel-From-German-Idealism-to-Christian-Metaphysics/Laughland/p/book/9781138273528

[Anonymous No.17317535]

>>17317205
Whitehead is to Schelling what Plotinus is to Plato

[Anonymous No.17317543]

>>17317468
>How long did you have to wait to post that video?
Luckily not actually long, as I only watched the movie a few weeks ago.

[Anonymous No.17317552]

Reminder that Wagner was a Schellingian artist, and read him when he was reading Hegel, what other thinker approaches the themes of this scene?

https://youtu.be/2UCRARmzAgo?t=3630

[Anonymous No.17317555]

Why would you read Schilling if you don't study philosophy?
What is there to gain on a personal level

[Anonymous No.17317558]

>>17317468
>All taken together, it's still shorter than reading the CPR
ok, might be worth it

[Anonymous No.17317561]

>>17317555
Not the acuter perception, but the understanding of being. Which allows contentedness, and is alive itself!

[Anonymous No.17317743]

>>17317280
>It's just no one knows how to professionally deal with Whitehead.
Why deal with someone who was wrong and who was refuted by Parmenides and Guenon?

[Anonymous No.17317761]

>>17317369
A distinction without a difference.

[Anonymous No.17317804]

>>17317530
Schelling is peak midwitism who fail to go beyond atheism so he goes back to jewism. Literally the german Evola.

[Anonymous No.17317810]

>>17317761
Polytheism may imply a pantheistic system, all gods are interrelated and every aspect of reality depend on each of them. Henotheism breaks with this homogeneous functionality of gods in favor of a total dependence on a primordial, absolute god, a principle of principles. Now if you want to share something in this discussion I would appreciate it a lot.

[Anonymous No.17317811]

>>17314128
>The whole of idealism is a bunch of pseuds not knowing how basic physics works.
When I found this out I then knew 90% of all philosophy is wright out dog shit. So no anon there is no solving the mid/body problem.

[Anonymous No.17317824]

>>17317811
If there is no intelligibility there is nothing, no reality, absolutely nothing. End of story.

[Anonymous No.17317835]

>>17317824
that's like saying if a child cant read then there are no books

[Anonymous No.17317848]

>>17317835
Incommensurable analogy. Try again, or better, try telling me what is something without its intelligible paradigm.

[Anonymous No.17317859]

>>17317848
Your spinning is circles, like asking if A = A then does A = A? We have to have a way of transmitting info, but don't worry this long ask books tells me why its all BS, which would be self refuting.

[Anonymous No.17317876]

>>17317824
>>17317848
arguing in bad faith

[Anonymous No.17317935]

>>17317859
You are dodging the central point of the matter that is intelligibility itself, which goes against any physical primacy.

>>17317876
I would love to see a more or less elaboration on why this is the case.

[Anonymous No.17318017]

>>17317804
>Evola
>Christian

[Anonymous No.17318074]

>>17317835
if no one could read, there are no books. If no one could think, there are no objects. The possibility of knowing that there are books that the child could read implies someone who can. The possibility to know an object outside of its representation implies someone who can know an object directly without the sensory experience.

[Anonymous No.17318485]

there isn't any good german philosopher

i'm sorry

[Anonymous No.17318499]

>>17318485
Because they're all great

[Anonymous No.17318520]

>>17316457
What an ape.

[Anonymous No.17318905]

>>17317811
>>17317876
>>17317859
I still want to see physicalists' responses to the ontological primacy and necessity of intelligibility in reality.

[Anonymous No.17318964]

Maybe, but he fucked himself over by the, let's call it, unhealthy evolution of his own system. Was during the second world war when his books, untouched for a hundred of years, were discovered in ruins?

[Anonymous No.17318973]

>>17318964
Also, can you help with elaborating his philosophy of identity a bit, I trust you should know it and how to explain it, thx.

[Anonymous No.17319204]

>>17314128
Schelling's greatness will be known to all when Schelling scholarship synthesises his ideas with our contemporary Wissenschaft. The Post-Schellingan tradition is now.

[Anonymous No.17319234]

>>17314128
>>demonstrates God's necessity
He literally doesn't, especially in his later period. The Absolute, God, is posited as a pure contingency, not because He depends on something else, but because Reason is incapable of conceptualizing Him, and therefore it is incapablr of deducing His own necessity.
Basically, brfore Schelling, people deduced thr necessity of God, and from said necessity thry deduced its existence (from St. Anselm to Fichte and Hegel).
Schelling, instead, says: God exist, therefore he must be a necessary being. This is evidently not a demonstration, since the first premise is not demonstrated. So, Schelling never demonstrated God's necessity, in fsct he argued explicitly against this possibility (check his Phil of Revelation for further references)

>listens to Jesus' Word and discovers the nature of the Father
Again, no, for Schelling God is completely unkowable. If you could know thr naturr of the Absolute, you cpuld ground him and the rest of creation with an a priori argument. That's what Hegel tried to do, that's what Schelling argued against.

[Anonymous No.17319250]

>>17314196
>Fichte
>solipsistic
Filtered. Read his Foundations of Natural Right to get refuted like the fool you are.
>>17314530
>There is nothing in Schelling you can't find in Fichte.
Wow, where I can find Fichte's refutation of Fichte's subjective idealism?

[Anonymous No.17319819]

>>17319250
Not him, but I'd love to hear elaboration on those.

[Anonymous No.17320051]

>>17319819
On those what? I responded to tso different people

[Anonymous No.17320062]

>>17320051
Two*

[Anonymous No.17320099]

>>17320051
Both, really, if it's not a problem.

[Anonymous No.17320854]

bump

[Anonymous No.17321008]

>>17320099
>>17320099
Regarder the solipsism bit, in that text Fichte argues that intersubjectivity is a prerequisite for reflection, which is a prerequisite for self-consciousness. The argument is very complex and it makes absolutely no sense unless you've already understood the Wissenschaftslehre, I'll just give you a few general notes. Fichte thinks that finite Is are to be described as self-limited activity of the I (due to what is said in the Wissenschaftslehre); for an I to be an I, it must be able to recognise itself as such, namely as self-limited activity; if everything in nature apart from me were to be non-self-limiting activity, I could not posit as an object of thought the concept of a self-limited activity; if that were to be the case, I would have no basis to distinguish my self-limited activity from externally limited activity (I would still be limited activity, but I could not reflect on this fact); in other terms, my activity would be undetermined to me; without a determined activity, there cannot be any reflection; without reflection there csnnot be self-consciousness.
BUT, we have an experience, we are capable of reflection, so it must be thst we have already cognized a self-limited activity. Since self-activity is the mark of consciousness, Fichte thinks he can prove a priori that other minds exist, otherwise I could not be self-conscious. Once I establish that other minds exist, I can also recognize and determine further my own activity as self-limited, and since I csn recognize activities of the same type in other human beings, I can be sure a priori that they're conscious (and not mere automata).
Not only Fichte is not a solipsist, he's actually one of the few philosophers who tried to give an a priori solution to the problem of other minds.

Regarding Schelling's refutation, I'll just mention the one he formulated in his youth (I'm not so well read on his later philosophy), which is very simple. The absolute I cannot be an I, since its trascendental structure precludes any sort of reflection in it. Long story short: Fichte thinks the absolute I is infinite activity, but he also says that reflection depends on the limitation of an activity - of course the absolute I's activity cannot be limited, hence the contradiction. The only solution for Schelling is to claim that the Absolute is not a subject. At the same time, he accepts Fichte's criticism to dogmatic realism, so he also accepts that the Absolute cannot be an object. His philosophy of identity stems from these consideration: the goal of this philosophy is to ground everything on a pinciple that is neither a subject nor an object

[Anonymous No.17321458]

>>17321008
The more appropriate term for Fichte would be a true idealist, then, as all things depend on the mind (even minds themselves)?
And for Schelling, what does he actually do with philosophy of identity? I really got lost and that with subjective and objective subject-object.

All in all, thanks for a great reply :*

[Anonymous No.17321676]

>>17321458
>The more appropriate term for Fichte would be a true idealist, then, as all things depend on the mind (even minds themselves)?
Yes, literally everything for Fichte are mind-dependent. For example, in his theory material objects are just the representation of a limit of our activity, and that limit is mind-dependent too (we posit it). Apart from minds, nothing exists, and the whole physical universe is a mere (necessary) representation.
>And for Schelling, what does he actually do with philosophy of identity? I really got lost and that with subjective and objective subject-object
The argument is horribly hard to summarize in a 4chan post (I just tried, but the argument is too convoluted - keep in mind that he uses Spinoza's geometrical method to present it). You can find it in the first 20 pages of "Presentation of My Philosophical System" (1800), which should be on libgen.

[Anonymous No.17322728]

>>17317205
could use more love. I wish there were more Whitehead scholars. I really feel that he's on to something but I just don't get it.

[Anonymous No.17324168]

>>17317187
>Schopenhauer is great, but he does not complete Kant
You clearly haven't read Schopenhauer's critique of Kantian philosophy in the appendix of The world as Will and Representation, nor his doctoral dissertation - in which he goes greatly into the depth of his epistemology. Come on now, Schopenhauer is the true successor of Kant.
>Schelling even anticipates and fundamentally argues in Freiheitschrift and Weltalter that Will is primordial Being.
Ridiculous. The Will doesn't be. It exists outside of our apriori forms of time and space, therefore is not governed by the principle of sufficient reason - It is groundless, ergo inexplicable and ineffable. For something to be, Schopenhauer would posit that it must have it's being grounded in something. The being of number two, for example, is grounded in number one.

[Anonymous No.17325517]

>>17324168
he doesn't complete Kant in the appendix.

[Anonymous No.17325546]

>>17314128
>Christian Philosipher
God isn't real, there, we have no reason to listen to him and he is a bad philosipher

[Anonymous No.17326119]

>>17325546
see
>>17314150
>>17314353