[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 96 KB, 803x996, Nb_pinacoteca_stieler_friedrich_wilhelm_joseph_von_schelling.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20823123 No.20823123 [Reply] [Original]

Schelling seems to be highly neglected in the Anglosphere. Is he the forgotten end-boss of philosophy? Does he have systematic tendencies like Hegel with the capacity to incorporate mythology but without the fixation on reason? Are there panentheist readings of Schelling? What is his take on Being and Becoming?

>> No.20823363

fuck, I wish history of philosophy anon was here. Why did people drop Schelling? He made it to the University of Berlin... he was supposed to have won bros.

>> No.20823585

hold up, now I'm reading he's a panentheist, not a pantheist. wtf I should have learned German

>> No.20823706

>>20823585
Such terms are gay and describe very little about his philosophy.

>> No.20823711

>>20823706
Okay, so sell me on Schelling.

>> No.20823840

>>20823711
>schell me on Selling

>> No.20823848

>>20823840
You aren't Schelling me on anything right now.
>Schelling
>Hegel
>Schlegel (combines the two)
I hope philosophy works like that

>> No.20823856
File: 15 KB, 700x394, images (7).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20823856

>>20823848
>>Schelling
>>Hegel
>>Schlegel (combines the two)
>I hope philosophy works like that

>> No.20824229

>>20823363
The issue for me with Schelling is that as soon as he diverged from Fichte he started using his idealist system to derive natural phenomenon like magnetism and electricity. In a field where there is no conclusive way of disproving a philosophy, Schelling is as close as one can get to being objectively wrong, simply by making basic extrapolations from his system. Same deal with Hegel, its unappealing to invest the time into their systems when their application lead to such blatant aburdities

>> No.20824236

>>20824229
It's pretty easy to just ignore Schelling's and Hegel's silly scientific claims.

>> No.20824258

>>20824236
You can ignore them, but they have reasoning that leads to their beliefs. In his encyclopedia Hegel claimed that his system formed a circle, each section validating the next, and right in the middle is his work on physics. In any case, if it doesn't damn their works, it still entails that their systems are vague enough to be applied to whatever they want to prove.

>> No.20824281

>>20824258
Yes Hegel denied some singular proof for his system, but it's very easy for his proof of mutual interdependence to be separated from science and just kept in the realms of philosophy.

>In any case, if it doesn't damn their works, it still entails that their systems are vague enough to be applied to whatever they want to prove.
It doesn't at all, this statement of yours only vaguely connects to Hegel's and Schelling's systems. I'm not an expert on their scientific thought, but it could just as easily be the logical result of Hegel's philosophy applied to science. One should simply question his framework of science which allowed him to apply it there.

>> No.20824317

>>20824281
This could very well be the case, just my rationale for not sinking time into those two. Shoddy physics can have serious implications, Aristotle's account of acceleration is enough to question his theory of motion, and consequently his theory of the unmoved mover.

>> No.20824395

>>20824317
I think the possible scientific mistakes of Aristotle should be treated rather differently from those of modern philosophers (where they can just be ignored before their philosophy). I think what he says is always interesting and of some importance because of its place in ancient Greece, though you may right about Aristotle's account of acceleration.

>> No.20824424

What about late Schelling? I don’t care about anything before 1809 at all. I’m looking for Hegel but positive, panentheistic, religious, and accounting for free will.

>> No.20824519

There should be a chart for Schelling.

>> No.20825148

bump

>> No.20826008

I'm a Schiller for Schelling

>> No.20826312

why did Kierkegaard hate Schelling? I feel like they'd be more sympathetic to each other as religious existentialists

>> No.20826320

inquiry into the essence of human freedom prolapses plantinga and his whole crew of demiurge apologist fucking stooges.

>> No.20826324

>>20824424
Try Positive Philosophy, his Berlin lectures on mythology, the essay on human freedom, and Ages of the World his magnum opus imo

>> No.20826325

>>20826320
why do you hate Plantinga so much? I felt that the free will defense was incredibly enlightening. and given that Schelling is into reconciling religion, reason, and free will, you'd think they'd have a lot of overlap, wouldn't they?

take all the time to explain. I'll hang onto every word.

>> No.20826346

>>20826325
Schelling's argument is that free will delimits God's omnipotence. If freedom just is the capacity for evil, it must either exist outside God (contradicting omnipotence) or within Him (contradicting goodness).

>> No.20826382

>>20826346
I don't follow, especially how evil existing outside of God contradicts his omnipotence. It's logically true that God would have to withhold some of his power in order to allow humans the opportunity to exercise their will freely. Otherwise our will would not be free. And free will means moral choices, choosing between better and worse. Obviously, God saw it fit to granted us free will because it made for a more moral universe. If you think about it, our universal setup is probably what an omnibenevolent being would do, especially if He were omniscient enough to know the outcomes, omnipotent enough to withstand the consequences, yet omnibenevolent enough to respect the meaning of choice.

>> No.20826406

>>20826382
All of this is silly. Schelling is arguing that evil is a positive power of self-assertion against the absolute Will, it has nothing to do with a privation of God's power. Man is the most complex of his creations but capable of the most inhuman evil; evil is an emergent property of perfection or conformity with the divine image. You're basically praising God for winning a game he invented: so he creates the conditions for morality and immorality to make a more moral universe? What? And what prevents God from creating free beings that don't have it in them to will evil? Either it is a rule God invents for himself, or something external

>> No.20826434

>>20826406
>And what prevents God from creating free beings that don't have it in them to will evil?
It's simple. They wouldn't truly be free and thus unworthy of special communion with God. Ultimately, they would be incapable of being an image of God.

>> No.20826462

>>20826434
Then the potential for evil originates in God, that's what I said

>> No.20826477

>>20826462
In what meaningful way? God isn't forcing anybody to sin.

>> No.20826520

>>20826477
He is the expanse or the groundlessness in which that evil is committed, for reasons you still can't quite justify. If my freedom is God's freedom, and if my freedom is nothing but my power to swerve from the divine will, then evil originates in God. It's not that hard. You made Schelling's argument for him while trying to defend Cucktinga lol. Just read the essay.

>> No.20826741

>>20826520
>if my freedom is nothing but my power to swerve from the divine will, then evil originates in God.
Nope, still not buying it. It sounds like evil originates in us. You're making a huge leap in logic.

>> No.20826815

>>20826741
Conceded by you here >>20826434: my capacity for evil makes me worthy of special communion with God (since I am participating in God's radical freedom). That is because an all-good being cannot be free.

You don't even know what you're trying to say. Just read the essay and stop wasting my time.

>> No.20826846

>>20826815
>my capacity for evil makes me worthy of special communion with God
Yes. Yours. There we go.
>That is because an all-good being cannot be free.
An all good being absolutely can be free. That's actually the key contention here. There's a difference between acting "good" due to one's weakness or ignorance versus acting good because one genuinely sees it as the right thing to do and freely chooses it out of all other accessible alternatives. You see what I mean? There's a saying that power corrupts, but absolute power perfects in that it cleanses oneself of corruption. You have no need for abusing absolute power unless you are lacking in some way, but that is a contradiction with the property of absolute power.

>> No.20827074

>>20826406
Privation and dualism can be united in nondualism. Good or evil is relative depending on which "direction" one chooses, but it is ultimately one moral substance.
>>20826520
Schelling and Plantinga seem to be making the same point.

>> No.20827094

>>20827074
Qualitatively, Good and Evil can't be reconciled, and no amount of nondualist coping will ever make it so. Your arguments basically amount to saying "we can make fire wet if we transform it into water." Which is nonsensical

>> No.20827112

>>20827094
You can transform water into steam or into ice depending on the direction of energy. One substance, two directions. Thank you for making my nondualist analogy for me.

>> No.20827119

>>20827112
Lmao literally incoherent brain fungus droid, doesn't even understand what I'm saying. You and the other guy both. problem of evil continues being the best p-zombie filter you can ask for

>> No.20827165

Schelling point is a well-known term and concept in current day avant garde philosophical discourse

>> No.20827210

>>20827119
Yeah, it filtered you as we can see quite plainly. All you can resort to is insults every time you get dunked on.

>> No.20827403

>>20827210
Yeah dude I totally got filtered by the monistranny starter pack

>> No.20827467

>>20827403
You can't even articulate the difference between Schelling and Plantinga. My understanding of the problem of evil was derived from studying Leibniz and how Plantinga countered him. I've never read Schelling. But you thought it was Schelling's position I was articulating, which is very bizarre to me. Perhaps they have no difference whatsoever. Whatever is the case, it sounds like you'd rather throw insults than to speak reasonably.

>> No.20827507

>>20827467
Because free will toids like you don't know your asses from your elbow, it's like the hard problem of consciousness. You have no idea what's being argued. You just repeat your script like the golem you are.

>> No.20827548

>>20827507
Could you go off script and point out where I go wrong? Because I'm taking my queues from people like Gottfried Leibniz, Samuel Clarke, Immanuel Kant, and Alvin Plantinga.

>> No.20827700

>>20827548
You keep arguing that God "needs" to do this, God "needs" to do that, recruiting all these rulesets to explain why God's omnipotence does not contradict his goodness because of free will. Omnipotence is freedom from all rulesets by definition. An omnipotent, good God wouldn't "need" to torture his creations through with some dialectical saga of fall and redemption because he can just skip to the end.

>> No.20827801

>>20827700
>You keep arguing that God "needs" to do this, God "needs" to do that
God doesn't need to do any particular thing. But if we want to describe God as omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient God, then He needs to fill certain criteria to have those traits.
>Omnipotence is freedom from all rulesets by definition.
Not at all. Read Leibniz and Book I of Plato's Republic. You're describing tyranny, not lordship. The idea that agency and reason are in conflict is a tragic Anglo theme that has crippled ethics, politics, etc. in both Britain and America.
>An omnipotent, good God wouldn't "need" to torture his creations through with some dialectical saga of fall and redemption because he can just skip to the end.
He already skipped to the end by existing outside of time and space, knowing the outcome in advance, etc. He doesn't need us. But we need Him. Hence the Biblical saga.

>> No.20827807

>>20827801
You're retarded and just keep repeating yourself like a fucking parrot. I'm not wasting my time with you anymore.

>> No.20827902

>>20827807
Read the Clarke-Leibniz correspondence if you want to explore the full implication of what you're essentially arguing for, which is the idea that reason and power are in conflict. They're not. And if you take it to be, then you're essentially arguing for the idea that God is nothing but a capricious tyrant, which goes against the spirit of the Bible (at least the New Testament) and undermines the possibility of faith (since we would have no hope of recognizing His glory).

>> No.20828401

>>20823123
Reading "Ages of the World" and "Clara" was a transformative experience for me. I think Ages of the World perfectly elucidates the natural religion of Aryans.

>> No.20829414

he was the chuddiest chud of all the German chudealists

>> No.20829626

>>20823123
Who?

>> No.20830269

>>20824424
Read the essay on human freedom.

>> No.20830520

I thought it was Mr. Bean from the thumbnail, lol.

>> No.20830793

>>20824258

Engels points out in his "Ludwig Feurbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy" that the real value of Hegel was in his dialectal method, and not in his system as a whole. That was the original reason for the split between the left and right Hegelians, with the former supporting the dialectic and the latter the system. Engels even goes so far as to claim that dialectics invalidates the very idea of the absolute, because it would imply the end of the dialectical process.