Critical Comments on Schelling's Philosophy

 

Schelling’s Philosophy of the World presents a daring vision of nature and the Absolute, seeking to reconcile subjectivity and objectivity and emphasize the dynamic, living aspect of nature. However, his contributions have been both praised and criticized, especially when juxtaposed with contemporaries like Kant, Hegel, and Lamarck, and when assessed in light of later philosophical developments.

Schelling’s departure from Kant’s approach to nature is a hallmark of his philosophy:

• Critique of Kant’s Mathematical-Rational Reductionism:
• Kant’s philosophy of nature, influenced by Newtonian mechanics, framed the world in terms of universal laws and rational structures, often sidelining the individuality and particularity found in nature.
• Goethe, among others, found this approach overly restrictive, emphasizing that nature cannot be reduced solely to universalist or mathematical frameworks.
• Schelling’s Response:
• Schelling sought to reintegrate life and mind into the understanding of nature, presenting it as dynamic, creative, and imbued with intelligence.
• By emphasizing the unity of nature and spirit, Schelling introduced a more holistic perspective, recognizing that nature itself contains a drive toward consciousness and self-realization.
• Significance of This Shift:
• Schelling’s approach laid the groundwork for later philosophies that challenged the mechanistic view of nature, including existentialism, process philosophy, and even ecological thought.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Schelling’s Vision

While Schelling’s break from rigid naturalism was groundbreaking, his method and conclusions faced significant challenges:

• Strengths:
• Visionary Contributions: Schelling’s focus on nature as dynamic and evolving anticipates Bergson’s élan vital (a concept describing a vital, creative force driving evolution) and process theology (which views God and reality as ongoing processes rather than static entities).
• Existential Depth: His question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” resonates with the existential concerns later explored by Martin Heidegger and others. This question reframes metaphysics in terms of wonder and existential inquiry rather than mere categorization of being.
• Influence on Existentialism: Contemporary existentialist philosophers, such as Paul Tillich, acknowledge their intellectual debt to Schelling’s explorations of freedom, existence, and the Absolute.
• Weaknesses:
• Neglect of Scientific Advances: Schelling paid insufficient attention to the rapid developments in natural science during his time. While he drew upon scattered findings in biology, he often resorted to speculative analogies and mythical narratives instead of grounding his philosophy in empirical science.
• Missed Opportunities with Lamarck: Schelling’s contemporaries, such as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, were pioneering evolutionary theories that could have provided a firmer foundation for his ideas on nature’s progression toward consciousness. His reliance on vague allegories left his insights disconnected from scientific rigor.
• Philosophical Obscurity: Critics, including Hegel, often pointed out the lack of systematic clarity in Schelling’s writings. His concept of the Absolute as a “holy abyss” appeared nebulous and incapable of explaining the richness and diversity of reality.

The Critique from Hegel

Hegel, who began as Schelling’s collaborator and friend, later became one of his harshest critics. His critique offers insights into both the strengths and limitations of Schelling’s philosophy.

• Hegel dismissed Schelling’s Absolute as an indistinct, undifferentiated “night where all cows are black.”
• For Hegel, Schelling’s vision of the Absolute lacked the necessary dialectical structure to explain how diversity and complexity arise from unity.
• By contrast, Hegel offered a systematic dialectic, where the unfolding of the Absolute proceeds through a logical progression of contradictions and resolutions, culminating in the realization of Spirit.
• Schelling’s forays into theosophy and mysticism were seen by Hegel as a retreat into unscientific and unphilosophical speculation.
• Despite his critique, Hegel’s philosophy builds upon many of Schelling’s foundational ideas, including the notion of nature as dynamic and the integration of subjectivity and objectivity.
• Without Schelling’s early explorations, Hegel’s system may not have reached the depth and coherence for which it is celebrated.

Philosophy of Man

Schelling's Philosophy of Man is an integral part of his larger metaphysical system, in which he grapples with the relationship between matter and mind, human freedom, and the role of history in achieving ultimate reconciliation. While his ideas have echoes in earlier Western thought and find resonance in later thinkers, they also reveal certain ambiguities and weaknesses when compared to contemporaries like Hegel and critics like Kierkegaard.

Influences on Schelling’s Thought

Schelling’s Philosophy of Man draws inspiration from several significant figures in Western philosophical and theological traditions.

• Pantheistic Lineage:
• Schelling’s vision of the unity between matter and mind reflects the pantheistic tendencies of thinkers like Cusanus, Giordano Bruno, and Spinoza.
• His conception of reality as a continuum between spirit and matter breaks from dualistic traditions, presenting nature as imbued with intelligence and purpose.
• Comparison to Teilhard de Chardin:
• Schelling’s identification of matter with mind anticipates Teilhard de Chardin’s view that matter is “solidified spirit.”
• Like Teilhard, Schelling saw humanity as the culmination of an evolutionary process in which matter awakens to consciousness, with man serving as nature’s self-awareness.

Schelling’s Philosophy of History and Freedom

Schelling weaves his ideas of man into a broader historical and metaphysical framework

• The Human Struggle in History:
• Schelling emphasizes the human struggle against destructive forces, which parallels the Fichtean call to action and self-realization.
• History is depicted as a battleground where human beings confront the dualities of good and evil, selfishness and transcendence, aiming for liberation and redemption.
• The Role of Freedom:
• For Schelling, human freedom introduces the potential for both good and evil. This freedom is essential for humanity to fulfill its role as the supreme manifestation of nature, achieving consciousness of its divine essence.
• The Teleology of History:
• History is not random but teleological, moving toward the realization of the divine in human existence. This echoes earlier Christian philosophical traditions, particularly those emphasizing redemption and reconciliation.

The Clash Between Schelling and Hegel

Schelling sought to differentiate his philosophy from Hegel’s, framing his as more “positive” and Hegel’s as “negative.” However, this distinction is not as clear as Schelling asserted:

• Positive vs. Negative Philosophy:
• Schelling criticized Hegel’s dialectical system as overly abstract, focusing on essences and concepts rather than the concreteness of existence.
• For Schelling, Hegel’s system lacked the means to address divine existence and human history, reducing them to mere logical processes.
• Kierkegaard’s Perspective:
• Initially enthusiastic about Schelling’s critique of Hegel, Kierkegaard was disillusioned by the lack of substantive content in Schelling’s “positive” philosophy.
• Kierkegaard particularly criticized Schelling’s failure to provide a meaningful “breakthrough to reality,” as his system ultimately remained abstract and speculative.

The Reconciliation of Realism and Idealism

Schelling’s Philosophy of Man is rooted in his larger attempt to reconcile realism and idealism:

• Realism as the Foundation:
• Schelling viewed realism as the “body” of philosophy, necessary for grounding the abstract principles of idealism in concrete reality.
• Realism provides the medium through which idealism can “take on flesh and blood.”
• Idealism as the Guiding Principle:
• Despite his call for reconciliation, Schelling always privileged idealism, declaring it the “soul” of philosophy.
• He believed that realism could never furnish first principles but must serve as the instrument through which idealism realizes itself.
• Critique of This Approach:
• The privileging of idealism undermines Schelling’s attempt to achieve a true synthesis. Critics argue that this asymmetry prevents his philosophy from fully addressing the realities of human existence and the material world.

Schelling’s Philosophy of Man makes significant contributions but is not without its limitations:

• Strengths:
• Unity of Matter and Mind: By emphasizing the unity of nature and spirit, Schelling provides a holistic vision that anticipates later developments in process philosophy and phenomenology.
• Focus on Freedom and Responsibility: His emphasis on freedom as central to human existence aligns with existentialist thought, influencing thinkers like Kierkegaard and Heidegger.
• Historical Teleology: Schelling’s view of history as a purposeful process offers a meaningful framework for understanding human progress and struggle.
• Weaknesses:
• Lack of Concrete “Positivity”: Despite his critique of Hegel, Schelling fails to provide a substantive alternative to Hegel’s system. His “positive” philosophy remains speculative and lacks a clear method for engaging with concrete realities.
• Overemphasis on Idealism: The privileging of idealism over realism creates an imbalance that limits the applicability of his philosophy to material and historical conditions.
• Disappointment of Kierkegaard and Others: Kierkegaard’s critique highlights a broader dissatisfaction with Schelling’s inability to move beyond abstract speculation into the realm of lived experience.

Philosophy of God: Critical Comment

Schelling's philosophy of God underwent significant evolution throughout his career, particularly in his later works, as he tried to reconcile his idealistic pantheism with the doctrines of orthodox Christianity. Despite his earnest efforts, Schelling faced difficulties in harmonizing the divergent elements of his thought, leading to both philosophical complexity and critique from his contemporaries and later thinkers.

Schelling’s Transition Toward Theism

In his early works, Schelling’s conception of God was heavily influenced by pantheism, where God was viewed as an immanent presence in nature and spirit. However, in his later years, Schelling made a deliberate shift toward a more theistic understanding of God:

• Idealistic Pantheism:
• Schelling’s earlier view presented God as an all-encompassing Absolute, indistinguishable from the totality of nature and spirit. This made his pantheism even more pronounced than that of Hegel.
• For Schelling, God was not a separate, transcendent being but the very process of reality coming into self-consciousness.
• Turn to Orthodox Christianity:
• In his later philosophy, particularly in the Philosophy of Revelation and Freedom, Schelling attempted to align his views with Christian orthodoxy.
• He emphasized the personal and transcendent aspects of God, a departure from his earlier pantheistic tendencies.
• This shift was likely influenced by his engagement with mysticism, particularly the writings of St. John, and his growing interest in divine revelation.

The Problem of Eclecticism

One of the critical challenges in Schelling’s Philosophy of God was his attempt to reconcile a wide range of philosophical and theological perspectives:

• Integration of Opposing Views:
• Schelling sought to unify the pantheistic traditions of Spinoza and Bruno with Christian theology.
• He aimed to reconcile the abstract, impersonal Absolute of idealism with the personal, relational God of Christianity.
• Confusion in Synthesis:
• This eclectic approach led to a lack of coherence in his system. Schelling’s Philosophy of God struggled to maintain a balance between God as the dynamic force of becoming and God as a transcendent, eternal being.
• The resulting ambiguity made it difficult for Schelling to articulate a clear and unified vision of God, leaving his work vulnerable to criticism.

Key Features of Schelling’s Philosophy of God

Schelling’s later philosophy highlights several key elements that reflect his evolving understanding of God:

• God as the Ground of Freedom:
• Schelling emphasized that God is the source of both freedom and necessity. This dual aspect reflects the tension between the Absolute as both the ground of being and the creator of contingent reality.
• Freedom, for Schelling, is central to God’s nature, allowing for the existence of both good and evil within creation.
• The Doctrine of Potencies:
• Schelling introduced the idea of potencies to explain God’s self-revelation. These potencies represent the dynamic aspects of God’s nature, including the tensions between unity and multiplicity, necessity and freedom.
• This framework sought to explain how the infinite (God) could give rise to the finite (creation) while retaining its transcendent nature.
• Philosophy of Revelation:
• In his later works, Schelling argued that the full understanding of God is only possible through divine revelation, moving beyond pure reason to incorporate faith and theology.
• Revelation becomes the bridge between the speculative philosophy of God and the experiential reality of religious belief.

Critiques of Schelling’s Philosophy of God

Despite his profound insights, Schelling’s Philosophy of God faced significant criticism:

• Hegel’s Superiority in Systematic Thought:
• Schelling’s critique of Hegel centered on the latter’s abstract and impersonal conception of God. However, Hegel’s system was seen as more rigorous and coherent than Schelling’s eclectic synthesis.
• Hegel mocked Schelling’s concept of the Absolute as the “holy abyss,” arguing that it lacked the logical structure necessary to generate the diversity of reality.
• Failure to Overcome Pantheism:
• Schelling’s attempts to reconcile his idealistic pantheism with Christian theism were seen as inconsistent. Critics argued that his conception of God remained more aligned with pantheistic ideas than with orthodox Christianity.
• His vision of God as both immanent in nature and transcendent as a personal being lacked a clear methodological framework, leaving it open to interpretation.
• Kierkegaard’s Disillusionment:
• Kierkegaard, initially enthusiastic about Schelling’s critique of Hegel, found his later philosophy disappointing. He criticized Schelling for failing to provide a genuine "breakthrough to reality" and for relying too heavily on speculative abstractions.
• Mysticism and Ambiguity:
• Schelling’s engagement with mysticism, particularly through St. John, added to the poetic and symbolic richness of his philosophy but did little to resolve its philosophical ambiguities.
• His use of allegory and myth to describe divine processes often lacked the precision required for systematic theology.