Fichte and Schelling: Part Three

Anyone who has followed us attentively thus far will perceive for himself that the beginning and end of this philosophy is freedom, the absolute indemonstrable, authenticated only through itself." So Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling defines the purpose of his philosophy. A purpose Schelling would stay true to throughout his long philosophical career. As most students of philosophy know, Schelling's philosophy would go through many revolutions, but the purpose stayed the same. In this essay we shall be concerned with Schilling's Identity philosophy, and all quotes, including the above are taken from the book:"System of Transcendental Idealism (1800)", (translated by Peter Heath). This is the book that brought about Schelling's break with Fichte, and became the most influential book Schelling ever wrote. That is because it contains the metaphysical myth that would become the basis of Hegel's philosophy,and Marxism, with some modifications. I call it a myth because there is no evidence for the belief, it was invented to solve the problems Schelling had with Fichte.So let us move to examine Schelling's philosophy, and how he tried to deal with the problems left by Fichte. The first issue we shall address is the problem of Fichte's radical subjectivism. Schelling was fascinated by the philosophy of Spinoza, as well as Plato, he would use elements of both to reconcile with Fichte. Schelling in good dialectical fashion, wanted to reconcile Fichte's radical subjectivism with Spinoza's radical objectivism. Let us review the difference between subjectivism and objectivism. Subjectivism is the postion of Transcendental Idealism; that humans are free, and generate or condition the phenomenal realm ( the everyday world). This is the position of Fichte. The position of objectivism is that the cosmos is controlled by the laws of causality. There is no freedom in human actions; they are determined by causality.Thus, consciousness becomes an illusion or epiphenomenon. This is the position of Spinoza. These are the two positions that Schelling sought to reconcile. To reconcile these two positions Schelling had to become an innovator. In Classical and Medieval philosophy it was customary to start with God or the eternal. Rene Descartes made the innovation of starting his philosophy with an intuition, or self-evident proposition; that is then built upon. As we saw with Fichte, he followed Descartes in starting his philosophy with an intuition. Schelling's innovation is to reject both the Classical, and Cartesian starting points. Instead, Schelling starts with history. This allows Schelling to reconcile Spinoza's objectivism, and Fichte's subjectivism. The inorganic world is controlled by causality, but the organic world is controlled by reciprocity. There is a conflict between the inorganic and the organic realms. Humans are the apex of creation, thus the most free of entities of all. The reason Schelling found Fichte's subjectivism inadequate because subjectivism only applied to the human realm. Schelling wanted to take a God's eye view, which he thinks he can justify, yet he wanted to keep the advances of Fichte. In other words, reason has to be an intrinsic element of the cosmos, and not just a fact of human psychology. Let us now proceed to the problem of freedom, and the reason; the problem that would occupy Schelling for the whole of he philosophical career. The problem as Schelling received it comes from Kant. Although Kant probably inherited the problem from his study of J.J. Rousseau. The problem is to bring about a free representative-democratic society; the citizens of such a society must freely accept the rule of reason. The problem is universals are necessary. Reason is always a negation in that it sets limits. Remember the quote we started this essay with, freedom must be self-justifying. Freedom cannot be used to justify another end; freedom must be an end in itself. If the rule of reason (universals) is imposed from the outside it is tyranny. If reason does not connect to the cosmos in some way, then it is not a way to achieve a perfect society. Reason then becomes only a tool that humans use to gain power. In other words, reason is only a human creation, and not a discovery that leads to a perfect society. So Schelling has to solve the problem of freedom and necessity (universals) and the problem of the role of reason in the cosmos. To solve the above problems Schelling creates a metaphysical myth. The reason I call it a myth is because there is no evidence for the scenario Schelling provides. It must be taken on faith. So let us hear from Schelling: "if we think of history as a play in which everyone involved performs his part quite freely and as he pleases, a rational development of this muddled drama is conceivable only if there be a single spirit who speaks in everyone, and if the playwright, whose mere fragments( disjecta membra poetae) are the individual actors, has already so harmonized beforehand the objective outcome of the whole with the free play of every participant, that something rational must indeed emerge at the end of it. But now if the playwright were to exist independently of his drama, we should be merely the actors, who speak the lines he has written. If he does not exist independently of us, but reveals and discloses himself successively only, through the very play of our own freedom, so that without this freedom even he himself would not be, then we are collaborators of the whole and have ourselves invented the particular roles we play-The ultimate ground of the harmony between freedom and the objective(or lawful) can therefore never become wholly objectified, if the appearance of freedom is to remain. the absolute acts through each single intelligence, whose action is thus at once absolutely free, and for that reason also necessary" One more quote before we examine and analyze: "History as a whole is a progressive, gradually self-disclosing revelation of the absolute. Hence one can never point out in history the particular places where the mark of providence, or God Himself, is as it were visible. For God never exists, if the existent is that which presents itself in the objective world: if He existed thus, then we should not; but He continually reveals Himself. Many through his history, provides a continuous demonstration of God's presence, a demonstration, however, which only the whole of history can render complete. Everything depends upon these alternatives being understood. If God exists, that is if the objective world constitutes a perfect manifestation of God, or what comes to the same, of the total congruence of the free with the unconscious , then nothing can be otherwise than it is. But the objective world is assuredly not like this. Or is it perhaps, really a complete revelation of God?-Now if the appearance of freedom is necessary infinite, the total evolution ot the absolute synthesis is also a infinite process, and history itself a never wholly completed revelation of the absolute which, for the sake of consciousness, and thus merely fro the sake of appearances, separates itself into conscious and unconscious, the free and the intuitant; buy which itself, however, in the light inaccessible wherein it dwells is the eternal identity and the everlasting ground of the harmony between the two." The above quotes are very difficult, so we shall analyze and explain. To begin to understand Schilling's metaphysical myth, we must revisit Fichte's dialectic; which is the inspiration for the dialectic of Schelling, Hegel, and Marxism. The definition of dialectic as thesis and antithesis leading to synthesis is true, but shallow. In Fichte's dialectic desire always extends beyond the obstacle. What Fichte is saying in a highly abstract way is that desire sets the limits of an obstacle, thus turning the obstacle into an object. Let us illustrate through the use of an ordinary example. A man is hiking on a trail, and encounters a boulder blocking the trail. The hiker's desire extends beyond the boulder, to finish the hike. So in order to get around the boulder, the hiker sets the limits (universals) of the boulder. A boulder is not a living thing, like a snake or a wolf. Thus the hiker has set limits on the boulder. The boulder will not attack the hiker, and is not poisonous. This is setting limits to the boulder; the boulder can be climbed over or gone around, but it cannot be waited out. By defining the limits or universals of the obstacle it becomes objective; an object with set limits. Thus universals are always a negation. It has been said that German Idealism after Fichte was heavily influenced by Plato. It seems Fichte had a very deep knowledge of Plato; at least of the "Sophist" where Plato defines an object or a quality by what it is not.This also shows the problem with the thesis and antithesis becoming synthesis. The antithesis does not spontaneously arise. Instead it is desire that brings about the antithesis by setting the limits of an obstacle.Thus, turning an obstacle into an object that can be transcended. This is how abstractions (universals) are generated. The difference between Fichte and Schelling is on the ontological status of universals (abstractions). For Fichte abstractions are the creations of humans, for Schelling abstractions (universals) are independently existing entities (Platonic Forms). Although Schelling does hold that Fichte's dialectic is the mechanism for discovering universals. Let us now use an analogy of chess players to help illustrate the dialectic. When a beginner plays chess, he is bewildered by the amount of moves he can make, it is hard for the beginner to chose a move to make. A master player has the opposite experience there are only a few moves to be considered. This is because the master knows the positions; the positions would be analogous to universals. This analogy shows Schelling's distinction between conscious and unconscious. The beginner is more free because he is unconscious of the universals involved in the chess positions. The master has less choice because of his knowledge of the universals or chess strategy. So freedom is the result of being unconscious of the universals. The more experience one has in playing the more the universals are uncovered or made manifest. This is why Hegelians and Marxists are always saying strange things like:"freedom leads to necessity." The next move Schelling makes to construct his metaphysical myth is a monopsychist pantheism; there is only one mind in the cosmos (God). God is not more than individual souls. Individual humans are fragments or bits of one consciousness or mind: God. So the cosmos does not exist without the totality of human souls. This is an idea Schelling got from Leibniz. Leibniz asserted if there were no monads (souls) there would be no presentation; presentation is uncut or unabstracted experience of the cosmos. In other words without souls there is no cosmos; the cosmos is the prearranged harmony between souls. The last element Schelling needs, he get from Plato; the doctrine of recollection. That each individual human soul is a microcosm of the macrocosm (God). That each soul contains all knowledge, but in a confused manner; the soul is unconscious of the knowledge. So let us state Schelling's myth. God id the totality of human souls; God is not more than the sum of his parts, but is the parts. There is only one consciousness which is manifested in the fragmented parts and the history of the parts. As in Plato's doctrine of recollection, each part or soul contains all knowledge, but his knowledge is unconscious or confuse within each soul. It is through Fichte' dialectic that brings the unconscious or confused knowledge to consciousness and clarity. It is through the dialectic of freedom and necessity operating in history that God comes to consciousness and manifestation. Humans become aware that we are God thinking himself in the individual souls. The external world or cosmos is the experience of the preordained harmony among souls. This myth is of course, the basis of both Hegel's philosophy and Marxism; although both philosophies have made modifications. Let us examine this myth in religious terms; since it concerns humans relation to God. It is both Pelagian and monopsychist. That humans can bring about the rule of God on Earth: the rule of the Paraclete. This id done by realizing the God consciousness which resides in every individual soul. So Schelling by inventing a myth has solved the problems left by Fichte. The accepting of reason (universals) is not imposed from the outside; therefore it is not tyranny. Reason is not just a human creation; instead it is direct contact with the mind of God. The alert reader has already realized that the mind (Nous) of God is the second person of the Trinity. So indeed humans can bring about the rule of Jesus Christ on Earth. This ideal is realized through history,because the dialectic brings about the evolution of a higher consciousness. The evolution of higher consciousness, is brought about through individual freedom. Schelling believes when the absolute is realized (God becomes conscious of himself) that humans shall return to myth. In other words, the distinctions (negations) that are abstractions shall disappear in total freedom. The God that is realized in Schelling's Identity philosophy is Fichte's God. Remember in Fichte's conception of God there were no distinctions, only a striving desire to expand with no obstacles. So in Fichte's philosophy is unconscious. It is only through meeting and overcoming obstacles that humans achieve consciousness.Let us now examine the difference between Schelling and Hegel's conception of the absolute(God). We all know Hegel's insult that Schelling's conception of the absolute "as the night all cows are black" Yes Schelling and Hegel are arguing about what it would be like to experience total self-consciousness, or the rule of the Paraclete. For Schelling when the absolute is realized, humans shall return to a mythological consciousness; there shall be no distinctions or negations. For Hegel when the absolute is made manifest, human shall realize God as logic. In other words, for Schelling it is desire and freedom that move humans towards the absolute; freedom and desire are the superior or moving term in the dialectic. For Hegel it is knowledge and necessity that move the dialectic through history. (There is some dispute about this; for the dispute see J.M.E. McTaggart's :"Studies in the Hegelian Dialectic") So the white cows are the negations built into the absolute; the negations. In Schelling it is Fichte's God that is realized, in Hegel it is Spinoza's God that is realized. Schelling later returned the insult when he lectured on Hegel's philosophy. Schelling claimed Hegel's philosophy was always negative, that Hegel never made the transition to positive philosophy; a philosophy of freedom. Schelling regarded Hegel's philosophy as an empty abstraction: a philosophy of necessity and negation. Christianity has always had an internal tug of war between the two hoary heresies of Pelagianism and Manicheanism, the same tug of war was also present in Schelling's psyche; in later years he moved to a more Manichean position. It is interesting note that this dialectical split between freedom and necessity was also the issue between Bakunin and Marxism in modern communism. Modern communism seems a huge magical ritual to realize the rule of the Paraclete. In Bakunin's anarcho-communism it is freedom that shall bring about the communist paradise. In Marxism it is negation and necessity that brings about the communist paradise. This is why progressives(who follow Marxism) want coercive legislation to make everyone a standardized universal. Equality must be forced upon humans. It must be said Schelling and Hegel never descended to this stupidity. The problem is of course, that abstractions(universals) do not result in happiness, harmony, or the rule of the Paraclete. Abstractions only bring power. END