Statement on the True Relationship of the Philosophy of Nature to the Revised Fichtean Doctrine , livre ebook

State University of New York Press - F. W. J. Schelling ,
traduit par Dale E. Snow

Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement

Je m'inscris

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

108 pages

English

Vous pourrez modifier la taille du texte de cet ouvrage

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

A propos
Informations
Extrait

Description

The heat of anger can concentrate the mind. Convinced that he had been betrayed by his former collaborator and colleague, Schelling attempts in this polemic to reach a final reckoning with Fichte. Employing the format of a book review, Schelling directs withering scorn at three of Fichte's recent publications, at one point likening them to the hell, purgatory, and would-be paradise of Fichtean philosophy. The central bone of contention is the understanding of nature: Fichte sees it as lifeless matter in motion, sheer opposition to be overcome, while Schelling waxes poetic in his defense of a living, organic nature of which humanity is a vital part. Indeed, we do not know ourselves without understanding our connection to nature, argues Schelling, anticipating many thinkers in contemporary environmental ethics.

Dale E. Snow's introduction sets the stage and explains the larger context of the conflict, which was already visible in the correspondence of the two philosophers, which broke off by 1802. Notes are included throughout the text, providing background information and identifying the many references to Fichte.
Acknowledgments
Editorial Apparatus and Standard Abbreviations
Translator’s Introduction
Translator’s Note

Statement of the True Relationship of the Philosophy of Nature to the Revised Fichtean Doctrine (Review Essay)

Statement of the True Relationship of the Philosophy of Nature to the Revised Fichtean Doctrine (Main Text)

Index

Sujets

Philosophy

History of philosophy

Informations

Publié par	State University of New York Press
Date de parution	15 février 2018
Nombre de lectures	0
EAN13	9781438468655
Langue	English

Informations légales : prix de location à la page 0,1598€. Cette information est donnée uniquement à titre indicatif conformément à la législation en vigueur.

Extrait

Statement on the True Relationship of the Philosophy of Nature to the Revised Fichtean Doctrine
SUNY series in Contemporary Continental Philosophy

Dennis J. Schmidt, editor
Statement on the True Relationship of the Philosophy of Nature to the Revised Fichtean Doctrine
An Elucidation of the Former
1806
F. W. J. Schelling
Translated with an introduction and notes by
Dale E. Snow
Published by State University of New York Press, Albany
© 2018 State University of New York
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission. No part of this book may be stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means including electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission in writing of the publisher.
For information, contact State University of New York Press, Albany, NY
www.sunypress.edu
Production, Ryan Morris
Marketing, Michael Campochiaro
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von, 1775–1854, author. | Snow, Dale E., 1955– translator.
Title: Statement on the true relationship of the philosophy of nature to the revised Fichtean doctrine : an elucidation of the former, 1806 / F. W. J. Schelling ; translated with an introduction and notes by Dale E. Snow.
Other titles: Darlegung des wahren Verhältnisses der Naturphilosophie zu der verbesserten Fichteschen Lehre. German
Description: Albany : State University of New York Press, [2018] | Series: SUNY series in contemporary continental philosophy | Translation of: Darlegung des wahren Verhältnisses der Naturphilosophie zu der verbesserten Fichteschen Lehre. | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2017017883 (print) | LCCN 2018000053 (ebook) | ISBN 9781438468655 (ebook) | ISBN 9781438468631 (hardcover : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Fichte, Johann Gottlieb, 1762–1814—Criticism and interpretation. | Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von, 177–1854—Friends and associates. | Philosophy of nature. | Philosophy, German—19th century.
Classification: LCC B2848 (ebook) | LCC B2848 .S286 2018 (print) | DDC 193—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017017883
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Contents
Acknowledgments
Editorial Apparatus and Standard Abbreviations
Translator’s Introduction
Translator’s Note
Statement of the True Relationship of the Philosophy of Nature to the Revised Fichtean Doctrine (Review Essay)
Statement of the True Relationship of the Philosophy of Nature to the Revised Fichtean Doctrine (Main Text)
Index
Acknowledgments
I wish to acknowledge the support of Loyola University Maryland for this project in the form of Summer Research Grants in 2014 and 2016. I also received substantial and welcome assistance from the able librarians of the Philosophisches Seminar at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven while I was a visiting scholar there in 2013–2015. Closer to home, I wish to thank the reference librarians at the Milton S. Eisenhower Library at Johns Hopkins University and the staff of the Interlibrary Loan Department at the Loyola/Notre Dame Library.
In Leuven, I enjoyed conversations about Schelling with Henning Tegtmeyer, Caroline Malevé, and William Desmond. In Baltimore, I hope I did not entirely exhaust the patience of Paul Richard Blum and Oliver Thorndike of the Loyola Philosophy Department, and I was fortunate to be able to discuss theological questions with Matt Moser of the Theology Department. At the 2014 meeting of the North American Schelling Society, devoted to the topic of Schelling in the Anthropocene, I profited from the discussion of my paper based in large part on this translation. Jason Wirth immediately understood the significance of the problem of Bauernstolz , and as always, I found Michael Vater’s insights especially compelling.
My daughter Cordelia Snow carefully read the entire manuscript and pointed out many questionable choices and infelicities of expression. The errors that remain are entirely my own. Most of all I am grateful to my husband Jim for being my first and best reader: editing, proofreading, and diplomatically pointing out when a given passage was neither English nor German. And, as ever, tirelessly encouraging me to pursue my passion.
Editorial Apparatus and Standard Abbreviations [ ] Insertion by the translator I, 7, 21 Pagination referring to the German text of Darlegung des wahren Verhältnisses der Naturphilosophie zur verbesserten Fichteschen Lehre: Eine Erläuterungschrift der Ersten , in the first division, seventh volume (I, 7) of the Sämmtliche Werke , ed. K. F. A. Schelling (1856–1861). References to Schelling’s Werke in the translator’s introduction specify respective part and volume. In the body of the translation, only volume and page numbers are given: /7, 21/. a, b, c Footnotes by Schelling. 1, 2, 3 Notes by translator. GA I/8 J. G. Fichte, Gesamtausgabe der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften , ed. Reinhard Lauth and Hans Gliwitzky, Werke (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann Verlag, 1991). Cited by division and volume. A.L.Z. Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (began publication in 1785 in Jena, later Halle). JALZ, Jen. ALZ Jenaische allgemeine LiteraturZeitung (began publication in 1803).
Translator’s Introduction
Much has been written about Fichte and Schelling’s disagreements, how much they really ever had in common, and what led to the dissolution of their friendship; it is not too much to say that one’s understanding of German idealism depends upon it. In this introduction, I examine the end of the affair, so to speak: Schelling’s last major effort to settle scores with Fichte. This very personal and passionate quarrel is no mere historical curiosity, however. It is a microcosm that can help to illuminate our understanding of some of the most important issues in German idealism.
Schelling’s 1806 Statement on the True Relationship of the Philosophy of Nature to Fichte’s Revised Doctrine 1 contains a combination of previously published criticisms and new insights. On June 25, 1806, he wrote to his publisher, Cotta: “Fichte has attacked the Naturphilosophie in one of his three new books in such a way that the importance of the matter and my honor does not permit me to remain silent …” 2 The “Statement” is prefaced by a reprint of a previously published review of Fichte’s 1805 version of the Lectures on the Nature of the Scholar and is a collective response to that work and two others published in 1806, “Characteristics of the Present Age” and “The Way Towards the Blessed Life”; in Schelling’s view, Fichte’s philosophical standpoint had continued to evolve and change from one work to the next. The initial reason given for writing the “Statement” is that Fichte has “disparaged to the utmost and strongly vilified the philosophers of nature” (I, 7, 24). However, as one reads on, it becomes clear that the “Statement” is by no means simply a response to unfair and illegitimate accusations. It also reveals the larger context of Schelling’s attack on Fichte’s concept of nature, which he describes as “essentially devoid of reason, unholy, ungodly, in every respect finite and completely dead” (I, 7, 21). As Schelling had repeatedly noted in the earlier Naturphilosophie works, it is characteristic of the Enlightenment and its narrowly mechanical concept of nature that it presents us with a nature that is eminently exploitable for human ends and is otherwise valueless. Thus, this response to Fichte also provides another opportunity to respond to this view of science. Fichte’s philosophy seems to provide an instructive reductio ad absurdum of the Enlightenment perspective, since as Schelling points out more than once, for Fichte, nature strictly speaking does not even exist except for the role it plays in human life.
But Is It That Simple? Of Course Not.
Since we are joining a conflict very much in progress, it will be useful to remind ourselves of some of the background issues. After Fichte left Jena in the wake of the atheism controversy and moved to Berlin, he and Schelling attempted to sustain their sense of themselves as allies and engaged in at least complementary philosophical endeavors in their correspondence. Yet the letters reveal almost nothing but disagreements. What was at issue has been ably discussed in the introduction to The Philosophical Rupture between Fichte and Schelling. 3 Here I will consider briefly one major sticking point: the status of being in transcendental idealism. In 1801, after reading Schelling’s Presentation of My System of Philosophy , Fichte writes: “One cannot proceed from a being (everything to which mere thinking refers, and what would follow from this, to which the real-ground applies is being ; granted, it might also be called reason); but one has to proceed from a seeing ; it is also necessary to establish the identity of the ideal-[ground] and real-ground, [which] = the identity of intuition and thought.” 4 Schelling’s reply in his next letter is instructive: “The necessity to proceed from seeing confines you and your philosophy in a thoroughly conditioned series [of phenomena] in which no trace of the absolute can be encountered. Consciousness, or the feeling that it must have of itself, compels you in The Vocation of Man t