Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-26T01:37:09.235Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comments on Dews's Modernist Reading of Schelling and his Basic Operation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 May 2024

Markus Gabriel
Markus Gabriel*
Affiliation:
Universität Bonn, Germany gabrielm@uni-bonn.de
Get access

Extract

In his ambitious Schelling's Late Philosophy in Confrontation with Hegel, Peter Dews sets out to reconstruct the fundamental difference between Schelling and Hegel on the basis of two related claims. The first, historical claim is that both are dealing with ‘our current historical situation’, which Dews identifies with ‘modernity’ (Dews 2023: 10). The second, systematic claim is that their mature systematic thinking is characterized by what he calls throughout the book, with reference to a canonical paper by Dieter Henrich (Henrich 1976), their respective Grundoperationen (‘basic operations’). He then walks the reader through major positions that Schelling developed over the course of his philosophical career in order to demonstrate how Schelling arrives at a specific genealogical account of modernity. On this account, modernity is understood as a formation of consciousness, which is supposedly not subject to the Hegelian type of dialectic which, according to Dews, is driven by

a rationalism so comprehensive that the very notion of unwarranted constraints on the agency of human beings or of the oppressive shaping of their consciousness has no place. (Dews 2023: 16)

Type
Author meets critics
Information
Hegel Bulletin , First View , pp. 1 - 17
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Hegel Society of Great Britain

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beiser, F. (ed.) (2012), ‘The Oldest Systematic Programme of German Idealism’, in The Early Political Writings of the German Romantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Buchheim, T. (1992), Eins von Allem: Die Selbstbescheidung des Idealismus in Schellings Spätphilosophie. Hamburg: Meiner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchheim, T. and Hermanni, F. (2004), ‘Alle Persönlichkeit ruht auf einem dunkeln Grunde’: Schellings Philosophie der Personalität. Berlin/Boston: Akademie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dews, P. (2023), Schelling's Late Philosophy in Confrontation with Hegel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, M. (1982), Der kommende Gott: Vorlesungen über die Neue Mythologie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Frank, M. (1992), Der unendliche Mangel an Sein: Schellings Hegelkritik und die Anfänge der Marxschen Dialektik. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Frank, M. (2018), ‘Reduplikative Identität’: Der Schlüssel zu Schellings reifer Philosophie. Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabriel, M. (2006), Der Mensch im Mythos: Untersuchungen über Ontotheologie, Anthropologie und Selbstbewußtseinsgeschichte in Schellings “Philosophie der Mythologie”. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabriel, M. (2009), Skeptizismus und Idealismus in der Antike. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Gabriel, M. (2011a), Transcendental Ontology: Essays in German Idealism. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Gabriel, M. (2011b), ‘Unvordenkliches Sein und Ereignis. Der Seinsbegriff beim späten Schelling und beim späten Heidegger’, in Hühn, L. and Jantzen, J. (eds.), Heideggers Schelling-Seminar (1927/28). Die Protokolle von Martin Heideggers Seminar zu Schellings ‘Freiheitsschrift’ (1927/28) und die Akten des Internationalen Schelling-Tags 2006. Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
Gabriel, M. (2014), ‘Aarhus Lectures: Schelling and Contemporary Philosophy – Second Lecture: Schelling's Ontology in the Freedom Essay’, in SATS: Northern European Journal of Philosophy 15:1: 75–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabriel, M. (2015), ‘Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling’, in Forster, M. and Gjesdal, K. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Nineteenth Century German Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gabriel, M. (2016), ‘What Kind of an Idealist (If Any) Is Hegel?’, Hegel Bulletin 37:2: 181–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabriel, M. (2021), ‘Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling’, in Vieweg, K. (ed.), Kant und der Deutsche Idealismus: Ein Handbuch. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Gabriel, M. (forthcoming), ‘Truths and Posits—The Realm of Sense according to Fichte's Wissenschaftslehre 1794’, in Conant, J. and Held, J. (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of German Idealism and Analytic Philosophy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gardner, S. (2006), ‘Schelling, Sartre, and Onto-Theology’, Religious Studies 42:3: 247–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. (1954), Das Absolute und die Geschichte. Von der Zwiespältigkeit in Schellings Denken. Dissertation. Bonn.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1971), ‘Karl Jaspers über Schelling’, in Philosophisch-politische Profile. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (2004), ‘Dialectical Idealism in Transition to Materialism: Schelling's Idea of a Contraction of God and its Consequences for the Philosophy of History’, in Norman, J. and Welchman, A. (eds.), The New Schelling. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (2019-2022), Auch eine Geschichte der Philosophie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Henrich, D. (1976), ‘Hegels Grundoperation’, in Guzzono, U., Rang, B. and Siep, L. (eds.), Der Idealismus und seine Gegenwart. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Hofmann, P. (2000), ‘“Faust”, die “Farbenlehre” und “das Wesen der menschlichen Freiheit”. Über Goethes Schellingkritik’, Philosophisches Jahrbuch 107:2: 443–70.Google Scholar
Hogrebe, W. (1989), Prädikation und Genesis: Metaphysik als Fundamentalheuristik im Ausgang von Schellings ‘Die Weltalter’. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hölderlin, F. (1986), ‘Judgment and Being’, Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal 11:1: 17–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaspers, K. (1955), Schelling. Größe und Verhängnis. Munich: Piper.Google Scholar
Nagel, T. (2012), Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassar, D. (2010), ‘From a Philosophy of Self to a Philosophy of Nature: Goethe and the Development of Schelling's Naturphilosophie’, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 92:3: 304–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plato (2008), Republic, trans. Waterfield, R.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rometsch, J. (2007), Hegels Theorie des erkennenden Subjekts: Systematische Untersuchungen zur enzyklopädischen Philosophie des subjektiven Geistes. Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann.Google Scholar
Schraven, M. (1989), Politik und Revolution. Schellings Verhältnis zum Politischen im Revolutionsjahr 1848. Stuttgart/Bad Canstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
Whistler, D. (2015), ‘The New Literalism: Reading after Grant's Schelling’, Symposium: The Canadian Journal of Continental Philosophy 19:1: 125–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar