Part of Slavoj iek's philosophical background is located in German idealism. In this article, his relation to German idealism is critically assessed, and the key to this assessment is found in iek's favorite medium: film. In film, reality can only appear as a new image, replacing an old reality as fictitious, the real itself, however, remains unreachable by thought. At this point, a parallel with German idealism appears: it was Kant who turned reality into a desert, and Hegel and Schelling (...) who tried to retrieve it. Siding with Adorno and Heidegger, iek reaches a negative conclusion that does justice to neither German idealism nor indeed Schelling. His use of German idealism is one-sided and selective, regardless of the fact that it allows him to formulate an adequate critique of Western society. Perceiving a parallel between iek's conception of cinema and Kantian imagination [Einbildungskraft], the final conclusion is that he approaches German idealism not in terms of its conceptual system-character, but in terms of sensual multiplicity, not seeking unity in it, but precisely fragmentation. (shrink)

Der russische Mediziner D.M. Vellanskij besucht Schellings Vorlesungen zur Natur in Würzburg. Den schellingschen Grundgedanken einer Konformation von Mensch und der ihm zugeordneten gott- und seelendurchwirkten Welt nimmt er mit nach Rußland. Der Rekonstruktion dieses Verständniszusammenhangs ist der vorliegende Band gewidmet.

ABSTRACTSchelling’s first Russian disciple, D.M. Vellanskij, met his teacher at Würzburg in 1803. It was the heyday of Schelling’s philosophy of identity, the identity of spirit and nature, of mind and matter. Yet, teacher and student differ on the labels they applied to this philosophy. Vellanskij thought of it as the peak of human ‘Aufklärung’, whereas Schelling abhorred the term due to controversies going on within German philosophy at the time. The argument put forward here is that Vellanskij was right (...) in using the term ‘Enlightenment’ for Schelling’s philosophy of identity, which conceptualized – via nature – the ideas of free movement, tolerance and human solidarity. (shrink)

Part of Slavoj Žižek's philosophical background is located in German idealism. In this article, his relation to German idealism is critically assessed, and the key to this assessment is found in Žižek's favorite medium: film. In film, “reality” can only appear as a new image, replacing an old “reality” as fictitious, the “real” itself, however, remains unreachable by thought. At this point, a parallel with German idealism appears: it was Kant who turned reality into a “desert,” and Hegel and Schelling (...) who tried to retrieve it. Siding with Adorno and Heidegger, Žižek reaches a “negative” conclusion that does justice to neither German idealism nor indeed Schelling. His “use” of German idealism is one-sided and selective, regardless of the fact that it allows him to formulate an adequate critique of Western society. Perceiving a parallel between Žižek's conception of cinema and Kantian imagination [Einbildungskraft], the final conclusion is that he approaches German idealism not in terms of its conceptual system-character, but in terms of sensual multiplicity, not seeking unity in it, but precisely fragmentation. (shrink)