On the Doorstep of the Absolute: F.W.J. Schelling's Philosophy of Revelation

by Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, Klaus Ottmann (Translation)

The first complete translation of the 1841-42 lectures on "Philosophy and Revelation" by the important German idealist philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling (1775-1854), as transcribed by H. E. G. Paulus.



Schelling's "Philosophy of Revelation" was never published during his lifetime. The historically most significant 1841-42 lectures in Berlin exist only in transcriptions, which form the basis of this volume. Introduced, translated, and annotated by the Schelling scholar Klaus Ottmann, the lectures are paired with earlier writings and lectures on the subject of philosophy and religion, such as his 1798 text on "Revelation and National Education;" his 1802 Jena lecture "On the Historical Construct of Christianity;" and his 1827 inaugural lecture in Munich.

Genres: Philosophy

384 pages, Paperback

Published February 28, 2019

About the author

Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, later von Schelling, was a German philosopher. Standard histories of philosophy make him the midpoint in the development of German Idealism, situating him between Fichte, his mentor prior to 1800, and Hegel, his former university roommate and erstwhile friend. Interpreting Schelling's philosophy is often difficult because of its ever-changing nature. Some scholars characterize him as a protean thinker who, although brilliant, jumped from one subject to another and lacked the synthesizing power needed to arrive at a complete philosophical system. Others challenge the notion that Schelling's thought is marked by profound breaks, instead arguing that his philosophy always focused on a few common themes, especially human freedom, the absolute, and the relationship between spirit and nature.

Schelling's thought has often been neglected, especially in the English-speaking world. This stems not only from the ascendancy of Hegel, whose mature works portray Schelling as a mere footnote in the development of Idealism, but also from his Naturphilosophie, which positivist scientists have often ridiculed for its "silly" analogizing and lack of empirical orientation. In recent years, Schelling scholars have forcefully attacked both of these sources of neglect.

Reviews

[Erick · Rating 4 out of 5]

My issues with Schelling has often been his dependence on writers like Jacob Boehme. Boehme had very definite gnostic tendencies. These became less pronounced after his Aurora, but were always there to some degree. Boehme assigned tension and schism within Divinity and the Godhead Itself. He posited different opposing modes like desire, wrathfulness, etc, to Godhead. This is a kind of tritheism rather than a Trinitarianism. Schelling does basically the same thing. In this book, that is made up of the Philosophy of Revelation lectures, Schelling continues to work with his philosophy regarding modes of being. In German they are wesen, seyn and seyende. He assigns these modes of being A1, A2 and A3 here; but I’m not sure if each is accorded a definite German word for being. B is what he assigns to the ground of creation itself. It is obvious that we’re dealing with the ungrounded Godhead in these aspects of A because creation’s ground doesn’t come into play until we reach B. In the first version of Ages of the World (which I am reading right now), Schelling specifically assigns these modes of A opposing wills (German wollen). His Ages of The World does help clarify some things here. In the Philosophy of Revelation he has opted to use the term “potencies” rather than “wills”, but the change matters little practically. A1 is Schelling’s wesen and it is content in its unwillfulness. A2 is the willfulness towards created being. He says specifically that this willfulness is opposed to the unwillfulness of A1 and is blind and needs to be guided by the beingness of A3. A3 becomes the mind and limit for the blind willfulness of A2. Schelling specifically says that A1 (i.e. wesen) is above “God.” One has to be amused that Schelling took such offense at having his philosophy labeled atheistic by people like Jacobi when he invites such labeling himself in such notions as the preceding. Schelling’s wesen becomes a non-thinking, non-willing, non-acting force like the Kabbalistic Ein Sof or the Taoist Tao. It is laughably useless for anything but philosophizing. It seems to be content in its absolute boredom. All of this is at odds with Trinitarian theology. The Trinity is an absolute Unity in Being (ousia). The Greek word “ousia” can be translated as “being”, “substance”, “essence”. etc. Inserting any kind of schism within the Trinity is a direct removal of its inherent Unity. It doesn’t matter the intellectual acrobatics Schelling may make in his attempt to make this work, it still is an attempt to invite a kind of dualism in through the backdoor. One cannot have a Godhead of opposing wills and still have a Unity. This is simply obvious. Its strange how someone can be so pedantic in a philosophical system and yet miss an obvious contradiction. Instead of not seeing the forest for the trees, one becomes so obsessed with the tree that one can’t see the forest.

Schelling does have some profound ideas in here. He also makes Christ the culmination of all revelation which is commendable. I am still impressed by Schelling. He has some profound thoughts and ideas. But, as I’ve said before, Schelling and his Idealist ilk are more on the side of Neo-Platonism and Gnosticism than on the side of Christianity. I can accept their philosophy to a degree, I reject their theology almost totally. Now, having said that, much of the concepts that German thinkers like Hegel, Schelling, Fichte and even Boehme are working with, do apply to things in our cosmos. They are specifically cosmic processes, not divine ones as such. When one applies these ideas to the right modes and in the right context, most of the theological issues disappear because it is no longer a theology and is a philosophical cosmology. I think it’s quite an assumption to think that a beingness that existed before human thought, and is super mundane by nature, could ever be explicated by a process that is practically mundane. It’s an assumption that we even have the tools to be able to elucidate this sort of thing. At most, God may have given us the ability to intuit certain things about His nature. I believe the Church Fathers went as far as any one could reasonably go when it comes to these questions. All that can be said about the Trinity is that there’s an aspect that is transcendent and one that is eminent—Father, Son and Holy spirit: One in being, distinct in Persons. Schelling is able to show exactly why rigidly monotheistic systems like that found in Islam and Judaism are problematic by forcing God into an isolation He cannot escape from. That kind of monotheism is useless because no one can have any kind of relationship with that kind of God.

I still give the book around 4 to 4-and-a-half stars. Schelling is always able to make me reflect and ruminate. It is interesting to see how someone will try to answer perplexing philosophical/theological questions even when they fail at the task.

This text was based on the Paulus edition of Schelling's lectures. The editor/translator added portions from Schelling's complete works that were edited by his son, and added some articles/lectures that weren't technically a part of the Philosophy of Revelation Berlin lectures. Also, he added Kierkegaard's notes from these lectures as footnotes. All of these elements added a lot to this edition. Other than some typos, there is very little that can be complained about. I waited a while for it to be finally released. I am glad to have read it.

I may add more to this review later. That’s about as much as I want to put down now. I would like to re-read this in the future because I read this rather quickly. I am now reading the 1811 version of the Ages of the World and will review that when I'm done.