Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:56:19.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Schelling's Critique of Hegel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

Bernard M. G. Reardon
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle

Extract

Not only during his lifetime but for some years after his death Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling remained a figure of controversy. Few academic philosophers have been more execrated by their opponents, since with him intellectual differences quickly turned into personal animosities. That this was so was not simply his ill–luck; Schelling was always an ‘awkward customer’ to deal with. His vanity, which was inordinate, was no doubt basically temperamental, but it had been stimulated by the remarkable literary success of his early years, in which he appeared before the world as a prodigy. Increasingly touchy and irritable as he grew older, the least criticism struck him as a personal affront and disagreement as intended injury. The bitterness of his response, to intellectual equals and inferiors alike, was almost invariably such as to end in severed relationships. Thus he quarrelled in turn with Jacobi, with Fichte and with Friedrich Schlegel, as well as with lesser lights such as Baader and Eschenmayer, and even with his own pupils –J. J. Wagner, Krause, Stahl, Kohn and others. Those who managed to stay on good terms with him – men like Windischmann, Victor Cousin and his own publisher Cotta – had to learn to put up with his rancour. But of all with whom he fell foul the most eminent was Hegel, whom he regarded as his arch–enemy. The reason, little creditable to Schelling, is not far to seek. Originally fellow–students at Tübingen, they later became colleagues at Jena, where Schelling, the younger of the two, had already acquired national fame. By contrast the future author of the Phenomenology of Spirit was evidently as yet no more than a worthy but hardly scintillating collaborator with his academic senior in running a philosophical journal.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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

page 544 note 1 Sämtliche Werke, ed. von Schelling, K. F. A. (14 vols, Stuttgart and Augsburg, 1856–61).Google ScholarWerke, ed. Schröter, M. (12 vols., Munich, 1927–8).Google Scholar

page 544 note 2 Hegel includes a section on Schelling in his Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie. See E.T. by Haldane, E. S. and Simson, F. H. (London, 1895), iii, pp. 512545.Google Scholar

page 544 note 3 See Schulz, , Die Vollendung des deutschen Idealismus in der Spätphilosophie Schellings (Stuttgart, 1954).Google Scholar

page 544 note 4 See Fuhrmans, , Schellings letzte Philosophie (Berlin, 1940).Google Scholar

page 545 note 1 Schröter, (ed.), v, 196234Google Scholar

page 546 note 1 v, 271–332.

page 546 note 2 v, 195, 198; cf. Plitt, L. G., Aus Schellings Leben: in Briefen (Leipzig, 1869–70), iii, p. 63.Google Scholar

page 546 note 3 v, 197, 211 f., 231.

page 546 note 4 v, 207, 209.

page 547 note 1 v, 202, 207.

page 547 note 2 v, 206.

page 547 note 3 v, 211.

page 547 note 4 VIE (suppl. vol), 186 f.

page 547 note 5 v, 207 f.

page 547 note 6 I, 100.

page 548 note 1 VIE, 60.

page 548 note 2 v, 222.

page 549 note 1 v, 222 ff..

page 549 note 2 v, 228 ff. cf. VI E, 88 f.

page 549 note 3 v, 230.

page 549 note 4 Cf. ‘Einleitung’ to the Berlin lectures, VIE, p. 106 n.Google Scholar

page 550 note 1 The first work Hegel published after moving to Jena was his Differenz des Fichteschen und SchellingscheSystems der Philosophie (1801)Google Scholar, in which he registers his own clear preference for Schelling's philosophy as repesenting an advance of Fichte's

page 552 note 1 Cf. v, p. 221.

page 552 note 2 The Journals of Seren Kierkegaard, ed. and trans. Dru, A. (Oxford, 1938), p. 104.Google Scholar

page 553 note 1 Such is Schulz's argument against Fuhrmann, who finds in the Berlin lectures a radically new move.