Cover
Schelling's Theory of Symbolic Language
Forming the System of Identity
Daniel Whistler
Oxford Theology and Religion Monographs
Description
This study reconstructs F.W.J. Schelling's philosophy of language based on a detailed reading of SC73 of Schelling's lectures on the Philosophy of Art. Daniel Whistler argues that the concept of the symbol present in this lecture course, and elsewhere in Schelling's writings of the period, provides the key for a non-referential conception of language, where what matters is the intensity at which identity is produced. Such a reconstruction leads Whistler to a detailed analysis of Schelling's system of identity, his grand project of the years 1801 to 1805, which has been continually neglected by contemporary scholarship. In particular, Whistler recovers the concepts of quantitative differentiation and construction as central to Schelling's project of the period. This reconstruction also leads to an original reading of the origins of the concept of the symbol in German thought: there is not one "romantic symbol", but a whole plethora of experiments in theorising symbolism taking place at the turn of the nineteenth century. At stake, then, is Schelling as a philosopher of language, Schelling as a systematiser of identity, and Schelling as a theorist of the symbol.
1 有用 诛世之剑 2019-05-18 16:31:14
作者是少数认真对待同一哲学本身的谢林学者,全书主要部分是对同一哲学的重构和辩护,个人感觉同一体系可以说是对巴门尼德和斯宾诺莎天才般地综合//再读就必须减星了。作者说同一哲学时期的谢林否定了斯宾诺莎的‘限定即否定’这肯定错了,事实上谢林完全不回避把自然解释成对理念的否定。谢林的确通过形式这一概念肯定了某种形式的差异,但不代表谢林承认所谓感性世界以及个体事物的实在性,作者把这些“假象”完全归结于知性,... 作者是少数认真对待同一哲学本身的谢林学者,全书主要部分是对同一哲学的重构和辩护,个人感觉同一体系可以说是对巴门尼德和斯宾诺莎天才般地综合//再读就必须减星了。作者说同一哲学时期的谢林否定了斯宾诺莎的‘限定即否定’这肯定错了,事实上谢林完全不回避把自然解释成对理念的否定。谢林的确通过形式这一概念肯定了某种形式的差异,但不代表谢林承认所谓感性世界以及个体事物的实在性,作者把这些“假象”完全归结于知性,是避重就轻,淡化了谢林对“非存在”的蔑视态度,谢林根本不像作者说的那样反对所谓柏拉图的二元论而代之以肯定现世的一元论,反而嫌柏拉图的二元论承认了“非存在”的地位而不够彻底。还有对谢林而言形式的确很重要,但本质仍然是逻辑上在先的,绝对者不能等于形式。最后,作者对自然符号这一概念极为否定,我不认同 (展开)