3

I'm reading Schelling's System of Transcendental Idealism, and in the end of the 3rd part (the end of the theoretical philosophy) schelling disproves the idea that a priori ideas are inherent in us from birth, and the idea that they come from an "original" flow (not sure or the correct term). After that he dismisses Malebranche and Berkeley's thoughts that the ideas originated in God.

Schelling then later on continues to state that all those mistaken conclusions can be resolved by the statement that the consciousness is neither a priori nor a postriori, when we see that the core of that seperation lies in the fact that the object of philosophy, the "I", is neither of those, which eliminates any objectiveness of a priori consciousness.

Now, I don't see Schelling disproves the concept of a priori ideas at all, in fact he relies deeply on that concept in his transcendental research. So I would like to ask, where DOES the a priori ideas lay?

  • "Without a doubt," Kant asserted, "the ground of the world order and its connection according to universal laws" (A696/B724) is different from the world. He went on to say, "For the greatest systematic and purposive unity, which your reason demands as a regulative principle to ground all investigation of nature, was precisely what justified you in making the idea of a highest intelligence [...]; and however much purposiveness you encounter in the world in accordance with that principle, so much confirmation do you have for the rightness of your idea." (A699/B727) – user3017 Jan 2 '18 at 10:07
  • Don't even a priori ideas rely on an even prior adoption of some system of logic? For example, you might assume that if A==>B then it's "a priori" that A==>B&B. But in (a substructural logic like) linear logic, that's just wrong. – John Forkosh Jan 2 '18 at 10:49
  • @JohnForkosh. Logic is not something we "adopt"; rather, it consists of the rules of our thinking, as Kant correctly pointed out: "[General logic] contains the absolutely necessary rules of thinking, without which no use of the understanding takes place, and it therefore concerns these rules without regard to the difference of the objects to which it may be directed." (A52/B76) – user3017 Jan 2 '18 at 12:26
  • @Pé de Leo if I understand your comment correctly, you're saying Schelling thought we simply can't find the exact origin of the ideas? – Yechiam Weiss Jan 2 '18 at 13:02
  • @YechiamWeiss. No, I didn't say anything about what Schelling thought. However, he believed that if he regarded the contingent as an unconscious factor, it would seem necessary and objective: "[S]ince the only objective element in willing is the unconscious element, I find myself driven toward an unconscious factor, whereby the external success of all actions has got to be assured." Kant, of course, rejected the idea that reason could be based on contingency. – user3017 Jan 2 '18 at 14:17
0

After going through the text again, I think (I'm highly uncertain of it) that I found the answer-

Schelling says that the ideas, as "mere" forms, are the only a priori ideas that exists in the "intelligence". These, are originated in the purely idealistic, unconscious, unwilling creation, thus are in a way both inaccessible and unawareable to the realistic, conscious, willing creation, while still being the base for the realistic ideas and actions.

Furthermore, Schelling states that the seperation, or even the acknowledgement of "a priori" and "a postriori" ideas is only accessible to the philosopher, that can, by the absolute abstraction and the transcendental philosophy research method, reach that seperation. For the conscious creation, only empirical/experimental ideas are accessible through the realistic perception.

  • 1
    Are these unconscious, unwilling creations created randomly or according to some criteria? If the latter, what is the origin of the criteria by which they're created? – user3017 Jan 3 '18 at 14:53
  • @Pé de Leão if you're referring to some thought similar to Schopenhauer, then in a very bold way, Schopenhauer's thought (at least the beginning of his theoretical research) is similar to Schelling (and Hegel). But, Schelling (at least as far as I've seen) doesn't think those creations are being created randomly, but rather in a very specific way - through Kant's categories, and they're all being created by the synthesis logical method. Saying unconscious, unwilling, creation, is exactly what caused Schopenhauer to come to his conclusions, but I think it's certainly not what Schelling meant. – Yechiam Weiss Jan 3 '18 at 15:00

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.