2

According to this question:

Marx did not need to invert historical idealism because Schelling had already shown the limitations of the dialectic process

Hegels dialectic, roughly, is manifested in how Spirit manifests itself in the world, starting from Nothing & Being synthesised to Becoming.

Whereas Marx historical materialism inverts Hegel by showing how the World manifests itself in Spirit through economics.

How does Schelling, before Marx, show that Hegels dialectic has its limitation?

Further, I find it thought-provoking that one could take Hegels dialectic as a thesis and Marxs as an anti-thesis, with a synthesis perhaps not yet making an appearance, or perhaps as Post-Modernism which disavows grand narratives (both of which Hegels and Marx systems are) and champions eclecticism and multiplicity as opposed to the universal-systemising and thus univocacity of Marx & Hegel. Is there any substance to this?

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

It can be said that while Marx takes the structure of Hegel´s dialectics and then invert it, Schelling criticises a more fundamental principle of his thought. For Schelling (his late philosophy) Hegel is a panlogician-pantheist. His God/Absolute moves from the concept to the Idea with a irrevocable necessity. Schelling opposes then a "living God", that is, a God that can come or not into being. A God that can be "B" in a moment, and then become "not B" (for example). A God that has an in-conscience Grund. A God that has a Past (!) and an history of his revelation.

Improve this answer
2
  • "from concept to idea" - what is the difference between concept & idea here? "A God that be 'B'" why the abbreviated 'B' and not 'Be'?
    – Mozibur Ullah
    Oct 12, 2013 at 23:28
  • Good question Mozibur Ullah. For Hegel the concept is just the abstract first moment of the Idea. The Idea is the unification between the subjetive and the objective. I used the term "B" not as an abbreviated "Be", but to follow Schelling´s theory of potences. He usually uses the letters "A" and "B" in his examples. That is, God can be "something" (i.e. A, B, ...) at a moment and "not something" at another moment. Kind regards, Strabo.
    – Strabo
    Oct 13, 2013 at 15:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .