Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling
Nature and mind are two sides of one reality – nature is mind made visible – and human freedom includes the real possibility of evil.
Placement
Philosophy of nature and identity: nature is visible spirit, spirit is invisible nature.
Key ideas
- Philosophy of nature
- Identity
- Freedom and evil
Influence
Influenced by 5
Plato
influenced by ✓
As a Tübingen student Schelling wrote a commentary on Plato’s Timaeus (1794, published 1994) that anticipates the world-soul of his philosophy of nature (On the World-Soul, 1798). F. W. J. Schelling, “Timaeus” (1794), ed. H. Buchner (1994); Von der Weltseele (1798)
Plato › 428–348 BCE
Giordano Bruno
influenced by ✓
In the dialogue Bruno (1802) Schelling made Giordano Bruno the spokesman of his philosophy of identity, in which the divine and the natural principle of things coincide. F. W. J. Schelling, Bruno oder über das göttliche und natürliche Princip der Dinge (1802); SEP “Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling”
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
Giordano Bruno › 1548–1600
Baruch de Spinoza
influenced by ✓
Schelling told Hegel in 1795 that he had become a Spinozist and presented his identity philosophy in Spinoza’s geometrical manner (Presentation of My System, 1801). F. W. J. Schelling, letter to Hegel, 4 Feb. 1795; Darstellung meines Systems der Philosophie (1801); SEP “Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling”
Baruch de Spinoza › 1632–1677
Immanuel Kant
influenced by ✓
In Ideas for a Philosophy of Nature (1797) Schelling took up Kant’s dynamic theory of matter as attractive and repulsive forces (Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science, 1786). F. W. J. Schelling, Ideen zu einer Philosophie der Natur (1797); I. Kant, Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft (1786); SEP “Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling”
Immanuel Kant › 1724–1804
Friedrich Hölderlin
influenced by ✓
Hölderlin’s share in Schelling’s turn is debated; D. Henrich reads ‘Urtheil und Seyn’ (1795), which puts Being before subject and object, as a step towards Schelling’s identity philosophy. F. Hölderlin, “Urtheil und Seyn” (1795); D. Henrich, Der Grund im Bewußtsein (1992)
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
Friedrich Hölderlin › 1770–1843
Influenced 6
Pyotr Chaadaev
influenced ✓
Chaadaev met Schelling in Karlsbad in 1825 and later corresponded with him; his Philosophical Letters (1829–31) read history as providential, partly in Schelling’s terms. P. Chaadaev, Philosophical Letters (1829–31); A. Walicki, A History of Russian Thought from the Enlightenment to Marxism (1979)
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
Pyotr Chaadaev › 1794–1856
Vladimir Solovyov
influenced
Solovyov’s Lectures on Godmanhood (1878–81) drew on Schelling’s late philosophy of mythology and revelation for history as the union of God and humanity. V. Solovyov, Chteniia o Bogochelovechestve (1878–81); SEP “Vladimir Solov’ëv”
Evidence: AI draft
Vladimir Solovyov › 1853–1900
Nishitani Keiji
influenced
Nishitani’s thesis at Kyoto Imperial University, “The Ideal and the Real in Schelling and Bergson” (1924), began his work on Schelling, alongside Nietzsche and the mystics. Nishitani Keiji, thesis (Kyoto 1924); Nanzan Institute, Philosophers Database “Nishitani Keiji”
Evidence: AI draft
Nishitani Keiji › 1900–1990
Jürgen Habermas
influenced ✓
Habermas wrote his dissertation on Schelling (Das Absolute und die Geschichte, 1954) and later drew materialist conclusions from his idea of God’s contraction (1963). J. Habermas, Das Absolute und die Geschichte. Von der Zwiespältigkeit in Schellings Denken (diss. 1954); “Dialektischer Idealismus im Übergang zum Materialismus”, in Theorie und Praxis (1963)
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
Jürgen Habermas › 1929–2026
Enrique Dussel
influenced
In Method for a Philosophy of Liberation (1974), subtitled “analectic overcoming of the Hegelian dialectic”, Dussel took up the late Schelling’s positive philosophy as a first step beyond Hegel towards an exteriority that thought does not produce. E. Dussel, Método para una filosofía de la liberación: superación analéctica de la dialéctica hegeliana (1974); P. González San Martín, Hybris. Revista de Filosofía (2016)
Evidence: AI draft
Enrique Dussel › 1934–2023
Slavoj Žižek
influenced ✓
In The Indivisible Remainder (1996) Žižek read Schelling’s Ages of the World as an account of how the Word emerges from a pre-symbolic ground of drives. S. Žižek, The Indivisible Remainder: An Essay on Schelling and Related Matters (1996); The Abyss of Freedom (1997)
Slavoj Žižek › b. 1949
Criticism
Mutual critique 1
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel ⇄ mutual influenced
influenced ✓
Hegel defended Schelling’s philosophy of identity against Fichte in the Difference essay (1801) and co-edited with him the Critical Journal of Philosophy (1802–03). G. W. F. Hegel, Differenz des Fichte’schen und Schelling’schen Systems der Philosophie (1801); Kritisches Journal der Philosophie (1802–03); SEP “Hegel”
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
criticised
Schelling objected that Hegel’s ‘negative’ philosophy of pure concepts cannot reach actual existence, nor explain why the Idea should release itself into nature (Munich lectures, 1833–34). F. W. J. Schelling, Zur Geschichte der neueren Philosophie (Munich lectures, c. 1833–34; publ. 1856), on Hegel; Berlin lectures 1841–42; SEP “Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling”
Evidence: AI draft
criticised by
Hegel’s Preface to the Phenomenology (1807) mocked an absolute of pure identity as ‘the night in which all cows are black’; Schelling took it as aimed at him. G. W. F. Hegel, Phänomenologie des Geistes (1807), Preface; Schelling to Hegel, 2 Nov. 1807
Evidence: AI draft
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel › 1770–1831
Criticized by 2
Søren Kierkegaard influenced
influenced ✓
Kierkegaard heard Schelling’s Berlin lectures (1841–42) and took detailed notes; scholars trace in part to them his contrast between conceptual thought and actual existence. S. Kierkegaard, notes on Schelling’s Berlin lectures (1841–42); SEP “Søren Kierkegaard”
criticised by
Kierkegaard, who heard Schelling’s Berlin lectures in 1841–42, was first delighted by his talk of ‘actuality’, then judged them endless nonsense and left Berlin early (letters, 1842). S. Kierkegaard, notes on Schelling’s Berlin lectures (1841–42); letters to E. Boesen, 1842; SEP “Søren Kierkegaard”
Evidence: AI draft
Søren Kierkegaard › 1813–1855
Friedrich Engels
criticised by
Attending Schelling’s Berlin lectures, the young Engels defended Hegel against him and attacked his philosophy of revelation for subordinating reason to faith (Schelling und die Offenbarung, 1842). F. Engels, “Schelling über Hegel”, Telegraph für Deutschland (1841); Schelling und die Offenbarung (1842)
Evidence: AI draft
Friedrich Engels › 1820–1895
Criticizes 2
Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi
criticised
Schelling answered Jacobi’s Of Divine Things (1811), which accused him of atheistic naturalism, arguing against Jacobi that God can be known, not only believed (Denkmal, 1812). F. W. J. Schelling, Denkmal der Schrift von den göttlichen Dingen etc. des Herrn Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi (1812); F. H. Jacobi, Von den göttlichen Dingen und ihrer Offenbarung (1811)
Evidence: AI draft
Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi › 1743–1819
Johann Gottlieb Fichte influenced by
influenced by ✓
In Of the I as Principle of Philosophy (1795) Schelling started from Fichte’s absolute I; his System of Transcendental Idealism (1800) still followed the Wissenschaftslehre’s method. F. W. J. Schelling, Vom Ich als Princip der Philosophie (1795); System des transcendentalen Idealismus (1800); SEP “Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling”
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
criticised
Schelling objected that Fichte reduced nature to a mere obstacle for the striving I, whereas nature is itself productive (Darlegung des wahren Verhältnisses, 1806). F. W. J. Schelling, Darlegung des wahren Verhältnisses der Naturphilosophie zu der verbesserten Fichteschen Lehre (1806); Fichte–Schelling correspondence 1800–1801; SEP “Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling”
Evidence: AI draft
Johann Gottlieb Fichte › 1762–1814
Works
Art as the organon of philosophy.
Freedom as the capacity for good and evil.
Position
Schelling pushed idealism beyond Fichte by giving nature its own dignity: nature is “visible spirit”, a living, self-organising productivity from which consciousness itself emerges. In his philosophy of identity, nature and mind are two expressions of one absolute, and art is the place where this unity becomes visible. His essay on human freedom confronted a darker question: how can evil exist if everything is grounded in God? His answer – a ground in God that is not God himself, and freedom as the capacity for good and evil – opened a path toward existential thought. His late “positive philosophy” insisted that the sheer fact of existence precedes all concepts.
Life & context
A prodigy from Württemberg, Schelling studied at the Tübingen seminary with Hegel and Hölderlin and became a professor in Jena at 23, at the centre of the Romantic movement. He later taught in Würzburg, Munich and Erlangen. In 1841 he was called to Berlin to counter Hegelianism; Kierkegaard, Engels and Bakunin sat in his lectures.
Further main works
- Ideas for a Philosophy of Nature (1797)
- The Ages of the World, drafts (1811–1815)
- Philosophy of Revelation, lectures (1841–1842)
As of November 2026 · Sources · Improve this page · How Agora is made