Tomando como ponto de partida o diálogo "Clara", escrito por Schelling, o autor faz da conexão da Natureza com o Espírito o fio condutor da trajetória do pensamento schellinguiano. É, antes de tudo, na disputa com as filosofias de Fichte e Hegel, que se revela a convergência entre a concepção transcendental do Espírito e a filosofia da Natureza, dando-se assim a entender a importância de um conceito especulativo da Natureza como acesso ao mundo real. Taking the dialogue "Clara", written by (...) Schelling, as a starting point, the author uses the conection of Nature with the Spirit as a guiding line for his exposition of Schelling’s thought. It is, above all, the dispute with the philosophies of Fichte e Hegel that reveals the convergence between a transcendental conception of Spirit and the philosophy of Nature. Thus, the author implies the importance of speculative concept of Nature as an access to the real world. (shrink)

The modern popularity of the Kantian definition of enlightenment often leads to a distorted notion that his understanding of enlightenment was dominant already during his lifetime, expressing the quintessence of all-European Enlightenment. This turns our attention away from entire layers of philosophical thought, since the Kantian definition of enlightenment in the late eighteenth century was neither the only one nor the preeminent one. The study of alternatives represented in the German philosophy of that period gives a deeper insight into the (...) originality of the Kantian approach with regard to both its merits and demerits. The presentation of the Kantian definition of enlightenment as the standard turns out to be a rather late historical phenomenon. Even Kant’s closest followers did not turn to his interpretation of enlightenment and, indeed, were sharply critical of the phenomenon as a banal and superficial one, opposed to faith. Further transformation of the views on the Enlightenment led to the emergence of the inauthentic terms of “Enlightenment” and Lumières applied post factum to the eighteenth-century philosophy in Europe. As a result, the essence of the enlightenment was defined not so much by the eighteenth-century Enlighteners as by historians and philosophers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries who constructed a model notion of enlightenment against which philosophical figures were then compared. This approach ignored, first, the authentic definition of enlightenment (in Germany and Russia in the eighteenth century there were authentic terms “Aufklärung” and “prosveshcheniye”, and in France the proto-term “eclairé”) and, second, important national differences in the interpretation of the phenomenon. The emasculate Kantian definition of enlightenment used to legitimise the proposed approach. A closer look at the authentic view of eighteenth-century philosophers and a comparison of the Kantian approach to enlightenment with its alternatives that existed at the time might perhaps demonstrate that the philosophical and heuristic potential of the allegedly overcome and discredited Enlightenment is far from exhausted and is still relevant today. (shrink)

Tekste nagrinėjama vėlyvojo Schellingo Berlyno paskaitose formuluojama patyrimo samprata ir jos reikšmė svarstant mąstymo ir tikrovės santykį. Keliamas klausimas, kokiu mastu jo siūloma moderniosios patyrimo sampratos transformacija gali būti reikšminga užklausiant nūdienos filosofinio diskurso ateities perspektyvą Benjamino ir Agambeno įvardyto „patirties neprieinamumo“ kontekste. Mėginama parodyti, jog, užuot ieškojus patyrimo galimybės pagrindo imanentinėse ar transcendentalinėse subjekto apibrėžtyse, šelingiškoji alternatyva leidžia permąstyti patyrimą iš radikalios ateities perspektyvos. Atskleidžiant ontologinį patyrimo matmenį, jo sąsajas su laisvės klausimu ir paties mąstymo faktiškumo problema, atsiveria galimybė (...) ieškoti patyrimo vietos anapus subjekto–objekto perskyros, anapus betarpiškumo ar juslinio ir objektiško pažinimo. Tai leidžia persvarstyti patyrimo reikšmę metafizikai tiek pokantinės, tiek postidealistinės savimonės perspektyvoje. (shrink)

The author considers Schelling`s personality: German philosophy classic and its first historian. She demonstrates postmodern nature of Schelling`s philosophy. As she think, Schelling has been affirming nature`s autonomy and its perpetual interaction with history of philosophy. By criticizing Hegel`s panlogism Schelling has stimulated development of postclassic philosophy core ideas: accidental, auto-important, original, unique, irrational, genius. The author demonstrates, that Schelling`s concept of open system, which perpetually changes, makes him our contemporary.

The influence of the thought of the great German Idealist philosopher G.W.F Hegel on the thought of Theodor Adorno, the leading thinker of the first generation of the Frankfurt School, is unmistakeable, and has been the subject of much commentary. Much less discussed, however, is the influence of Hegel's prominent contemporary, F.W.J. Schelling. This article investigates the influence of Schelling on Adorno, and the sometimes striking parallels between fundamental motifs in the work of both thinkers. It argues that Adorno's critique (...) of Hegelian dialectics, his conception of the relation between nature and spirit, and his philosophy of history owe a considerable debt to Schelling. Furthermore, when adequately explicated, Schelling's position on a range of problems which confronted German Idealist philosophy often prove intrinsically preferable to those of Hegel. (shrink)