While Schelling and Deleuze never engaged directly, since Deleuze came much later, there are several philosophical resonances between them that suggest Schelling could have offered insights or critiques to Deleuze, had they been contemporaries. These connections arise primarily in their views on nature, becoming, and metaphysics. Let’s explore what Schelling might have had to say to Deleuze:
### 1. **Philosophy of Becoming**
Both Schelling and Deleuze share a focus on **becoming** and the **dynamic nature of reality**. Schelling’s understanding of nature as a process of self-organization, where nature is both a product and a productivity, prefigures Deleuze’s emphasis on flows, intensities, and becoming. However, Schelling’s notion of the **ground** of being—a deeper, often irrational source of both order and disorder—might have led him to critique Deleuze’s tendency to focus on purely immanent, horizontal processes. For Schelling, the vertical dimension of metaphysical depth, the interplay between freedom and necessity, suggests a more complex metaphysical grounding that Deleuze largely avoids. Schelling might have argued that Deleuze, in focusing on becoming, risks ignoring the deeper metaphysical "ground" that makes becoming possible.
### 2. **Nature and the Unconscious**
Schelling’s **philosophy of nature** posits that nature has an unconscious, creative force at work, driving its self-organizing processes. This concept might resonate with Deleuze’s concept of the **virtual** and the pre-individual forces that shape life and matter. However, Schelling might have pointed out that while Deleuze’s philosophy of immanence aligns with a view of nature as dynamic, Deleuze’s largely materialist orientation downplays the spiritual or transcendent aspects of nature, which were central to Schelling’s thought. Schelling would have likely insisted that nature’s unconscious is not only a material force but also carries a spiritual or metaphysical dimension, which Deleuze might sideline in his radical immanence.
### 3. **The Problem of Evil and Negativity**
Schelling’s later philosophy, especially his **philosophy of freedom**, delves deeply into the problem of **evil** and **negativity** as inherent to the structure of reality. He views the dark, irrational, and chaotic forces as essential to creation, not just as oppositions but as conditions for the emergence of freedom and order. In contrast, Deleuze, particularly in his collaboration with Guattari, emphasizes the productive and creative potential of difference and becoming, often avoiding traditional metaphysical concerns about evil or negativity. Schelling might critique Deleuze’s tendency to downplay the role of negativity and chaos in the metaphysical sense, arguing that these forces are not just productive but are also deeply intertwined with the moral and existential dilemmas of human existence.
### 4. **Transcendence vs. Immanence**
One of the starkest differences between Schelling and Deleuze is their stance on **transcendence** versus **immanence**. Schelling’s metaphysics maintains a space for transcendence—especially in his concept of God as both immanent and transcendent to nature. Deleuze, on the other hand, is firmly committed to **absolute immanence**, where there is no “outside” to the flows and processes of life. Schelling might argue that Deleuze’s refusal to engage with transcendence limits his ability to account for the deeper, hidden sources of creativity and freedom. For Schelling, true freedom involves transcending the mere flux of becoming to connect with the metaphysical “ground” beyond it, which Deleuze’s immanentism cannot fully grasp.
### 5. **Creativity and the Unfolding of Ideas**
Both philosophers are interested in **creativity**, but their views on the source of creativity differ. Deleuze sees creativity arising from the proliferation of difference, while Schelling locates it in the tension between the unconscious ground of being and its conscious articulation. Schelling’s emphasis on the unconscious as a source of creativity, particularly in his later works like *The Ages of the World*, could have expanded Deleuze’s conception of the virtual. Schelling might argue that true creativity involves tapping into the irrational and hidden forces of nature and spirit, which are not merely differences but contain a more profound metaphysical and existential power.
### 6. **Time and the Eternal**
Schelling’s later works, particularly in his unfinished *Ages of the World* (*Die Weltalter*), explore the notion of **time** as a process of unfolding from a primordial past into the present, yet always connected to a metaphysical “ground.” This resonates somewhat with Deleuze’s philosophy of time, particularly in his reading of Bergson, where time is a field of continuous becoming. However, Schelling’s metaphysical view of time, where the past is not simply a repository of differences but a ground that structures reality, might lead him to critique Deleuze for ignoring the deeper ontological roots of temporality. Schelling might insist that Deleuze’s emphasis on the openness of the future overlooks the ontological weight of the past as a metaphysical “ground” shaping all becoming.
### In Conclusion
Schelling and Deleuze share certain affinities, particularly in their dynamic and process-oriented views of reality, but Schelling’s philosophy includes a deeper metaphysical, spiritual, and existential dimension. Schelling might have challenged Deleuze’s philosophy of immanence by arguing that becoming requires a metaphysical ground that transcends mere immanence, and that negativity, the unconscious, and the problem of evil are central to any full account of freedom and creativity. Despite their differences, both philosophers contribute to a non-static vision of reality that remains influential in contemporary thought.
