The philosophies of **Spinoza** and **Schelling** share significant points of affinity, particularly in their focus on the unity of nature and the divine, but they also differ sharply in their metaphysical approaches, particularly concerning the nature of freedom, the role of individuality, and their understandings of the relationship between the finite and the infinite. Here’s a comparison of their major similarities and differences:
### Affinities Between Spinoza and Schelling:
1. **Monism and the Unity of Being**:
- **Spinoza**: Spinoza is known for his radical monism, where God and Nature (Deus sive Natura) are one and the same substance. For him, there is only one substance, and everything that exists is a mode of that substance. This means that God is not a separate entity from the world; rather, the world itself, and everything in it, is an expression of God.
- **Schelling**: Early in his career, Schelling also advocates for a form of monism, especially in his *Philosophy of Nature*. He argues that nature is not a separate creation but an expression of the Absolute — an underlying unity that manifests itself through both nature and human consciousness. Schelling’s concept of the Absolute has a similar unifying character to Spinoza’s substance, where the duality between mind and matter is overcome by recognizing their underlying unity.
- **Affinity**: Both thinkers view the world as an expression of an immanent divine principle, and both reject a dualism between the spiritual and the material realms. They emphasize that nature and divinity are not separate entities but are deeply interconnected.
2. **Immanence**:
- **Spinoza**: Spinoza’s philosophy is fundamentally immanent. God is not a transcendent creator who exists outside the world but is entirely present within the world. Everything that exists is a part of this divine substance, and thus there is no "outside" to the immanent order.
- **Schelling**: In his early works, Schelling shares a similar view of immanence, especially in his *Philosophy of Nature*. For Schelling, nature is not something separate from the Absolute but an immanent expression of it. The divine is revealed through the processes of nature, and human consciousness is part of that unfolding.
- **Affinity**: Both Spinoza and early Schelling promote an immanent view of the divine, seeing nature and the world as part of the unfolding of a singular, divine substance or principle.
3. **Pantheism**:
- **Spinoza**: Spinoza’s philosophy is often interpreted as pantheistic, as he equates God with Nature. God is not a personal being or a creator outside the world, but the entire universe itself. Everything that exists is an expression of God’s infinite attributes.
- **Schelling**: Schelling’s early work also has pantheistic elements, particularly his notion that nature is a visible manifestation of the Absolute. While Schelling later moves beyond a purely pantheistic outlook, in his early *Philosophy of Nature*, he shares Spinoza’s view that the divine is not a transcendent being but is immanent within the world.
### Differences Between Spinoza and Schelling:
1. **The Nature of the Absolute**:
- **Spinoza**: Spinoza’s Absolute (God or Substance) is completely static and determined. Everything that happens is the result of a deterministic chain of causes, all of which are expressions of the one divine substance. There is no freedom in the sense of spontaneity or contingency because everything follows necessarily from the nature of God or Substance.
- **Schelling**: Schelling’s concept of the Absolute evolves over time, and in his later works, he emphasizes the dynamic, creative nature of the Absolute. For Schelling, the Absolute is not a fixed, static substance, but a process of becoming that involves both necessity and freedom. Schelling’s later philosophy, especially in works like *The Ages of the World*, emphasizes the idea of a "ground" of the Absolute that is irrational and dark, a source of potentiality and freedom that precedes the emergence of order.
- **Difference**: Spinoza’s Absolute is static, necessary, and fully determined, whereas Schelling’s Absolute becomes a dynamic, living process that includes both necessity and the possibility of freedom and creativity.
2. **Freedom and Necessity**:
- **Spinoza**: For Spinoza, freedom is not the ability to choose between alternatives, but the understanding of necessity. True freedom is realizing that everything happens according to the laws of nature and accepting it. Human beings are part of the deterministic order, and our freedom consists in our intellectual understanding of this order.
- **Schelling**: In contrast, Schelling places a strong emphasis on freedom as a real, metaphysical force. Particularly in his later work, Schelling sees freedom as fundamental to the nature of the Absolute. For Schelling, the world is not fully determined, and freedom involves the capacity for creativity, spontaneity, and the emergence of new possibilities. He posits an irrational "ground" of existence that allows for the existence of freedom alongside necessity.
- **Difference**: Spinoza equates freedom with intellectual understanding and acceptance of necessity, whereas Schelling sees freedom as a real, creative force that allows for contingency and the emergence of new realities.
3. **The Role of the Individual**:
- **Spinoza**: For Spinoza, individuals are modes of the one substance, and while they have a certain degree of individuality, they are ultimately determined by the larger order of nature. Individuality is not essential but rather a manifestation of the underlying substance.
- **Schelling**: Schelling, particularly in his later philosophy, places more emphasis on individuality and the role of the individual will. He views individual freedom as a real force in the world, where individuals can act creatively and bring new realities into existence. This emphasis on individuality and freedom distinguishes Schelling from Spinoza’s more deterministic worldview.
- **Difference**: Spinoza’s system is more deterministic and views individuality as a mere expression of the divine substance, whereas Schelling gives more importance to individual freedom and creativity as part of the unfolding of the Absolute.
4. **God, Evil, and the Problem of Negativity**:
- **Spinoza**: Spinoza’s God is completely good and perfect, and the existence of evil is simply a lack of understanding on our part. Since everything follows from the necessary nature of God or Substance, what we perceive as evil is merely a limitation of our perspective.
- **Schelling**: Schelling’s later philosophy introduces a much more complex understanding of evil and negativity. In *Freedom Essay* and *The Ages of the World*, Schelling argues that evil arises from the dark, irrational ground of existence that precedes the manifestation of the Absolute. This ground contains both good and evil, and thus evil is a real metaphysical possibility within the unfolding of the Absolute.
- **Difference**: Spinoza does not see evil as a real force but as a lack of understanding, while Schelling sees evil as a fundamental part of existence, rooted in the irrational ground of being itself.
### Summary:
- **Affinities**: Both Spinoza and Schelling share a commitment to monism, an emphasis on the immanence of the divine in nature, and a rejection of traditional dualisms between mind and body, God and the world. They both offer a vision of the unity of all things within a single, overarching principle (Spinoza’s Substance and Schelling’s Absolute).
- **Differences**: Spinoza’s philosophy is deterministic and emphasizes intellectual freedom within a fully determined system, while Schelling develops a more dynamic, creative view of the Absolute that includes real freedom and individuality. Spinoza’s God is static and perfect, whereas Schelling’s Absolute includes a dark, irrational ground that allows for both freedom and the emergence of evil.
Schelling, especially in his later philosophy, breaks away from Spinoza’s strict determinism and offers a more complex, existentially rich view of the world that incorporates freedom, creativity, and negativity.
