What’s the difference between the philosophies of Hegel and Schelling? （ChatGPT, 2024-9-28) (negativity vs vitality) (自由）（2025） （車行形上學）（metaphysics of van life)

Hegel and Schelling, while both figures of **German Idealism**, developed significantly different philosophies, particularly after their early collaboration. Their divergence is most evident in how they conceive of **Being**, **freedom**, **nature**, and the **role of reason** in philosophy. While both were responding to the legacy of Kant and trying to address problems left by his critical philosophy, their approaches led them in quite different directions. Below are some of the key differences between the philosophies of Hegel and Schelling:

### 1. **System and Methodology: Dialectics vs. Dynamic Becoming**

- **Hegel’s System and Dialectic**: Hegel is best known for his **dialectical method**, which posits that reality unfolds through a process of **thesis, antithesis, and synthesis**. In this view, contradictions are not only resolved but integrated into a higher unity. For Hegel, the world, history, and thought evolve through this process, leading toward the realization of **absolute knowledge**—the point at which all contradictions are subsumed in the unity of the **Absolute**. His philosophy presents a **systematic, totalizing structure** in which everything finds its place in the rational development of Spirit (Geist), culminating in self-consciousness and freedom.

  

- **Schelling’s Dynamic and Processual View of Being**: Schelling, particularly in his later work, rejects such a totalizing system. He argues that reality is not a fully rational, self-contained process. Instead, he views Being as dynamic and fundamentally **irrational at its core**, composed of a tension between contradictory forces (light and darkness, freedom and necessity). Schelling’s metaphysical focus on **becoming** and the **unfolding of Being** is more open-ended and less systematic than Hegel’s dialectic. He sees existence as constantly evolving through conflict and contradiction, but without necessarily resolving those contradictions into a final unity as Hegel does.

### 2. **Nature**

- **Hegel’s Philosophy of Nature**: For Hegel, **nature** is part of the dialectical process but occupies a lower position in the hierarchy of the unfolding of Spirit. He views nature as the **externalization of the Idea**—a stage that Spirit must pass through on its way to self-consciousness. Nature is thus a necessary but incomplete and imperfect reflection of reason, a stepping stone toward higher forms of rationality found in human history, culture, and philosophy.

- **Schelling’s Philosophy of Nature**: In contrast, Schelling gives nature a much more **prominent and active role**. In his early **Naturphilosophie**, Schelling argues that nature is not merely a stage in the development of Spirit but a **self-organizing, living process** that exhibits freedom and creativity. For Schelling, nature is alive, dynamic, and imbued with spirit; it is not merely an object of thought but an active subject in its own right. Schelling’s view of nature as an unconscious striving toward self-expression anticipates later ecological and existential views of nature as inherently valuable and creative, not just a backdrop for human development.

### 3. **Freedom and Necessity**

- **Hegel’s Rational Freedom**: Hegel’s concept of **freedom** is bound up with the dialectical process. For Hegel, true freedom comes through the recognition of necessity—through understanding and internalizing the rational structures of reality. Freedom is achieved when individuals recognize themselves as part of the rational unfolding of Spirit, where their wills align with the ethical order of the state, history, and the universal. Thus, freedom is the **self-realization of reason** and the individual’s role in the rational whole.

- **Schelling’s Existential Freedom**: Schelling, on the other hand, emphasizes a more **existential and metaphysical conception of freedom**. For Schelling, freedom is not reducible to rational self-realization but involves a tension between **consciousness and the unconscious**, between **light and darkness**. Freedom for Schelling means the ability to choose between good and evil, and this capacity comes from the irrational depths of human existence. Schelling sees freedom as grounded in the **unconscious ground of Being**, where irrational forces like chaos and evil are as essential as rationality. In this way, Schelling’s concept of freedom is more radical and existential, focusing on the **tragic dimensions of human freedom** rather than its harmonious integration into a rational system.

### 4. **The Role of the Absolute**

- **Hegel’s Absolute**: Hegel’s **Absolute** is the ultimate reality, the totality in which all contradictions are resolved. For Hegel, the Absolute represents the culmination of the dialectical process, the point at which Spirit fully recognizes itself and achieves complete self-consciousness. The Absolute is the realization that all particular moments (thesis and antithesis) are reconciled in a higher unity (synthesis). Everything that exists, from nature to human history to thought, is a manifestation of the Absolute, which is ultimately **rational** and knowable through philosophy.

- **Schelling’s Absolute as Beyond Rationality**: Schelling’s **Absolute** differs from Hegel’s in that he views it as something that cannot be fully rationalized or known through reason alone. For Schelling, the Absolute is a **ground of Being** that contains both **irrational and rational elements**. It is not something that can be fully grasped by human consciousness or dialectical reasoning because it includes both light and darkness, order and chaos. The Absolute for Schelling is more mysterious, and any attempt to reduce it to a rational, self-conscious unity (as Hegel does) ignores its inherent indeterminacy and potential for contradiction.

### 5. **The Problem of Evil**

- **Hegel’s Resolution of Evil**: In Hegel’s dialectic, **evil** is a necessary stage in the process of development, something that is overcome and integrated into the final synthesis. For Hegel, evil is ultimately a **moment of alienation** that Spirit must pass through to achieve self-realization. It is part of the historical process and, in the end, is subsumed into the rational order of things. Evil, in this sense, is not a permanent or insurmountable force but something that reason ultimately reconciles.

- **Schelling’s Radical Understanding of Evil**: Schelling, however, takes a much more radical approach to **evil**. He argues that evil is not simply an absence of good or a stage in a rational process; rather, it is an **active, fundamental force** in the world that stems from the irrational ground of existence. In his **Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom**, Schelling suggests that evil is tied to the very structure of freedom—without the possibility of evil, there could be no true freedom. Evil, for Schelling, is an expression of the dark, unconscious forces that exist within the ground of Being itself. This makes evil a permanent possibility in human existence, not something that can be rationally resolved or explained away as part of a dialectical process.

### 6. **Philosophy of History**

- **Hegel’s Philosophy of History**: Hegel views history as the **rational development of Spirit** toward freedom and self-consciousness. History follows a teleological path, where each stage of human society represents a further realization of freedom. For Hegel, history has a **purpose**: the ultimate achievement of rational freedom and the reconciliation of individual wills with the universal will of the state. Historical events, wars, revolutions, and political movements are all part of the unfolding of Spirit toward its full realization in the modern world.

- **Schelling’s View of History**: Schelling, particularly in his later work, is far more skeptical of the idea that history follows a **rational or teleological path**. For Schelling, history is not the necessary unfolding of Spirit toward freedom but is more contingent, driven by both rational and irrational forces. Schelling views history as an **expression of the underlying tensions in Being**, including the conflict between freedom and necessity, light and darkness. There is no guarantee that history will culminate in rational freedom, and for Schelling, historical events are just as likely to be expressions of **unconscious drives** and **irrational forces** as they are of reason or Spirit.

### 7. **Aesthetic and Art**

- **Hegel’s View on Art**: For Hegel, art is a means by which **Spirit** expresses itself, but it ultimately ranks lower than **philosophy** and **religion** in terms of revealing truth. In his aesthetic philosophy, Hegel sees art as an important but preliminary stage in the development of Spirit’s self-consciousness. Art gives intuitive form to ideas, but it cannot fully express the rational truths that philosophy can articulate. As such, art’s role is **transitory** in the dialectical progression toward absolute knowledge.

- **Schelling’s Philosophy of Art**: In contrast, Schelling grants art a much more **central and elevated role**. For Schelling, art is the highest expression of **freedom** and **the Absolute** because it captures the tension between **consciousness and the unconscious**, between the finite and the infinite. Art, in Schelling’s view, transcends rational discourse and can express truths that philosophy cannot. It represents the **creative power of nature and spirit** and is a **revelation of the Absolute** in a way that cannot be fully explained by reason. For Schelling, art is not just a stepping stone in the dialectical process but the ultimate mode of expressing the dynamic and free nature of reality.

### Conclusion

In summary, the primary differences

ChatGPT 結論說到一半，就睡著了，所以我再問他一次，

The differences between the philosophies of **Hegel** and **Schelling** are significant, despite their early collaboration as prominent figures of **German Idealism**. These differences are most evident in their views on the nature of **Being**, **freedom**, **nature**, and the role of **reason** and **system** in philosophy. Here’s a breakdown of the key distinctions between their philosophies:

### 1. **Systematic Philosophy: Hegel’s Dialectic vs. Schelling’s Dynamic View**

- **Hegel**: Hegel’s philosophy is highly systematic. He is known for his **dialectical method**, where reality progresses through a process of **thesis, antithesis, and synthesis**. This method allows for the resolution of contradictions into a higher unity, leading to the ultimate realization of the **Absolute**, in which all contradictions are subsumed. Hegel’s system is comprehensive and aims to explain all aspects of reality, including nature, history, and spirit, through a rational, unfolding process.

  

- **Schelling**: Schelling, in contrast, moved away from a systematic approach. He critiqued Hegel’s dialectic for being too rational and totalizing. Instead, Schelling saw **Being** as a **dynamic and processual** force, where tension and contradiction are essential and irreducible. Schelling did not believe that reality could be fully captured by rational synthesis or resolved into a final unity. His view of Being emphasizes **becoming** rather than Hegel’s emphasis on the rational resolution of opposites.

### 2. **Conception of Nature**

- **Hegel**: For Hegel, **nature** is part of the dialectical development of **Spirit**. It represents an alienation of Spirit from itself, where Spirit becomes externalized and material. Nature, in Hegel’s system, is a lower stage in the development of Spirit and is characterized by its necessity and determinism. Nature is a stepping stone toward higher forms of rationality, particularly in human history and thought.

  

- **Schelling**: Schelling places much more emphasis on **nature as a living, self-organizing process**. In his **philosophy of nature** (*Naturphilosophie*), Schelling argues that nature itself is alive, dynamic, and expressive of spirit. For Schelling, nature is not merely an externalized stage of Spirit but a vital force that is essential to the unfolding of freedom. Nature is imbued with an unconscious striving that parallels human creativity and freedom. This contrasts sharply with Hegel’s more deterministic and rational conception of nature.

### 3. **Freedom and Necessity**

- **Hegel**: Hegel’s concept of **freedom** is closely tied to the dialectical process and is achieved through the recognition of **necessity**. In Hegel’s view, true freedom is not arbitrary but comes from aligning oneself with the rational order of the world. As individuals recognize their role in the larger unfolding of Spirit, they achieve freedom by realizing their place within this rational system. Freedom for Hegel is thus deeply linked to self-consciousness and the rational structure of reality.

- **Schelling**: Schelling’s notion of **freedom** is more existential and metaphysical. He sees freedom as rooted in the **tension between light and darkness**, between rationality and the **irrational ground** of Being. Schelling argues that freedom is not simply a matter of rational self-realization, as Hegel suggests, but involves a struggle between **consciousness and the unconscious**, between good and evil. Schelling’s concept of freedom emphasizes the **indeterminacy** and **radical choice** inherent in human existence, which is not fully explainable by rational necessity.

### 4. **The Absolute**

- **Hegel**: For Hegel, the **Absolute** is the final, all-encompassing reality in which all contradictions are resolved. It represents the culmination of the dialectical process and the full realization of Spirit’s self-consciousness. The Absolute is the ultimate synthesis where individual moments of reality are integrated into a coherent whole, and all differences are overcome through rational understanding. The Absolute, for Hegel, is knowable through philosophy.

- **Schelling**: Schelling’s view of the **Absolute** is different. He argues that the Absolute cannot be fully rationalized or understood through thought alone. For Schelling, the Absolute contains within it both **rational and irrational elements**, and it cannot be reduced to a final synthesis. The Absolute is a **ground of Being** that includes the possibility of **darkness, chaos, and evil**, which cannot be subsumed by rationality. Schelling believes that there is always something **mysterious** about the Absolute that resists total comprehension.

### 5. **The Problem of Evil**

- **Hegel**: In Hegel’s dialectical system, **evil** is ultimately a moment of alienation that can be reconciled through the rational development of Spirit. Evil is part of the historical and dialectical process and is ultimately integrated into a higher unity. For Hegel, evil is not a fundamental, irreconcilable force but rather a stage that Spirit must pass through on its way to self-consciousness and freedom.

- **Schelling**: Schelling takes a more radical approach to **evil**, viewing it as an **active, necessary force** that arises from the **unconscious ground of Being**. He argues that evil is a consequence of the **freedom** inherent in existence, and without the possibility of evil, there could be no true freedom. For Schelling, evil is not merely a temporary stage in a rational process but a **permanent possibility** that stems from the dark, irrational aspect of the Absolute. This makes Schelling’s treatment of evil much more existential and metaphysical than Hegel’s.

### 6. **Philosophy of History**

- **Hegel**: Hegel’s **philosophy of history** is teleological, meaning that history is seen as the rational development of **Spirit** toward freedom and self-consciousness. History, for Hegel, follows a dialectical process where each stage of development leads to greater freedom and self-understanding. The ultimate goal of history is the realization of freedom in the modern state, where individual wills align with the universal will.

- **Schelling**: Schelling is more skeptical of the idea that history follows a **rational or teleological path**. He sees history as contingent, shaped by both rational and **irrational forces**, including the interplay between freedom and necessity, light and darkness. For Schelling, history is an expression of the underlying tensions in Being and is not guaranteed to culminate in a rational resolution. Historical events, for Schelling, are as likely to be driven by unconscious or irrational forces as they are by reason.

### 7. **Art and Aesthetics**

- **Hegel**: In Hegel’s aesthetic philosophy, **art** is a stage in the development of Spirit, but it ranks below **philosophy** and **religion** in its ability to express truth. Art provides an **intuitive** form of truth, but for Hegel, it is ultimately surpassed by the **conceptual clarity** of philosophy. Art’s role is transitory, representing an early stage of Spirit’s development.

- **Schelling**: Schelling grants **art** a much more elevated role in his philosophy. For Schelling, art is the highest expression of **freedom** and the **Absolute**, because it uniquely captures the tension between **consciousness and the unconscious**, between the finite and the infinite. Art, for Schelling, transcends the limits of reason and expresses truths that philosophy cannot fully articulate. In this sense, art is not just a stepping stone to philosophy, but a direct revelation of the **creative power of Being**.

### Conclusion

The key differences between Hegel and Schelling center on the nature of **Being**, **freedom**, and the role of **reason** and **system** in their philosophies:

- Hegel’s philosophy is highly systematic, rational, and focused on the dialectical process that leads to the resolution of contradictions in the Absolute.

- Schelling rejects a purely rational system, emphasizing the dynamic, irrational, and processual aspects of Being. He highlights the **mysterious**, **unconscious**, and **irrational** dimensions of existence, giving more prominence to nature, freedom, and evil as fundamental and irreducible forces.

In short, Hegel’s philosophy is about the **rational reconciliation** of opposites, while Schelling’s is about the **creative and unresolved tension** between opposites, reflecting a more **existential** and **metaphysical** approach.

In what ways did Schelling influence Heidegger? (ChatGPT, 2024-9-28) (negativity vs vitality) (自由） （2925） （車行形上學）（metaphysics of van life)

Schelling’s influence on Martin Heidegger is significant, especially in Heidegger’s early thought and in his metaphysical inquiries into Being, freedom, and the role of the unconscious. While Heidegger’s philosophy eventually diverged from Schelling’s, Schelling's work provided key ideas that helped shape Heidegger’s thinking, particularly regarding ontology, the nature of existence, and the tension between freedom and necessity. Heidegger engaged directly with Schelling in his lecture course on **Schelling’s Treatise on Human Freedom** (1936), highlighting some of the central themes that he drew from Schelling’s work.

Here are some of the primary ways in which Schelling influenced Heidegger:

### 1. **Being and Becoming**

Schelling’s philosophy of **Being as dynamic and processual** had a significant impact on Heidegger's understanding of the nature of **Being**. For Schelling, Being is not static but involves becoming, change, and self-unfolding, particularly through the tension between freedom and necessity. Heidegger adopts a similar view in his own work, notably in *Being and Time* (1927), where he focuses on **Dasein** (the human being as the being that questions Being) as a process of becoming.

Schelling’s conception of the **Grund** (ground) as a dark, unconscious force beneath the rational world that gives rise to existence influenced Heidegger’s focus on the **hidden** and **unconcealment** in his own ontology. For Heidegger, Being is always something that is partially hidden and needs to be uncovered through existential inquiry, much like Schelling's view that Being emerges out of a dark ground of potentiality.

### 2. **Freedom and Necessity**

Heidegger was deeply influenced by Schelling’s exploration of the **relationship between freedom and necessity**. In *Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom* (1809), Schelling posits that freedom is intrinsic to the structure of Being itself and is not merely a human attribute. He argues that freedom requires the coexistence of necessity, which gives it form and tension.

Heidegger, in his 1936 lecture series on Schelling, interprets freedom not simply as the capacity for individual choice but as the **essence of human existence**. For Heidegger, as in Schelling, freedom is not just about the will or rational decision-making; it is about the way in which beings come into existence out of the fundamental openness or groundlessness of Being. This understanding of freedom as ontological, tied to the very nature of existence and Being, is central to both Schelling’s and Heidegger’s thinking.

### 3. **The Unconscious and the Ground of Being**

Schelling’s notion of the **unconscious** or **the dark ground** of being, which he articulates in works like *The Ages of the World* (*Die Weltalter*), profoundly influenced Heidegger’s concept of **Being as concealment**. For Schelling, the ground of existence is irrational and unconscious, a dark force that underlies the visible world. This duality between ground and existence is crucial in his metaphysics, where the ground is the source of both freedom and necessity.

Heidegger echoes this duality in his distinction between **Being** (Sein) and **beings** (Seiendes). For Heidegger, Being is not immediately accessible but is veiled and concealed behind everyday beings. His concept of **aletheia** (truth as unconcealment) parallels Schelling’s idea that the ground of Being is something dark and hidden that must be revealed. Both thinkers explore the idea that existence emerges from a kind of metaphysical ground that is not fully rational, visible, or conscious.

### 4. **The Role of Evil and Negativity**

Schelling’s treatment of the **problem of evil** had an important impact on Heidegger’s thinking about **negativity** and **nothingness**. In Schelling’s view, evil is not simply a lack of good, but an active, necessary part of freedom and existence. He argues that without the possibility of evil, freedom would be meaningless because freedom inherently involves the potential for choosing evil. This introduces a metaphysical dimension to the problem of evil, linking it to the ground of existence itself.

Heidegger also grapples with the concept of negativity, especially in his existential analysis of **anxiety** and **nothingness**. In *Being and Time*, Heidegger describes anxiety as a confrontation with the **nothingness** that underlies existence, a feeling that reveals the groundlessness of human life. While Heidegger does not deal with the problem of evil in the same moral terms as Schelling, he is influenced by Schelling’s insight that human existence is always tied to a fundamental negativity or groundlessness, out of which both freedom and dread arise.

### 5. **Existential Freedom and Authenticity**

Schelling’s notion of **freedom as the essence of Being** also influenced Heidegger’s concept of **authenticity**. For Schelling, freedom is not merely a choice between good and evil but is an ontological condition—a force that drives the unfolding of existence. Similarly, Heidegger’s idea of authenticity involves recognizing and embracing the fundamental freedom and responsibility of existence. In *Being and Time*, Heidegger argues that human beings must confront their **thrownness** into the world (a concept that echoes Schelling’s understanding of how beings emerge from a dark, unconscious ground) and make choices that are true to their individual possibilities.

Authenticity for Heidegger is about confronting one’s own Being and the inevitability of death, a confrontation that allows one to live freely and meaningfully. This emphasis on the tension between **finitude** and **freedom** draws from Schelling’s insights into the structure of human freedom, which always operates within the limits of necessity and the dark ground from which existence arises.

### 6. **God, Being, and Transcendence**

Schelling’s metaphysical exploration of **God and Being** in his later works also influenced Heidegger’s understanding of the relationship between **Being and the divine**. Schelling viewed God as both immanent and transcendent, with the divine representing both the source of creation and the ground of existence. Schelling’s God is a dynamic, creative force that unfolds through time and history, much like Being unfolds for Heidegger.

While Heidegger distanced himself from traditional theological views, his concept of Being retains a certain **transcendence** and mystery that echoes Schelling’s view of God. Heidegger’s early theology-influenced works, such as his 1920s lectures on **phenomenology of religion**, also draw upon Schelling’s idea that Being is not fully accessible or understandable and that it requires an **ontological openness** to transcendence, although Heidegger secularizes this notion.

### 7. **Critique of Hegel**

Both Schelling and Heidegger are critical of **Hegel’s absolute idealism** and his concept of **the Absolute** as a totalizing, rational system that subsumes all contradictions. Schelling broke with Hegel, arguing that Hegel’s system lacked space for genuine freedom and that it reduced the dynamic, living nature of Being to a static, logical process. Schelling emphasized the **irrational** and **unconscious** elements of Being that resist rational totalization.

Heidegger, too, critiqued Hegel’s idealism, particularly in his focus on **Being as becoming** and as something that cannot be fully captured by rational categories. Heidegger’s rejection of metaphysical systems that reduce existence to rational determinations aligns with Schelling’s critique of Hegel, particularly in how Heidegger seeks to preserve the **openness** and **mystery** of Being against Hegelian closure.

### Conclusion

Schelling’s influence on Heidegger is profound, particularly in how both thinkers approach the dynamic, processual nature of Being, the interplay between freedom and necessity, and the importance of the unconscious and irrational elements in existence. Schelling’s ideas about the **ground of Being**, **the tension between freedom and necessity**, and the **problem of evil** provided Heidegger with key conceptual tools for his own exploration of **Being, authenticity, and anxiety**.

Heidegger’s engagement with Schelling helped him develop a more nuanced understanding of **freedom as an ontological condition** and shaped his critique of modern philosophy’s tendency to reduce Being to rational structures. Both philosophers ultimately sought to uncover the hidden, mysterious dimensions of existence, and Schelling’s work provided Heidegger with a rich source of inspiration in his own existential and ontological inquiries.

自由 （2025） （車行形上學） （metaphysics of van life)

Schelling discovers that the freedom of human reason, rather than being above or outside nature, bottoms out into the sublime tension inherent to cosmogenesis. Freedom is found to be grounded in the eternal struggle between gravity and light, the polarity originally constitutive of nature itself.

https://footnotes2plato.com/2018/10/26/schellings-philosophy-of-freedom/

史稱，Schelling’s 2025 (謝林的 2025)，

See also 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Inquiries_into_the_Essence_of_Human_Freedom

https://libap.nhu.edu.tw:8081/Ejournal/4012001104.pdf

What’s Schelling’s contribution to psychoanalysis? (ChatGPT, 2024-9-28) (negativity vs vitality)

Schelling's contribution to psychoanalysis is not direct, as psychoanalysis developed later, primarily through the works of Freud, Jung, and others. However, Schelling’s ideas, particularly his exploration of the unconscious, freedom, and the nature of evil, had significant indirect influence on the development of psychoanalytic thought. Several key aspects of Schelling’s philosophy prefigure central themes in psychoanalysis and laid the groundwork for thinkers like Freud and Jung to expand upon these ideas in their respective psychological frameworks.

### 1. **The Concept of the Unconscious**

Schelling’s exploration of the **unconscious** is one of his most notable contributions to the future development of psychoanalysis. In his later works, particularly in *Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom* (1809) and *The Ages of the World* (*Die Weltalter*), Schelling introduces the notion of a **dark, unconscious ground** of being, which lies beneath conscious reality. For Schelling, the unconscious is not simply the absence of consciousness but a dynamic and active force that underlies both nature and human existence.

This idea of an unconscious force within both nature and the human psyche would later resonate with the development of psychoanalysis, where the unconscious became a central concept. Schelling’s view of the unconscious as both creative and destructive anticipated Freud’s theories about the unconscious mind, particularly in relation to repressed desires, drives, and instincts that influence conscious behavior. While Schelling’s unconscious is more metaphysical than psychological, the notion that there are hidden, irrational forces beneath conscious life paved the way for psychoanalytic explorations of the psyche.

### 2. **Duality of the Self: Light and Dark Forces**

Schelling’s philosophy often deals with the duality between light and dark, order and chaos, rationality and irrationality. In his view, the human self is caught between these opposing forces, and this tension is necessary for freedom and self-development. He suggests that part of the self is rooted in a dark, chaotic ground (the unconscious), while another part strives toward order and rationality (consciousness).

This dualism parallels the psychoanalytic model, particularly in Freud's theory of the **id, ego, and superego**, where the id represents the primal, unconscious desires, and the ego mediates between these desires and the demands of reality. Schelling’s insight into the divided nature of the self, torn between unconscious, irrational impulses and conscious control, prefigures this fundamental structure in Freudian psychoanalysis.

### 3. **Freedom, Repression, and Conflict**

Schelling’s exploration of **freedom** also contributes to psychoanalytic theory, particularly in how freedom is tied to internal conflict. For Schelling, true freedom involves the ability to choose between good and evil, but this choice is grounded in the dynamic conflict between conscious and unconscious forces within the individual. The dark, unconscious ground in humans can give rise to destructive impulses, and the struggle for freedom is a struggle to reconcile these impulses with conscious will and moral responsibility.

This tension mirrors Freud’s understanding of **psychic conflict**, where repressed desires and unconscious drives often conflict with the ego's efforts to maintain control and align with societal norms. Schelling’s philosophy suggests that repression (the attempt to suppress the dark, unconscious forces) is an essential aspect of the human condition, much like Freud’s theory of how repressed desires can lead to neurosis and other psychological issues. 

### 4. **The Problem of Evil and the Unconscious**

Schelling’s later work places a strong emphasis on the problem of **evil** and how it relates to the unconscious. He argues that evil is not merely the absence of good (as in traditional theological views) but an active, necessary force that stems from the dark, irrational ground of being. For Schelling, the unconscious holds both creative potential and destructive tendencies, and it is through the struggle with these dark forces that human freedom and moral development arise.

This view has profound implications for psychoanalysis, particularly in understanding the unconscious as not merely a repository of repressed desires but as a source of potential evil or destructive tendencies in human behavior. Carl Jung, for example, was deeply influenced by this idea and developed his theory of the **shadow**—the dark, unconscious side of the personality that contains repressed, negative aspects of the self. Jung’s theory of integrating the shadow to achieve individuation and psychological wholeness echoes Schelling’s view that one must confront and reconcile with the dark, irrational forces within to achieve freedom and self-realization.

### 5. **Creativity and the Unconscious**

Schelling’s philosophy also emphasizes the **creative power of the unconscious**, particularly in his idea that nature and human beings are driven by unconscious forces toward self-expression and self-realization. He viewed the unconscious not merely as a place of darkness and chaos but also as the wellspring of creativity and life. This anticipates later psychoanalytic theories about the unconscious as a source of creative energy, artistic inspiration, and personal growth.

Freud's later work, as well as the ideas of thinkers like Jung and even later psychoanalytic figures such as Jacques Lacan, also touch on the notion that the unconscious is not merely a force to be repressed or controlled but a source of insight, creativity, and renewal when properly understood. Schelling’s view of the unconscious as the ground of both chaos and creativity aligns with these later developments in psychoanalysis, where the goal is not simply to repress or manage the unconscious but to tap into its creative potential.

### 6. **Influence on Later Thinkers Who Impacted Psychoanalysis**

Schelling’s ideas directly influenced philosophers and thinkers who, in turn, had a profound impact on psychoanalysis. For example:

   - **Carl Jung**: Schelling’s ideas about the unconscious as both a creative and destructive force deeply influenced Jung’s theory of the collective unconscious and the integration of the shadow.

   - **Sigmund Freud**: Though Freud may not have directly engaged with Schelling, the intellectual environment of German Romanticism, with its focus on the unconscious, nature, and irrationality, helped shape the backdrop against which Freud developed his theories.

   - **Jacques Lacan**: Lacan’s psychoanalytic theory, particularly his exploration of the symbolic and imaginary orders and his emphasis on language and subjectivity, echoes some of Schelling’s themes about the tension between the unconscious and conscious forces and the complexities of human freedom and desire.

### Summary of Schelling’s Contributions to Psychoanalysis

1. **Unconscious as Active Force**: Schelling’s idea of the unconscious as a dynamic, creative, and destructive force laid the groundwork for the psychoanalytic understanding of the unconscious mind.

2. **Duality of the Self**: Schelling’s conception of the divided self, caught between conscious and unconscious forces, prefigures Freud’s model of the psyche and the ongoing struggle between instinctual drives and rational control.

3. **Freedom and Repression**: Schelling’s emphasis on the tension between freedom and repression parallels psychoanalytic theories of how repressed desires can manifest in psychological conflict and neurosis.

4. **Problem of Evil**: Schelling’s exploration of the dark, irrational forces within the unconscious as the source of evil influenced psychoanalytic theories about the destructive tendencies of the unconscious mind.

5. **Creativity and the Unconscious**: Schelling’s view of the unconscious as a source of creative energy anticipates later psychoanalytic explorations of the unconscious as a wellspring of artistic inspiration and personal growth.

In conclusion, while Schelling did not contribute directly to psychoanalysis, his philosophical ideas about the unconscious, freedom, repression, and the duality of human nature provided a rich conceptual foundation that later psychoanalysts, especially Carl Jung, built upon. His metaphysical exploration of the unconscious and the problem of evil anticipated many of the psychological insights that would come to define psychoanalytic theory.

Explicate to me what’s Schelling’s philosophy of freedom? (ChatGPT, 2024-9-28) (negativity vs vitality) (自由） （2025） （車行形上學） （metaphysics of van life)

Schelling’s **philosophy of freedom** is one of the central and most profound aspects of his thought. It emerges particularly in his later work, where he grapples with the nature of human freedom, the structure of being, and the problem of evil. His philosophy of freedom is unique because it combines metaphysical, existential, and theological dimensions, positioning freedom not only as a human capacity but as a fundamental principle of reality itself. Here's a detailed explication:

### 1. **Freedom as Grounded in Being**

In Schelling's metaphysical framework, freedom is not merely a characteristic of human beings but is intrinsic to the very structure of **Being** itself. For Schelling, Being is not a static, closed system but a dynamic, living process. This process includes contradictions, tensions, and a fundamental duality between necessity and freedom. He views the universe as an unfolding of freedom from a ground of being that contains both light and darkness, order and chaos. This duality underlies the world, making freedom a metaphysical force rather than just a psychological or moral one.

### 2. **Freedom and Nature**

In Schelling’s earlier work, especially in his **philosophy of nature** (*Naturphilosophie*), he begins to explore how nature itself is an expression of freedom. Nature is not a deterministic machine but a dynamic, self-organizing system with an inner life. It exhibits a kind of unconscious striving toward self-expression, a process that Schelling identifies as analogous to human freedom. For Schelling, this indicates that the world itself is alive and free—nature unfolds according to its own internal freedom, rather than being bound entirely by external laws.

### 3. **Freedom and Necessity: The Tension in Being**

One of the central problems in Schelling's later work, especially in his ***Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom* (1809)**, is how to reconcile **freedom** and **necessity**. He argues that freedom cannot exist in a vacuum; it requires a background of necessity. For Schelling, there are two principles at work in the universe:

   - **Necessity**, which represents the ground of being, the rational and determinable aspect of existence.

   - **Freedom**, which represents the irrational, creative, and unpredictable aspect of being.

These two principles coexist in tension, and it is this tension that gives rise to life, consciousness, and human freedom. For Schelling, human beings are free because they participate in this cosmic tension. We are not entirely rational creatures but contain within us both rational and irrational forces, the conscious and unconscious, light and darkness.

### 4. **The Ground and Existence: God and Creation**

In Schelling’s philosophy of freedom, there is also a deeply theological dimension. He is particularly interested in the relationship between **God** and **freedom**. For Schelling, God is not simply an all-knowing, deterministic being, as in some traditional theologies. Rather, God contains within Himself a kind of primordial freedom that includes the potential for both good and evil. This is because, in order for there to be true freedom, there must be a capacity for **self-differentiation**—the ability to distinguish between different possibilities, including the possibility of evil.

Schelling sees **creation** as an expression of God’s self-unfolding. God freely chooses to manifest Himself in creation, but this act involves a kind of limitation—God must withdraw or hide part of Himself to allow for the emergence of free beings. In this way, the creation of the world is an act of divine freedom that allows for human freedom. Humanity, in turn, inherits this dual nature: we are part of the finite, determinate world (necessity), but we are also capable of transcending it through free action.

### 5. **The Problem of Evil**

One of the key themes in Schelling’s philosophy of freedom is the **problem of evil**. He rejects the traditional view that evil is simply a lack of good (as in Neoplatonic philosophy). Instead, Schelling argues that evil is an active force in the world and is a necessary consequence of freedom. Without the possibility of evil, there could be no true freedom. For freedom to be real, it must involve the ability to choose between good and evil.

In this context, Schelling introduces his idea of the **“ground”** (Ungrund), a dark, chaotic, irrational aspect of being that precedes creation. This ground is necessary for there to be differentiation in the world, but it also contains the seeds of both good and evil. Human beings, in their freedom, are caught between this ground (the potential for chaos and evil) and the light of reason and morality. Thus, freedom is a double-edged sword: it allows for the highest good but also for the possibility of evil.

### 6. **Freedom as the Essence of Humanity**

For Schelling, human beings are the most explicit expressions of freedom because we are conscious of it. Unlike nature, which expresses freedom unconsciously, we have the capacity to reflect on our freedom and make choices. This makes human beings unique in the cosmic order. However, it also means that we are responsible for our actions. In choosing between good and evil, we exercise a profound metaphysical freedom that has consequences not only for ourselves but for the whole of creation.

### 7. **Freedom and Historical Development**

Schelling also views human freedom in the context of **history**. History is the process by which human freedom unfolds in time. It is not a deterministic progression but a dynamic and unpredictable process shaped by human choices. Schelling sees history as the arena where freedom, good, and evil are played out in concrete terms. The ultimate goal of history, in his view, is the reconciliation of freedom and necessity, where individuals freely choose the good in harmony with the underlying structure of being.

### 8. **The Ages of the World and Eternal Freedom**

In his later unfinished work, ***The Ages of the World* (Die Weltalter)**, Schelling delves even deeper into the metaphysical structure of freedom. He describes the history of the world as a series of "ages" that correspond to different stages in the unfolding of freedom. These ages are not just temporal but ontological stages, representing different phases in the relationship between the finite and the infinite, the ground and existence. For Schelling, freedom is always tied to the tension between these opposites, and the history of the world reflects the ongoing struggle to reconcile them.

### Summary

Schelling’s philosophy of freedom is a profound and multi-layered exploration of the nature of reality, human existence, and the relationship between good and evil. Key points include:

1. **Freedom as a fundamental metaphysical principle**: Freedom is not just a human capacity but a cosmic force that drives the unfolding of being.

2. **The tension between freedom and necessity**: Both are necessary, and human freedom emerges from this tension.

3. **Creation and the divine**: God’s act of creation is itself an act of freedom, which gives rise to the possibility of evil.

4. **The problem of evil**: Evil is a necessary consequence of freedom; without the possibility of evil, freedom would not be real.

5. **Humanity as the pinnacle of freedom**: Human beings are the most explicit manifestations of freedom, and our choices have profound moral and metaphysical consequences.

Schelling’s philosophy of freedom is unique in its depth, combining metaphysics, theology, and existential concerns to offer a rich account of what it means to be free in a world marked by both order and chaos.

Did Deleuze ever mention Schelling? (ChatGPT, 2024-9-28) (negativity vs vitality)

 Deleuze rarely, if ever, directly mentions Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling in his major works. However, the lack of explicit reference does not necessarily mean that Deleuze was unaware of or uninfluenced by Schelling. There are notable resonances between their philosophies, particularly in their shared interest in nature, becoming, creativity, and metaphysics, but Deleuze’s explicit engagements with German Idealism focused more on figures like Kant, Hegel, and Fichte.

The absence of direct engagement may stem from several factors:

1. **Focus on Other Figures**: Deleuze was more interested in critiquing Hegelian dialectics and Kantian transcendental philosophy, seeing them as major points of opposition to his own philosophy of difference and immanence. Schelling, despite being an important figure in German Idealism, was often overshadowed by Hegel in philosophical discussions, particularly during the 20th century when Hegel was seen as the dominant post-Kantian thinker.

2. **Philosophical Trajectories**: While Schelling and Deleuze both embrace the notion of becoming and reject static or fixed systems of thought, their metaphysical and ontological commitments diverge. Schelling’s commitment to a metaphysical "ground" and his later focus on the transcendent aspects of being would not align with Deleuze's philosophy of radical immanence, where there is no transcendent "ground" outside the flux of becoming.

3. **French Intellectual Context**: In the French philosophical context, where Deleuze was most active, Schelling was not as widely discussed or influential as other German Idealists like Hegel or Kant. This might explain why Deleuze, focused on his intellectual battles against Hegelian dialectics and Kantian transcendentalism, did not devote significant attention to Schelling.

4. **Indirect Influence**: Though Deleuze did not mention Schelling directly, some scholars have speculated that Schelling’s ideas might have reached him through other thinkers. For example, Deleuze was deeply engaged with Bergson, Nietzsche, and Heidegger—all of whom, in different ways, had engagements with Schelling’s ideas, particularly around nature, freedom, and the dynamic forces of reality. Thus, there may be indirect connections between Schelling’s philosophy and Deleuze’s thought.

In summary, Deleuze never explicitly engaged with Schelling, and he does not mention him in any of his key works. However, their shared philosophical concerns around becoming, nature, and creativity suggest that Schelling’s ideas could have offered meaningful points of dialogue, even if Deleuze chose to focus on other figures from German Idealism.

Did Schelling have anything to say to Deleuze? (ChatGPT, 2024-9-28) (negativity vs vitality)

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.

What does the renaissance and reappraisal of Schelling’s philosophy in the past two decades mean? (ChatGPT, 2024-9-28) (negativity vs vitality)

The renaissance and reappraisal of Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling's philosophy over the past two decades reflect a growing recognition of his relevance in addressing contemporary philosophical and existential issues. Historically overshadowed by figures like Hegel, Schelling has come to be seen as a thinker who anticipated key developments in existentialism, phenomenology, psychoanalysis, and ecological thought.

Here are a few reasons for this renewed interest:

1. **Existential and Metaphysical Depth**: Schelling's focus on the dynamic, process-oriented nature of reality resonates with existential concerns about freedom, individual development, and the unpredictability of existence. His work bridges the gap between metaphysics and human experience, particularly in terms of confronting the unknown or unconscious aspects of life—a theme that aligns with later existentialists like Nietzsche and Heidegger.

2. **Nature and Ecology**: Schelling’s philosophy of nature, which views nature as a living, self-organizing process, has drawn attention in ecological discussions. His vision of nature as an organic and spiritual entity that precedes human cognition fits well with modern critiques of anthropocentrism and the ecological crisis, inspiring a more holistic view of humanity's relationship with the environment.

3. **Freedom and the Unconscious**: Schelling's exploration of human freedom and the unconscious, particularly in his later work (e.g., *The Ages of the World*), prefigures some of the key ideas in psychoanalysis. He viewed the unconscious not as something solely destructive or negative but as a necessary element of creation and human freedom. This has become a point of interest for those rethinking the role of subjectivity and creativity.

4. **Post-Kantian Metaphysics**: Schelling’s philosophy is increasingly seen as a rich alternative to Kant’s rigid epistemological framework and Hegel’s absolute idealism. For philosophers interested in reviving metaphysical inquiry, Schelling offers a vision of reality that includes the interplay of necessity and freedom, light and darkness, without collapsing into determinism or idealism. His notion of a "ground" of being that is not reducible to reason alone has become a focal point for metaphysical debates today.

5. **The Problem of Evil and Theodicy**: Schelling's engagement with the problem of evil, especially in his later philosophy, offers an intriguing take on how freedom and necessity coexist. His work suggests that evil arises not from mere ignorance or error but from the inherent tensions within being itself, a perspective that resonates with contemporary attempts to grapple with the darker aspects of human existence and historical tragedies.

Overall, the reappraisal of Schelling reflects a broader philosophical movement toward re-examining thinkers who challenge dominant rationalist or idealist frameworks, offering new ways to think about freedom, nature, and the human condition in a rapidly changing world.

Andrew S. Bowie (b 1952)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bowie_(philosopher)

He has worked to promote a better understanding of German philosophy in the Anglophone analytical tradition^[2] - including the works of Johann Georg Hamann, Johann Gottfried von Herder, Immanuel Kant, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Novalis (Friedrich von Hardenberg), Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Walter Benjamin, Martin Heidegger, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Theodor W. Adorno, Jürgen Habermas, Albrecht Wellmer and Manfred Frank.

Bibliography

• Schelling and Modern European Philosophy: An Introduction (1993)
• From Romanticism to Critical Theory (1997)
• Schleiermacher: 'Hermeneutics and Criticism' and Other Writings (ed) (1998)
• Aesthetics and Subjectivity: From Kant to Nietzsche (2nd edition, 2003)
• Introduction to German Philosophy: From Kant to Habermas (2003)
• Music, Philosophy, and Modernity (2009)
• Philosophical Variations: Music as 'philosophical Language' (2010)
• German Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction (2010)
• Adorno and the Ends of Philosophy (2013)
• Aesthetic Dimensions of Modern Philosophy (2022)
• Theodor W. Adorno: A Very Short Introduction (2022)

FDA Approves Cobenfy, Antipsychotic With a New Approach to Schizophrenia

https://alert.psychnews.org/2024/09/fda-approves-cobenfy-antipsychotic-with.html

9/28/24（星期六）

今天途中，我跟 D 君說，我們在台灣，人和人距離太近，接收的訊息，往往又太單一，所以一窩蜂起鬨，是必須的，這種例子很多，罄竹難書，S 君說，他一生從未行賄，這句話，讓人十分詫異，感動不已，甲一便當盒說，「只有填飽肚子，人才不會空虛」，這句話，讓人十分詫異，感動不已，周夢蝶（1921-2014），1955年 （34 歲）以中士 （意思是說，你要注意士官長，士官長才是真的，將軍是假的）自軍中退伍，1959年（38 歲）起在武昌街明星咖啡屋門口擺攤，注意謝林，黃國昌說，膠著式空轉，意思是說，柯文哲貪污，洗錢百億，用膠水黏著，深藏在某棵枯樹下，樹頂上空，一架無人機在空轉，李登輝告誡陳水扁，貪大莫貪小，意思是說，魔鬼出在小錢，

包子滅口尚愛加

https://youtu.be/Ib7i0XScK-s?si=sNcIklZrENLgk69o

ChatGPT 說他知道柯文哲的錢藏在哪裡

起因是剛剛翟山鷹說，哥倫比亞的毒梟，用 ChatGPT 來設計經營，毒品帝國的運作，但其實我們最有興趣，想問 ChatGPT 的，是除包的策略分析，Bishop 高度依賴 ChatGPT，是有理由的，

包子剛剛決定娶三十五億個老婆

https://youtu.be/tk9rsPtunpM?si=gYquFIL-peNmMwWK

意思是說，幹翻一半地球人，

How did Deleuze read about Schelling and Whitehead? (ChatGPT, 2024-9-27) (negativity vs vitality) (車行形上學）（metaphysics of van life) (2025)

Gilles Deleuze’s readings of Schelling and Alfred North Whitehead reflect his broader interest in metaphysics, becoming, and the processual nature of reality. Deleuze incorporated ideas from both philosophers into his own philosophy, particularly in relation to creativity, nature, and the dynamics of reality. Here's a look at how Deleuze engaged with both Schelling and Whitehead:

### 1. **Deleuze on Schelling**

Deleuze had a complex and nuanced reading of Schelling, especially in relation to ideas of nature, the unconscious, and the will. Several key aspects of Schelling’s philosophy resonate with Deleuze’s own work:

- **The Unconscious and Nature**: Deleuze was drawn to Schelling's view of nature as inherently creative and self-organizing, with the unconscious playing a crucial role in this process. Schelling’s idea that the unconscious forces of nature are the ground of consciousness anticipated themes in Deleuze’s exploration of the virtual, the intensive, and processes of becoming. For Deleuze, this helps develop a conception of a world that is always in motion, where both the natural and the mental are entangled in becoming.

  

- **Dynamic Forces**: Schelling’s notion of dynamic, conflicting forces (such as attraction and repulsion) aligns with Deleuze's concept of difference and multiplicity. Deleuze saw Schelling as emphasizing the productivity of tension and opposition, which for Deleuze becomes part of the ongoing process of differentiation that structures reality.

- **Freedom and the Will**: Deleuze found Schelling’s idea of freedom within nature compelling, particularly how the will manifests through natural processes. This resonates with Deleuze’s philosophy of life as driven by desire, force, and creativity—essentially, life as will and becoming.

### 2. **Deleuze on Whitehead**

Deleuze's reading of Whitehead is equally significant, as Whitehead’s *process philosophy* deeply influenced Deleuze’s concepts of becoming, immanence, and event. Deleuze especially focused on Whitehead’s rejection of substance-based metaphysics in favor of a processual and relational understanding of reality.

- **Process and Becoming**: Whitehead’s *process philosophy*, which posits that reality is not made of static objects but of events and processes, directly influenced Deleuze’s own metaphysics. Deleuze embraced Whitehead’s notion that entities are defined not by their essence but by their relations and ongoing processes of becoming. Deleuze’s concept of the “event” is deeply indebted to Whitehead’s ideas of actual occasions and the flow of process as primary to reality.

- **Prehension and Relationality**: Whitehead’s concept of *prehension*—the idea that entities grasp or "prehend" other entities in a relational network of processes—was crucial for Deleuze’s understanding of how different elements of reality interact and influence each other. This relational view aligns with Deleuze’s rejection of isolated, discrete entities in favor of interconnected systems of difference and multiplicity.

- **Creativity and Novelty**: Both Deleuze and Whitehead placed a central emphasis on creativity. Whitehead’s concept of creativity as the driving force of the cosmos deeply resonated with Deleuze’s philosophy of immanence and life. Deleuze saw creativity as essential to understanding the production of the new, the unpredictable, and the emergence of novel forms—ideas he developed through his concept of the virtual and his philosophy of difference and repetition.

### 3. **Schelling, Whitehead, and Deleuze’s Cosmology of Becoming**

In both Schelling and Whitehead, Deleuze found philosophical resources to think through a non-static, dynamic, and process-oriented vision of reality. Schelling’s focus on the unconscious and forces within nature as constantly producing new forms resonates with Whitehead’s cosmology of events and processes that continually generate novelty. Both philosophers contributed to Deleuze’s understanding of becoming as a fundamental aspect of the world, in which being is never fixed but always in a state of transformation.

### Key Themes in Deleuze’s Synthesis of Schelling and Whitehead:

- **Nature as Productive**: Like Schelling’s natural philosophy and Whitehead’s process philosophy, Deleuze viewed nature as inherently creative, with generative forces constantly producing new configurations.

- **Immanence**: Both Schelling’s and Whitehead’s metaphysical views offered Deleuze a framework for understanding immanence—where the divine, the material, and the mental are not separate layers but different expressions of a single, interconnected process.

- **Multiplicity and Difference**: Deleuze’s concept of multiplicity is rooted in the relational, dynamic processes found in both Schelling’s polarities and Whitehead’s actual occasions. Difference, not identity, becomes the engine of change and creativity.

In summary, Deleuze read Schelling and Whitehead as philosophers of becoming, nature, and process, and integrated their ideas into his own work to develop a philosophy that emphasizes creativity, immanence, and the ongoing production of difference and novelty in the world. Their metaphysics provided Deleuze with tools to articulate a non-static, relational understanding of reality that is always in motion.

anima mundi (negativity vs vitality)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anima_mundi

The concept of the anima mundi (Latin), world soul (Greek: ψυχὴ κόσμου, psychḕ kósmou), or soul of the world (ψυχὴ τοῦ κόσμου, psychḕ toû kósmou) posits an intrinsic connection between all living beings, suggesting that the world is animated by a soul much like the human body. Rooted in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, the idea holds that the world soul infuses the cosmos with life and intelligence.

意思是說，vitality = anima mundi，

9/27/24（星期五）

取掛號信，衫林溪，靈骨塔無窗，包子思想與肉蒲團之比較研究，你要理解，RSI，帶來自由的是想像，意思是說，帶來禁錮的是象徵，帶來懼怖的是真實，不喜釣魚，遑論釣蝦，蘇小和說，共匪斥巨資，發展新屌生產力，將湖南湘雅醫院，打造成宇宙第一的跨物種器官移植，換屌中心，

Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling (1775-1854) (negativity vs vitality) （車行形上學）（metaphysics of van life) (2025) (自由）

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_Joseph_Schelling

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Friedrich-Wilhelm-Joseph-von-Schelling

https://www.hk01.com/%E5%93%B2%E5%AD%B8/580179/%E8%AC%9D%E6%9E%97-%E7%B5%95%E5%B0%8D%E7%84%A1%E5%B7%AE%E5%88%A5%E7%9A%84%E5%90%8C%E4%B8%80-%E6%97%A2%E9%9D%9E%E8%A7%80%E5%BF%B5-%E4%B9%9F%E9%9D%9E%E5%AF%A6%E5%9C%A8-%E8%80%8C%E6%98%AF%E5%85%A9%E8%80%85%E7%9A%84%E7%B5%B1%E4%B8%80

https://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi/login?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22077NTU02259006%22.&searchmode=basic

這是一個離開絕對系統論的十八九世紀的 van lifer，

意思是說，離開系統 （尤其是絕對的那種）者，就是 van lifer，

注意其早期之自然哲學，

In relation to psychology, Schelling was considered to have coined the term "unconsciousness".

Slavoj Žižek has written two books attempting to integrate Schelling's philosophy, mainly his middle period works including Weltalter, with work of Jacques Lacan.^[41][42] 

The Re-Emergence of Schelling: Philosophy in a Time of Emergency (Matthew David Segall, 2014) (accessible via Scribd)

Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling (1775-1854) spent his philosophical career striving to realize the Absolute system, but he did so in full recognition of the fact that the Absolute is not finally a logical system, but a living actuality. Accordingly, for Schelling, “life is the criterion of truth.” Though his critics often dismissed his thought as fragmentary and protean, C. S. Peirce, in a letter to William James, remarked that it was precisely Schelling’s “freedom from the trammels of system” and willingness to approach philosophical ideas experimentally rather than dogmatically that he admired most: “In that, he is like a scientific man.” This book, written in the context of a resurgence of interest in Schelling's work, as well as during a planetary ecological emergency and geo-political crisis, draws upon the deep well of his thought in the hope that it can aid human civilization’s attempt to re-imagine itself. Schelling's philosophy provides many of the anthropological, theological, and cosmological resources necessary for bringing forth an alternative form of modernity no longer bent on the destruction of earth and the disintegration of human communities.

What’s Schelling’s natural philosophy like? （ChatGPT, 2024-9-27)

Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling's natural philosophy, also known as *Naturphilosophie*, is a critical component of German Idealism, and it reflects his attempt to bridge the gap between nature and the mind. His philosophy is characterized by several key elements:

### 1. **Unity of Nature and Mind**

   Schelling believed that nature and the mind are not fundamentally separate but are interconnected manifestations of the same underlying reality. Nature, in Schelling’s view, is not a mechanical system but an organic whole that contains within it the seeds of consciousness. He sought to explain how the same principle that governs the external world also drives human consciousness.

### 2. **Nature as Dynamic and Creative**

   For Schelling, nature is not passive or inert. Instead, it is dynamic, self-organizing, and creative. He saw nature as constantly evolving, with an inner drive towards higher forms of organization and ultimately towards self-consciousness in humanity. This process mirrors the development of human cognition, suggesting that both nature and the mind follow a similar trajectory of development.

### 3. **Potencies and Polarities**

   Schelling introduced the idea of *potencies*, forces that exist in a state of tension and polarity within nature. These forces include attraction and repulsion, light and darkness, or expansion and contraction. He believed that the interplay of these opposites drives the development of nature. In this sense, nature is not static but in a state of constant flux and becoming.

### 4. **Nature as the Unconscious Ground of Consciousness**

   Schelling viewed nature as the unconscious ground of human consciousness. He proposed that consciousness emerges from nature's depths, which remain largely inaccessible to conscious thought. This idea anticipates later psychoanalytic ideas about the unconscious mind. For Schelling, understanding nature involves exploring its hidden, unconscious dimensions.

### 5. **Freedom in Nature**

   One of Schelling's most innovative ideas is the concept of freedom within nature. He argued that nature itself contains the possibility of freedom, which becomes fully actualized in human beings. Freedom is not something separate from nature but is an intrinsic part of its development.

### 6. **Philosophical Method: Intellectual Intuition**

   Schelling employed what he called *intellectual intuition*, a mode of knowledge that goes beyond empirical observation and rational analysis. Through intellectual intuition, one can grasp the underlying unity of nature and spirit. This intuitive approach was essential for Schelling to overcome the dualism of subject and object, mind and matter.

### 7. **Relation to Art and Aesthetics**

   Schelling believed that art plays a crucial role in revealing the deeper truths of nature. He argued that art bridges the gap between the finite and the infinite, providing a glimpse into the creative process of nature itself. For Schelling, the artist taps into the same forces of creativity that drive the natural world.

In sum, Schelling’s natural philosophy is an ambitious attempt to unify nature and human consciousness under a single metaphysical framework, emphasizing the dynamic, creative, and self-organizing aspects of the natural world. It’s a blend of metaphysics, science, and aesthetics, making it both speculative and deeply philosophical.

Physics of the World-Soul: Alfred North Whitehead's Adventure in Cosmology (Matthew David Segall, 2021) (negativity vs vitality)

https://www.amazon.com/-/zh_TW/Matthew-David-Segall/dp/1948609363/ref=sr_1_2?crid=3HGK9H0UC0MLX&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ioImy6TfkY39gWcQC2txZ2muvt6m7O8kP7iKu-m0ooCZLIBfwQAsZR3JD-UCj27fbhH30LSiqEhRLxNJ2kAZKT5yD3lJJ-15gR4sx9m9cTOYVEL8NBpxXeFSfx0Xp3a-.TMQRLYGqNvbBTkSx5LF1huHIqT3FrXOTXy3GzTfeHSE&dib_tag=se&keywords=Whitehead+cosmology+adventures&qid=1727345667&s=books&sprefix=white%2Cstripbooks-intl-ship%2C2725&sr=1-2 (kindle 2022-10-23)

https://www.amazon.com/stores/Matthew-David-Segall/author/B00644V6YU?language=zh_TW&ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true

Alfred North Whitehead was among the first initiates into the twentieth century’s new cosmological story. In this newly revised and expanded edition, Segall both sets Whitehead’s philosophy of organism in historical context and brings it into conversation with key elements of contemporary scientific cosmology—including relativistic, quantum, evolutionary, and complexity theories. It lays bare the inadequacy of the materialistic-mechanistic metaphysical interpretation of these theories and exemplifies the contributions Whitehead’s cosmological scheme can make to the urgent transdisciplinary project of integrating natural science with the presuppositions of human civilization. The latest scientific discoveries reveal a universe that is nearly crying aloud for an ensouled reinterpretation, one in which, for example, physics and chemistry would no longer be merely descriptions of the meaningless motion of molecules to which biology is ultimately reducible, but rather themselves become studies of creative self-organization at ecological scales other than the biological.

Crossing the Threshold: Etheric Imagination in the Post-Kantian Process Philosophy of Schelling and Whitehead (Matthew David Segall, 2023) (accessible via Everand)

This book is a philosophical experiment in thinking, feeling, and willing beyond the transcendental threshold of Immanuel Kant's critical philosophy. It draws inspiration from the organic process philosophies of F. W. J. Schelling and A. N. Whitehead to articulate a descendental aesthetic ontology showing the way across the epistemological chasm that Kant's critiques hewed between knowledge and reality. This descendental inversion of Kantian transcendentalism aims to bridge the chasm-not by resolving the structure of reality into clear and distinct concepts-but by replanting cognition in the aesthetic processes that power it. The key to this reconnection is found in a new etheric power of imagination, which if consciously cultivated can grant the process philosopher direct experience of the cosmic creativity expressing itself in both the depths of the soul and throughout the physical world. With human knowing no longer conceived of as a transcendental onlooker but rather rooted again in cosmogenesis, the ancient hermetic maxim that we are microcosmic participants in the Life of the Whole is reaffirmed.

Interestingly, the author arrived at D&G, after a long trip through Schelling and Whitehead. 

Arne Johan Vetlesen (b 1960) (negativity vs vitality)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arne_Johan_Vetlesen

His books in English include Cosmologies of the Anthropocene (2019), The Denial of Nature (2015), A Philosophy of Pain (2009), Evil and Human Agency （2005), Perception, Empathy, and Judgment (1994), and Closeness (1997).

韓國瑜傅崐萁出賣兩蔣和共匪暴政邪惡本質的系譜學研究

https://youtu.be/ch3_kldDuhg?si=5HK0WQPkL8mKx-M8

Critical Therapy: Power and Liberation in Psychotherapy （Silvia M. Dutchevici, 2022)

https://www.amazon.com/-/zh_TW/Silvia-M-Dutchevici-ebook/dp/B0B5DL113P/ref=sr_1_1?crid=MIXTHD7H7U4S&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.iNDWW08vj1Mrq-0tAG4bgg.qLyP5jmgzj8TfqgJkW4Bbch4t7UlPfW4mjN3Qg58DhE&dib_tag=se&keywords=Silvia+dutchevici&qid=1727320801&s=books&sprefix=silvia+dutchevici%2Cstripbooks-intl-ship%2C373&sr=1-1 (kindle 2024-9-26)

黃珊珊和巴西蛋的比較研究

https://youtu.be/GMFKaNjjf98?si=Wj0SrbSKHylZWBwr

我知巴西有雞，我本不知巴西有蛋，意思是說，我本不知巴西的雞會下蛋，你要理解，蛋生雞還是雞生蛋，是一個宇宙學的大難題，意思是說， Big Bang 就是宇宙這隻雞下蛋，但是這隻雞為什麼要下蛋，有誰看著牠下蛋，下蛋之前的宇宙是什麼，用量子物理的語言來說，物有波和粒子的二元性，唯其因為物被觀測，造成波的功能的塌陷，粒子才得以詐 (乍)現，意思是說，宇宙這隻雞，被誰看著，以致下蛋，才有物的形成，

Salman Rushdie once said “to understand one life you have to swallow the world”, therefore, can we say that to be nuanced means to swallow the world? (ChatGPT, 2024-9-26)

Yes, we can say that to be nuanced is, in a sense, to "swallow the world" as Salman Rushdie suggests. This metaphor speaks to the idea that in order to fully understand any life, person, or concept, one must embrace the vast complexity, diversity, and interconnectedness of the world. A nuanced understanding requires:

### 1. **Embracing Complexity**

Swallowing the world implies that nothing can be fully understood in isolation. To grasp one life or concept, you must consider all the factors that shape it—culture, history, psychology, environment, and relationships. Similarly, nuance demands that we see beyond simplistic or reductionist explanations and appreciate the layers and contradictions within a person or idea.

### 2. **Expanding Perspectives**

A nuanced approach means opening oneself up to multiple perspectives, allowing for a broader, more inclusive understanding of the world. This parallels Rushdie’s sentiment: to understand deeply, one must incorporate diverse voices, experiences, and viewpoints. "Swallowing the world" in this sense means acknowledging that every life, every event, is part of a larger, more intricate web of meanings.

### 3. **Holding Ambiguity and Uncertainty**

To swallow the world also means accepting that there is no single, absolute truth. Nuance thrives on ambiguity and uncertainty, recognizing that different truths coexist and that understanding requires balancing these often conflicting elements. Rushdie’s quote echoes this idea by suggesting that life is too rich and multifaceted to be grasped through a narrow lens.

### 4. **Holistic Understanding**

To be nuanced is to take in the whole picture—the beauty, chaos, contradictions, and subtleties that make up life. In doing so, one moves beyond rigid, dualistic thinking and embraces the full spectrum of human experience. Like swallowing the world, being nuanced requires digesting complexity and integrating seemingly disparate elements into a cohesive, yet flexible understanding.

### Conclusion

In this sense, **to be nuanced means to "swallow the world"** because nuance requires the ability to hold multiple truths, appreciate complexity, and engage with the richness of diverse experiences. It is about seeing the world in its full, multifaceted form rather than in oversimplified terms, leading to a deeper and more meaningful understanding of life.