The real focus of both Spinoza and Schelling is to move away from
inadequate knowledge in order for there to be room for the pure affirmation of
life through becoming. In turn, this affirmation will lead to a sustainable,
dynamic and vital form of freedom. However, another problem arises here: a tension
in continuity between the dynamic model of Schelling and the geometrical,
mechanistic model of Spinoza. Does Spinoza’s method of disclosure through a
geometrical universe limit his system to an utterly lifeless mechanism? If so,
how can we unify both philosophers’concepts? The biggest criticisms that Schelling
holds against Spinoza deal with the lack of life within the Spinozist model and
his model of fatalistic pantheism which leaves no room for freedom (Schelling, Philosophical
Investigations into the essence of Human Freedom p. SW338-339). Yet a
philosophy’s power is always measured by the concepts that it creates, and
through the creation of such concepts the inevitable meaning is changed. This
framework imposes and imparts a new set of divisions towards actions and life.
This is the purpose of Spinoza’s form of expression: to recreate the
requirements of life and to illustrate how God expresses himself through all of his attributes (Deleuze, Expressionism in Philosophy:
Spinoza p. 333). In order to show the reader that there is vitality and
life in Spinoza’s philosophy (which can be reconciled with Schelling’s dynamic
model), we must investigate the concept of expressionism in Spinoza’s method (Deleuze, Expressionism in
Philosophy: Spinoza p. 16). Spinoza’s notion of both immanence and
pantheism is explicitly founded on the concept of expression and expression
itself supports the model of univocity (Deleuze, Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza p. 333).
This is Spinoza’s thesis: that through expression we gain a free univocal being
as opposed to an implied state of indifference, which leads to a state of
neutrality. Pure affirmation can only be followed and realized by a philosophy
of immanence and pantheism (Deleuze,
Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza p. 333). The next question that should
arise to the reader is: what are the differences between Spinoza and
Schelling’s notions of freedom, immanence and pantheism? The following
questions will be answered as our gradual investigation unfolds. I would like
the reader to know that these critiques and conclusions are all based on my own
interpretation of both Spinoza and Schelling. Furthermore, I implore the reader
to be charitable to the accounts that are expressed in the following essay as they
relate to a synthesis of philosophy, of expression, affirmation, becoming; and
pantheism.
The Dynamic-Life/Geometrical-Mechanistic Model
We must seek a gradual understanding of both the dynamic and the
mechanistic model before we can proceed to the philosophies of Spinoza and
Schelling. In essence, the Dynamic model holds beings together. It allows our
access to be folded and unfolded, and this process of the dynamic is the
tension and opening up of the world to beings (Steigerwald, Notes from class, On October 9th,
2012). We can already see that this form is not a determined model but
rather is ‘undetermined’ and allows
the experience and complications of life to endeavour a relationship with
ourselves (Steigerwald, Notes
from class, On October 9th, 2012). According to Schelling,
the error in philosophy is to make a world or a universe of God based on
strict, rigid deterministic
necessity. The whole model of this Dynamic versus mechanistic opposition can
really be disclosed as life versus the mechanistic. This model paints a picture
of the universe which is inevitably deterministic and stuck to following the
laws that placed its formation in motion. Yet it also strips ‘the life’ of life
right out of itself. We see in the mechanistic model a heavy order of a logical
representation, embarking on a flattening out of all life to a general lifeless
logicality. We can see the tinkering of its clock-like motion: the screws and
pieces of the parts all complying in there law like fashion; but is this life? (Steigerwald, Notes from class, On
October 9th, 2012). This mechanistic model isn’t life, but
then we must posit the question of what life really is? As Heidegger states,
life is organic and it is also nature. As well, this system and nature form a
coexistence with man (Heidegger,
Schelling’s Treatise on the Essence of Human Freedom p.21). This initial
accord is found in everything, positive and negative, and represents identity
and difference. It is a free flowing, creative relationship that is spawned in
the living form (Steigerwald,
Notes from class, On October 9th, 2012). The dynamic model
embodies freedom. In the beginning we see chaos, and from chaos we have a ‘dark principle’: a seed that is already
in the ground, dark and enclosed. Suddenly, the seed moves from ‘the dark principle’ to ‘a higher principle’, ‘the principle of light’, we move from
the chaotic to the creative and this gradual progression is becoming (Schelling, The Ages of the World p.
200). This dynamic model affirms life because everything is in this process
of becoming. First, there is death and then life. There is a move from the dark principle to the light principle. There are clear dualities here with
chaos/creation and evil/good. This represents the tension, the folding and
unfolding of all opposites (Steigerwald,
Notes from class, On October 9th, 2012).
Heidegger states that Spinoza’s ‘Ethics’ is completely dominated by
mathematics and has as its sole foundation the requirements of mathematical
knowledge. It also has a separate function which is directed at man’s actions;
and in the end, is bound to a giant … “one-sidedness”
(Heidegger, Schelling’s
Treatise on the Essence of Human Freedom p.33). The important thing to
note is that Spinoza was greatly impacted by Descartes, as Schelling was
impacted by Kant and perhaps Fichte as well. Initially, Descartes was concerned
with certainty, and Spinoza following the tradition of his academic peers
wanted to find this so called “certainty” but rename it as adequate knowledge.
We will return to this idea of adequate knowledge later but what is important,
is that Descartes certainty relied on deduction. We know that deductive
knowledge is based on mathematical principles. Now we must ask two separate
questions: does a geometrical method imply a mechanistic universe? Does the
mechanistic universe also imply a geometrical or mathematical foundation?
Descartes saw in geometry a method of avoiding error; geometry in fact served
as the model of the universe. However, why use such a model? Geometry in fact
represented the geometrical universe, transforming the inside of human reality
to an outside that was able to surpass the bounds of human experience and
proceed past all illusions (Descartes,
Discourse on method p.53). The aforementioned point is not why Spinoza
used the following method. It merely shows that he was influenced by the idea
to some degree.
In Euclidian geometry, Spinoza saw a moment where the
parts of the whole could in a sense enter into a free relationship with the whole,
forming one cohesive unit which expresses itself fully through all of its parts
(Spinoza, The Ethics, p.15).
Deleuze states that in theory a geometrical method is limited. Nevertheless,
what Spinoza liked about its model was the fact that it could disclose the
distributive character of any property that it was investigating (Deleuze, Expressionism in
Philosophy: Spinoza p. 20). Spinoza was intrigued by causality and what
a mathematical method could express as a collective being through its causes.
In causality, Spinoza saw that geometrical figures could be explicated and
defined genetically to its nearest cause (Deleuze, Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza p. 22).
From all of this evidence, Spinoza was able to see that mathematics
incorporated this fundamental theory of expression.
Spinoza’s system is not dictated by an over-arching mechanism but is to
be interpreted as a philosophy of expression. He sets out to rediscover a new
nature by creating a new logic and a new ontology,
thus creating a new materialism (Deleuze, Expressionism in
Philosophy: Spinoza p. 321). What is this concept of expression? To
sufficiently answer this, allow me to provide a quotation from Deleuze:
“The concept of expression applies to Being determined as
God, insofar as God expresses himself in the world. It applies to ideas
determined as true, insofar as true ideas express God and the world” (Deleuze, Expressionism in
Philosophy: Spinoza p. 321).
Spinoza states being (which encompasses acting, knowing; and producing)
is all- important and fundamental to forms of human expression and existence (Deleuze, Expressionism in
Philosophy: Spinoza p. 323). Since nature has its own specific depth,
expressionism is what gives man the adequate knowledge to penetrate into the
depths of nature and allows a new relationship with God. This new relationship
is the birth of a new logic, one that makes man more than simply a ‘thing’, but expresses man as a
spiritual automaton (Deleuze,
Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza p. 323). Man, according to Spinoza,
stands conjoined with God as a combination of a spiritual automaton with the
world and God (Deleuze,
Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza p. 322). The spiritual automaton
would not be anything without the nature of God, thus expressing himself
through his nature and the world. This notion of combination and conjoining is
quite similar to Heidegger’s notion in Schelling of ‘the jointure of Being’ as the structure of a being as a being’ (Heidegger, Schelling’s Treatise on
the Essence of Human Freedom p.119). What would man be without God and
what would God be without man? The two theories mirror one another, for in
Schelling another kind of combination exists. The nature that represents the
ground of God must stand in order to make God and man possible (Heidegger, Schelling’s Treatise on
the Essence of Human Freedom p.119). In Schelling, we do see an
underlying mathematics, however it is a divine mathematics that divides,
separates and forms oppositions. We see a logic that is devoted to the law of
identity, the copula, and the
formation of opposites, as well as their unity: subject, predicate, dark/light, man/God, evil/good. The two
philosophers now stand in a close connection with one another. We must rename
the two models opposition, Geometric/Expressive
and Dynamic/Life. Both of these models now stand as an expression of the
affirmation of life. However, it is obvious that the dynamic/life model of
Schelling incorporates the vital connection of man and freedom. Does this mean
that Spinoza’s geometrical/expressive model also retains this vital connection
to freedom and man?
Freedom, Expression, and The Will
A theme that is carried through the entirety of Spinoza’s ‘Ethics’ is
directed at breaking the traditional chain and link between freedom and will.
Freedom, which is conceived as the ability to choose or create, is what Spinoza
calls “freedom of indifference” (Deleuze,
Spinoza: Practical Philosophy p.69). “Enlightened Freedom” which is the
highest model of freedom, is based on a model where one has the ability to
adjust oneself to any effect (Deleuze,
Spinoza: Practical Philosophy p.70). What essentially disturbs Schelling
is that, according to Spinoza, freedom is never a property of the will. In
essential terms, freedom only refers to a mode’s essence (Deleuze, Spinoza: Practical
Philosophy p.68). Schelling has the right to be suspicious here, because
in a sense, it seems that freedom is based on a mode’s “human” essence and that essence is in turn caused by God’s infinite
attributes. If these attributes are always necessitated by another cause, ad-infintum, then there is no denying
God essential freedom; but what about man’s freedom? The problem here,
according to Schelling, is that Spinoza’s real mission is elucidated by a
widespread realism. The true form of pantheism in essence has both realism and
idealism working within a dynamic philosophy of nature (Schelling, Philosophical Investigations into the
essence of Human Freedom p. SW349-351). Schelling feels that Spinoza’s
own system lacks this synthesis between both realism and idealism. For Spinoza,
the concept of freedom is a fundamental illusion. The illusion is the fact that
consciousness is blind to causes: man is never born free but becomes free and
frees himself (Deleuze,
Spinoza: Practical Philosophy p.71). We are free in the sense that we
are affected by external and internal causes. Knowledge plays a key role here.
Life will not always go our way but the way we think and interpret those
actions and causes is how man can free himself. The shackles of mankind start with
laws and religion.
According to Spinoza, the bible represents a law, but not an all
encompassing law: a law that simply tells us to obey. Whenever we experience a
knowledge based on analogy or sign we connect these inadequate forms of
knowledge to life. These inadequate ideas lead us astray since the message
behind the meaning is never expressive, but inexpressive. There are two forms
of inadequate knowledge: analogies
and signs (Deleuze,
Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza p. 315). Analogies always relate to
a myth or a pseudo-story and can never achieve that vital expression of life.
Signs always refer to hearsay, thus never getting to the bottom of real
knowledge but only being referred to as an appropriation of an inexpressive
form of life. Both are always masked with separate laws always denoting a
coercive structure. Inexpressive relations of knowledge, in turn, really amount
to nothing but sheer obedience. They tell us “you must” without ever
explicating a reason why. The real politics behind the Bible are good and bad
forces of nature (Deleuze,
Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza p. 273). These forces affect us and as a result form
sad passions and joyous passions. Notice here, there are only, two forms of
forces, good and bad; there is no good or evil in nature (Deleuze, Expressionism in
Philosophy: Spinoza p. 315). These forces in turn form what Spinoza calls
a “non-essential attribute”.
My reader must at some point express some concern, since my initial plan
was to show a relation and unity in Spinoza and Schelling’s philosophy. Getting
rid of evil altogether forms a blockage between the commonality of both of these
thinkers. Schelling states “that the real
and vital concept is that freedom is the capacity for good and evil” (Schelling, Philosophical
Investigations into the essence of Human Freedom p. SW352-353). However,
good and bad forces have the same effects as good and evil. What Spinoza is
getting at is the manner in which how we are affected by these forms of
knowledge. When we are affected by a bad force, our own life becomes affected:
it stays in a state of decomposition and diminishes our life power or life
vitality. Where the concept of freedom comes in to play is this notion of always being affected. We are induced by
these forces of life and we can either rise above them and overcome an affect,
or we can succumb to bad affects which lead us to sad passions (Deleuze, Spinoza: Practical
Philosophy p.71).
We are always in a state of being affected, and this tension (this ‘always already’) is at the core of man’s
composition. A philosophy of expressionism strives in the heart of expressive
forces. Thus, in order to reach enlightened freedom we must get a grasp of
adequate knowledge of good forces, which only increase our power and life
vitality. This is the ultimate goal of ‘The Ethics,’ what must we do in order
to be affected by a maximum of joyful passions (Spinoza, The Ethics, p.91). Hence, ‘The Ethics’ moves
away from the ground of morality, because the moral code is simply a concatenation
of analogies and signs, in order to perpetuate the same message: to obey.
Deleuze states that this is why Spinoza’s work is centered on mankind, for it
reaches the bounds and limits of an ‘ethology of man’ (Deleuze, Spinoza: Practical Philosophy p.27).
The closer we are to attaining ‘enlightened
freedom’ the closer we are to God and a true concentrated form of freedom,
united with God. Consider the following statement from Deleuze:
“When we are aligned our essence adequately expresses God’s essence, and
the affections of our essence adequately express our essence. We ‘become’ completely expressive”
(Deleuze, Expressionism in
Philosophy: Spinoza p. 315).
Expression embodies a double movement; it unfolds, explicates and unwinds
God’s essence and the affection of our own essence, so it can restore what is
expressed in a relationship of ‘expresser-expression’
(Deleuze, Expressionism in
Philosophy: Spinoza p. 333).
Spinoza has a very unique conception of the will. He calls the will the ‘conatus’ (Spinoza, The Ethics, p. 121).
The ‘conatus’ is a yearning, a
desiring, and a principle in us that is always striving-to-be (Spinoza, The Ethics, p. 123). This striving-to-be
can be understood in Nietzschean terms. If our passion and our yearning are led
by inadequate forms of knowledge, our ‘conatus’
becomes an inexpressive form, ‘a will to
nothingness’ (Deleuze, Spinoza: Practical Philosophy p.17). This is the
case because nothingness represents the lowest form. When we strive towards affects
that induce sad passions; we continue to go down the dark path, yearning more
affects, slowly diminishing our life force, and our power. This is the greatest
danger because from the sad passions we endanger ourselves down a slippery
slope that leads to the gradual progression of fear, envy, greed and hate. All
of these lead to our inevitable destruction (Deleuze, Spinoza: Practical
Philosophy p.19).
When we strive towards joyful passions, which are surrounded by adequate
forms of knowledge, our desire becomes filled with the force of expression,
charged by life’s vital power. Our ‘conatus’
then becomes ‘a will to power’ because we are now being affected by forces that
increase our power and align our nature with the expressivity of God. When we
express life’s vital power, a synthesis is formed between our actions,
passions, knowledge, will, and God. We are free in the sense that we are
affected by forces, both good and bad.
Only we can determine our actions through the right kind of knowledge.
If we go down the dark path, to a life of nothingness, we enter the realm of
the ‘freedom of indifference’. If we
embrace freedom’s highest potential, we enter the realm of ‘enlightened freedom’, also known as pure expression (Deleuze, Spinoza: Practical
Philosophy p. 72). Life becomes a struggle between the dialectic of
these two forms of freedom and knowledge. On the one hand we have the model of inadequate
ideas/sad passions/freedom of indifference/will to nothingness, and the
other half, adequate knowledge/joyful passion enlightened freedom/will to
power/expressivity. This is Spinoza’s mission of life and philosophy:
to remain aligned with God’s univocal expressivity.
The reader should be wondering by now if we can find a unity between
Schelling’s conception of freedom and Spinoza’s. If this seems to be an
impossible task let us ponder on some close connections between the two. They
both encompass themes of the will and yearning, they both incorporate images of
darkness and light. There is the sense that both truly are philosophies of
becoming and lead us to an expressive affirmation of life. What is the most
decisive connection between both models is that they strive for a close
connection between God and man. Let us proceed onwards to our investigation.
God and Pantheism
We will now venture into Spinoza’s conception of God and pantheism and
relate it to Schelling’s conception. We must now closely examine Schelling
arguments surrounding freedom, but in order to do so, we must realize that
freedom surrounds the entirety of Schelling philosophy. Schelling’s thought
deals with both the ontological and the theological, and we will endeavour to
uncover this relationship through an understanding of his notions on God,
freedom, and pantheism (Heidegger, Schelling’s Treatise on the Essence of Human
Freedom p.51). If philosophy is lacking
a foundation in a living reality, and is stuck only in abstract concepts, then
life looses its richness as a vital dynamic cosmos (Schelling, Philosophical Investigations into the essence of
Human Freedom p. OA427-430).
Schelling states that God must hold the ground of his existence in
himself (Schelling,
Philosophical Investigations into the essence of Human Freedom p. SW356-359). The
ground cannot be thought of as a mere philosophical concept, because then we
strip away the life of the ground; it becomes unreal (Schelling, Philosophical Investigations into the
essence of Human Freedom p. SW356-358). The ground has God’s existence
within him, but this ground does not represent the absolute form of God proper (Schelling, Philosophical
Investigations into the essence of Human Freedom p. SW356-358). So we must
ask the following question: what is this ground? Schelling explicates that the ground represents
God’s existence as nature within God (Schelling, Philosophical Investigations into the essence of Human
Freedom p. SW356-358). The ground pertains to a being that is conjoined
to God, yet it is still inevitably quite distinct from him (Schelling, Philosophical
Investigations into the essence of Human Freedom p. SW356-358). The
relation between God and the ground can be explained by the tight connection
between light and gravity (Schelling,
Philosophical Investigations into the essence of Human Freedom p. SW356-359).
Heidegger clarifies this connection rather well:
“But precisely for Schelling gravity
and light “are” in their relation of Being and essence within created nature
only a certain expression of the essential jointure in Being itself, the
jointure: ground-essence. Gravity is what burdens and pulls, contracts and in
this connection what withdraws and flees. But light is always the “clearing,”
what opens and spreads, what develops. What is light is always the clearing of
what is intertwined and entangled, what is veiled and obscure. Thus, what is to
be illuminated precedes light as its ground from which it emerges in order to
be itself in light”
(Heidegger, Schelling’s Treatise on the Essence of Human Freedom p.114).
Heidegger wants
us to realize that in no way is this example meant to be taken as a simple
analogy that paints us a picture of the unity. He wants us to be aware of the
fact that both are identical in the unfolding of being yet different in their
capabilities (Heidegger,
Schelling’s Treatise on the Essence of Human Freedom p.115). We should be mindful of what Schelling is
doing here. By moving away from the idea
of images and analogy and concentrating on the unique enigma that is unfolding
here, Schelling is not falling into the trap of creating inadequate ideas of
knowledge. There is no pseudo-law behind this, no subtle apprehension telling
us to ‘obey’ but rather we should recognize the sheer magnitude and expression
of the totality of Being.
Becoming plays an immense role in Schelling’s philosophy. There is a
catch though: things cannot become in God. In order for life to become, they
must be divided from him. They must become in a different ground. Like Spinoza,
Schelling realizes that they cannot become outside of God alone. Nothing can be
outside of God, therefore the tension is resolved by grounding their existence
in a ground that is not God, but the ground of his existence (Schelling, Philosophical
Investigations into the essence of Human Freedom p. OA427-430).
I would like to represent this division as a ‘divine mathematics,’ so
that it can echo the same order and be joined with Spinoza. This divide
represents a yearning, a desire, which the eternal one feels in order to give
birth to himself (Schelling,
Philosophical Investigations into the essence of Human Freedom p. OA427-430). The yearning is not God himself, it
represents the desire God feels to give birth to himself (Schelling, Philosophical
Investigations into the essence of Human Freedom p. OA427-430). There is
not a state of unity in this yearning, for there is not a state of ‘the
understanding,’ so the yearning represents a will with no understanding, a will
in-itself that is not separate from
God. The understanding thus becomes the will inside the will. This whole
process of becoming Schelling calls ‘the logic of the enigma (Schelling, Philosophical
Investigations into the essence of Human Freedom p. OA427-430). The
logic of the enigma is surrounded by a constant dialectic which discloses the
yearning and desiring as the understanding of the will. Yet this is not a conscious
process but is gradually a part of the understanding of the divine (Schelling, Philosophical
Investigations into the essence of Human Freedom p. SW359-360). The
aforementioned dialectic represents the essence of yearning in and for itself (Schelling, Philosophical
Investigations into the essence of Human Freedom p. SW359-360). We can think of how Heidegger uses the
word dialectic here always in transition. Thus, this process is always in a
constant state of transition (Heidegger,
Schelling’s Treatise on the Essence of Human Freedom p.115). Mankind can
only grasp this unity in thought (Schelling, Philosophical Investigations into the essence of Human Freedom
p. SW359-360). The self-revelation of God represents the world coming
into existence, in order, form and rule (Schelling, Philosophical Investigations into the essence of
Human Freedom p. SW359-360). This self-revelation of God with order and
form and rule also has anarchy within its ground. Schelling wants us to
understand that with this process (of order being brought into life), anarchy
is also posited as part of this whole. This is the aspect of life that remains
incomprehensible to us because it is not in the understanding but is eternally
in the ground. This is the indivisible remainder (Schelling, Philosophical Investigations into the essence of
Human Freedom p. SW359-360). This is necessary for all of life, for
without darkness mankind and all creatures have no reality (Schelling, Philosophical
Investigations into the essence of Human Freedom p. SW359-360). The
darkness becomes a necessary beginning. If we think of a simple seed, its birth
starts off in the dark ground. It thus stretches its arms to the light and
becomes, but only because its origins were from the ground. Thus, it moves from
the darkness to the light and this is life (Schelling, Philosophical Investigations into the essence of
Human Freedom p. SW359-360). Schelling clarifies this connection by
stating:
“ All birth is birth from darkness into the light; the seed kernel must be
sank into the earth and die in darkness so that the more beautiful shape of
light may lift and unfold itself in the radiance of the sun” (Schelling, p. SW359-360).
This is freedom
in its most concentrated form, because life needs darkness in order to exist.
It is similar to the duality between good and evil, as they both need to
coexist: we would not know the light without the dark, and we would not
experience the good without evil. We would not possess freedom otherwise. The capacity
for these opposites is the inevitable capacity for freedom (Schelling, Philosophical
Investigations into the essence of Human Freedom p. SW352-353). So in
essence, Schelling’s pantheism is centered on the possibility of freedom in
beings as a whole and directed at their intricate relationship with the ground
and God (Heidegger, Schelling’s
Treatise on the Essence of Human Freedom p.87). Since God is everything,
Heidegger states that God is man, because the ‘is’ attached to the statement of
‘God is man’ identifies a belonging with God in one unity. However, the unity
claims that man belongs to God but as something different from God. This
difference allows for our freedom because mankind has come from the ground of
God (Heidegger, Schelling’s Treatise on the Essence of Human Freedom
p.87).
In Spinoza, God expresses himself in the world, and the absolute
multiplicity of this expression forms the relation of God, mankind and the world.
We can think of God’s power of expressivity through his attributes as closely
linked with Schelling’s model of God and the absolute ground. This model of
absolute expressionism in turn expresses the whole world, which is the totality
of the chosen world, and this represents the manifestation of God’s eternal
will (Deleuze, Expressionism in
Philosophy: Spinoza p. 273). ).
Spinoza’s conception of pantheism is thus surrounded by the unity of man
and God through God’s expressive attributes. Thus, Spinoza concludes:
“The path of salvation is the path of expression itself, to
become expressive, which is to become active, vital and free; is to express the
essence of God, to have affections and powers; and to affirm life through our
own constant search of striving-to-be,
in order to fulfill our own essence through God” (Deleuze, Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza p. 273).
In conclusion, this paper was a modest attempt to link together both
Spinoza and Schelling’s philosophy. Why would I try to do such a task? It is
because I felt that both of these systems work in favour for life. Both of
these philosophers’ concepts and theories surround the notions of affirmation,
expression and becoming. I found that both the expressive and dynamic models
worked in favour for life; and so, instead of putting both of these thinkers
against one another, I conjoined the two together in order to synthesize the
strengths and weaknesses of both of their systems. I had planned to read both
thinkers through one another while pushing all of their concepts and theories
to their farthest reaches. This is the ultimate task of philosophy; in our
current state of contemporary thought, theories surrounding life and freedom
are highly lacking, so it is always an excellent exercise to go back and
revisit thinkers of the past that also deal with issues that can still affect
us today. Hopefully this work will also fill the reader with thoughts and
questions regarding the pursuit of these vital issues.
Bibliography
Deleuze, Gilles. Spinoza, Practical Philosophy. San Francisco
Deleuze, Gilles. Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza.
New York
Descartes, René, and Paul J. Olscamp. Discourse on
Method, Optics, Geometry, and Meteorology. Rev. ed. Indianapolis , IN
Heidegger, Martin, and Joan Stambaugh. Schelling's
Treatise on the Essence of Human Freedom. Athens ,
Ohio : Ohio University
Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von, and Jason M. Wirth.
The Ages Of The World. Albany : State University
of New York
Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von. Philosophical
Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom. Albany :
State University
of New York
Spinoza, Benedictus de, and E. M. Curley. Ethics. London
Steigerwald, Joan. Notes from class, On October 9th,
2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment