The same, he individualizes himself as a mechanical, chemical, organic, and spiritual organization, and in this sense, he is the difference. So, he refused to accept it, and later he gritted his teeth in hatred with Hegel. That's the truth. In order to improve the originality of your philosophy, you didn't hesitate to slander me. And in Schelling's view, your actions turned out to be original, erasing all the contributions I had made. It's outrageous.
I haven't said it yet. As a natural being, nature also has two aspects. The first aspect, as a holistic affirmation, is identity, but its own process is also a process of constantly differentiating and differentiating itself. In this regard, it is not called difference, it has two names. There is only one point that is absolutely indistinguishable, which is God, God himself, or the universe. He is an absolute difference.
Concrete things must have differences. Hegel would say, 'Don't be angry with me, even God himself has differences.'. You once said that God himself is indistinguishable, the universe itself is indistinguishable, and all things are different. The highest God is also different, and Hegel is not completely like Schelling understood it. He gave Hegel differences, and he implemented the concept of absolute unity with differences in the end.
Since there is an objective side, there is also a subjective side. In his 1800 publication "The System of Transcendental Idealism," he was actually absolutely subjective. This work is ambitious, and he actually wants to develop Kant's three major critiques based on his own and Fichte's ideas on how Kant's plan should be developed. Xie Lin would think that if he had a good idea about these, Kant's Three Critiques would be further modified and rewritten, and what would it be to turn him into a work?
His understanding of Kant's Three Critiques and the question of the Three Critiques themselves. If it were me, I would rewrite a book and merge the three of them into one book, which should be this thing.
So, with great ambition. And you know, I think it's about ambition. It should be based on a real and difficult understanding of objective issues, rather than just empty and unfounded ambitions.
Because I've been reading a doctoral student's thesis from another school recently, that's really unreasonable. He said Kant didn't think through many things clearly and didn't sort them out enough. Now, I want to speak for Kant. You first understood some of Kant's basic concepts clearly, but you didn't understand them at all. Then, he actually said that this is not right, and that is not right. And then, his own thing was just confused. Why didn't he write about Kant later? What do we think Kant should do? You're not studying Kant, are you Kant's teacher?
You are criticizing his homework, which is somewhat ridiculous. When we were teachers, we often encountered similar thoughts, although we rarely felt that they were wrong. Let me tell them, of course, it's okay. You just need to have a deep understanding of their issues.
On this basis, of course, it can be said that I have some ideas about Kant, and I have different opinions. Why not? Of course, it's also possible, but if you don't understand other people's questions or what they want to say, and you haven't figured it out yet, then come back and say this or that is not acceptable.
Xie Lin said that if all we do is explain nature, we should never let idealism destroy us. It's because explaining nature is not everything, besides explaining nature, humans have other things to do and write about. He said that constructing a system of a priori ideas, in Schelling's view, is the nature of our consciousness itself.
When we adopt a normative attitude towards natural events, our consciousness actually introduces a rupture between them and nature, creating a rupture between consciousness and nature.
What does it mean to adopt a normative attitude towards the natural world?
Many such things happen in nature. We need to classify and define many natural events. This kind of classification and definition is certainly normative. This is not a descriptive attitude. When a mountain flood erupts, we will call it a mountain flood outbreak, while a normative attitude will call it a mountain flood outbreak. It may be a geological disaster, or other material crustal changes, or climate anomalies. We have a certain normative attitude towards classifying it, and when that happens, the primitive human and nature are actually one. When we adopt this normative attitude towards nature, there is a rupture between our consciousness and nature.
We are born with the ability to make judgments as a form of care. We are driven by something, which is to clarify things. He said that there is a driving force behind our consciousness, which is to try to clarify things. We are driven by the necessity of clarifying things, but understanding the necessity of things also creates the possibility of making mistakes.
Therefore, the philosophical problem is to overcome skepticism that naturally arises from human conscious lifestyles.
The first Schelling believed that skepticism is not unfounded or that there are people who have special thoughts and are particularly sensitive. He developed skepticism, which is a conscious way of life and a natural result of our conscious lifestyle patterns. Why do humans naturally emerge?
Because since we humans want to clarify things, we will inevitably make mistakes, and making mistakes is also the norm of our lives, which is the norm of our conscious lifestyle. As long as we want to clarify things, I cannot distinguish them.
Modern philosophy is based solely on theory and empiricism, and eventually reached the stage of Hume. Prior to this, Bacon and Descartes both wanted to understand things, including Spinoza's use of imitation geometry to understand things. They must understand things, not make mistakes, and avoid making mistakes. The more they understand, the more doubtful they become. At first, they thought it was a bit inappropriate, like Descartes. Later, when it came to Berkeley and Hume, they became increasingly confused.
Xie Lin's entire thinking background is a process of modern thought. The skepticism of Xiu Mo had a great impact on the intellectual world at that time, as it was related to the survival of humanity. In ancient times, humans only had skepticism in ancient Greece, but it was basically not like in modern times, especially after the Enlightenment, when humans believed in the affirmation of natural philosophy and science. How did you finally come to the conclusion that knowledge is unlikely. This is a question of scenery, and Hume is not an ordinary person.
Hume's entire argument is to a considerable extent reasonable, and he is profound. Kant also acknowledges this point. How to answer Hume is not a simple and easy problem to solve. You see, Schelling said that fundamentally speaking, our human consciousness naturally generates skepticism. Our conscious life judges and recognizes the entire surrounding world, and this kind of life naturally generates skepticism. Skeptics do not accidentally say that someone is particularly sensitive or thinks too much, and they begin to doubt.
But it naturally leads to problems. There are things outside of us, which are a kind of certainty that neither relies on evidence nor reasoning, but cannot be eradicated through authentication. This is what Xie Lin talked about in his book "The System of Transcendental Concepts". He said that there are things outside of us that are a kind of certainty that neither relies on basis nor reasoning, but cannot be eradicated through argumentation. Xie Lin's attitude is very clear. There are things outside of us, it doesn't mean that you can overturn them by various arguments and say that there's nothing wrong outside. This is not a matter of argumentation, it doesn't rely on evidence or reasoning.
The inevitability and absoluteness of existence itself are not a matter of reasoning or finding evidence. In fact, a large part of "The System of Transcendental Ideas" is based on the basic ideas of Schelling's early work, and is based on his proposed viewpoint that it is the appropriate approach to philosophy. It is not a rejection of philosophical issues, but a positive discussion of him.
The current meaning refers to skepticism. He believes that the approach of skepticism is negative, as it eliminates the need for discussion and cannot solve problems. It is better to put things outside of our thinking. He believes that this is not the attitude that philosophy should adopt, and that philosophy should face problems.
The basic task of the theory of prior ideas is to demonstrate how we can deal with two clearly conflicting demands.
Kant's problem is still about freedom and necessity.
On the one hand, we are completely autonomous, we can think whatever we want, and we can understand the world as we want. However, on the other hand, we have to admit that there is something we cannot control, which absolutely constrains and constrains us in terms of knowledge.
Xie Lin appears to be discussing issues from an epistemological perspective. Kant may not necessarily be discussing problems in epistemology, but the problem is actually the same - the relationship between nature and freedom. On the one hand, we humans are free, but on the other hand, there is something that absolutely constrains and binds us in terms of knowledge. We cannot know what we want to know, nor can we say that we can know what we want to know. That's not the case.
And besides, he is obviously our autonomy, there is nothing we can do about him. It is our autonomy, and it was not initially generated by our autonomy. If it is our autonomy that arises, then we should have a way. It should not limit us, but we should control it. It absolutely binds and constrains us, and it is not generated by our autonomy.
At this point, Schelling appears to be returning to before Kant, or rather liberating Kant's thing in itself.
