Schelling, Frederick Wilhelm Joseph
SCHELLING, FREDERICK WILHELM JOSEPH
(later von Schelling ) (b. Leonberg, WÜrttemberg, Germany, 27 January 1775; d. bad Ragaz, Switzerland, 20 August 1854)
Schelling was the son of Joseph Friedrich Schelling (1737–1812), a deacon, preacher, and theological writer, and the former Gottliebin Maria Cless. Both parents were the children of pastors. Schelling early displayed extraordinary gifts, and in 1790, at age fifteen, he entered the Protestant theological foundation at the University of Tübingen. There he studied theology and philosophy and was friends with Hegel and Hölderlin. Like most of his fellow students, he embraced the ideas of the French Revolution. Consequently, he forfeited the patronage of Duke Karl of Württemberg.
In 1791 Schelling began an intensive study of the works of Kant and of Fichte, whose importance for the further development of the Kantian philosophy he immediately recognized. In 1792 he obtained a master’s degree in philosophy for a paper dealing with biblical subjects and, in 1795, a master’s degree in theology. At this time (1794–1795) he wrote several essays on philosophy and theology.
After finishing his studies, Schelling took a post as a tutor, traveling with two aristocratic pupils to Leipzig in 1796. In his two years there he studied natural science and medicine and published several works on philosophy, which attracted the attention of Fichte and Goethe. At their suggestion, Schelling, in 1798, was offered a position as extraordinary professor at Jena, then a center of German cultural life. Around this time he spent several weeks in Dresden, where he was introduced into the circle of the Romantic school, notably to the brothers August Wilhelm and Friedrich Schlegel and their wives, and to Novalis and Tieck. At Jena, Schelling lectured primarily on Kant’s transcendental idealism and Fichte’s theory of science (Wissenschaftstheorie), but soon he began to develop his own ideas on the philosophy of nature (Naturphilosophie). In 1803 the Bavarian government invited him to Würzburg as a full professor. As at Jena, the first part of his stay was successful, but then he encountered increasing opposition, in this case from both Catholics and “dogmatic Kantians.” He was accused of materialism, atheism, obscurantism, and mysticism.
Schelling left Würzburg in 1806 and moved to Munich. For the next thirty-five years he remained in the service of the Bavarian state, becoming a member of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and general secretary of the Academy of Fine Arts. Granted a leave of absence from 1820 to 1827, Schelling went to Erlangen, where he gave private lectures on philosophy, mythology, and the history of philosophy. At Erlangen he enjoyed the respect and admiration of a circle of sympathetic friends.
In 1827 Schelling returned to Munich. The University had been moved from Landshut to the Bavarian capital, and King Ludwig I had made a great effort to attract outstanding faculty members. Schelling was appointed head curator of the scientific collections and president of the Academy of Sciences. He also made a major contribution to a project for reforming the Bavarian school system, but the project was abandoned after a reactionary turn in government policy.
Meanwhile, Hegel’s philosophy had triumphed in Prussia, and it appeared that the schools of thought growing out of his teaching would soon be dominated by materialistic and antimonarchical ideas. Looking to Schelling to achieve the “destruction of the dragon’s teeth” of materialism, King Friedrich Wilhelm IV of Prussia, encouraged by the Humboldt, offered the philosopher a post in Berlin. Despite his advanced age, Schelling accepted the offer, for he viewed it as an obligatory mission. He taught in Berlin for only a short time (1841–1846). After vehement disputes with one of his opponents. Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob Paulus, Schelling gave up his lectures, which initially had been very popular but then attracted fewer and fewer listeners. He withdrew increasingly from public life and devoted himself exclusively to perfecting his philosophy. He lived long enough to witness the victory of Hegelian philosophy and the rise of materialism.
Schelling’s first marriage was to Dorothea Caroline Michaelis, daughter of the famous Orientalist Johann David Michaelis. Schelling met her in Dresden while she was still married to A. W. Schlegel. Extremely intelligent and witty, she had led a very eventful life. Her early death left Schelling deeply shaken. Although it may not have been the reason that he virtually ceased to publish (and even withdrew works already printed), the two events occurred at about the same time. In 1812 Schelling married Pauline Gotter, the daughter of a friend of his late wife. They enjoyed a harmonious marriage and had three sons and three daughters.
Unlike Kant or Hegel, Schelling left behind no finished, logicall constructed system. While still young, he published a number of brilliant works, and whenever he embarked on a new subject, he aroused the highest expectations, which, however, he was not able to fulfill, Curious, enthusiastic, and receptive to a broad range of influences, he grasped at new ideas, reworked them, and integrated them into his own philosophy. He repeatedly started over from the beginning, used new terminology, invented new schemata, ignored or altered previous statements, and gave new content to earlier concepts. Most of his early writings were derived from or were composed at the same time as his lectures, often under pressure of time; consequently writings contain material that is immature or insufficiently thought out. Journals that he founded in order to publish essays soon went out of existence. Much in his late philosophy is difficult to understand and is even difficult to enter into at all, laden as it is with mythological notions.
Earlier historians of philosophy distinguished definite stages in the development of Schelling’s thinking. Recent research (especially that of Horst Fuhrmans and Manfred Schröter) has shown that, viewed from the standpoint of his late philosophy, Schelling’s work as a whole developed organically and without breaks and that certain fundamental concepts and images are evident throughout. For the sake of convenience, Schelling’s philosophy can be presented–with little violence to its contents–in a strictly chronological order: philosophy of nature and transcendental philosophy, philosophy of identity, and philosophy of religion.
Schelling attentively followed the discoveries of the great scientists of his time: Galvani, Volta, Lavoisier, John Brown, and Kielmeyer. Like Goethe, Schelling was temperamentally opposed to a purely mechanistic conception of nature. He viewed nature as a living organism, an active force. He was, however, just as little a vitalist as he was a mechanist, for he rejected the notion of an autonomous life’force. Rather he supposed that nature contains the organic within itself, inorganic matter being matter that has ceased to live.
In his treatment of Fichte’s Wissenschaftslehre, Schelling expressed dissatisfaction with its assignment of a passive role to nature as the nonego (Nicht’Ich). In order to balance Fichte’s primarily ethical concerns, he sought to create a “speculative physics.” His starting point was Kant’s concept of natural purpose as developed in the Critique of Judgement and Fichte’s theory of the unconscious creative ego. In a work of 1797 Schelling developed Kant’s idealism in accord with Fichte’s position, in that he wished to make no distinction between the thing as represented and the actual thing. According to Schelling, nature institutes in the faculty of intuition a dynamic process based on attraction and repulsion, and it is this process that appears in the intuition as an object, recognizable as such and accessible to the understanding.
In order that the individual products of nature can come to exist as enduring objects at all, the perpetually active nature’force must be opposed by an obstructing or checking force. These mutually opposed forces, the formative drive (Bildungstrieb) and the obstructing force, arise through the spontaneous division of the original force (Urkraft) of nature. The entire realm of natural occurrences is permeated by polarity (a universal principle to which the more modern term “differentiation” may be given) and dualism (conflict of forces). Their effectiveness is determined by quantity (in the mechanical natural process) or quality (in the chemical natural process). In the dead body the opposing forces are neutralized; in the chemical process the equilibrium of the forces is destroyed; and in the life process these forces are engaged in a perpetual struggle.
Out of the original forces of attraction and repulsion there emerges the primary phenomenon (Urphänomen) of light as the duplexity of ether (repulsive) and oxygen (attractive). Just as in magnetism, which Schelling considered the primary phenomenon of polarity, a north and a south pole stand opposed to each other; in electricity, a negative and a positive pole; and in chemistry, acids and bases–so, too, he thought, the dynamic natural process consists, universally, in the unification of the opposites on a higher plane. Accordingly, the world Soul, the organizing principle of the entire universe, is a unity of mutually conflicting forces. Its existence explains the progress observable from the lowest to the highest forms.
In his Naturphilosophie Schelling dealt with all the important physical, chemical, and biological phenomena and processes that occupied the scientists of his day: ether, light, weight, heat, air, gravitation, the atom (which he conceived of as a center of force), matter, combustion, electricity, magnetism, and evolution. To Kant’s mechanistic theory of the formation of the cosmos, Schelling opposed an organic theory according to which the universe came into being through the expansion and contraction of the primary matter (Urmaterie).
Schelling’s philosophy of nature was well received not only by the poets and writers of the Romantic school, but also by L. Oken, H. Steffens, K. E. von Baer, and Karl Friedrich von Burdach. The physicians of the Brownian school, who viewed man as the unity of body and soul, also welcomed Schelling’s ideas. In 1802 the faculty of medicine of the University of Landshut awarded Schelling an honorary doctorate of medicine.
In his transcendental philosophy, which is partly a reworking and partly a major revision of Fichte’s Wissenschaftslehre, Schelling treated the problem of nature from the point of view of consciousness. With the philosophy of nature, it completed the theoretical part of his doctrines. In the practical part, Schelling took up questions concerning the freedom of the will, the moral law and natural law, and the philosophy of history. The latter field, he asserted, displays the realization of the unity of necessity and freedom. For Schelling, the summit of subjective activity is attained, not in morality, as Kant and Fichte held, but in the free creative act of the artist. He alone is capable of representing the infinite in the finite, for he brings the identity of the real and the ideal, toward which philosophy aspires, to concrete representation in the work of art.
With the philosophy of identity, Schelling went one step further: real and ideal, and nature and mind are seen to be identical when conceived with sufficient understanding. Mind, and life as the bearer of mind, can be understood only on the assumption that nature is not a conglobation of dead matter, but rather, in its essence, a living primary force, capable of infinite activity. The secret of the unity of nature and mind in the Absolute, however, can ultimately be grasped only in the completion of the creative act, which leads to the product of nature. This occurs in intellectual intuition, which, according to Schelling, affords an immediate, concrete, intuitive apprehension of the Absolute. (Kant, on the other hand, reserved this intuition to the divine intellect.) Such intuition cannot be taught, but it becomes immediately evident in the contemplation of art.
Schelling was a natural philosopher, not a scientist. His philosophy of nature must be assessed in terms of the historical situation in which it was created. Along with Fichte and Hegel, he propounded an epistemological idealism the starting-point of which was the philosophy of Kant. Schelling shared a number of traits with the literary figures, scientists, and philosophers who had embraced Romanticism in reaction against the rationalism of Enlightenment: a sense of the historical development and an emphasis on feeling, the irrational, fantasy, the creative individual, and intuition. All the same, Schelling–in contradistinction to many of his followers–retained a modicum of sobriety and openness to empirical findings. Even considering that the experimental basis of the science of his time was relatively narrow. Schelling applied his concepts to nature without sufficient regard for scientific rigor and thereby brought the speculative philosophy of nature into discredit. (To be sure, some of his disciples were even less disciplined in this respect.) In Schelling’s own lifetime, readers found it difficult to follow his expositions because of his penchant for esoteric formulations. The problem was especially acute for those not intimately familiar with the history of philosophy, in which Schelling had immersed himself with characteristic enthusiasm. Not surprisingly, contemporary scientists and philosophers who favored mechanistic explanations were repelled by Schelling’s notions, particularly since his notions were heavily burdened with analogies. Their skeptical attitude undoubtedly hardened in response to the new knowledge steadily accumulating in all fields of biology, chemistry, and physics as a result of intensive exact research and the application of more refined methods.
Although critics were correct in denouncing Schelling’s all too facile use of concepts and images, they forgot the magnitude and profundity of Schelling’s project and its fruitful stimuli to further thinking. A good example of the latter is the notion of a basic type (Bauplan), which appears in nature in limitless variations. Another is the concept of biological evolution, although Schelling’s formulation of it is closer to the Romantic ideas of evolution as a product of the creative, active force in nature than it is to Darwin’s origin of species.
The impact of Schelling’s Naturphilosophie was very great. Aside from the direct influence that his theory of nature had on such scientists as L. Oken, H. Steffens, G. H. Schubert, and Franz von Baader, its fundamental ideas entered into the thinking of the age and became the common property of educated men. Traces of them can be found in Johannes Müller, K. E. von Baer, and C. G. Carus. Only this pervasiveness can account for the violent reaction of leading scientists like Virchow, Helmholtz, and du Bois-Reymond against speculative philosophy of nature at a time when idealism and Romanticism had long ceased to be vital intellectual movements and when scientists believed that all change in nature could be explained causally through reduction to mechanics.
Beginning in 1806 Schelling occupied himself increasingly with the philosophy of religion. His own thinking on this subject was stimulated by his encounter with the ideas of Jacob Boehme, which had been brought to his attention by Franz von Baader. Schelling’s conceptions, which he termed “positive” philosophy, were frequently misunderstood and vigorously attacted as a form of gnostic theosophy. Schelling himself was partially responsible for this, since he refused to publish the themes he treated in his lectures (at Munich, Erlangen, Stuttgart, and Berlin). (Some works did reach the printer, but Schelling always recalled them at the last minute to make further revisions.) Many thousands of pages of handwritten manuscripts attest to this decades-long struggle with the ultimate problems of God, freedom, and the universe. Overcoming the impasse of Romanticism, and freeing himself, in this domain, from the thinking of his age, he arrived at a new realism—that of struggling, suffering man, the fundamental concept of existentialism. A direct line can be drawn from this formulation to the work of Kierkegaard, the founder of this new philosophy and for a time Schelling’s student at Berlin. It has rightly been remarked (at a congress celebrating the hundredth anniversary of Schelling’s death) that Schelling’s philosophy of religion held more of the future with in it than of the past.
The entire corpus of Schelling’s manuscripts, which were preserved at the Bavarian State Library in Munich, was destroyed during World War II. Fortunately, in 1943 H. Fuhrmans encouraged M. Scheröter to examine this material. Scheröter either analyzed or in some cases copied portions of the “Weltalter,” which he later published. The studies undertaken in connection with or in the wake of this project have given a new impetus to research on Schelling.
I. Original Works. Schelling’s collected works were edited by K. F. A. von Schelling (his second eldest son) as Sämtilche Werke (Stuttgart—Augsburg, 1856–1861); they appeared in two sections: the first, in 10 vols., was published between 1856 and 1861; the second, which is made up of 4 vols. taken from the posthumous MSS, appeared between 1856 and 1858. Sec. 1, vol. I (writings from 1792 to 1797) contains the following works: Schelling’s master’s diss. on the origin of evil, based on Genesis 3. The full Latin title is “Antiquissimi de prima malorum humanorum origine philosophematis Genesis III explicandi tentamen criticum et philosophicum” (1792). Other writings are über Mythen, historische Sagen und Philosopheme der ältesten Welt (1793); Uber die Möglichkeit einer Form der Philosophie überhaupt (1794). Schelling’s first purely philosophical work, which is a criticism of Kant in accord with Fichte’s Wissenschaftslehre, and which sets forth the task of his future work; diss. for his theology degree, Marcion (1795), a study in the history of religion: a commentary on the Wissenschaftslehre vom Ich als Prinzip der Philosophie, oder über das Unbedingte im menschlichen Wissen (1795; repr., 1809), which shows the influence of Spinoza, whose absolute substance becomes, in Schelling, the active ego; Philosophische Briefe über Dogmatismus und Kriticismus (1795; repr., 1809), which first appeared anonymously, is directed against the dogmatic Kantians and exhibits the influence of Spinoza (Schelling develops Kantian doctrines in accord with Fichte’s views); Neue Deduktion des Naturrechts, first published in Philosophisches Journal, 4 (1796), but completed in 1795 (it leads into the subject of practical philosphy); and Abhandlungen zur Erläuterung des Idealismus der Wissenschaftslehre (1796–1797; repr., 1809), and apology of Fichte’s views, appeared in Philosophisches Journal as “Allgemeine Ubersicht der neuesten philosophischen Literature.”
Vol. II, which has Schelling’s first writings on the philosophy of nature, contains Ideen zu einer Philosophie der natur (1797), with subtitle in 2nd ed. of Als Einleitung in das Studium dieser Wissenschaft (here Schelling extends the Wissenschaftslehre into the speculative theory of nature); Von der Weltseele, eine Hypothese der höheren Physik zur Erklärung des allgemeinen Organismus (1798), preceded in the 2nd ed. (1806) by an essay “über das Verhältniss des Realen und ldealen in der Natur oder entwicklung der ersten Grundsätze der Naturphilosophie an den Principien der Schwere und des Lichts.”
Schelling”s first systematic works are in vol. III : Erster Entwurf eines Systems der Naturphilosophie (1799), with additions from Schelling’s MSS ; Einleitung zu dem Entwurf eines Systems der Naturphilosphie oder über den Begriff der speculativen Physik und der inneren Organisation eines Systems der Wissenschaft (1799); and System des tranzendentalen Idealismus (1800), an attempt to unite philosophy of nature, transcendental philosophy, and ethics.
Vol. IV contains Allgemeine Deduction des dynamischen Processes oder der Kategorien der Physik (1800), an essay on the boundary between philosophy of nature and the doctrine of identity, which originally appeared in Zeitschrift für spekulative Physik, 1 (1800); Uber den wahren Begriff der Naturphilosophie und die richtige Art ihre Probleme anzufassen (1801); Darstellung meines Systems der Philosphie (1801) (Philosophy of nature is Plato’s theory of ideas. This work is a fragment, only first part of the theory of nature, directed at Fichte); Bruno oder über das göttliche und natürliche Prinzip der Dinge (1802; 2nd, unaltered ed., 1842), a dialogue in which Bruno—named for Giordano Bruno—upholds Schelling’s position and convinces Lucian (Fichte) of the validity of his position; and Fernere Darstellungen aus dem System der Philosophie (1802).
Vol. V is Vorlesungen über die Methode des akademinschen Studiums (1803), a literary work, which includes Schelling’s farewell offering to Würzburg and also a unified account of his worldview; philosophy is the doctrine of ideas (Ideenlehre); the 2nd ed. (1803) has additions of the Ideen.
Vol. VI contains Immanuel Kant (1804), an obituary, which, according to the editor, was unearthed from “an obscure journal” following up an allusion made by Schelling; Philosophie und Religion (1804), in which philosophy is coordinated with, and even subordinated to, religion; this work shows the influence of Neoplatonism and mysticism; Propaedeutic to Philosophy (ca. 1804), taken from the posthumous MSS ; and System der gesammten Philosophie und der Naturphilosophie insbesondere (1804), a development of the first three potencies of the ideal side—taken from the posthumous MSS.
Vol. VII includes the following works; Darlegung des wahren Verhältnisses der Naturphilosophie zu der verbesserten Fichteschen Lehre, eine Erläuterungsschrift der ersten (1806), which marks Schelling’s settling with and break from Fichte; various essays in the Jahrbücherder Medicin als Wissenschaft (1806–1807), including “Aphorismen zur Einleitung in die Naturphilosophie,” “Aphorismen über die Naturphilosophie,” “Kritische Fragmente,” and “Vorläufige Bezeichnung des Stand-punktes der Medicin nach Grundsätzen der Naturphilosophie”: Uber das Verhältnis der bildenden Künste zu der Natur (1807), a lecture before the Academy of Sciences at Munich on the occasion of the birthday (12 Oct. 1807) of the Bavarian king; Philosophische Untersuchungen über das Wesen der menschlichen Freiheit und die damit zusammenhängenden Gegenstände (1809), taken from the posthumous MSS , still borders on the philosophy of nature but goes beyond both it and the theory of identity. In the winter of 1809–1810, following the death of Caroline, Schelling was in Stuttgart, where at the request of several friends he gave private lectures. In them he anticipated his later work in the field of the philosophy of religion. Other works in vol. VII are essays and books reviews (1807–1809) from Jenaer, Erlanger Literaturzeitung, and Morgenblatt: Die Weltalter (1814–1815), which, according to the editor, is from the posthumous MSS composed in 1814 or 1815, and which is the most complete of several existing versions of the work, which was to include three books, one each on the past, the present, and the future; Uber die Gottheiten von Samothrake (1815), a lecture that is a supp. to the Weltalter, was delivered at a public session of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences on the king’s name day in 1815; and short essays (1811) from the posthumous MSS (one of them was on “weather’shotting,” that is, on the influence that cannon shots, for example, might have upon the weather [thunderstorms, hail].
Vol. IX includes über den Zusammenhang der Natur mit der Giesterwelt (ca. 1816–1817), a dialogue taken from the posthumous MSS; lectures delivered (1821–1825) at Erlangen, from the posthumous MSS: Schelling’s first lecture in Munich (1827); and various lectures, addresses, and speeches given from 1828 to 1841 at the Academy of Sciences or at the University.
Works in vol. X are Vorrede zu einer philosophischen Schrift des Herrn Cousin (Fragments philosophiques). 2nd ed. (Paris, 1833), which contains an attack on Hegel; Darstellung des philosophischen Empirismus (1836), from the posthumous MSS of the introductory lectures on philosohy delivered at Munich for the last time in 1836; Anthropologisches Schema (no date), a brief outline, written at Munich and devoted to psychological and characterological questions: Schelling’s first lecture at Berlin (1841); Darstellung des Naturprozesses (1843–1844), a fragment of the posthumous MSS of a lecture held at Berlin on the principles of philosophy: and Vorwort zu Henrik Steffens nachgelassenen Schriften (1845), from a public lecture–with a few additions in Steffen’s memory–held on 24 April 1845.
In the preface of sec. 2, vol. I (1856), the editor K. F. A. von Schelling explains that he undertook to prepare this edition with the assistance of his brothers at the explicit request of his father, and that he was especially aided in the first volume by his younger brother Hermann Schelling. Part I, vol. I, with a historical’critical introduction and lectures 1–10, contains a philosophical criticism of the possible ways of elucidating mythology. Revised by Schelling during his last years at Munich and again at Berlin from 1842 to 1845, pt. 1 was printed 30 years previously but was never published. Part 2 of vol I , with a philosophical introduction and lectures 11–24 (Schelling’s last work), is an account of rational (negative) philosophy, which is presented, however, in the form he gave to it after he had fully developed his positive philosophy.
Philosophie der Mythologie, II (1857), which includes “Buch. Der Monotheismus” and “Buch. Die Mythologie” (these works were compiled by Schelling’s son after his death); Philosophie der Offenbarung, III (1858), which consists of “Stellung der Aufgabe, nämlich der philosophischen Religion,” “Lösung der Aufgabe,” and a 3rd part, which includes “Einleitung in die Philosophie der Offenbarung, 1.’8. Vorlesung,” “Der Philosophie der Offenbarung erster Teil,” and “Der Philosophie der Offenbarung zweiter Teil.”
Other editions of Schelling’s works are Werke, M. Schröter, ed., 6 vols. (Munich, 1927–1928), with a supp. vol. containing the original versions of the Weltalter (1946); and Werke, Otto Weiss, ed., 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1907), with a foreword by A. Drews. See also Clara oder Zusammenhang der Naturmit der Giesterwelt, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart, 1862), and an expanded ed. prepared by M. Schröter (Munich, 1948). For Schelling’s correspondence, see Aus Schellings Leben in Briefen, 1775–1803. I (Leipzig, 1869), II, III (Leipzig, 1870); “Briefwechsel,” in Maximillian II , König von Bayern und Schelling, L. Trost and F. Leist, eds. (Stuttgart, 1891); and Caroline, Briefe (to her brothers and sisters, her daughter Auguste, the Gotter family, F. L. W. Meyer, A. W. and F. Schlegel, and J. Schelling), G. Waitz, ed. (Schelling’s son’in’law).
II. Secondary Literature. On Schelling and his work, see Kuno Fischer, “Geschichte der neueren Philosophie,” in Schellings Leben und Lehre, 4th ed., VII (Heidelberg, 1923), with and appendix that contains H. Falkenheim’s thorough list of literature on Schelling up to 1922; Horst Fuhrmans, Schellings Philosophie der Weltalter. Schellings Philosophie in den Jahren 1806–1821. Zum Problem des Schellingschen Idealismus (Düsseldorf, 1954); Eduard von Hartmann, Schellings philosophisches System (Leipzig, 1897); Hinrich Knittermeyer, Schelling und die romantische Schule (Munich, 1928); Wolfgang Pfeiffer’Belli, “Schelling und seine Weltalter,” in Philosophisches Jahrbuch, 58 , pt. 1 (1948), 65–68: G. Scheneeberger, F. W. J. von Schelling (Berne, 1954); Manfred Schröter, Kritische Studien. über Schelling und zur Kulturphilosophie (Munich, 1971): and Wilhelm Szilasi, Philosophie und Naturwissenschaft (Berne, 1961).
See also Bernhard Taureck, Mathematische und transzendentale Identität (Vienna–Munich, 1973): Friedrich Ueberweg, Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie (Tübingen, 1951), 35–67: John Watson, Schelling’sTranscendental Idealism (Chicago, 1882); Wolfgang Wieland, “Schellings Lehre von der Zeit,” in Grundlagen und Voraussetzungen der Weltalterphilosophie (Hamburg, 1956).
Schelling founded or cofounded the following periodicals: Zeitschriff für speculative Physik, 2 vols. (1800–1801), followed by Neue Zeitschrift fü speculative Physik, pt. 1 (1802): Kritisches Journal der Philosophie (1802–1803), edited with Hegel; and Jahrbücher der Medizin als Wissesnchaft (1806–1808), edited with A. F. Marcus.