deeply speculative in character； this； however； remains isolated and independent； and deals with
this one point alone； in Philosophy； however； nothing isolated can be worked out or developed。 In
the various presentations of his views Schelling on each occasion began again from the beginning；
because； as we may see； what went before did not satisfy him； he has ever pressed on to seek a
new form； and thus he had tried various forms and terminologies in succession without ever setting
forth one complete and consistent whole。 His principal works in this connection are the “First
Sketch of a System of Natural Philosophy；” 1799； the “System of Transcendental Idealism；”
1800； one of his most carefully throughout works； “Bruno； a Dialogue on the Divine and Natural
Principle of Things；” 1802； “Journal of Speculative Physics；” 1801； “New Journal of
Speculative Physics；” 1802 et seq。 In the second number of the second volume of his “Journal of
Speculative Physics；” Schelling made the commencement of a detailed treatment of the whole of
his philosophy。 Here he likewise starts to a certain measure； though unconsciously； from the
Fichtian form of construction； but the idea is already present that nature equally with knowledge is
a system of reason。
It is not feasible here to go into details respecting what is called the philosophy of Schelling； even if
time permitted。 For it is not yet a scientific whole organized in all its branches； since it rather
consists in certain general elements which do not fluctuate with the rest of his opinions。 Schelling's
philosophy must still be regarded as in process of evolution； and it has not yet ripened into fruit；（8）
we can hence give a general idea of it only。
When Schelling made his first appearance the demands put forward by Philosophy were as
follows。 With Descartes thought and extension were in some incomprehensible way united in God；
with Spinoza it was as motionless substance； and beyond this point of view neither of them ever
passed。 Later on we saw the form develop； partly in the sciences and partly in the Kantian
philosophy。 Finally； in the Fichtian philosophy； the form was subjectivity on its own account； from
which all determinations were held to develop。 What is thus demanded is that this subjectivity of
infinite form which we saw dying into irony or arbitrariness （pp。 507…510） should be delivered
from its one…sidedness in order to be united with objectivity and substantiality。 To put it otherwise；
the substance of Spinoza should not be apprehended as the unmoved； but as the intelligent； as a
form which possesses activity within itself of necessity； so that it is the forming power of nature；
but at the same time knowledge and comprehension。 This then is the object of Philosophy； it is not
the formal union of Spinoza that is demanded； nor the subjective totality of Fichte； but totality with
the infinite form。 We see this developing in the philosophy of Schelling。
1。 In one of his earlier writings； the “System of Transcendental Idealism；” which we shall
consider first of all； Schelling represented transcendental philosophy and natural philosophy as the
two sides of scientific knowledge。 Respecting the nature of the two； he expressly declared himself
in this work； where he once more adopts a Fichtian starting…point： “All knowledge rests on the
harmony of an objective with a subjective。” In the common sense of the words this would be
allowed； absolute unity； where the Notion and the reality are undistinguished in the perfected Idea；
is the Absolute alone； or God； all else contains an element of discord between the objective and
subjective。 “We may give the name of nature to the entire objective content of our knowledge； the
entire subjective content； on the other hand； is called the ego or intelligence。” They are in
themselves identical and presupposed as identical。 The relation of nature to intelligence is given by
Schelling thus： “Now if all knowledge has two poles which mutually presuppose and demand one
another； there must be two fundamental sciences； and it must be impossible to start from the one
pole without being driven to the other。” Thus nature is impelled to spirit； and spirit to nature；
either may be given the first place； and both must come to pass。 “If the objective is made the
chief；” we have the natural sciences as result； and “the necessary tendency；” the end； “of all
natural science thus is to pass from nature to intelligence。 This is the meaning of the effort to
connect natural phenomena with theory。 The highest perfection of natural science would be the
perfect spiritualization of all natural laws into laws of intuitive perception and thought。 The
phenomenal （the material element） must entirely disappear； and laws （the formal element） alone
remain。 Hence it comes to pass that the more that which is in conformity with law breaks forth in
nature itself； the more the outward covering disappears； the phenomena themselves become more
spiritual； and finally cease altogether。 The perfect theory of nature would be that by which the
whole of nature should be resolved into an intelligence。 The dead and unconscious products of
nature are only abortive attempts on the part of nature to reflect itself； but the so…called dead
nature is really an immature；” torpid； fossilized “intelligence〃； it is implicit only； and thus remains
in externality； “hence in its phenomena；” even though “still unconsciously； the character of
intelligence shines through。 Its highest end； which is to become object to itself； is first attained by
nature” （instead of nature we should call it the Idea of nature）； “through its highest and ultimate
reflection； which is none other than man； or； more generally； it is that which we call reason； through
which nature for the first time returns completely within itself； and whereby it becomes evident that
nature is originally identical with what is known in us as intelligence or the conscious。 Through this
tendency to make nature intelligent natural science becomes the philosophy of nature。” The
intelligent character of nature is thus spoken of as a postulate of science。 The other point of view is
“to give the subjective the foremost place。” Thus here “the problem is how to add an objective
element agreeing with it。 To start from the subjective as from the first and absolute； and to make
the objective arise from it；” signifies a new departure； its consideration forms the content of true
Transcendental Philosophy； or； as Schelling himself now named this science； “the other science
fundamental to Philosophy。” The organ of transcendental philosophy is the subjective； the
production of inward action。 Production and reflection upon this production； the unconscious and
conscious in one； is the ？sthetic act of the imagination。（9） Thus these two separate processes are
as a whole very clearly expressed： the process which leads from nature to the subject； and that
leading from the ego to the object。 But the true process could only be traced out by means of
logic； for it contains pure thoughts； but the logical point of view was what Schelling never arrived
at in his presentation of things；
a。 In respect of the ego； as principle of the transcendental philosophy； Schelling sets to work in
the same way as did Fichte； inasmuch as he begins from the fact of knowledge “in which the
content is conditioned through the form； and the form through the content” ； this is formal A = A。
But does A exist？ The ego is “the point where subject and object are one in their unmediated
condition” ； the ego is just Ego = Ego； subject…object； and that is the act of self…consciousness
wherein I am for myself object to myself。 In self…consciousness there is not to be found a
distinction between me and anything else； what are distinguished are directly identical； and there is
so far nothing at all in opposition to this self…consciousness。 How the case stands with regard to
external objects is the question which must be decided later； in the further course of development。
It is only the Notion of the ego which is to be laid hold of： “The Notion of the ego； that is the act
whereby thought in general becomes object to itself； and the ego itself （the object） are absolutely
one； independently of this act the ego is nothing。” It is the act whereby thought makes itself
objective； and wherein the ego is brought into harmony with the objective； with thought； and from
this standpoint it had to be demonstrated how the ego makes its way to objectivity。 “The ego； as
pure act； as pure action； is not objective in knowledge itself； for the reason that it is the principle of
all knowledge。 If it is to be object of knowledge； this must come to pass through a very different
kind of knowledge than the ordinary。” The immediate consciousness of this identity is intuition；
but inwardly it becomes “intellectual intuition” ； it “is a knowledge which is the object： sensuous
intuition or perception is perception of such a nature that the perception itself appears to be
different from what is perceived。 Now intellectual intuition is the organ of all transcendental
thought；” the act of pure self…cons