Schelling’s “Bruno” provides a provocative illustration of his conviction that early modern science has adopted a radically flawed and impoverished concept of matter, and therefore of nature. The “Bruno” has been read as a settling of scores with Fichte, with whom Schelling had recently quarreled, and as a critique of Kant’s idealism. I propose to look at how the dialogue reveals Schelling’s developing understanding of pantheism, as reflected in the arguments he borrows from Giordano Bruno and then transforms. “Bruno” is (...) a dialogue with four interlocutors, and ranges widely. I will discuss two central sections, in which the two main roles are played by Bruno (Schelling) and Lucian (Fichte). Lucian begins by restating their agreement in an earlier section of the dialogue that when it is considered in the light of the supreme idea, the distinction of knowledge and being is untrue, a tantalizing claim. He then goes on to pose the question of how it can be possible to understand the departure of the finite from the eternal. (shrink)

F.W.J. von Schelling was the philosopher whom Hegel accused of conducting his philosophical education in public, and Joseph Lawrence's title neatly captures and acknowledges a fundamental tension running throughout Schelling's nearly sixty years of philosophical productivity. Schelling was indeed a philosopher of many beginnings, and always returned to a concern with beginnings, in a way one might have thought Kant had rendered permanently unfashionable; yet in many ways the very profusion of his philosophies was, as Heidegger has observed, evidence of (...) his unrelenting and stubborn desire to get to the root of being. What Lawrence calls "die Unvordenklichkeit des Seins" was always Schelling's primary concern. (shrink)