Since the seminal 1955 habilitation by Heidegger's pupil, Walter Schulz, it has become an open secret that Schelling's philosophy, more than that of any of the other German Idealists, is an immediate antecedent to Heidegger's thought. For this reason, it is all the more fascinating that to this day research is still lopsidedly concerned with the interpretation of Heidegger's reading of Schelling's Freedom Essay and that a thorough and overarching investigation into the idealistic inheritance of Martin Heidegger's thought remains wanting. (...) The same applies to the debates that Heidegger's students began in the twentieth century. The traditions of modern nature ethics and the criticism of technology, which derive from Schelling, were interpreted and mediated through Heidegger to his students Hans Jonas, Hannah Arendt, and Günther Anders. This essay attempts to delineate some of the basic features of a more bilateral or dialogical relationship between these two philosophers and to more fully appreciate Heidegger's relationship to German Idealism in general and Schelling in particular. (shrink)

This book undertakes an extensive study of the constellation of two eminent thinkers of post-idealism for the first time. The contributions in this volume analyze the relationship between Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard systematically and historically from a number of thematic perspectives: metaphysics and ethics, freedom and original sin, existential philosophy and the theory of suffering, art and aesthetics, religion and science. The book also goes into Kierkegaard s explicit disagreement with Schopenhauer and last but not least discusses the conflicting poles of (...) idealism and modernity. The volume is rounded off by a first complete and annotated German translation of the notes on Schopenhauer, which Kierkegaard wrote in his late journals.". (shrink)

Für die Romantiker wäre es ein Schritt in die falsche Richtung, wollte man die diesem Prozeß innewohnende Spannung auflösen und die ihn unterhaltende Dynamik stillstellen. Das Paradox einer permanent sich selbst durchstreichenden und dergestalt sich um den eigenen Erfolg bringenden Vollzugsform -- »ewigen Suche und nie ganz finden können« -- heben die Romantiker indes nicht auf, sondern werten es einfach nur ins Positive um.

Für die Romantiker wäre es ein Schritt in die falsche Richtung, wollte man die diesem Prozeß innewohnende Spannung auflösen und die ihn unterhaltende Dynamik stillstellen. Das Paradox einer permanent sich selbst durchstreichenden und dergestalt sich um den eigenen Erfolg bringenden Vollzugsform -- »ewigen Suche und nie ganz finden können« -- heben die Romantiker indes nicht auf, sondern werten es einfach nur ins Positive um.