The one thing that rests on nothing
Everything we know rests on conditions; can anything rest on nothing at all? Schelling's wager is that one unconditioned point must ground the whole of knowledge, or nothing truly does.
Kant had left philosophy a system without a foundation stone, and the decade after him searched for the single principle to hold it up. Schelling's candidate is the absolute I, not the everyday self that wakes and remembers but a pure self-positing freedom that presupposes nothing beyond itself. Because it posits its own being, it alone escapes the regress of conditions. He builds this against Spinoza's substance, which makes the ground an object the self merely belongs to; for the twenty-year-old Schelling the unconditioned can only be a subject, an act, never a thing among things.
- absolute
- subjectivity
- epistemology
- metaphysics
- idealism
- ontology
- totality
- freedom
- necessity
Enter a dialogue
- Someone wants their deepest convictions to rest on something that cannot be pulled out from under them. What does an unconditioned first principle offer that a proof cannot?
- Isn't the demand for one thing that rests on nothing a craving philosophy ought to outgrow rather than satisfy?
- How does the absolute I in this book differ from the ordinary self that wakes, remembers and forgets?
- What must a person be willing to treat as merely conditioned before they can reach the one thing you say is not?
- You set the absolute against Spinoza's substance here. Why can the ground of all knowing never itself be an object?