Principles of Philosophy 1

LESSON 8 - SCHELLING ON THE CONDITION FOR ATTAINING THE POINT OF INCEPTION OF PHILOSOPHY ,

SCHELLING ON PHILOSOPHIZING AND ERRANCY

Schelling on the condition for attaining the point of inception of Philosophy

− Luck has the character of something which is given to us, like a gift

− The notions that we have in our common way of thinking of destiny, where do they come from? We have that kind of

notion fundamentally based on the tacit/silent collective awareness that we have of this character of gift of sense (= gift=

pure giving, gracious)

− The unhopeable is this gift, we need to preserve what is unhopeable, we need to hope the unhopeable

− In philosophy we are not talking about things and because of these contradictions do not hold, the domain of the

dimension of how things exist is decided→ we are in a dimension that is prior to that, we are in the domain of “senza

appoggio, ungestützt”

− If we start from something which we take for granted, we are blindly accepting something and build on that→ there must

be a ground that we need to obtain

− Obtaining a ground means that we are moving around in a dimension in which the ground is not already given, obtaining

takes place in a groundless dimension, it’s an abyss

− Surrendering is the highest form of human activity, it requires everything of us, it requires the greatest capacity of

sustaining/suffering (= to sustain, to bear, to bring to existence, ertragen), this renouncing is the precondition to be able

to perceive this point of inception, if you don’t let it speak how can you understand what kind of way of being is

required→ paying attention as a basis of our humanity, be attentive

− Highest form of perceptiveness is art→ there is a need to which we need to response

− Western thought begins when we say that “there is the need to”

− Any kind of thinking has responsive character→ everything that comes to us is responsive (especially when we are

completely creative, we respond to something that we perceive), everything has the nature of a response

− Surrendering is necessary to obtain a point where power is nothing, where power is powerless (power= the competition

to the creation of sense, I can go the power way or the sense way→ Nietzsche builds a basis of sense in terms of power)

− This surrendering and renunciation is required in order to touch the point that disarms power

− It implies offering oneself to this renunciation (Opfer= , to offer ones being), to be used by the point of inception in the

way it needs a human grounding and acceptance

− Rimband: “it is not the wood’s fault if it finds itself to be a violin”→ it is not his choice to be a poet, he must do certain

things to educate himself to be a poet→ the instrument for a voice that is not our voice, the poet is just the instrument

for something that we call nature, love, …

− We can find as human beings, that the fact that we can do something, implies that we must do it→ because we can do

it, we must do it (doesn’t mean constriction, there is no forcing, the result from having to do something is saying yes to

liberty)

− Kant: choosing what binds us, acknowledging something that binds us is freedom, “I can do whatever I want” is a poor

notion of freedom

− Philosophizing requires that we die in the sense of saying yes to our mortality every day

− Dante’s Devine Comedy: “Let go of all hope, you who enter” in front of the Inferno

o can be applicable to the entrance of philosophy but in another sense, there is the risk of a fundamental

misunderstanding, the same sense that is true for the Dante situation applies to the philosophy situation (we

would not get the true relation between the true task of philosophy and hope), but different implication

o In Dante’s setting, there is no hope in the inferno, like a warning

o at the entrance of philosophy, the sentence means that in order to get in you need to let go of all hope

o as long as we are enslaved by hope (we hope to be attached to something), the entrance to philosophy is barred,

we can’t enter and stay outside 15

o the sense of the single words changes, in the case of philosophy you won’t enter

− nobody can be us in our place

− since we know that nobody can be us in our place, sometimes we choose to be everyone and no one, comfort of the

common sense (think, what everyone thinks and see, what everyone sees), it exonerates (taking the weight off of

something) us from having to be ourself which is something that nobody else can do for us, nobody can be for us the

mortal being that we are

− poor= there is nothing that can substitute for what is required in terms of a true manner of being (primary sense, baring,

sustaining)

− “I know that I know nothing”→ reference to Socrates, the foundation of philosophical thinking and therefore of all

scientific thinking

o In ordinary terms, this sentence is a logical contradiction (it can not stand, it is a meaningless sentence)

o in a philosophical sense it is the foundation/pillar of philosophical knowledge (it requires interpretation)

o not knowing anything seems to be very easy, it is not difficult, it doesn’t sound right that through this we can

attain a point of sufficiency

o there is a knowledge that is being claimed→ somebody claims that he has a knowledge, it is a claim concerning

a knowledge, knowledge about the second part of the sentence

o the knowledge that is claimed concerns knowledge of things→ I am stating an ignorance of the knowledge of

things, we have a sense/perception of what a sufficient knowledge is, that brings me to know that my knowledge

is not sufficient because I have a measure of what true knowledge is, my knowledge concerning things is not

sufficient

o the knowledge of knowledge, the knowledge that is the source of all knowledge

o my knowledge of things based on this fundamental insight (I have the knowledge about how it is to know

something)

o how can I begin this effort of trying to build this knowledge of things if I don’t know what constitutes true

knowledge, if I don’t have a sense of (true) knowledge

o stating this knowledge that is a knowledge of knowledge, constitutive of true knowledge

o there is no measure on earth, “es gibt kein Maß auf Erden”

− in philosophy we don’t talk about things that are already constituted, philosophy is at home in the dimension that has to

do with the condition for things to appear (similar to art)

− “Must feel entirely bare and poor, and relinquish everything in order to win everything”

o After relinquish everything, all my previous knowledge about already constituted things (all common-sense

knowledge of things), I have to let go, to relinquish

o I lose everything when my knowledge is at 0

o The way in which we relate to things is some form of knowledge of them, we encounter things based on some

form of understanding (what they are, how they look like, how they smell, …)→ we find us in some

understanding of things and act according to that→ all of this has to go in order to reach the point of sufficiency

o Once the point of inception is reached, we can reconstruct our knowledge, but now a sufficient knowledge that

draws on that source, a knowledge that has the correspondence to that point of inception

o The point of inception gives us orientation and sustains us in building our world

o Losing everything (one knowledge of things), in order to win everything (regain an understanding of things,

having an orientation according to this source of sense)

o Basically you lose the sense of not knowing

→

o Distinction of scientists: completely different form of knowledge

o You can distinguish between philosophical scientists (rare, they keep the philosophical roots) and sophistical

scientists

o We need to relinquish everything in a certain modality, and regain them in a different understanding

− Constant danger that we lose that point of reference

− An image to convey the idea that there is nothing we can hold to, being bear, without external help, a notion of being

exposed

− →

“I am helping thoughts to be born” Ivo is a midwife

Schelling on philosophizing and errancy

− In the context of German Idealism 16

− System= fundamental philosophical position

− It is not a system that they propose, they lack the capacity for errancy (but can’t everything make a mistake?)

− As long as I stay in my comfort zone (nothing needs to be questioned), there is no erring in the sense that philosophizing

implies (of course we can make mistakes also in our comfort zone but no erring with respect to philosophizing, the one

that stays in the safe harbour, no dangers to fear, but there is no philosophizing happening)→ running away from thinking

− The one that ventures out to see, can make mistakes, he can be driven away of his path by a storm

− Philosophize about philosophy→ some sophistical kind of reasoning, pretends to be philosophizing, ways to keep us save

from ever needing to have a thought ourselves

− If the attempt of philosophizing exposes us (prepared to erring), the element in which we move around (in the image is

the open sea) of philosophy is such that we can be mislead

− Something about the element of true philosophizing is such that we can be lead astray, we can lose our way (in the image

because of storms for example)

− Erring is all over the place, at times it’s an insufficiency from our side, but it’s just not us, it’s the very element itself is

tough because it can induce us into error, it can leave us completely alone

LESSON 9 – ON CONTINGENCY

− About a notion that is very important for us to understand because coming to know this notion and what it entails is a

way to understand what philosophy is about→ philosophical thinking is in a sense the way out of this, the liberation from

this

− A notion that on the one hand we can characterize as something that we can find in any humanity and in every epoch,

but on the other hand, its character changes→ its face/colour/modality changes, in every epoch there is a different task

to get out of this notion

− It is a task (in a foundational perspective) that is again and again a task to recognize and diagnose of the peculiar

consistency and modality of what this notion of contingency indicates

− Philosophy begins as a way out from contingency, Greek character, the way out is a Greek one→ the way out of

contingency created our society and tradition

− The diagnosis of contingency contains already what the way out consists in

− As a humanity we are by far not done with finding this way out

− Contingency is what characterizes our entire reality as a whole→ to become aware of the form that it takes in our epoch,

is an unelidable task for everyone