Talk:Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling

Untitled
The Nuertingen article says: "1783/1784 : Friedrich Hölderlin and Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling are pupils of the Latin school (German: Lateinschule)", but this article does not mention this. Is it just that he went to school in N. later or earlier than the one mentioned here? Or is there a mistake here? --Nevilley 09:07, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Before Bebenhausen Schelling went to the Latin school. And the year is presumablly right. But I am not sure. ASAP I'll fix it. KIZU 03:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks very much. --Nevilley 06:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Schelling's philosophy evil?
I removed the following extremely POV clause:
 * important only as illustrations of the evil qualities in Schelling's nature which deface much of his philosophic work.
 * It sounds like a Randroid wrote it....137.53.241.1 (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh...I didnt realize that this was from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Hm.
 * EB1911 can be pretty POV sometimes. If the view seems worthwhile recording, to preserve neutrality it could be qualified: According to 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, ....  Otherwise, just throw it out. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Death of Auguste
I edited the mention of Auguste Böhmer's death, where the article insinuated that Schelling was partly responsible for her demise. This is more legend than reality and was even contradicted by A.W. Schlegel, who at the time certainly had every motivation to attack Schelling.
 * This is a neglected article. Please do anything you can to improve it. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 00:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was considering rewriting most or all of it. I'm writing a dissertation on Schelling, and the language of this article sounds so archaic because of its source. Andrew Bowie's article on Schelling in the Stanford Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a hundred times better than this one.


 * Great! We lack someone who feels qualified to write on the subject. I would be happy to clean up any rough prose that you would like to add. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Added a sufficient leading paragraph. I'm sort of using the Hegel article (which is also poor in some aspects) for a good sense of how long it should be. I also fixed a particularly horrible linking error in the first part of the "life" section. It said Schelling began reading Fichte, but that link actually went to Fichte's SON, Immanual Hermann Fichte.

Finally, I'm planning on giving poor Schelling his own "philosopher box" that you can see in other philosophers' articles. I will play around with it in testing mode before I submit it, in order to make sure that I do it correctly. 18:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom (Suny Series in Contemporary Continental Philosophy) by Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Von Schelling, Jeff Love, and Johannes Schmidt (Paperback - Jun 2007) Did you miss this recent reference or did I? epicurator 18:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)~


 * Not exactly recent, but as young Schelling, Shellingiana 4 (Timaeusschirft) would be a good reference? Also we have the Bavarian version complete works (KA), whose prefaces may for now give details for his early life, Sadly I have no copy of those at hand now, though. --Aphaia 10:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no agreement for this move Kotniski (talk) 11:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling → — From MoS: "the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph,"Artiquities  (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, the 'von' is a no go, because titles of nobility should not be included in the article name. Second, what is the evidence that "Friedrich Schelling" is used more than "Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling"? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW, .  Skomorokh   20:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there is this on the von side of things: Joseph von Sternberg. My evidence is that Friedrich Schelling was not commonly known--and is not commonly known--by his entire name, e.g., Walter Bendix Schönflies Benjamin, anyone? Other options could be Friedrich W. J. Schelling or F.W.J. Schelling, which is also pretty common. --Artiquities (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We're not talking about Benjamin, we are talking about Schelling. See also Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, which is exactly where it should be, because that's the man's name.
 * My evidence is that Friedrich Schelling was not commonly known--and is not commonly known--by his entire name, e.g., Walter Bendix Schönflies Benjamin, anyone?
 * That's not evidence, that's restating the question. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 23:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if there is an established format for German Idealists, fine. But, re: "the 'von' is a no go, because titles of nobility should not be included in the article name..." I note also Johann Wolfgang von Goethe --hence, I think there is a case for the von. But let's not fall out over this. Overall, my view is that the use of long-form names is off-putting and alienating to casual readers --Artiquities (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Requested moves should be based on evidence. The relevant policy is WP:COMMONNAMES, which the MoS section is a short adjunct to. Off-putting and alienating are not naming convention policy considerations we recognize.
 * "Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling" 46 news; 17,700 books; 1,190 scholar; 0 NYT.
 * "Friedrich von Schelling" 16 news 1,270 books; 460 scholar; 0 NYT.
 * "Friedrich Schelling" 71 news; 7,890 books; 1,590 scholar; 4 NYT.
 * Based on the above, there's some support for just Friedrich Schelling, but given the book results, the current title is the common name, and there's little to recommend the name with von.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Basic work required
Plenty to do here. The underlying EB1911 text is on Wikisource at 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von and I have begun to reference it inline. But I suggest two major steps: first, separate the biography and the writings (the way Britannica interleaves the two is unhelpful); and then try to replace the old text by modern references wherever possible. There is plenty written about Schelling these days. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A Biased Introduction...
"An important factor was the ascendancy of Hegel, whose mature works portray Schelling as a mere footnote in the development of idealism."

Seriously, Schelling was greater than that. In current days he has been drawing the attention of philosophers, historians and anthropologists even more than Hegel. LuizProta (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Schelling's Naturphilosophie also has been attacked by scientists for its analogizing tendency and lack of empirical orientation." - This was another mistake the biased editors made. This proves that. 189.54.145.230 (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a very old thread, but the sentence in the introduction "Interpreting Schelling's philosophy is regarded as difficult because of its evolving nature" strikes me as somewhat biased, or at least opinionated, especially without a source. Toad02 (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)