This is a wonderful synthesis of ideas. In many ways Schelling ideas dovetail with Jung, who seems to have synthesized Holderlin, Goethe, Kant, Schelling and Nietzsche.
Genkaku Ishiki, I think one needs to start "out of sequence" with Eliade, Campbell, Evola, Jung, Schelling, Freud, and Peterson, in that order. This kid's only structure thus far, is that of drama, tragedy, and comedy, as the first 9 or 18 "numbers."
It’s amazing how Schelling preceded Jung with his idea of archetypal truths behind myths. Also, the fact that myths come from our nature, from the Absolute in itself.
Thanks for speaking of the other side of the coin. Fortunately, I had an English and drama teacher for five years in high school., Dr. Marion Woodman left the year of my graduation and went on to become an internationally; known Jungian analyst. ( this was way back in 1978). My point is I was schooled in Jung ( Freud, Dostoevsky and Nietzsche) at an early age. Like a fish in water that was my word. Later in college and discussions, I was either not understood or considered one who has missed the boat ( like Nietzsche's ubermensch announcing God is dead to the hermIt) upon speaking of myth, symbols and archetypes. Teachers were looking for things from the mind, existential here and now subjective rather than objective. We form not are formed. ( existence precedes essence) ( Kant-Hegel Descartes- Husserl- Heidegger -Sartre, the modern mountain of thought). Going against this mountain was never easy especially with modern psychology joining siding with them. My thoughts still side with Schelling and Jung. I feel most modern skim the surface lightly flying over it and never getting rooted in understanding it. Modern thinkers like to grasp it in their hand and close it rather than taking one's word for it to be a thing living thing is unknown.
i remember hearing JB Peterson say that Jung talks about how the gods of mythology never really went away, that they went inside humans in the form of values/virtues. something like that. sounds pretty cool.
Three dimensions available to our sense-perception of the exterior and an unyielding desire to contemplate "the self" and "the other" in order to extrapolate insight from that onto "the species". It's like trying to square the circle. Did anyone ever say the square is the circle? Ah! Yes! It was James Joyce! Finnegans Wake springs to mind. I'm of the feeling that π is a close representation of what we face (or what faces us). Three whole numbers representing our sense perception of the exterior, and the irrational, infinite, patternless decimals representative of the human mind trying to make sense of it all. When in truth, it is simply incomprehensible; un-understandable; paradoxical; unknowable; yet somehow "real". Philosophy is, to the best of my mind, ouroboros. A beautiful irony; a tragic folly; a misshapen fruit within the minds eye. To pay attention to the work of others is to simply continue their folly. And this makes me sad, happily. (In that I'm happy that it makes me sad that it appears there is no "knowing" the grander schemes or mechanisms to "life" as it paradoxically reaffirms my resolute "human-ness").
Crazy that three years later I can view this video and be affected by your comment. You may have forgotten you created these small verses, but they hold great meaning and interest to me. Thank you!
@@tommyisapoo Well this comment made my day, thank you. I had indeed forgotten about this comment, youtube is littered with my musings! What a time to be alive! It's cliché to say, but things are only ever cliché because there is some element of truth behind them :)
Why of all your instructors, 0TAT0, did you choose Whitehead and Kant, for your dissertation? It looks to me like a libation to the falsest "gods" yet.
Kant is the guardian of the threshold: his transcendentalism stands in the way of anyone trying to secure knowledge of reality. Seemed to me I needed to show I understood the epistemic limits he put in place before arguing that Whitehead and Schelling showed an alternative route (i.e., aesthetics) back to ontological realism.
Young western people including Christians have no idea of the depths of theology ""myth"" of the eastern and early church, so eager to brush of anything with Christian linings, tiresome, read first,Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the confessor, Pseudo Dionysius, Gregory of Palamas, Lossky, and then talk about discarding Christian "myth" theology...
How in the holy hell of green t-shirt bibbery, is anthony perkins gorgeous grandbaby wearing KantBot like his father wears blue apple RINO paint?! In a word, socialism, as I said.
This is a wonderful synthesis of ideas. In many ways Schelling ideas dovetail with Jung, who seems to have synthesized Holderlin, Goethe, Kant, Schelling and Nietzsche.
Would you consider making a video drawing parallel between [Schelling's or general view of] mythology and Jung's archetypes and his view on myths?
Genkaku Ishiki, I think one needs to start "out of sequence" with Eliade, Campbell, Evola, Jung, Schelling, Freud, and Peterson, in that order. This kid's only structure thus far, is that of drama, tragedy, and comedy, as the first 9 or 18 "numbers."
@@boydjohnston5275 ....Peterson?
@@AlienNation_0 im thinking he's talking about Jordan B. Peterson. He talks about Jung and Nietzsche a lot.
It’s amazing how Schelling preceded Jung with his idea of archetypal truths behind myths. Also, the fact that myths come from our nature, from the Absolute in itself.
Great elucidation. Youngish look, excellent brain. Fantastic
It's horrible that schelling audiobooks don't exist yet
it is unreasonable to draw a parallel between schelling and julian jaynes and his theory of bi-cameral mind and the origin of conscience?
Thanks for speaking of the other side of the coin. Fortunately, I had an English and drama teacher for five years in high school., Dr. Marion Woodman left the year of my graduation and went on to become an internationally; known Jungian analyst. ( this was way back in 1978). My point is I was schooled in Jung ( Freud, Dostoevsky and Nietzsche) at an early age. Like a fish in water that was my word. Later in college and discussions, I was either not understood or considered one who has missed the boat ( like Nietzsche's ubermensch announcing God is dead to the hermIt) upon speaking of myth, symbols and archetypes. Teachers were looking for things from the mind, existential here and now subjective rather than objective. We form not are formed. ( existence precedes essence) ( Kant-Hegel Descartes- Husserl- Heidegger -Sartre, the modern mountain of thought). Going against this mountain was never easy especially with modern psychology joining siding with them. My thoughts still side with Schelling and Jung. I feel most modern skim the surface lightly flying over it and never getting rooted in understanding it. Modern thinkers like to grasp it in their hand and close it rather than taking one's word for it to be a thing living thing is unknown.
Wasn't it precisely Schelling which first said "Existence precedes essence" in one of his speeches? That influenced Kierkegaard and so on?
No, I think that was Sartre. As that is the engine behind existential thinking. Thiughbl don't agree with it that is his perspective!
i remember hearing JB Peterson say that Jung talks about how the gods of mythology never really went away, that they went inside humans in the form of values/virtues. something like that. sounds pretty cool.
It's weird seeing you in HD.
Three dimensions available to our sense-perception of the exterior and an unyielding desire to contemplate "the self" and "the other" in order to extrapolate insight from that onto "the species".
It's like trying to square the circle. Did anyone ever say the square is the circle? Ah! Yes! It was James Joyce! Finnegans Wake springs to mind.
I'm of the feeling that π is a close representation of what we face (or what faces us).
Three whole numbers representing our sense perception of the exterior, and the irrational, infinite, patternless decimals representative of the human mind trying to make sense of it all. When in truth, it is simply incomprehensible; un-understandable; paradoxical; unknowable; yet somehow "real".
Philosophy is, to the best of my mind, ouroboros. A beautiful irony; a tragic folly; a misshapen fruit within the minds eye.
To pay attention to the work of others is to simply continue their folly. And this makes me sad, happily. (In that I'm happy that it makes me sad that it appears there is no "knowing" the grander schemes or mechanisms to "life" as it paradoxically reaffirms my resolute "human-ness").
Crazy that three years later I can view this video and be affected by your comment. You may have forgotten you created these small verses, but they hold great meaning and interest to me. Thank you!
@@tommyisapoo Well this comment made my day, thank you. I had indeed forgotten about this comment, youtube is littered with my musings! What a time to be alive! It's cliché to say, but things are only ever cliché because there is some element of truth behind them :)
You need to have a dialogue with Jordan Peterson.
Sounds like a good time to me.
I second this.
I think there's no point to so much "philosophy" without the mathematical structure.
Unfortunately the audio isn't so good
Why of all your instructors, 0TAT0, did you choose Whitehead and Kant, for your dissertation? It looks to me like a libation to the falsest "gods" yet.
Kant is the guardian of the threshold: his transcendentalism stands in the way of anyone trying to secure knowledge of reality. Seemed to me I needed to show I understood the epistemic limits he put in place before arguing that Whitehead and Schelling showed an alternative route (i.e., aesthetics) back to ontological realism.
Interesting
Myth informs culture and much of myth is masked history. You can quote me.
Young western people including Christians have no idea of the depths of theology ""myth"" of the eastern and early church, so eager to brush of anything with Christian linings, tiresome, read first,Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the confessor, Pseudo Dionysius, Gregory of Palamas, Lossky, and then talk about discarding Christian "myth" theology...
How in the holy hell of green t-shirt bibbery, is anthony perkins gorgeous grandbaby wearing KantBot like his father wears blue apple RINO paint?! In a word, socialism, as I said.