here's how i understood schelling's argument stated at the beginning: we can't just flatly posit being because it can only be thought negatively; by analyzing (distilling) what is common to all things. but this is a problem if what we're looking for is the unconditional, because the only way to think about being is conditional on other beings. Therefore the only way to do it positively is by assuming a being that cannot be predicated but can predicate: God. this seems illogical but only because Schelling is asking us to consider that thought precedes the objects of thought. in other words, thought can only think, but cannot be thought.
here's how i understood schelling's argument stated at the beginning: we can't just flatly posit being because it can only be thought negatively; by analyzing (distilling) what is common to all things. but this is a problem if what we're looking for is the unconditional, because the only way to think about being is conditional on other beings. Therefore the only way to do it positively is by assuming a being that cannot be predicated but can predicate: God. this seems illogical but only because Schelling is asking us to consider that thought precedes the objects of thought. in other words, thought can only think, but cannot be thought.
if my understanding is correct, then he just basically united Hegel's science of logic with Kant's transcendental subject.
5:00
Well done helpful analysis