Schelling’s Critique of Modern Philosophy’s “Impulse toward Spiritualization” in Clara

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall very erudite and clear essay, the main flaw being its novelty. What does this essay add to current scholarship? What is the novel claim/explanation proposed here?

General corrections

-        Some mentions of topics that are beyond the constraint of this essay (Christology, Aristotle) that ar still discussed. Either discuss fully or merely mention, this is handled better in the context of Schelling’s view of History. 

Review of Introduction – please rewrite:

·       A general outline of Clara should be provided before the discussion of the role of the Clergyman is discussed and his relevance defended – this might be better placed in the main part.

·       The introduction is somewhat repetitive, its aim is stated 3-4 times, this should be cut and streamlined

·       Line 70ff – the addition of Christology distracts from the main line of argument, it should be deleted. 

Main text

·       123 – the general nature of Schelling’s thought should be introduced before Clara as one instance of this idea is discussed. This might be better placed in the introduction

·       457 -467 merely repeats what has been discussed before, this could be shortened

·       486 – I do not understand how this claim supports the ‘understandability’ of Steinkamp’s statement

Minor corrections:

Sentence 39ff unclear – is it Schelling’s introduction to Clara, or is it simply a text with a similar title?

Line 59 – references needed

 

166 - rephrase

Author Response

I wanted to thank each of the reviewers for taking the time to review my article and offer critical feedback. I am grateful for their expertise and their assistance in refining my work.

General corrections

• Reviewer: Some mentions of topics that are beyond the constraint of this essay (Christology, Aristotle) that are still discussed. Either discuss fully or merely mention, this is handled better in the context of Schelling’s view of History. 

 

• Response: While I appreciate the concerns of the reviewer, it is worth noting that I was asked to include these elements by the journal’s editor in conjunction with the journal’s theme. Also, the reviewer suggests that these topics be “discussed fully or merely mentioned[ed].” In the essay, the topics are introduced only briefly and with appropriate caveats – neither is suggested as a focal point.

Review of Introduction – please rewrite:

• Reviewer: A general outline of Clara should be provided before the discussion of the role of the Clergyman is discussed and his relevance defended – this might be better placed in the main part.

 

• Response: I’m not sure I understand the reviewer’s concern. If they are asking for a chapter-by-chapter overview of Clara in the introduction to my essay, then I would refer them to Steinkamp’s introduction to the English translation. A general outline feels more appropriate for a translation of the text than a critical analysis of one section of it. Also, I’m not sure how an outline of Clara – beyond the one I provided - necessarily adds to the stated thesis, especially since the introduction of my essay, lines 52-86, clearly draws a connection between Clara’s critique of the clergyman and Schelling’s critique of modern philosophy as he lays out in the introduction to his essay. In other words, the reason for focusing on the clergyman is because he relates directly to Schelling’s stated thesis for the text. Writing in this way gives the reader a clear signpost about what the essay is going to be about, whereas a broad discussion of the whole text might confuse the reader on this point. Also, including a wider summary of the text introduces the other characters who are important to the work, but secondary to my discussion. Certainly, a discussion of the other characters is needed, but this feels like a topic for another essay.

 

• Reviewer: The introduction is somewhat repetitive, its aim is stated 3-4 times, this should be cut and streamline

Response: I appreciate the concern for the reviewer. In returning to the article, I find that, while the aim is repeated, it is done so uniquely each time, with an attempt to make the reader comfortable with Schelling’s terminology.

• Reviewer: Line 70ff – the addition of Christology distracts from the main line of argument, it should be deleted.

 

• Response: See previous comment (1).

Main text

• Reviewer: 123 – the general nature of Schelling’s thought should be introduced before Clara as one instance of this idea is discussed. This might be better placed in the introduction

 

• Response: This would be ideal. However, if the purpose of the introduction is to introduce the thesis of the essay, then including a general introduction of Schelling’s thought would likely distract the reader from the main focus of the essay. Also, contextualizing Schelling’s criticism of modern philosophy in Clara with the rest of his corpus requires more space than an introduction typically allows. The purpose of the essay (i.e. the focus on Clara’s critique of the clergyman) justifies the contextualization in part I. The contextualization

 

• Review: 457 -467 merely repeats what has been discussed before, this could be shortened

 

• Response: If the section mentioned by the reviewer were included in the middle of a section, I would agree. However, since it is the beginning of a new section, I feel it is a helpful reseat for the reader, as a bridge to the next topic.

 

•  
• 486 – Reviewer: I do not understand how this claim supports the ‘understandability’ of Steinkamp’s statement
• Would “justified” be a better word choice?

 

Minor corrections:

Sentence 39ff unclear – is it Schelling’s introduction to Clara, or is it simply a text with a similar title?

Response: The former.

 

Line 59 – references needed

Response: Done

 

166 – rephrase

Response: Done

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See the attached file for comments

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

wanted to thank each of the reviewers for taking the time to review my article and offer critical feedback. I am grateful for their expertise and their assistance in refining my work.

 

Specific comments: In the title, please italicize “Clara”.

Author: Done

 

In the whole body of the article, three different ways of citing pages are used “pg.” “pp” and “Pp” (as in Lone 279 etc). Be consistent. 

Author: Done

 

Line 93: “spirt”- - > “spirit” –

Author: Done

 

Line 94: What does Schelling mean by “love”?  

Author: I realize that “love” is a central concept for Schelling, and so the reviewer’s request for clarification is helpful. I added a footnote to clarify. Much of the footnote addresses the problem of importing Schelling’s definitions from other texts into Clara. Clara herself uses the term “love” informally, so a one-to-one substitution with Schelling’s definition of love in the Freedom Essay is likely problematic. However, I argue that Schelling’s metaphysics allows us to delineate the implicit criticism in her comments to the clergyman.

 

 Section 1: Relate the Author’s main point with Schelling’s key term “potency”. The Author describes the mutual dependency of the spirit and nature (i.e., the mutual dependency of the ideal and the real) as the foundation of his organicism. The spirit is the development, the unfolding of nature as its ground. But it is not a mere effect. It is its form, a guiding principle. Thus, unlike Fichte who achieves and starts with the absolute (the original act of the I) as a point of departure, Schelling obtains truth or reality as a result or an end product made possible by way of the development of nature through stages into spirit. This developmental scheme is famously characterized by the movement of “potencies.” Thus, it would be important to present the author’s point by way of the operation of potencies. As is well-known, the first potency in Schelling’s scheme, is the movement of infinite to the finite. The reverse movement characterizes the second potency. Finally, the third potency alone, which is higher than the other two, unities preceding potencies.

Author: I appreciate the reviewer’s comments on this matter. I debated for a while about whether to include this language in the essay. The reason I chose not to include it initially was because it is not mentioned in Clara and for fear of going of getting too deep into some of Schelling’s other writings – especially the Weltalter. Like the reviewer’s comment about “love,” I would argue that there is reason not to import Schelling’s definitions from other texts into this one, especially given the informal nature of the text. Also, in rereading section 1, much of what the reviewer suggests about “potency” is already mentioned in the text – especially lines 194-214. However, I went ahead added a footnote on “potency” as a point of clarification.

 

Line 510. Something is wrong with the second sentence that begins with “ – the clergyman …” Eliminated period inside quotation

Author: Done

 

Line 695. Perhaps it would be a good idea to introduce section 4 for the purpose of concluding remarks.

Author: Done

 

 

Line 747. There is an unnecessary gap before “2000”.

Author: Done

 

Line 754. There is an unnecessary gap before “Introduction to the Study of …”.

Author: Done

 

Line 758. There is an unnecessary gap before “of Human Freedom”

Author: Done

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very nicely written piece that does exactly what it sets out to do clearly, precisely and persuasively. It would be an asset to any journal that publishes it. I have three suggestions:

1) The lack of knowledge of the German and French scholarship on Clara is surprising and really reduces the value of the article. Roux's volume Etudes sur Clara is absolutely essential and covers a lot of the same material as this essay.

2) The constant reference to Schelling's "organicism" needs far more justification, considering the powerful critique of the organicist readings of Schelling recently found in Grant and others. The organism is sometimes invoked by Schelling in his metaphysics, but is itself a potentiation of prior natural models that are more fundamental, it seems to me.

3) I would have loved to have seen the author move beyond the clergyman material to the later chapters of Clara to trace in more detail how the later parts of the dialogue are a sustained response to the clergyman's provocation.

Author Response

I wanted to thank each of the reviewers for taking the time to review my article and offer critical feedback. I am grateful for their expertise and their assistance in refining my work.

 

This is a very nicely written piece that does exactly what it sets out to do clearly, precisely and persuasively. It would be an asset to any journal that publishes it. I have three suggestions:

1) The lack of knowledge of the German and French scholarship on Clara is surprising and really reduces the value of the article. Roux's volume Etudes sur Clara is absolutely essential and covers a lot of the same material as this essay.

Response: Much appreciated. I have gone ahead and footnoted the collection (see footnote 1).

2) The constant reference to Schelling's "organicism" needs far more justification, considering the powerful critique of the organicist readings of Schelling recently found in Grant and others. The organism is sometimes invoked by Schelling in his metaphysics, but is itself a potentiation of prior natural models that are more fundamental, it seems to me.

Response: I appreciate the reviewer’s comments on this matter, which is why I have included a footnote (#5) to address it. I am assuming that the reviewer is referencing Iain Hamilton Grant’s Philosophies of Nature After Schelling. Schelling’s organicism is indeed a topic of debate. However, Grant’s position is typically viewed as a more radical interpretation of Schelling’s Naturphilosophie. Likewise, the secondary literature on Grant’s critique appears to disagree on the extent to which Grant’s work rejects Schelling’s organicism See Joseph Lawrence’s review of Grant’s project here: On an Artificial Earth: Philosophies of Nature after Schelling | Reviews | Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews | University of Notre Dame (nd.edu) The point of that section of the essay is to provide the reader sufficient context to understand the themes at stake in the dialogue. Also, since Clara is typically associated with Schelling’s middle period, in giving context for the work, I elected to focus on texts of that era.

3) I would have loved to have seen the author move beyond the clergyman material to the later chapters of Clara to trace in more detail how the later parts of the dialogue are a sustained response to the clergyman's provocation.

Response: I completely agree with the reviewer that other sections of the dialogue need more attention. However, given that the essay is already over 10,000 words, this feels like a concern for a book length project more so than for this essay. I have future articles planned for some of the other figures in the text. The goal of my essay is to align the opening chapter of Clara with Schelling’s stated intention for the novella in the introduction.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf