Andres Sanchez

Mysticism played an important role in the works of Schelling, not only after 1806, that is not only after he went to Munich and came into contact with Franz von Baader, but already at the beginning of his literary career in the 1790s. It seems that he already knows Meister Eckhart’s German Sermons in 1795, namely as he writes the Philosophical Letters on Dogmatism and Criticism, because he uses the concepts ‘grundlos’ and ‘unmittelbar’ in a way we also find in Eckhart’s works. The Mystical thought is crucial to understand not only Schelling’s Identity philosophy, but even his reception of Kant, Spinoza and Fichte’s Doctrine of Science. Yet, these conclusions do not show that Eckhart’s mysticism had paved the way for modern thought, but rather that German Idealism means an attempt at redefinition of modernity, which has his roots in mystical thought

Master Eckhart’s metaphysics is an idealistic one: Being is not what there is, but only and exclusively what is truthful, i. e. the normativity which reason sets. Further: What is truthful comes about by negation of what there is, because this is itself nothing, pure negation as such. What is truthful is therefore the negation of negation. This is an idealistic thesis which cannot be described as being thomistic, but rather which corresponds to the metaphysics of German Idealism, especially of Fichte. This essay shows that the thesis that Eckhart was thomistic until his Parisian idealistic turn at the beginning of the 14th century is not correct. It argues that Eckhart’s metaphysics is unambiguously idealistic, i. e. non-thomistic, and that this is also the case in works which he certainly wrote before the Parisian Questions. This applies especially to the Rede der underscheidunge und the Tractatus super oratione dominica.

The author interprets the dialogues belonging to Plato’s first Tetralogy, i. e. Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedo, as a coherent whole, in which the concept of ‘gratuitousness’ plays the leading role. The expression ‘gratuitous’ does not mean here, however, ‘arbitrary’ or ‘as someone likes’ but rather ‘free’, ‘gratis’, ‘for nothing’. Based on such an interpretation the author discusses then the important similarities existing between – on the one hand – Plato’s metaphysics of ‘gratuitousness’ and – on the other hand – Meister Eckhart’s ‘mystics’ and Schelling’s Philosophy of Identity. These three thinkers are all interested in the world as it is not merely for us or for something else – that is not in the world as it merely appears to someone under particular given conditions –, but in the world as it is in itself. However, this distinction between ‘appearances’ and ‘things-in-themselves’ is not to be thought as an epistemological but rather as an ethical or existential one, which is not related to the way how we ‘can know’ the world but rather to the way how we ‘should live’ in it.

Master Eckhart’s metaphysics is an idealistic one: Being is not what there is, but only and exclusively what is truthful, i. e. the normativity which reason sets. Further: What is truthful comes about by negation of what there is, because this is itself nothing, pure negation as such. What is truthful is therefore the negation of negation. This is an idealistic thesis which cannot be described as being thomistic, but rather which corresponds to the metaphysics of German Idealism, especially of Fichte. This essay shows that the thesis that Eckhart was thomistic until his Parisian idealistic turn at the beginning of the 14th century is not correct. It argues that Eckhart’s metaphysics is unambiguously idealistic, i. e. non-thomistic, and that this is also the case in works which he certainly wrote before the Parisian Questions. This applies especially to the Rede der underscheidunge und the Tractatus super oratione dominica.

La metafísica del Maestro Eckhart puede ser comprendida como una metafísica de la libertad, bien que teniendo en cuenta que Eckhart no concibe la libertad como aquello que acontece mediante la realización del ser propio del hombre (esse proprium), sino lo contrario: el ser en sentido propio del hombre (esse proprie) acontece en la medida en que el hombre deja de ser lo que -creaturalmente- era, para dejar ser al ser (en sentido absoluto): en sí mismo (hombre) y en todo lo que le rodea (mundo). Se trata de una concepción característica de toda metafísica idealista, que presenta analogías importantes con los sistemas post-kantianos y frente a la que reaccionó la Bula In agro dominico (1329) desde una posición realista

Proceedings of the conference 'A Clearing _of_ the German Forest: Mysticism, Idealism and Romanticism', with contributions by Jens Halfwassen, Johann Kreuzer, Glenn A. Magee, Christian Danz, et al., concerning the relationship of Fichte, Hegel, Hölderlin and Schelling with the most important German mystics. Akten der Tagung 'Eine Lichtung _des_ deutschen Waldes: Mystik, Idealismus und Romantik', mit Beiträgen von Jens Halfwassen, Johann Kreuzer, Glenn A. Magee, Christian Danz, usw., das Verhältnis von Fichte, Hegel, Hölderlin und Schelling zu den zentralen Autoren der deutschen Mystik betreffend.

Master Eckhart’s metaphysics is an idealistic one: Being is not what there is, but only and exclusively what is truthful, i. e. the normativity which reason sets. Further: What is truthful comes about by negation of what there is, because this is itself nothing, pure negation as such. What is truthful is therefore the negation of negation. This is an idealistic thesis which cannot be described as being thomistic, but rather which corresponds to the metaphysics of German Idealism, especially of Fichte. This essay shows that the thesis that Eckhart was thomistic until his Parisian idealistic turn at the beginning of the 14th century is not correct. It argues that Eckhart’s metaphysics is unambiguously idealistic, i. e. non-thomistic, and that this is also the case in works which he certainly wrote before the Parisian Questions. This applies especially to the Rede der underscheidunge und the Tractatus super oratione dominica.