Schelling on the Symbolic Relationship between Art and Ethics and the Role of the Symbol in the Quest for System Unity

2014 Volume 2 Issue 3 18 28 ISSN 2305-6991 BCSSS Schelling on the Symbolic Relationship between Art and Ethics and the Role of the Symbol in the Quest for System Unity Kyriaki Goudeli University of Patras, Greece, e-mail: kgoudeli@upatras.gr, tel: +30 210 8628876 Abstract: The paper addresses the question of the possibility of systemic knowledge my means of the symbol. The point of departure of such a possibility consists in the paradigmatic case of Kant s insight of treating Beauty as a symbol of Morality. The relatively infelicitous results of Kant s conception of the symbols, leads us to the examination of the role and the significance of the symbol in Schelling s thought. In the latter, we encounter a promising and fertile understanding of the symbol, through the explication of Schelling s obscure notion of the symbol as the indifference between the universal and the particular within the particular. This conception is identified in two paradigmatic cases, that is, in the Greek gods of ancient Greek mythology, and in the work of art, and indeed, my means of the exceptional mode of its production, which allows a particular to represent the universal. Through the above approach, we find out that the symbol could be the mediator between finitude and infinity, and thereby it can play an instrumental role to the possibility of systematic knowledge. Key words: symbol, exemplary particular, ethics vs. morality, circle of consciousness, battle between unconscious and consciousness. Acknowledgement: My special thanks to Professor Rainer Zimmermann for his continuous and generous support of my work. This article is available from http://www.systema-journal.org the author(s), publisher and licensee Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science http://www.bcsss.org This is an open access article licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Systema: connecting Matter, Life, Culture and Technology

1. Introduction 1.1 Kant on the symbolic representation of morality by means of beauty In the context of Reason s architectonic and the claims for unity, Kant suggests the interesting insight that Beauty stands as a symbol for Morality. In fact, Kant s thought has been the culmination of modernity s main tendency on divisions, departmentalization and fragmentation, and yet, the claim for systematic unity has always been a major solicitation, only though, to remain in the unattainable realm of Reason s regulative and canonical demands. In the Critique of Judgment, the highest Kantian synthetic work, Kant attempts to unite what he himself divided, that is, knowledge from action, nature from freedom, and the reconciliation in question seems to be found in the aesthetic claims that constitute the ultimate bridge between the realms of division. In this context, Kant postulates the insightful claim on the symbolic relationship between beauty and morality. By way of introducing the thematic of symbolism as a significant operator for unity, let us examine, succinctly and then in some more detail, the significance, the validity and the paradoxes of Kant s interesting insight. In order to understand his thesis, we first need to examine the notion of the symbolic in the Kantian account, since what Kant suggests is an intuitive and not a conceptual relationship. This is well anticipated and consistent with the main feature of the aesthetic judgment, that is, the lack of any concept in the reflective judgment as opposed to the determinant one, in the Critique of Pure Reason, which would subsume the specific particular object of intuition under its abstract universality. In the aesthetic judgment, according to Kant, we judge a singularity as beautiful, when it is considered beyond its real existence, beyond any purposive concept, or any intellectual categories, but only, on the basis of the subjective principle of the purposiveness without purpose, according to which we feel, subjectively, a distinctive enlivenment of our mental faculties, by virtue of the free play between creative imagination and understating. In a parallel modality, in the moral realm, there is no concept of the understanding applicable to our action, but only the idea of the moral law, which only Reason can think of. Hence, the relationship of the aesthetic judgment to morality cannot ever be at the conceptual level, but only at the intuitive, and here is where the particular function of the symbol enters. Kant, rightly, distinguishes the symbol from mere marks, or signs, as well as, from the schema. In the first case, the marks are but mere designations of concepts, and as Carl Jung also notes, signs always denote something less, than what the concepts suggest, in abbreviation 1. Similarly, symbols are not schemas, for, in the intuition of the schema, the concept already exists a priori, and the schema is but the intuitive mode that enables the universal, i.e. the concept, to be mediatedby the intuition of time- in order to be applicable to the object of cognition in question. On the contrary, the symbol is a particular mode of intuition to which no concept as such exists a 1 Carl J., Man and his Symbols, p.48 19

priori, but a concept is supplied with an intuition (symbol) whose concept agrees only with the rule of reflection of the object that stands in the symbolic relationship. Schemata contain direct, symbols indirect presentation of the concept. Schemata effect this presentation demonstratively, symbols by the aid of analogy, in which analogy judgment performs a double function: first in applying the concept to the object of sensible intuition, and then, secondly, in applying the mere rule of its reflection upon the intuition to quite another object, of which the former is the symbol. In this way the monarchical state is represented as a living body when it is governed by constitutional laws, but as a mere machine, (like a hand-mill), when is governed by an individual absolute will; but in both cases the representation is merely symbolic 2. Hence, in the symbolic, the main feature is the analogous rule of reflection, which applies to both the concept of the object- which constitutes the symbol- and the idea of the object, which is symbolically represented. According to the above mentioned account of the symbol therefore, beauty is a symbol of morality, since to the intuition of beauty (symbol) analogous rules of reflection correspond, as those which follow from the moral law, though the differences in this analogy are significant and, to my view, exceed the similarities. According to Kant, the rule of the free play between imagination and understanding is analogous to the idea of freedom of the moral law, though it is not clear enough how this comparison works, since the quality of freedom is significantly different: in the moral realm there is the rigorous feeling of the unconditioned respect for the moral law, combined with the suppression of any natural inclination, while in the aesthetic realm, the sensation of freedom that occurs via the free play between imagination and understanding, signifies the feeling of an internal enlivenment of our vital forces and the free harmony in our mental faculties, contrariwise to the subjugation of the will under the pure practical duty. Accordingly, in the free play of our mental faculties, there is the feeling of pleasure, as opposed to the feeling of internal discipline that should occur if an action is meant to be moral. Perhaps, the most successful analogy is that of the claim for universality that in both cases hold. However, the most significant qualification, that we would like to raise as regards the use of the symbolic, refers to the core of the notion that Kant applies to the symbolic, which, in way, anticipates the infelicitous results of this otherwise insightful claim; that is, that the role of the symbol is, effectively, restricted to the sphere of the rule of reflection, that is, to the sphere of the rational, the conscious and the understanding, dismissing the unconscious aspects of symbolism and, thereby, the bond, not only with the depths of non-conscious perceptions, but mainly, the bond with nature itself and its primordial, vast history. Accordingly, in the Kantian symbolic relationship between beauty and morality, we reach to the infelicitous result of the ultimate absorption of beauty from morality rather than to the fertility that the symbolic relationship between them promises. Hence, we will pass to test the validity of a similar claim made by Schelling, whereby an inextricably intertwined relationship between aesthetics, ethics and knowledge is achieved, through a complicated interaction between knowledge beauty and action, which, in fact, corresponds to the divided Kantian realms. 2 Kant, Immanuel, The Critique of Judgement, Clarendon Press-Oxford, 1991, p.222. 20

2. Schelling on the symbolism of art 2.1 Symbolism in the Philosophy of Art If in Kant the symbol proves to be an ambivalent and fragile link to the system, in Schelling the role of the symbol becomes systemic itself. Art is symbolic through and through, as it condenses beauty, truth and goodness at once. The treatment of art, as all objects of philosophical investigation according to Schelling, acquires its scientific meaning only when one finds its specific position in the whole: to construe art means to determine its position in the universe 3! To find its position in the universe, means, in other words, to find art s position in the whole, in the absolute. The latter is considered as the absolute All, which is the self-affirming reality, where selfknowledge and self-production coincide, and this is called God or Eternal nature, infinite self-affirmed reality. The continuous act of self-affirmation is conceived as the infinite activity, where the ideal potency preponderates, while the affirmed one, is the activity where the real potency preponderates; everything is constituted by the syntheses, in various degrees, emerging from the interaction of the two antithetical and self-nourishing activities, whereas, in the absolute, these activities coincide in a indifferent way. In other words, the ideal activity corresponds to knowledge and light, the real one to action and matter, and art is construed as the synthesis of knowledge and action: for art is not mere knowledge, but it is rather activity completely permeated by knowledge, or in reverse fashion knowledge that has become completely activity; that is the indifference of both 4. One, so far, could argue that this level of construction of art is all too general, since the mutual interpenetration of knowledge and action could hold for techne (τέχνη) at large, in the Aristotelian sense. However, Schelling, here, does not mean any kind of interpenetration of knowledge and action, but a specific type of interpenetration, which constructs the beautiful and art par excellence. This kind is the symbolic one; the position of art in the universe, this special point of coincidence of knowledge and action is found to be symbolic. What is then Schelling s account of the symbolic, and in what sense art consist in the symbol of ethics and knowledge? According to Schelling, the symbol is the representation of the absolute, with absolute indifference of the universal and the particular, within the particular 5. Hence, the symbol is a specific particular, a special form that transpires the absolute in a way that is itself indifferent to the universal or the particular, which implies that the particular form could also be a universal and the universal could also be the particular. The most stunning and successful form of this type of indifference occurs, according to Schelling, in the case of the Greek gods, which are the works of art of the universe par excellence and constitute the very first expression and condition of art-making in the history of humanity (poesie). The Greek gods of ancient Greek mythology stand for the particular forms that they can take up in their own the entire essence of the absolute within themselves, or they stand for the special form of the absolute in limitation, a paradoxical, yet, real combination, since every god in his/her limitation, and by virtue of his limitation, compresses within himself/herself the whole of divinity that transpires by virtue of their form, 3 Schelling, F.W,J., The Philosophy of Art, University of Minnesota Press, 1989, p.23. 4 Op. cit., p.28. 5 Op. cit., p.45. 21

as splendor, strength and infinite grace. Each god is a monad as a whole universe, and yet it is by means of their limitation, their specific form, that they succeed in this representation. The idea of the beauty proceeds, precisely, from this special combination, where the uniqueness of the form condenses infinity, and hence, the particular (the specific form) and the universal (the whole of divinity) are in a mutual indifferent, equivalent relationship. Therefore, the symbolic is not merely the particular that stands for the universal (this is the allegoric, for example a fine gem stands for abundance), neither the universal, which is represented applicable to a particular (this is the schematic, for example the concept of causality that is impressed on the succession of time), but the synthesis of both: the universal is, simultaneously, the particular, and this requires a special form (this is precisely the form of beauty), that can take up on its own the entire essence of infinity. These specific, magical forms can be generated only when the whole nature cooperates in their production. We will see this process in more detail later, when we will examine the production of the work of art in the System of Transcendental Idealism (STI), by means of the productive intuition. Here, we point to the significance that Schelling stresses, as far the beautiful is concerned, with regard to the process of the separation of forms from the original chaos. There cannot be beauty if there is no process of scissions, that is, of the ordering of the undifferentiated whole by means of time-conditioned scissions And inversely, it is only because these forms have emerged from chaos, i. e. from the undifferentiated whole that retain universality within their limitation, since the process of separation and individuation incorporated the whole in its specific form. The equivalent of the work of art in nature is the organism, only that the organic work of nature represents the same indifference in an unseparated state that the work of art represents after separation yet as indifference 6. The process of separation is, though, a process of generation and production, where, one initial relative form generates, through struggle, violence and genius, the next one, which, somehow, incorporates the former, and the mythological cosmotheogonic images of successive emaciations and violent struggles (Uranos, Kronos, Zeus) represent but this process of separation of forms out of initial darkness and formlessness. The Greek gods exist in various forms as an organic whole, where all forms alternate and coexist without exclusions and annihilation. In fact, to annihilate a god/dess would amount to mutilate a significant part of the richness of the universe and the psychic wealth of humanity at once. The gods, also, are not considered to be neither moral nor immoral, but, they are rather blessed, they exceed all conventional moral normative standards since they act according to their beyond good and evil nature. It is rather the strength of their nature, grace and splendor that justifies all their actions that coexist in the indissoluble stream of their vitality, and the inexhaustible source of their magnificent beauty that dissolves every so called moral monstrosity in the eternal ocean of divine jest and play, along with the alternation of numinous strength and stunning luminosity: every encounter with common reality or with concepts of that reality necessarily destroys the fascination and charm of these beings.morality, like sickness and death, only plagues mortals, and within mortals it can express itself in relationship to the gods only as rebellion against them 7. 6 Op.cit., p.30. 7 Op. cit., pp.41, 55. 22

The symbolic form of gods, represents, thus, an infinite meaning, which only, partially, can be decodified by Reason. The symbol, as such, transcends not only its immediate and direct connotations of the specific form- as opposed to mere signs that say less than a concept- but also, opens up a horizon of an inexhaustible, hidden and even, ultimately, unknowable meaning and variety of interpretations that are handed down by the abyss of the nature and the past of unknown generative routes. As such, the symbol exceeds morality, as it points far beyond deontological canons, and yet, it transpires a strong ethical connotation 8. For, the universality of the particular means that there is no ontological fragmentation in the universe, that every particular is ontologically, inevitably connected with every other particular and, thereby, every particular action exerts its infinitesimal or major influence on the whole. Moreover, in the world of the beauty, every form assumes its singularity, though organically and strongly connected to the whole, yet independent to such an extent of integrity and self-sufficiency that does not need to exclude or annihilate any other forms; on the contrary the diversity, the alternation and the variety of difference is condition of the beauty. The symbol thus, becomes an important and irreplaceable mediator of unity and wholeness, since it mediates between the unknown infinite meaning on the one hand, and the intuitive-reflexive finitude on the other, providing thus systematic unity in an, otherwise, infinite totality. The symbol mediates between the realms of an inaccessible and hidden infinity, through a special intuition that transcends its limitations, by virtue of its particular form, a special intuition that possesses a unique and inexplicable power to represent the absolute. If in the Philosophy of Art, this power has been ascribed to the genius of the poetic imagination that could mediate through the divine beings the immemorial cosmogonic history, the violent splits and the divine grace that burst through them, in the System of Transcendental Idealism, Schelling repeats the story of the human self as part and imitator itself of the cosmic drama. The symbol here, as we will see, is again the work of art, again a special finitude, a special intuition that condenses, in a unique modality, the power to transpire- by virtue of its production and uniqueness- the infinity of personal, natural and reflexive history of humanity. The symbol, more particularly, now, is the mediator between the unconsciousness, both of the universal unconscious of nature itself and the specific unconscious of the body of the artist on the one hand, and the reflexive consciousness both of humanity and the artist, on the other hand. The symbol is, again, the mediator between an infinite and unknown realm and a conscious activity, providing, thus, an elusive systematic unity between nature and reason, history and nature, consciousness and unconsciousness. 2.2 The unity of symbolic mediation in the System of Transcendental Idealism What is, however, the distinct feature that provides the particular form of the symbol its unique and mysterious power to represent the absolute? What is in Schelling s account that 8 Here, we point effectively, to the significant distinction that Schelling introduces between morality and ethics that Hegel as well claims. Schelling moves beyond the normativity of subjective moralism, with the sequent judgmental subjectivism to the necessity of the ontology of ethics. 23

differentiates the symbol from a mere analogy to the rule of reflection, and endows it with the power of the mediator of infinite totality? In the previous section, we implicitly addressed this question and the finding has been discovered by means of the immemorial cosmic prehistory and history that could be transformed by virtue of poetic imagination into the symbols of mythology. In the STI, we can detect a much fuller and sophisticated account that, succinctly put, claims that the specific power of the finitude of the symbol derives from the very mode of its production: a special and infinite production that crystallizes itself into the special product of the work of art. The STI is an extremely rich, original and highly influential text that addresses the relationship of the finitude of the self with the absolute and the history of the human consciousness at large, in its meeting point with the history of the cosmos itself. Here, we will approach this monumental work, which can be read as a philosophy of nature, a philosophy of consciousness, a philosophy of art and a philosophy of history, to mention the least, selectively, from the viewpoint of the specific focus of our thematic. In fact, Schelling does not even mention the symbolic role of art in this work, but as will be easily seen, the very mode of production of the artwork, the role of the latter as mediator of the absolute and its elusive and inscrutable, though luminous, transparency, stand, by all means, for the operator of the symbol. 2.3 On the possibility of systematic knowledge in the STI In the STI, Schelling seeks a first principle for knowledge proper, assuming that our knowledge is itself a systematic, that is, a self-supporting, self-grounded and internally consistent- with- itself whole. In this assumption, though, the skeptic question intrudes: But what would it be like if even our knowledge, and indeed the whole of Nature was internally self-contradictory? Let us then assume merely, that our knowledge is a primordial whole, of which the system of philosophy is to be an outline 9 Besides, this systematic whole cannot be a merely subjective unity: If all knowledge rests upon the coincidence of an objective with a subjective, the whole of knowledge consist of propositions which are immediately true, which derive their reality from something else. The mere putting together of a subjective with a subjective gives no basis for knowledge proper. And conversely, knowledge proper presupposes a concurrence of opposites, whose concurrence can only be a mediated one 10. Hence, from the above abstracts we can conclude that the very assumption of a systematic knowledge, presupposes itself a unifying factor, an original unity, which corresponds to the sought after systematic knowledge. We have, clearly, met this unifying factor in the case of merely subjective or intersubjective knowledge in the Kantian unity of the apperception and the original identity of the ego, or in the Fichtean intellectual intuition. However, if this unity is not meant to be merely subjective, this requires the assumption of a primordial unity of the self with the cosmos, and indeed, a unity of a wholeness, whose knowledge could be systematic. Indeed, if there is a fragmented and self-contradictory reality, such as the Cartesian daemon suggests, the cosmos could not ever be cognizable; accordingly, if there is the assumption of a radical ontological dualism between man and the cosmos, then again, our knowledge could never penetrate the depths of nature and would 9 F.W.J. Schelling, System of Transcendental Idealism, University Press of Virginia, 1997, p.19. 10 Op.cit., p.20. 24

retain only a phenomenal kantian intersubjective validity. The possibility, therefore, of a systematic knowledge proper presupposes the assumption that the cosmos consists itself in a unified whole and, moreover, that the self has ontological affinity with it, and in fact, it is part of it: a Spinozian move that Schelling elaborated in the most sophisticated possible form, the potentiated form between matter and spirit. In this sense, the principle of knowledge is the same with the principle of being and originates in the very whole, whose knowledge we seek. Hence, when Schelling claims that the primordial unity of Knowledge and Being rests in the immediate self-creation of the coincidence of the subjective and the objective of the primordial self-consciousness, by no means he suggests the subjective Kantian self-consciousness of the Fichtean intellectual intuition, but instead, the original totality of reality, the Absolute, the Gottheit, which eternally produces and knows itself. The ontological affinity of the self with the All consists in, precisely, the assumption that the self is conceived in similar terms of ontological activity, that is, the self itself is, continuously, self -constituted by the same polar potencies, though in a differentiated potentiated manner to that which holds for reality; moreover and more importantly, the coincidence of opposites does not occur in the celebrated action of self-consciousness, where Fichte saw the coincidence of the subjective self-positing of the self with the equally subjective of counterpositing of the not-self. On the contrary, Schelling claims a spectacular break with the illusions of knowledge proper with subjectivisms, by a radical break with subjective idealism and the claims of traditional self-consciousness. Schelling provides us with a spectacular break with the circle of self-consciousness, by means of the theory of productive intuition and the deduction of the unconsciousness and matter, in the heart of the odyssey of selfconsciousness. Self-consciousness is the lamp of the whole system of knowledge, but it casts its light ahead only, not behind 11 But what rests behind? And, how this behind could provide systematicity and unity in our knowledge proper? In order to approach Schelling s sophisticated account of these critical questions, we need to see closer the break with the circle of self-consciousness, whereby, an original, entirely new type of systematicity is established, a symbolic one, by means of the instrumental role of a new kind of productivity. The notion of the self in no longer exhausted into mere mental faculties, and indeed, the latter being considered as opposed to Nature. Instead, the self, which is not identical to the self-conscious ego, is considered in terms of real, ontological, material and spiritual at once forces, activities, potencies: if we free ourselves from all representations, so as to achieve an original self-awareness there arises not the proposition I think but the proposition I am. It is an infinite proposition, since it is one that has no actual predicate, though for that very reason it is the locus of an infinity of possible predicates 12, which are, precisely, the infinite history of all forms of historical, pre-historical, conscious and unconscious activity of the human Geist. The self is conceived as constituted by a continuous producing and self-producing out of two polar, oppositional but self-intertwined and eternally synthesized potencies: the self is an urge to produce, an impulse to create and to know the world, a spring for self-creation and self- knowledge, and this is called the infinite outreaching activity, the real, the objective 11 Op.cit., p.18. 12 Op.cit., p.26. 25

activity; but simultaneously, the self is a self-reverting reflexive activity, a self-limiting activity, which reflects back to itself so that to gather its products, and this is again an infinite inwards activity, the ideal one. The self is, thus, at once, infinite and limited, as an infinitely selflimiting producing, and it is infinite, precisely, because it is continuously self-limited; for the self, continuously, oversteps the boundary of its limitation, and it continuously produces, exactly, because it has always renewed its boundaries. 2.4 The break with the circle of self-consciousness and the deduction of the unconscious We will endeavor to briefly capture the originality of Schelling s insight of productive intuition in the first epoch- the first series of limitations-, in the preliminary, but fundamental experience of sensation, whereby Schelling, with one stroke, as it were, refutes both the impasses of dogmatic empiricism and Fichtean idealism. We will get an insight thereby into the deduction of the unconscious itself and the possibility of an enlarged artistic creativity, which results in a new type of holistic knowledge, by means of its symbolic nature. Hence, let us follow the first and fundamental epoch of the history of the self, through its primal and elementary encounter with the world, that is, the stage of sensation. The self, according to the dogmatic empiricists, finds itself in a cognitive impasse in this encounter, because the self, in this dogmatic context, is conceived only as passive, as receiver of primary or secondary qualities of, otherwise, bodies of unknown and unknowable substance. The impasse of empiricism is easily refuted by idealism, since the self cannot even be a passive receptor, if it has not an already preliminary sensing capacity, in other words, an activity to receive the data in the first place. On the other side, with a Fichtean-like idealist response, we enter into the circle of self-consciousness; for, if the external world is equally a not-self, whereby the self becomes conscious of itself, how does the limitation, in the first place, arise? Inversely, how and why the original positing of identical self-consciousness is posited after all, if there is a not- self that threatens as alien the absolute and original identity of the self? Schelling proceeds with his extraordinary solution, which not only introduces the finitude of the self, but also, deduces the infinite unconscious activity. As we have seen, the self is taken as a synthesis of two real oppositional activities. The real activity consists of the outreaching creative producing, the urge outwards, with which the self merges with the world, the centrifugal outward energy, as it were. The selfreverting activity, consists of the return of the self to the center and the beginning of selfconsciousness. In this outwards real activity, it is firstly that the self discovers a limit, and this discovery of its own activity is precisely the sensed object, something that the self feels as alien to itself. The limit therefore, exists, because, the self has been active in the first place and it could never encounter it if it was not active enough to meet it; besides, in a second instance, the self, by acknowledging the limit, through its self-reverting activity, it, immediately, creates a special field of polar movement whereby, on the one hand, it appropriates the limit, and, on the other, it considers it as limit. Already, here, we have the creation of a new space of freedom, whereby the limit dilates and oversteps the initial boundary. This is a magic sphere, where a peculiar production of freedom is newly arisen and creates the first germs of the productive intuition. In this creative oscillation, the self has, already, overstepped the boundary, and, at the same time, the thing is no longer the initial restricted thing, but the self has already interacted with it, in a new space of a germane 26

mutual recognition. The limit however, is called limit, it is a new boundary to be overstepped again and ad infinitum. The most important though, is that the self recognizes the limit and calls it the sensed object, but the self does not know that it is its own limit, by virtue of its own activity (for example, another being with other sensing abilities, would set elsewhere the limit, or it could even see through and through in the case of a pure energy and transparent intelligence) The self calls this limit, this specific production, matter or any sensed object, in other words, self-consciousness gives a name to the new born product, and its lamp throws its light ahead. However, what is left behind is this, precisely, unaware activity, which is the self s activity, but, not realized and left behind: this is the unconscious activity, and infinitely productive activity that falls behind and below the threshold of consciousness, but, itself creates its own objects. In the first epoch of the STI, the unconscious activity is preponderant and we are in the sphere of nature and the unconscious, in the second epoch, the reflexive activity is preponderant, even split off from the unconsciousness and we are in the sphere of abstract reflection and absolute freedom of the will, as spheres of illusionary freedoms. Our critical point is the third sphere, the sphere of the artistic production, where there is the possibility of an extraordinary coincidence of the unconscious activity with the conscious one, and indeed a consciousness of this coincidence. This is not attained, neither in the unconscious nor in the consciousness, but, in an objective third, where the oscillating magic field, which we mentioned above, crystallizes into a third exceptional object, the work of art. This special object, now, has the extremely dense quality to crystallize, to condense, in its form, both the history of forgotten, forbidden, unaware, activity and the history of the conscious activity. In fact, it is a product that encapsulates an indefinite battle, a creative and fertile contradiction between these two activities, which none of them manages to appropriate it, but, it bursts out free from both of them, in the form of a work of art. This product thus, in this particular finite form, contains an infinite meaning, by means of the way of its creation; it transpires an infinite battle and a history that has been exhausted and consumed in this particular form. The work of art, as such then, may be considered as a symbol, that unites the infinite realms of the unconsciousness and the conscious and, it may bring unity in the self and moreover, by virtue of this unity, a special differentiation and individuality of the human personality as well. This process of unification and individuation, though, entails a highly ethical meaning. 3. Concluding speculations: On Schelling s system theory So far, we have, to some extent, established the critical role of the symbol as a mediator of the whole and, hence, as a critical factor for unified and systematic knowledge. Accordingly, we may extend this conclusion to a more generalized finding, that is, if our knowledge is meant to be systematic, this particular knowledge, this particular system is itself a symbol of the whole-such as the romantic fragments or meaningful aphorismsprovided, that this knowledge is the productive outcome of a fertile battle between the conscious and the unconscious and not the product of abstract and disconnected intellection. The artistic production proved to be the most privileged sphere for this type of production, where the coincidence of an objective-the product, the work of art with a subjective the synthesis of consciousness and the unconscious- occurs with an unexpected, but fully meaningful manner. 27

Schelling, in the Philosophical Inquiries into the Nature of Human Freedom, uses the symbol of the circle and its center in order to speak about good, evil and freedom. The symbol of the circle has traditionally been a symbol for plenum, internal plerosis and divine serenity. For Schelling, this symbol denotes the relationship between the will-to-love, which should always be in the centre, and the individual will in the periphery. This is a systematic depiction of the relationship that these two wills would hold, in the case of a harmonious and good-willed balance in any being 13. However, within Schelling s system the idea of the willto- freedom is predominant. In the case of the human species, this will can be autonomized to such an extent that to break this harmonious and dynamic balance. The self-will can become as strong as to break the circle and to endeavor to be itself in the center, expelling to the periphery the will-to-love. In this case, the center becomes an isolated and overpowerful point outside of an empty periphery: this is the victory of evil, the destruction of the circle, the celebration of an utter catastrophe. The system holds true, but there is none to support it! References Hammermeister, K. (2002). The German Aesthetic Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jung C. (1978). Man and his Symbols. London: Picador. Cassirer, E. (1979). Symbol, Myth and Culture: Essays and Lectures 1935-1945. New Haven: Yale University Press. Kant, I. (1991). The Critique of Judgment. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Schelling, F.W.J. (1989). The Philosophy of Art. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press. Schelling, F.W.J. (1997). System of Transcendental Idealism. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Schelling, F.W.J. (1992). Philosophical Inquiries into the Nature of Human Freedom. Le Salle, Illinois: Open Court Classics. Wirth, J. (2003). The Conspiracy of Life. Albany: SUNY. About the Author Kyriaki Goudeli Kyriaki Goudeli is Assistant Professor of Philosophy in the Philosophy Department, University of Patras. She is the author of the monograph Challenges to German Idealism: Schelling, Fichte and Kant (Palgrave, 2002), as well as, of many articles, most of them on Schelling s philosophy. Her interests include Philosophy of Nature, German Aesthetics, Metaphysics and Ontology. 13 F.W.J. Schelling, Philosophical Inquiries into the Nature of Human Freedom, Open Court, 1992, p.43, footnote. 28