Another useless and uninteresting remark in the spirit of issuing "Because I-say-so-isms" about historical figures and their works unfollowed by evidence. (Yes, I probably should use smilies more often, as on this occasion, but there's just something cheesy about the equivalent of banging on a gong to indicate a degree of facetiousness).It's one thing to copy and paste, another to understand.
What, you're suggesting an outside source to decide this rather than advising that we just fall into deep reflective meditiation here until a "fact" or an accepted classification about/of Schelling oozes inferentially from our theorizing arses?"Schelling claimed that the ideas or mental images in the mind are identical to the extended objects which are external to the mind. Schelling's 'absolute identity' or 'indifferentism' asserted that there is no difference between the subjective and the objective, that is, the ideal and the real." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_idealism
Not really the same as objective idealism is it?
In contrast to Berkeley's subjective idealism was objective idealism. Objective idealism is the view that the world out there is Mind communicating with our human minds. It is formulated by the three German successors of Kant. These were F.W.J. Schelling (aesthetic idealism), J.G. Fichte (moral idealism), and G.W.F. Hegel (dialectical idealism). Differences between subjective and objective idealism were not always clear-cut, however. For instance, Fichte's idealism was later called subjective in contrast to Schelling's objective variety, while Hegel's became known as absolute idealism. The term Objective Idealism was only sometimes used by Schelling, while the term Subjective Idealism was used by both, Schelling and Hegel, to put their own ideas in contrast to Fichte's position. http://www.philosophos.com/knowledge_ba ... ns_12.html
That, despite OI being used an umbrella term for all three varieities. On Fichte specifically:
The [Fichte's] doctrine is objective idealism. The Wissenschaftslehre, taken in connection with Fichte’s letter to Jacobi (1795) and his review of Schultz’s Aenesidemus in the Literatur-Zeitung for 1794, clearly teaches that the absolute Ego, or God, is objective, i.e., has existence beyond the finite Egos of which he is the underlying principle. Some of the historians of philosophy, notably Pfleiderer, have represented Fichte’s view at this period as subjective idealism. This is due, I think, to a misapprehension of Fichte’s method. --From The Philosophical Review, vol. 4 (1895), pp. 143-153. http://www.philosophyarchive.com/index. ... ion_of_God
Now someone might ask, Why the devil isn't Berkeley classified as being an Objective Idealist, since he also had a God outside mortal minds "perceiving" reality when they weren't? In regard to this, from the archive at http://www.philosophos.com again:
While Schelling's Objective idealism remained insignificant, the objective idealist with most influence is probably G. W. F. Hegel. Hegel agreed with Berkeley, that there is no such thing as matter in the materialist's sense, and that spirit is the essence and whole of reality. But he objected to the idea that God is separated from the world. Therefore reality is not God and the minds that God creates, but a single, absolute, all-inclusive mind, which Hegel referred to as "The Absolute Spirit" or simply "The Absolute". The Absolute Spirit is all of reality, no time, space, relation or event ever exists or occurs outside of the Absolute. As the Absolute also contains all possibilities in itself, it is not static, but constantly changing and progressing.
Too bad you didn't highlight that with neon-lights as an error on my part, because it was a grammatical one. I intended "panpsychic", not a person classification ("panpsychist"). Etymologically it is obviously "all" (pan-) and "mind" (psyche), with no global dualism or double-aspect conjoinings of mental and matter to be derived from such simplicity. Panpsychic is as fitting an adjective as any for designating a doctrine as concerning a "world-mind" or whatever related OI speculations. That "panpsychism" can feature the condition of a material universe with all its entities having mental attributes is an accidental add-on from individual philosophies; that is, panpsychic the adjective as used here does not refer to such panpsychism doctrines.So you've done your homework.
What is panpsychist?