Talk:Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling

message: The Nuertingen article says: "1783/1784 : Friedrich Hölderlin and Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling are pupils of the Latin school (German: Lateinschule)", but this article does not mention this. Is it just that he went to school in N. later or earlier than the one mentioned here? Or is there a mistake here? --Nevilley 09:07, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks very much. --Nevilley 06:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I removed the following extremely POV clause:
:important only as illustrations of the evil qualities in Schelling's nature which deface much of his philosophic work.
::It sounds like a Randroid wrote it....137.53.241.1 (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: EB1911 can be pretty POV sometimes.  If the view seems worthwhile recording, to preserve neutrality it could be qualified: According to 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, ....  Otherwise, just throw it out. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schelling's philosophy evil? 

message: I edited the mention of Auguste Böhmer's death, where the article insinuated that Schelling was partly responsible for her demise.  This is more legend than reality and was even contradicted by A.W. Schlegel, who at the time certainly had every motivation to attack Schelling.
:This is a neglected article. Please do anything you can to improve it. — goethean ॐ 00:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! We lack someone who feels qualified to write on the subject. I would be happy to clean up any rough prose that you would like to add. — goethean ॐ 16:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Not exactly recent, but as young Schelling, Shellingiana 4 (Timaeusschirft) would be a good reference? Also we have the Bavarian version complete works (KA), whose prefaces may for now give details for his early life, Sadly I have no copy of those at hand now, though. --Aphaia 10:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of Auguste 

message: Plenty to do here. The underlying EB1911 text is on Wikisource at s:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von and I have begun to reference it inline. But I suggest two major steps: first, separate the biography and the writings (the way Britannica interleaves the two is unhelpful); and then try to replace the old text by modern references wherever possible. There is plenty written about Schelling these days. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic work required 

message: "An important factor was the ascendancy of Hegel, whose mature works portray Schelling as a mere footnote in the development of idealism." 
Seriously, Schelling was greater than that. In current days he has been drawing the attention of philosophers, historians and anthropologists even more than Hegel. LuizProta (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "Schelling's Naturphilosophie also has been attacked by scientists for its analogizing tendency and lack of empirical orientation." - This was another mistake the biased editors made. This"Schelling’s philosophy of nature was the first and, at the same time, the last successful attempt to give answers to certain important questions of Physics, which were experimentally proved many years later (…) This becomes evident with subsequent Louis de Broglie’s hypothesis concerning the association between light’s corpuscles and vibration (and thus between this and waves)." proves that. 189.54.145.230 (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be a very old thread, but the sentence in the introduction "Interpreting Schelling's philosophy is regarded as difficult because of its evolving nature" strikes me as somewhat biased, or at least opinionated, especially without a source. Toad02 (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Biased Introduction...