The Death-Defying Leap from Nihilism to Transcendence. F.H. Jacobi's Idea of Transcendence

Tilburg University

The Death-Defying Leap from Nihilism to Transcendence. F.H. Jacobi's Idea of

Transcendence

Jonkers, P.H.A.I.

Published in:

Looking Beyond? Shifting Views of Transcendence in Philosophy, Theology, Art, and Politics

Publication date:

2012

Document Version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal

Citation for published version (APA):

Jonkers, P. H. A. I. (2012). The Death-Defying Leap from Nihilism to Transcendence. F.H. Jacobi's Idea of Transcendence. In W. Stoker, & W. L. van der Merwe (Eds.), Looking Beyond? Shifting Views of Transcendence in Philosophy, Theology, Art, and Politics (pp. 31-46). (Currents of Encounter; No. 42). Rodopi.

General rights

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain

• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

Take down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

TheȱDeathȬDefyingȱLeapȱ

fromȱNihilismȱtoȱTranscendenceȱ

ȱ

F.H.ȱJacobi’sȱIdeaȱofȱTranscendenceȱ

ȱ ȱ PeterȱJonkersȱ ȱ ȱ Introductionȱ InȱthisȱessayȱIȱwantȱtoȱexamineȱaȱhistoricalȱexampleȱofȱtheȱclashȱ betweenȱ immanentȱ transcendenceȱ (includingȱ radicalȱ immanȬ ence)ȱandȱradicalȱtranscendence.ȱItsȱconcreteȱsettingȱwasȱaȱserȬ iesȱofȱcontroversiesȱthatȱtookȱplaceȱinȱGermanyȱaroundȱ1800,ȱinȬ volvingȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ prominentȱ Germanȱ philosophers,ȱ suchȱasȱMendelssohn,ȱKant,ȱFichte,ȱandȱHegel.ȱTheyȱcausedȱanȱ enormousȱ stirȱ amongȱ theȱ intellectualȱ circlesȱ ofȱ thatȱ time1ȱ andȱ

considerablyȱ reinforcedȱ theȱ alreadyȱ existingȱ suspicionȱ againstȱ philosophy’sȱ capacityȱ toȱ thinkȱ Godȱ orȱ theȱ absoluteȱ alongȱ theȱ linesȱofȱimmanentȱtranscendence.ȱInȱparticular,ȱphilosophyȱwasȱ accusedȱofȱannihilatingȱGod’sȱtranscendence,ȱandȱeventuallyȱofȱ bringingȱaboutȱtheȱdeathȱofȱGod.ȱInȱsum,ȱtheȱinterpretationȱofȱ immanentȱtranscendenceȱinȱmodernȱphilosophyȱwasȱsuspectedȱ ofȱbeingȱnothingȱbutȱradicalȱimmanenceȱinȱdisguise;ȱifȱpressedȱ hard,ȱitȱcouldȱeventuallyȱbeȱunmaskedȱasȱnihilism,ȱaȱtermȱthatȱ wasȱintroducedȱintoȱtheȱphilosophicalȱdebateȱforȱtheȱfirstȱtimeȱ inȱtheȱwakeȱofȱthisȱclash.ȱ TheȱkeyȱfigureȱinȱallȱtheseȱcontroversiesȱwasȱF.H.ȱJacobi,ȱaȱ selfȬtrainedȱ philosopherȱ who,ȱ probablyȱ preciselyȱ becauseȱ heȱ

1ȱGoethe,ȱreferringȱinȱhisȱDichtungȱundȱWahrheitȱtoȱtheȱpantheismȬ

wasȱanȱoutsiderȱonȱtheȱphilosophicalȱscene,ȱwasȱableȱtoȱrevealȱaȱ fatalȱflawȱatȱtheȱheartȱofȱmodernȱphilosophy.ȱInȱhisȱview,ȱitsȱulȬ timateȱgoalȱisȱtoȱdevelopȱaȱpurelyȱimmanentȱ“philosophyȱofȱoneȱ piece”ȱthatȱaimsȱatȱdeducingȱeverything,ȱincludingȱGodȱorȱtheȱ absolute,ȱfromȱanȱimmanentȱlogicalȱprinciple.ȱByȱdoingȱso,ȱitȱreȬ ducesȱ Godȱ toȱ aȱ momentȱ ofȱ thinking,ȱ therebyȱ annihilatingȱ hisȱ transcendence.ȱBecauseȱofȱthisȱtendency,ȱJacobiȱrejectsȱmodernȱ philosophyȱasȱatheisticȱandȱasȱleadingȱinevitablyȱtoȱnihilism.ȱ

However,ȱitȱisȱworthwhileȱtoȱanalyzeȱtheȱdebateȱbetweenȱ Jacobiȱ andȱ hisȱ contemporariesȱ notȱ onlyȱ forȱ historicalȱ reasons,ȱ butȱalsoȱforȱsystematicȱones.ȱFirstȱofȱall,ȱtheȱconceptȱofȱimmanȬ entȱtranscendenceȱhasȱbeenȱaȱtraditionalȱparadigmȱforȱthinkingȱ theȱrelationȱbetweenȱtheȱimmanentȱworldȱandȱtheȱtranscendentȱ God.2ȱ Whileȱ medievalȱ thinking,ȱ whichȱ wasȱ embeddedȱ inȱ anȱ

overarchingȱreligiousȱframework,ȱmanagedȱtoȱkeepȱtheȱobviousȱ tensionȱ thatȱ inheredȱ inȱ theȱ veryȱ conceptȱ ofȱ immanentȱ transȬ cendenceȱinȱbalance,ȱitȱfellȱapartȱinȱmodernȱphilosophy,ȱresultȬ ingȱ inȱ aȱ completeȱ dichotomyȱ betweenȱ radicalȱ immanence,ȱ whichȱwasȱtheȱdomainȱofȱrationalȱ(philosophicalȱandȱscientific)ȱ reason,ȱandȱradicalȱtranscendence,ȱwhichȱcouldȱonlyȱbeȱintuitedȱ byȱ aȱ subjectiveȱ faith.ȱ Henceȱ Jacobi’sȱ fundamentalȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ radicalȱ immanenceȱ foreshadowsȱ theȱ majorȱ transformationsȱ ofȱ theȱconceptȱofȱtranscendenceȱasȱdevelopedȱbyȱotherȱphilosophȬ iesȱ inȱ theȱ nineteenthȱ centuryȱ andȱ especiallyȱ theȱ twentieth.ȱ Inȱ particular,ȱKierkegaard’sȱideaȱofȱradicalȱtranscendenceȱisȱclearlyȱ inspiredȱ byȱ Jacobi’sȱ philosophy,ȱ andȱ variousȱ contemporaryȱ interpretationsȱ ofȱ radicalȱ transcendenceȱ andȱ transcendenceȱ asȱ alterityȱ(e.g.ȱasȱdevelopedȱbyȱBarth,ȱLevinas,ȱMarion,ȱDerrida,ȱ Deleuze,ȱ andȱ others)ȱ alsoȱ criticizeȱ theȱ modernȱ shapeȱ ofȱ imȬ manentȱtranscendenceȱinȱaȱveinȱsimilarȱtoȱthatȱofȱJacobi,ȱwithȬ out,ȱhowever,ȱbeingȱdirectlyȱinfluencedȱbyȱhisȱthinking.ȱSecond,ȱ Jacobiȱ notȱ onlyȱ criticizesȱ theȱ modernȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ immaȬ nentȱtranscendenceȱbutȱalsoȱoffersȱanȱinterestingȱalternativeȱthatȱ hasȱbecomeȱtheȱobjectȱofȱinȬdepthȱresearchȱonlyȱrecently.ȱTradiȬ tionally,ȱ underȱ theȱ influenceȱ ofȱ Hegel’sȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ Jacobiȱ inȱ

Faithȱ andȱ Knowledgeȱ andȱ otherȱ moreȱ recentȱ interpretations,ȱ JaȬ

2ȱCf.ȱessayȱtoȱthisȱvolumeȱbyȱWesselȱStoker,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱcontriȬ

cobi’sȱ attemptȱ toȱ thinkȱ radicalȱ transcendenceȱ philosophicallyȱ hasȱalwaysȱbeenȱframedȱasȱirrationalȱandȱhenceȱhisȱphilosophyȱ inȱgeneralȱasȱoneȱofȱsubjectiveȱfeeling.ȱHowever,ȱasȱIȱwillȱshowȱ below,ȱthisȱinterpretationȱisȱerroneous.3ȱAȱmoreȱadequateȱinterȬ pretationȱofȱthisȱaspectȱofȱJacobi’sȱphilosophyȱshowsȱthatȱitȱisȱaȱ continuationȱofȱaȱlineȱofȱthoughtȱsetȱoutȱbyȱPlatoȱandȱconsistsȱofȱ anȱimmediate,ȱintellectualȱawarenessȱofȱradicalȱtranscendence,ȱ whichȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ elucidatedȱ butȱ neverȱ demonstratedȱ byȱ reason.ȱ

InȱtheȱnextȱsectionȱIȱwillȱanalyzeȱJacobi’sȱcritiqueȱofȱphiloȬ sophy’sȱ annihilationȱ ofȱ transcendenceȱ asȱ heȱ developsȱ itȱ inȱ theȱ wakeȱofȱtwoȱimportantȱcontroversiesȱinȱwhichȱheȱwasȱinvolved,ȱ viz.ȱtheȱpantheismȱcontroversyȱofȱ1785ȱandȱtheȱatheismȱcontroȬ versyȱofȱ1799.ȱThenȱIȱwillȱexamineȱhisȱattemptȱtoȱfreeȱhimselfȱ fromȱtheȱnihilismȱthatȱresultsȱfromȱmodernȱphilosophyȱbyȱperȬ formingȱaȱdeathȬdefyingȱleap,ȱasȱwellȱasȱhisȱprojectȱtoȱthinkȱradȬ icalȱtranscendenceȱphilosophically.ȱȱ Understanding’sȱPropensityȱtoȱAnnihilateȱallȱTranscendenceȱ Jacobiȱdefinesȱunderstandingȱinȱgeneralȱasȱ“aȱfacultyȱofȱreflecȬ tionȱonȱsenseȱintuitions,ȱaȱfacultyȱofȱdividingȱandȱreȬunitingȱinȱ concepts,ȱ judgements,ȱ andȱ conclusions”ȱ (JWAȱ 2:ȱ 205).4ȱ Itȱ canȱ

onlyȱ conceptuallyȱ reflectȱ onȱ butȱ neverȱ actuallyȱ perceiveȱ reality.ȱ Onlyȱthroughȱtheȱsensesȱdoȱweȱperceiveȱsensoryȱreality,ȱwhereȬ asȱourȱawarenessȱofȱtheȱsupersensibleȱisȱtheȱresultȱofȱanȱintelȬ lectualȱintuitionȱthatȱheȱfirstȱcallsȱfaithȱandȱinȱhisȱlaterȱwritingsȱ reason,ȱasȱweȱshallȱseeȱinȱmoreȱdetailȱinȱtheȱnextȱsection.ȱHence,ȱ inȱcomparisonȱtoȱtheȱimmediacyȱofȱsensoryȱperceptionȱandȱinȬ tellectualȱintuition,ȱunderstandingȱisȱsecondary.ȱNevertheless,ȱitȱ isȱnotȱonlyȱusefulȱbutȱevenȱindispensableȱforȱhumansȱasȱnatural,ȱ conditionalȱ beingsȱ forȱ keepingȱ themselvesȱ alive.ȱ Inȱ particular,ȱ throughȱ itsȱ capacitiesȱ ofȱ abstractionȱ andȱ reȬunificationȱ underȬ standingȱ producesȱ experienceȬbasedȱ concepts,ȱ suchȱ asȱ reality,ȱ

3ȱ Forȱ aȱ detailedȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ thisȱ lineȱ ofȱ interpretation,ȱ cf.ȱ SandȬ

kaulenȱ2000:ȱ38,ȱfootnote.ȱ

4ȱIȱwillȱreferȱtoȱJacobi’sȱworksȱasȱJWA,ȱfollowedȱbyȱtheȱnumberȱofȱ

substance,ȱsuccession,ȱetc.,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱpropositionsȱandȱconȬ clusionsȱderivedȱfromȱthem.ȱThisȱenablesȱtheȱhumanȱbeingȱ“toȱ examineȱ whatȱ isȱ stableȱ inȱ theȱ instabilityȱ ofȱ natureȱ thatȱ surȬ roundsȱandȱpervadesȱhim”ȱ(JWAȱ1:ȱ248).ȱHence,ȱtheȱcontentȱofȱ understandingȱ stemsȱ fromȱ theȱ perceptionȱ ofȱ aȱ givenȱ reality,ȱ whereasȱitsȱformȱisȱofȱitsȱownȱmaking.ȱAsȱaȱconceptualȱactivityȱȱ philosophyȱ[receives]ȱitsȱformȱfromȱunderstandingȱalone,ȱasȱ theȱgeneralȱfacultyȱofȱconcepts.ȱWithoutȱconceptsȱ…ȱaȱtrueȱ appropriationȱofȱanyȱtruthȱwhatsoeverȱisȱimpossible.ȱConȬ versely,ȱtheȱproperȱcontentȱofȱphilosophyȱisȱgivenȱbyȱreasonȱ aloneȱ[atȱleastȱasȱfarȱasȱtheȱintuitionȱofȱtheȱsupersensibleȱisȱ concerned].ȱ Reasonȱ producesȱ noȱ concepts,ȱ buildsȱ noȱ sysȬ tems,ȱ formsȱ noȱjudgementsȱbut,ȱjustȱ likeȱ theȱexternalȱ senses,ȱ onlyȱreveals,ȱproclaimsȱpositively.ȱ(JWAȱ2:ȱ401f.)ȱ

Obviously,ȱasȱregardsȱtheȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱtheȱcontentȱandȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ ourȱ knowledge,ȱ Jacobiȱ isȱ clearlyȱ dependentȱ onȱ Kant’sȱ famousȱ distinction,ȱ but,ȱ unlikeȱ Kant,ȱ heȱ definesȱ reasonȱ asȱ anȱ immediate,ȱ intellectualȱ intuitionȱ ofȱ somethingȱ realȱ thatȱ henceȱprecedesȱunderstanding.ȱThisȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱindispensaȬ bilityȱ ofȱ understandingȱ forȱ ourȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ theȱ sensoryȱ asȱ wellȱasȱofȱtheȱsupersensibleȱrealityȱshowsȱthatȱitȱisȱcompletelyȱ erroneousȱtoȱtakeȱJacobiȱasȱaȱmisologist,ȱwhoȱwouldȱrepudiateȱ understandingȱandȱreplaceȱitȱbyȱanȱirrationalȱfaith.ȱInȱhisȱownȱ words,ȱ thisȱ nicknameȱ isȱ “theȱ worstȱ thatȱ aȱ philosopherȱ canȱ beȱ called”ȱ(JWAȱ2:ȱ387ȱfootnote).ȱ

creation,ȱandȱweȱdoȱnotȱunderstandȱwhatȱcannotȱbeȱcreatedȱ inȱ thisȱ way.ȱ Ourȱ philosophicalȱ understandingȱ doesȱ notȱ reachȱbeyondȱitsȱownȱproducingȱactivity.ȱ(JWAȱ1:ȱ249)ȱ

Consequently,ȱtheȱbalanceȱbetweenȱtheȱformȱandȱtheȱconȬ tentȱofȱourȱknowledgeȱisȱdisturbed,ȱleadingȱtoȱaȱreversalȱofȱtheȱ hierarchyȱbetweenȱobjectsȱandȱwordsȱorȱconcepts:ȱfromȱnowȱon:ȱ thingsȱ haveȱ toȱ conformȱ themselvesȱ toȱ concepts,ȱ insteadȱ ofȱ theȱ otherȱwayȱround,ȱtherebyȱobviouslyȱcriticizingȱKant’sȱCopernicȬ anȱrevolution.ȱEventually,ȱthisȱleadsȱtoȱaȱcompletelyȱimmanentȱ philosophyȱthatȱannihilatesȱallȱtranscendence,ȱincludingȱGodȱasȱ anȱextraȬmentalȱreality,ȱandȱwhoseȱfinalȱaimȱitȱisȱtoȱbecomeȱlikeȱ GodȱinȱHisȱcreatingȱactivity.ȱJacobi’sȱaimȱthroughȱhisȱinvolveȬ mentȱinȱtheȱtwoȱcontroversies,ȱexaminedȱbelow,ȱwasȱtoȱuncoverȱ thisȱ nihilisticȱ tendencyȱ byȱ theȱ analysisȱ ofȱ twoȱ veryȱ influentialȱ schoolsȱ ofȱ modernȱ philosophy,ȱ viz.ȱ preȬKantianȱ metaphysicsȱ andȱ(postȬ)Kantianȱidealism.ȱ

TheȱPantheismȱControversyȱ

TheȱimmediateȱcauseȱofȱtheȱpantheismȱcontroversyȱwasȱJacobi’sȱ publicationȱofȱhisȱcorrespondenceȱwithȱMendelssohnȱinȱ1785ȱonȱ Spinoza’sȱ philosophyȱ (Überȱ dieȱ Lehreȱ desȱ Spinozaȱ inȱ Briefenȱ anȱ

HerrnȱMosesȱMendelssohn).ȱHeȱinformedȱMendelssohn,ȱwhoȱwasȱ

proponentsȱofȱtheȱEnlightenmentȱreactedȱsoȱvigorouslyȱinȱvariȬ ousȱnewspapersȱandȱjournalsȱtoȱJacobi’sȱpublicationȱofȱtheȱSpinȬ

ozaȱLetters.5ȱ

InȱorderȱtoȱsetȱforthȱJacobi’sȱargument,ȱIȱwillȱstartȱwithȱaȱ famousȱquoteȱfromȱhisȱSpinozaȱLetters:ȱ

Lessing:ȱ …ȱ Theȱ orthodoxȱ conceptsȱ ofȱ theȱ Divinityȱ areȱ noȱ longerȱforȱme;ȱIȱcannotȱstomachȱthem.ȱHenȱkaiȱpan!ȱIȱknowȱ ofȱ nothingȱ else.ȱ …ȱ I:ȱ Thenȱ youȱ mustȱ beȱ prettyȱ muchȱ inȱ agreementȱwithȱSpinoza.ȱLessing:ȱIfȱIȱhaveȱtoȱnameȱmyselfȱ afterȱanyone,ȱIȱknowȱofȱnothingȱelse.ȱ(JWAȱ1:ȱ16)6ȱ

Thisȱremark,ȱwhichȱJacobiȱputȱintoȱLessing’sȱmouthȱinȱorderȱtoȱ highlightȱtheȱlatter’sȱdoubtsȱaboutȱtheȱtraditionalȱChristianȱconȬ ceptȱofȱGodȱandȱhisȱassentȱwithȱSpinoza’sȱconceptionȱofȱGodȱasȱ anȱ allȬencompassingȱ substance,ȱ wentȱ rightȱ toȱ theȱ heartȱ ofȱ theȱ ongoingȱ debateȱ onȱ theȱ religiousȱ orthodoxyȱ ofȱ Enlightenmentȱ philosophy.ȱJacobi,ȱhowever,ȱwasȱnotȱprimarilyȱconcernedȱwithȱ ChristianȱorthodoxyȱbutȱwithȱtheȱdevastatingȱeffectsȱofȱunderȬ standingȱ onȱ humankindȱ andȱ societyȱ inȱ general.ȱ Heȱ considersȱ theȱexpressionȱhenȱkaiȱpanȱ(“oneȱandȱall”),ȱ“theȱhighestȱconceptȱ inȱtheȱunderstanding”ȱ(JWAȱ3:ȱ132),ȱtoȱbeȱtheȱkeyȱtermȱforȱillusȬ tratingȱitsȱgeneralȱdriveȱtowardsȱselfȬsufficiency.ȱHence,ȱthisȱexȬ pressionȱdoesȱnotȱonlyȱserveȱasȱaȱdescriptionȱofȱSpinoza’sȱsubȬ stanceȱbutȱalsoȱasȱaȱshortcutȱforȱtheȱ“spiritȱofȱSpinozism”ȱthatȱ Jacobiȱ thinksȱ toȱ beȱ presentȱ inȱ modernȱ philosophyȱ asȱ aȱ wholeȱ andȱespeciallyȱinȱ(postȬ)Kantianȱidealism.7ȱHeȱdefinesȱitȱinȱtheȱ followingȱway:ȱȱ 5 ȱForȱanȱoverviewȱofȱtheȱenormousȱphilosophicalȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱ pantheismȱcontroversy,ȱcf.ȱChristȱ1988:ȱ140,ȱn.ȱ263.ȱ 6ȱTheȱexpressionȱhenȱkaiȱpanȱ(“oneȱandȱall”)ȱcanȱbeȱconsideredȱtoȱ beȱtheȱparadigmaticȱphrasingȱofȱtheȱconceptȱofȱimmanentȱtranscendȬ enceȱ inȱ modernȱ philosophy.ȱ Itȱ wasȱ ofȱ vitalȱ importanceȱ forȱ notȱ onlyȱ JacobiȱbutȱalsoȱHegel,ȱHölderlin,ȱandȱSchelling,ȱalbeitȱforȱtotallyȱdifȬ ferentȱreasons.ȱForȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱthisȱconcept,ȱcf.ȱJonkersȱ2007:ȱ110Ȭ 15.ȱ

7ȱ Itȱ isȱ noteworthyȱ thatȱ Jacobiȱ explicitlyȱ refersȱ toȱ someȱ passagesȱ

Theȱ finiteȱ isȱ inȱ theȱ infinite,ȱ soȱ thatȱ theȱ sumȱ ofȱ allȱ finiteȱ things,ȱequallyȱcontainingȱwithinȱitselfȱtheȱwholeȱofȱeternityȱ atȱ everyȱ moment,ȱ pastȱ andȱ future,ȱ isȱ oneȱ andȱ theȱ sameȱ asȱ theȱinfiniteȱthingȱitself.…ȱThisȱsumȱisȱnotȱanȱabsurdȱcombinȬ ationȱofȱfiniteȱthings,ȱtogetherȱconstitutingȱanȱinfinite,ȱbutȱaȱ wholeȱinȱtheȱstrictestȱsense,ȱwhoseȱpartsȱareȱonlyȱwithinȱitȱ andȱ accordingȱ toȱ it,ȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ thoughtȱ withinȱ itȱ andȱ acȬ cordingȱtoȱit.ȱ(JWAȱ1:ȱ95f.)ȱ

Thisȱshowsȱthatȱtheȱ“oneȱandȱall”ȱisȱanȱinternallyȱdifferentiatedȱ infiniteȱunity,ȱencompassingȱallȱtheȱfinite.ȱTheȱconsequencesȱofȱ thisȱinterpretationȱofȱrealityȱasȱaȱwholeȱareȱdramatic.ȱFirst,ȱpreȬ ciselyȱbecauseȱthisȱinfiniteȱsubstanceȱisȱaȱwholeȱinȱtheȱstrictestȱ sense,ȱ itȱ alwaysȱ prevailsȱ overȱ theȱ finite,ȱ individualȱ things,ȱ soȱ thatȱ theȱ multiplicityȱ ofȱ finiteȱ thingsȱ doesȱ notȱ haveȱ anyȱ autoȬ nomyȱwithȱregardȱtoȱtheȱinfiniteȱsubstance.ȱEvenȱmoreȱso,ȱ“inȬ dividualȱthingsȱ…ȱareȱnonȬentia;ȱtheȱindeterminateȱinfiniteȱbeingȱ isȱ theȱ oneȱ singleȱ trueȱ ensȱ reale,ȱ hocȱ est,ȱ estȱ omneȱ esse,ȱ &ȱ praeterȱ

quodȱnullumȱ daturȱ esse”ȱ (JWAȱ 1:ȱ 100).ȱ ForȱJacobi,ȱ theȱ“oneȱandȱ

all”ȱisȱtheȱclearestȱillustrationȱofȱunderstanding’sȱpropensityȱtoȱ unifyȱtheȱrealȱvarietyȱandȱindividualityȱofȱrealityȱbyȱsubsumingȱ itȱunderȱaȱlimitedȱnumberȱofȱabstractȱconcepts.ȱMoreover,ȱthisȱ “oneȱ andȱ all”ȱ cannotȱ haveȱ anyȱ realȱ consequenceȱ orȱ durationȱ andȱhenceȱnoȱcomingȱintoȱbeingȱandȱperishingȱorȱchangeȱeither,ȱ sinceȱitȱpresupposesȱthatȱeverythingȱinȱitȱisȱsimultaneous,ȱthatȱ theȱrealȱeffectȱcoincidesȱwithȱtheȱtotalityȱofȱitsȱrealȱcause,ȱwhichȱ impliesȱthatȱitȱmakesȱnoȱsenseȱtoȱspeakȱaboutȱbeginningȱorȱend.ȱ Hence,ȱ“consequenceȱandȱdurationȱmustȱinȱtruthȱonlyȱbeȱaȱcerȬ tainȱwayȱofȱintuitingȱtheȱmanifoldȱinȱtheȱinfinite”ȱ(JWAȱ1:ȱ20)ȱ butȱwithoutȱanyȱreality.ȱ

Second,ȱ throughȱ hisȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ phraseȱ henȱ kaiȱ pan,ȱ Jacobiȱdrawsȱtheȱattentionȱofȱhisȱreadersȱtoȱsomeȱdramaticȱbutȱ inevitableȱconsequencesȱregardingȱGod’sȱtranscendenceȱandȱhisȱ personhood.ȱ Becauseȱ theȱ “oneȱ andȱ all”ȱ includesȱ everythingȱ fromȱeternityȱinȱitself,ȱwhoeverȱacceptsȱitȱasȱtheȱbasicȱontologȬ icalȱprincipleȱhasȱtoȱpositȱ

Hence,ȱtheȱ”oneȱandȱall”ȱinevitablyȱleadsȱtoȱmaterialism,ȱdeterȬ minism,ȱandȱfatalismȱasȱregardsȱbothȱtheȱinfiniteȱsubstanceȱandȱ finiteȱ beings.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ aspectȱ becomesȱ apparentȱ inȱ Spinoza’sȱ theoryȱofȱtheȱfirstȱcause:ȱ

Theȱfirstȱcauseȱcannotȱactȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱintentionsȱorȱ finalȱcauses;ȱitȱcannotȱhaveȱanȱinitialȱgroundȱorȱaȱfinalȱendȱ forȱperformingȱsomething,ȱanyȱmoreȱthanȱthatȱitȱcanȱinȱitselfȱ haveȱaȱbeginningȱorȱend.ȱ(JWAȱ1:ȱ19f.)ȱ

Theȱ secondȱ aspectȱ isȱ anȱ inevitableȱ consequenceȱ ofȱ theȱ first:ȱ ifȱ theȱ“oneȱandȱall”ȱisȱtheȱbasicȱontologicalȱprinciple,ȱitȱbecomesȱ impossibleȱtoȱthinkȱtheȱhumanȱpersonȱasȱaȱspiritual,ȱselfȬdeterȬ mining,ȱfreeȱbeingȱwhoȱactsȱtoȱrealizeȱcertainȱends;ȱheȱcanȱonlyȱ beȱ conceivedȱ ofȱ asȱ aȱ corporealȱ being,ȱ withȱ naturalȱ drivesȱ andȱ mechanicalȱwaysȱofȱbehaviour.ȱ Ifȱthereȱareȱonlyȱefficient,ȱbutȱnoȱfinalȱcauses,ȱthenȱtheȱonlyȱ functionȱthatȱtheȱfacultyȱofȱthoughtȱhasȱinȱtheȱwholeȱofȱnaȬ tureȱisȱthatȱofȱobserver;ȱitsȱproperȱbusinessȱisȱtoȱaccompanyȱ theȱmechanismȱofȱtheȱefficientȱcauses.ȱTheȱconversationȱthatȱ weȱareȱnowȱhavingȱtogetherȱisȱonlyȱanȱaffairȱofȱourȱbodies.ȱ (JWAȱ1:ȱ20f.)ȱ WhenȱweȱfocusȱonȱtheȱconsequencesȱofȱtheȱpantheismȱconȬ troversyȱ forȱ theȱ questionȱ ifȱ philosophyȱ isȱ capableȱ ofȱ thinkingȱ God’sȱ transcendence,ȱ itȱ isȱ obviousȱ that,ȱ forȱ Jacobi,ȱ Spinoza’sȱ “oneȱandȱall”ȱisȱanȱexampleȱofȱitsȱannihilation,ȱimplyingȱthatȱitȱ isȱidenticalȱtoȱatheism.ȱButȱbecauseȱJacobiȱisȱconvincedȱthatȱtheȱ spiritȱofȱSpinoza’sȱphilosophyȱformulatesȱtheȱveryȱprincipleȱofȱ understandingȱinȱgeneral,ȱthisȱqualificationȱappliesȱtoȱmodernȱ philosophyȱ asȱ such.ȱ Finally,ȱ Jacobiȱ formulatesȱ anȱ evenȱ moreȱ fundamentalȱproblem,ȱwhichȱisȱstillȱimplicitȱinȱtheȱSpinozaȱLetȬ

tersȱbutȱwillȱbecomeȱmuchȱmoreȱprominentȱandȱpressingȱinȱtheȱ

God’sȱ transcendence,ȱ implyingȱ thatȱ Heȱ isȱ onlyȱ accessibleȱ throughȱ faith,ȱ asȱ radicallyȱ separatedȱ fromȱ knowledge.ȱ Orȱ isȱ philosophyȱableȱtoȱtakeȱanotherȱrouteȱthanȱaȱdemonstrativeȱoneȱ whileȱremainingȱaȱconceptualȱdiscipline?ȱ

TheȱAtheismȱControversyȱ

Inȱ1799,ȱsomeȱfifteenȱyearsȱafterȱtheȱpantheismȱcontroversy,ȱJaȬ cobiȱ participatedȱ inȱ theȱ discussionsȱ surroundingȱ theȱ atheismȱ controversy.ȱAsȱaȱconsequenceȱofȱtheȱpublicationȱofȱhisȱOnȱtheȱ FoundationȱofȱOurȱFaithȱinȱaȱDivineȱGovernmentȱofȱtheȱWorldȱandȱ hisȱAppealȱtoȱtheȱPublic,ȱFichteȱhadȱlostȱhisȱpositionȱatȱtheȱUniȬ versityȱofȱJena.ȱAgain,ȱthisȱcontroversyȱcausedȱquiteȱaȱstirȱbeȬ causeȱmanyȱintellectualsȱconsideredȱtheȱinterferenceȱofȱtheȱcivilȱ andȱecclesiasticalȱauthoritiesȱinȱacademicȱaffairsȱoutrageous.ȱInȱ Marchȱ1799ȱJacobiȱwroteȱaȱletterȱtoȱFichteȱthatȱheȱpublishedȱinȱ theȱfallȱofȱthatȱsameȱyear,ȱsupplementedȱwithȱsomeȱextraȱtextsȱ heȱhadȱwritten,ȱunderȱtheȱtitleȱJacobiȱanȱFichte.ȱHeȱintendedȱitȱtoȱ beȱaȱ“moderatingȱvoice”ȱinȱtheȱwholeȱdebate,ȱwhichȱbecameȱapȬ parentȱfromȱhisȱstatementȱthatȱitȱisȱunjustifiedȱtoȱaccuseȱFichte’sȱ philosophyȱofȱatheismȱinȱtheȱordinaryȱsenseȱofȱtheȱword,ȱ“sinceȱ transcendentalȱphilosophyȱcannot,ȱasȱsuch,ȱbeȱatheistȱanyȱmoreȱ thanȱ canȱ geometryȱ orȱ arithmetic.ȱ Butȱ forȱ thatȱ sameȱ reasonȱ itȱ cannotȱinȱanyȱsenseȱbeȱtheistȱeither”ȱ(JWAȱ2:ȱ192).ȱ

InȱthisȱletterȱJacobiȱshowsȱthatȱtranscendentalȱidealismȱasȱ such,ȱincludingȱnotȱonlyȱFichteȱbutȱalsoȱKant,ȱinevitablyȱleadsȱ toȱ nihilism.8ȱ Inȱ orderȱ toȱ substantiateȱ thisȱ qualification,ȱ oneȱ

needsȱ onlyȱ toȱ seeȱ howȱ understanding’sȱ modusȱ operandiȱ preȬ vailsȱinȱtheseȱphilosophies.ȱAsȱweȱhaveȱseen,ȱunderstandingȱ“isȱ theȱfacultyȱofȱtheirȱ[i.e.ȱofȱallȱobjectsȱofȱknowledge]ȱdestructionȱ andȱreconstructionȱfromȱaȱbareȱscientificȱpointȱofȱview,”ȱsoȱthatȱinȱ theȱ end,ȱ “itȱ isȱ nothingȱ butȱ thisȱ veryȱ producingȱ inȱ thoughts”ȱ (JWAȱ2:ȱ198).ȱThisȱimpliesȱthatȱnotȱonlyȱSpinoza’sȱconceptȱofȱtheȱ infiniteȱsubstanceȱbutȱalsoȱKant’sȱandȱFichte’sȱideaȱofȱtheȱtransȬ

8ȱAccordingȱtoȱJacobi,ȱtheȱonlyȱdifferenceȱisȱthatȱKant’sȱidealismȱ

cendentalȱ ego,ȱ itsȱ idealisticȱ counterpart,ȱ areȱ examplesȱ ofȱ thisȱ method.ȱ Becauseȱ theȱ conceptsȱ ofȱ understandingȱ abstractȱ fromȱ allȱ diversityȱ inȱ theȱ worldȱ andȱ amongȱ humanȱ persons,ȱ theyȱ eventuallyȱdestroyȱallȱtranscendence.ȱButȱbesidesȱitsȱdestructiveȱ effect,ȱunderstandingȱalsoȱhasȱaȱconstructiveȱaspect:ȱitȱcreatesȱaȱ conceptȱasȱtheȱfundamentalȱprincipleȱofȱtheȱwholeȱofȱreality,ȱbeȱ itȱtheȱinfinite,ȱallȬencompassingȱsubstance,ȱofȱwhichȱallȱparticuȬ larityȱisȱonlyȱaȱmode,ȱorȱtheȱtranscendentalȱego,ȱwhichȱautonoȬ mouslyȱproducesȱtheȱnonȬego.ȱThisȱisȱwhyȱJacobiȱqualifiesȱthisȱ kindȱ ofȱ philosophyȱ asȱ aȱ completelyȱ immanentȱ one,ȱ “aȱ philoȬ sophyȱofȱoneȱpiece”ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱunderstandingȱandȱitsȱprinciȬ pleȱ areȱ theȱ alphaȱ andȱ omega,ȱ containingȱ everything.ȱ Theȱ folȬ lowingȱ quotationȱ illustratesȱ theȱ twofoldȱ activityȱ ofȱ theȱ underȬ standing:ȱ

Obviously,ȱ everythingȱ mustȱ beȱ givenȱ inȱ andȱ throughȱ reaȬ son,ȱinȱtheȱIȱasȱI,ȱinȱtheȱselfhoodȱofȱtheȱIȱalone,ȱandȱmustȱbeȱ alreadyȱcontainedȱinȱit,ȱifȱpureȱreasonȱisȱtoȱbeȱableȱtoȱdeduceȱ everythingȱalone,ȱfromȱitselfȱalone.…ȱTheȱphilosophizingȱofȱ pureȱreasonȱmustȱthereforeȱbeȱaȱchemicalȱprocessȱthroughȱ whichȱ everythingȱ outsideȱ reasonȱ isȱ changedȱ intoȱ nothing,ȱ andȱreasonȱaloneȱisȱleft.ȱ(JWAȱ2:ȱ201)ȱ

UnderstandingȱsomethingȱcompletelyȱmeansȱdestroyingȱitsȱobȬ jective,ȱ externalȱ realityȱ completelyȱ andȱ reconstructingȱ itȱ inȱ aȱ purelyȱconceptualȱway,ȱthatȱis,ȱasȱanȱimmanentȱmomentȱofȱunȬ derstandingȱitself.ȱThus,ȱtheȱfinalȱresultȱofȱtheȱappropriatingȱacȬ tivityȱ ofȱ understandingȱ isȱ nihilism,ȱ implyingȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ everyȱ formȱofȱtranscendence,ȱincludingȱGod’s.ȱ

Nothingnessȱ orȱ aȱ God.ȱ Ifȱ [man]ȱ choosesȱ nothingness,ȱ heȱ makesȱhimselfȱuntoȱaȱGod,ȱthatȱis,ȱheȱmakesȱaȱphantomȱintoȱ God.…ȱGodȱis,ȱandȱisȱoutsideȱme,ȱaȱliving,ȱselfȬsubsistingȱbeing,ȱ orȱIȱamȱGod.ȱ(JWAȱ2:ȱ220)ȱ TheȱDeathȬDefyingȱLeapȱfromȱNihilismȱtoȱTranscendenceȱ Ifȱphilosophyȱisȱidenticalȱtoȱunderstanding,ȱitȱisȱunableȱtoȱwithȬ standȱtheȱlatter’sȱpropensityȱtoȱnihilism.ȱHowever,ȱJacobiȱdoesȱ notȱwantȱtoȱdrawȱsuchȱaȱfatalȱconclusionȱbutȱsetsȱoutȱtoȱdevelopȱ anȱ alternativeȱ kindȱ ofȱ philosophyȱ thatȱ isȱ ableȱ toȱ thinkȱ God’sȱ radicalȱtranscendenceȱinȱaȱdifferentȱway.ȱTheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱthisȱ alternativeȱ isȱ phrasedȱ alreadyȱ showsȱ thatȱ Jacobiȱ doesȱ notȱ optȱ forȱaȱleapȱintoȱtheȱirrational,ȱorȱ“intoȱtheȱabyssȱofȱGod’sȱmercy,”ȱ ofȱ whichȱ F.ȱ Schlegelȱ accusedȱ himȱ(Schlegelȱ 1858ff.ȱ [vol.2]:ȱ 77).ȱ Butȱanȱimmanentȱcritiqueȱofȱtheȱphilosophiesȱofȱhisȱtimeȱisȱnotȱ anȱoptionȱeither,ȱsinceȱJacobiȱwouldȱthenȱbeȱinevitablyȱstuckȱinȱ theirȱ nihilisticȱ outcome,ȱ whichȱ isȱ preciselyȱ whatȱ heȱ wantsȱ toȱ overcome.ȱTherefore,ȱheȱprefersȱtoȱenterȱtheȱphilosophicalȱsceneȱ ofȱhisȱtimeȱnotȱsoȱmuchȱasȱitsȱcriticȱbutȱasȱaȱ“privilegedȱheretic”ȱ (JWAȱ 2:ȱ 198).ȱ Concretely,ȱ thisȱ meansȱ thatȱ heȱ wantsȱ toȱ escapeȱ fromȱtheȱmonopolyȱofȱunderstandingȱthroughȱaȱdeathȬdefyingȱ leapȱorȱaȱsaltoȱmortale,ȱasȱheȱcallsȱit.9ȱFirstȱofȱall,ȱitȱisȱJacobi’sȱfree,ȱ

personalȱ decision,ȱ sinceȱ “demonstrating”ȱ theȱ superiority,ȱ letȱ aloneȱtheȱscientificȱtruthȱofȱhisȱposition,ȱwouldȱshutȱtheȱdoorȱonȱ theȱdevelopmentȱofȱhisȱalternativeȱtoȱtheȱphilosophyȱofȱunderȬ standing.ȱ Second,ȱ thisȱ leap,ȱ inȱ spiteȱ ofȱ itsȱ deathȬdefyingȱ charȬ acter,ȱisȱanythingȱbutȱfatal,ȱbecauseȱafterȱhavingȱperformedȱit,ȱ Jacobiȱlandsȱagainȱonȱhisȱfeetȱinȱaȱnewȱdomain.ȱFinally,ȱthereȱisȱ noȱ steadyȱ transitionȱ betweenȱ theseȱ twoȱ standpointsȱ becauseȱ theyȱareȱseparatedȱfromȱeachȱotherȱbyȱanȱabyss:ȱ“WhoȱtakesȱnaȬ tureȱasȱhisȱpointȱofȱdepartureȱ[asȱtheȱunderstandingȱobviouslyȱ does],ȱdoesȱnotȱfindȱGod,ȱHeȱisȱeitherȱfirstȱorȱnotȱatȱall”ȱ(JWAȱ1:ȱ 348).ȱWithȱtheȱmetaphorȱofȱtheȱsaltoȱmortale,ȱJacobiȱhighlightsȱaȱ specificȱ aspectȱ ofȱ transcendence,ȱ viz.ȱ theȱ transcendenceȱ ofȱ hisȱ ownȱ“nonȬphilosophy”ȱwithȱregardȱtoȱtheȱ“soleȬphilosophy”ȱofȱ

9ȱForȱanȱexcellentȱoverviewȱofȱtheȱproblemȱofȱtheȱdeathȬdefyingȱ

hisȱ contemporaries.ȱ Itȱ isȱ aȱ consequenceȱ ofȱ hisȱ answerȱ toȱ theȱ fundamentalȱquestion:ȱIsȱphilosophyȱallȱthereȱis,ȱorȱdoesȱrealityȱ alwaysȱtranscendȱitsȱphilosophicalȱconceptualization?ȱȱ

Ofȱ course,ȱ Jacobi’sȱ deathȬdefyingȱ leapȱ raisesȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱtheȱrationalȱnatureȱofȱhisȱ“nonȬphilosophy.”ȱToȱdelineateȱhisȱ standpointȱasȱclearlyȱasȱpossibleȱfromȱtheȱoneȱofȱunderstanding,ȱ heȱcallsȱitȱatȱfirstȱ“faith”ȱandȱlaterȱ“reason”ȱinȱorderȱtoȱcounterȱ theȱ irrationalȱ connotationsȱ thatȱ theȱ wordȱ “faith”ȱ hadȱ arousedȱ amongȱhisȱcontemporariesȱ(JWAȱ2:ȱ375).ȱItȱisȱimportantȱtoȱnoteȱ thatȱJacobi’sȱideaȱofȱreasonȱdiffersȱfundamentallyȱfromȱKant’s:ȱ whereasȱtheȱlatterȱconceivesȱitȱasȱaȱfacultyȱofȱtheȱhighestȱprinciȬ plesȱofȱourȱthinking,ȱtoȱwhichȱnoȱcorrespondingȱobjectȱisȱgiven,ȱ Jacobi’sȱ conceptionȱ ofȱ reasonȱ isȱ inȱ lineȱ withȱ Plato’sȱ ideaȱ ofȱ anȱ immediate,ȱintellectualȱintuitionȱofȱtheȱideasȱasȱobjective,ȱsuperȬ sensibleȱ realities.ȱ Moreover,ȱ whereas,ȱ inȱ Jacobi’sȱ eyes,ȱ theȱ unȬ derstandingȱautonomouslyȱconstructsȱitsȱownȱobjects,ȱreasonȱisȱ aȱfacultyȱthatȱpresupposesȱtheȱrealityȱofȱtheȱsupersensibleȱorȱtheȱ spiritual.ȱThisȱmeansȱthatȱitȱdoesȱnotȱcreateȱanȱidolȱofȱitsȱownȱ makingȱ butȱ observesȱ Godȱ asȱ aȱ spiritual,ȱ transcendentȱ personȱ whoȱrevealsȱhimselfȱthroughȱhumanȱreason.ȱHowever,ȱJacobi’sȱ useȱofȱtheȱtermȱ“revelation”ȱisȱnotȱrestrictedȱtoȱtheȱreligiousȱorȱ theȱspiritualȱfield;ȱitȱalsoȱincludesȱtheȱobservationȱofȱtheȱsensoryȱ world.ȱ Heȱ callsȱ theȱ knowledgeȱ thatȱ weȱ haveȱ aȱ bodyȱ andȱ thatȱ thereȱareȱotherȱbodiesȱandȱthinkingȱbeingsȱexternalȱtoȱusȱaȱ“verȬ itableȱ andȱ wondrousȱ revelation”ȱ (JWAȱ 1:ȱ 116).ȱ Theȱ reasonȱ forȱ doingȱsoȱisȱtoȱdistinguishȱhisȱownȱrealismȱasȱclearlyȱasȱpossibleȱ fromȱ Kant’sȱ andȱ Fichte’sȱ transcendentalȱ idealismȱ andȱ theirȱ nihilisticȱoutcome.ȱ

ofȱ aȱ spiritualȱ nature.ȱ Reasonȱ isȱ “onȱ theȱ oneȱ handȱ aȱ faculty,ȱ observingȱaȱdivineȱpresence,ȱoutsideȱandȱaboveȱman;ȱonȱtheȱothȬ er,ȱitȱisȱaȱfacultyȱthatȱobservesȱaȱdivineȱrealityȱinȱman,ȱand—asȱ thisȱdivineȱitself“ȱ(JWAȱ3:ȱ29).ȱFinally,ȱJacobiȱcallsȱreason,ȱjustȱ likeȱ sensoryȱ experience,ȱ aȱ facultyȱ ofȱ observationȱ becauseȱ heȱ wantsȱtoȱstressȱthatȱtheyȱshareȱimmediacyȱandȱoriginalityȱasȱesȬ sentialȱ characteristics,ȱ althoughȱ theirȱ objectȱ isȱ ofȱ courseȱ radicȬ allyȱ different.ȱ Hence,ȱ observationȱ isȱ aȱ “firstȬhandȱ knowing,”ȱ whereasȱ “convictionȱ byȱ proofsȱ isȱ certaintyȱ atȱ secondȱ handȱ …ȱ andȱcanȱneverȱbeȱquiteȱsecureȱandȱperfect”ȱ(JWAȱ1:ȱ115;ȱJWAȱ2:ȱ 375).ȱ

InȱtheȱimportantȱseventhȱsupplementȱtoȱtheȱSpinozaȱLettersȱ Jacobiȱgivesȱanotherȱanswerȱtoȱtheȱquestionȱofȱtheȱrelationshipȱ betweenȱ understandingȱ andȱ reasonȱ or,ȱ asȱ heȱ definesȱ itȱ here,ȱ betweenȱadjectiveȱandȱsubstantiveȱreason:ȱ

Isȱmanȱinȱpossessionȱofȱreasonȱorȱisȱreasonȱinȱpossessionȱofȱman?ȱ Ifȱweȱunderstandȱbyȱreasonȱtheȱsoulȱofȱmanȱonlyȱinȱsoȱfarȱasȱ itȱ hasȱ distinctȱ concepts,ȱ passesȱ judgements,ȱ andȱ drawsȱ inferencesȱwithȱthem,ȱandȱgoesȱonȱbuildingȱnewȱconceptsȱorȱ ideas,ȱ thenȱ reasonȱ isȱ aȱ characteristicȱ ofȱ manȱ whichȱ heȱ acȬ quiresȱprogressively,ȱanȱinstrumentȱofȱwhichȱheȱmakesȱuse.ȱ Inȱthisȱsense,ȱreasonȱbelongsȱtoȱhim.ȱButȱifȱbyȱreasonȱweȱmeanȱ theȱ principleȱ ofȱ cognitionȱ inȱ general,ȱ thenȱ reasonȱ isȱ theȱ spiritȱofȱwhichȱtheȱwholeȱlivingȱnatureȱofȱmanȱisȱmadeȱup;ȱ manȱconsistsȱofȱit.ȱInȱthisȱsenseȱmanȱisȱtheȱformȱthatȱreasonȱ hasȱassumed.ȱ(JWAȱ1:ȱ259f.)ȱ

TheȱradicalȱoppositionȱthatȱJacobiȱformulatesȱhereȱisȱnotȱaȱmasȬ siveȱ oneȱ betweenȱ understandingȱ andȱ reasonȱ asȱ suchȱ butȱ beȬ tweenȱ anȱ instrumentalistȱ orȱ adjectiveȱ (asȱ heȱ willȱ callȱ itȱ later)ȱ kindȱ ofȱ reason,ȱ whichȱ leadsȱ toȱ pantheismȱ andȱ atheism,ȱ andȱ aȱ substantiveȱ reason,ȱ whichȱ isȱ theȱ humanȱ spirit,ȱ andȱ henceȱ anȬ alogousȱtoȱGodȱasȱaȱspiritualȱbeing.ȱ

wordsȱandȱconcepts.ȱItȱisȱclearȱthatȱaȱphilosophicalȱexpositionȱofȱ Godȱ cannotȱ haveȱ theȱ characterȱ ofȱ rationalȱ proofsȱ ofȱ hisȱ exisȬ tence,ȱ asȱ wasȱ theȱ caseȱ inȱ theisticȱ metaphysics.ȱ Instead,ȱ Jacobiȱ doesȱ notȱ wantȱ toȱ demonstrateȱ (beweisen)ȱ butȱ onlyȱ toȱ showȱ (weisen)ȱorȱ“toȱexpose”ȱ(darstellen)ȱtheȱspiritual.ȱMoreover,ȱhuȬ mansȱcanȱbecomeȱawareȱofȱGodȱonlyȱthroughȱaȱdivineȱlife,ȱimȬ plyingȱthatȱ“theȱpathȱtowardsȱknowledgeȱofȱtheȱsupersensibleȱisȱ aȱpractical,ȱnotȱaȱtheoretical,ȱpurelyȱscientificȱone”ȱ(JWAȱ1:ȱ342).ȱ Fromȱthis,ȱitȱbecomesȱapparentȱthat,ȱforȱJacobi,ȱaȱphilosophicalȱ expositionȱofȱGod’sȱtranscendenceȱhasȱtheȱcharacterȱofȱverballyȱ expressingȱ anȱ intuitedȱ secretȱ thatȱ canȱ neverȱ beȱ fullyȱ revealed.ȱ Hence,ȱ “theȱ expressionȱ [ofȱ theȱ author]ȱ isȱ alwaysȱ inferiorȱ toȱ theȱ thingȱheȱpresents”ȱ(Jacobiȱ1825:ȱ206).ȱ

InȱhisȱSpinozaȱLettersȱJacobiȱoffersȱanȱexcellentȱexampleȱofȱ theȱnatureȱofȱsuchȱaȱphilosophicalȱexposition,ȱalthoughȱitȱdoesȱ notȱconcernȱGodȱbutȱotherȱspiritualȱmatters.ȱTwoȱyoungȱSparȬ tans,ȱSpertiasȱandȱBulis,ȱhaveȱbeenȱsentencedȱtoȱdeathȱbyȱtheȱsaȬ trapȱ Xerxes.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ richȱ Persianȱ Hydarnesȱ triesȱ toȱ perȬ suadeȱ themȱ toȱ liveȱ underȱ theȱ ruleȱ ofȱ Xerxesȱ soȱ thatȱ theyȱ canȱ remainȱalive.ȱAgainstȱallȱexpectations,ȱespeciallyȱthoseȱresultingȱ fromȱ calculativeȱ understanding,ȱ theȱ Spartansȱ rejectȱ hisȱ offer,ȱ saying:ȱȱ

Yourȱ counselȱ …ȱ befitsȱ yourȱ experienceȱ butȱ notȱ ours.ȱ Hadȱ youȱtastedȱtheȱhappinessȱthatȱweȱhaveȱenjoyed,ȱyouȱwouldȱ adviseȱusȱtoȱsacrificeȱourȱpossessionsȱandȱourȱlifeȱforȱit.…ȱ Howȱcouldȱweȱliveȱhereȱ…ȱandȱforsakeȱourȱland,ȱourȱlaws,ȱ andȱsuchȱmenȱasȱweȱvoluntarilyȱundertookȱthisȱlongȱjourneyȱ inȱorderȱtoȱdieȱfor.ȱ(JWAȱ1:ȱ131)ȱ

Thisȱ quotationȱ showsȱ theȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ Jacobiȱ takesȱ aȱ storyȱ aboutȱtheȱindividual,ȱpracticalȱbehaviourȱofȱconcreteȱpersonsȱasȱ aȱ pointȱ ofȱ departureȱ forȱ hisȱ expositionȱ ofȱ aȱ spiritualȱ reality.ȱ SpertiasȱandȱBulisȱdidȱnotȱwantȱtoȱdemonstrateȱtheȱtruthȱofȱbasȬ icȱspiritualȱ“facts,”ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱloveȱforȱtheirȱnativeȱcountryȱorȱ theirȱ prideȱ ofȱ itsȱ lawsȱ andȱ culture,ȱ butȱ testifiedȱ toȱ themȱ exisȬ tentially,ȱinȱtheȱsenseȱthatȱtheyȱwereȱevenȱpreparedȱtoȱgiveȱupȱ theirȱlivesȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱtheseȱtruths.ȱTheyȱ

them.ȱNorȱdidȱtheyȱboastȱofȱanyȱvirtue;ȱtheyȱonlyȱprofessedȱ theirȱ heart’sȱ sentiment,ȱ theirȱ affection.ȱ Theyȱ hadȱ noȱ philoȬ sophy,ȱorȱrather,ȱtheirȱphilosophyȱwasȱjustȱhistory.ȱ(JWAȱ1:ȱ 132)ȱ

ThisȱshowsȱhowȱJacobiȱconceivesȱhisȱphilosophicalȱwayȱofȱ thinkingȱGod’sȱradicalȱtranscendenceȱasȱanȱalternativeȱtoȱtheȱniȬ hilisticȱ tendenciesȱ ofȱ modernȱ philosophy,ȱ reducingȱ immanentȱ transcendenceȱtoȱradicalȱimmanence.ȱItȱunifiesȱreason,ȱbeingȱaȱ facultyȱ ofȱ observingȱ Godȱ asȱ aȱ personal,ȱ spiritualȱ reality,ȱ andȱ philosophicalȱexpositionȱofȱthisȱrealityȱthroughȱwordsȱandȱconȬ cepts.ȱPreciselyȱbecauseȱGodȱisȱaȱlivingȱSpirit,ȱheȱrevealsȱhimselfȱ inȱ particularȱ spiritualȱ experiencesȱ ofȱ persons,ȱ implyingȱ thatȱ philosophyȱhasȱtoȱtakeȱtheseȱconcreteȱexperiencesȱasȱitsȱpointȱofȱ departure.ȱ Inȱ theȱ storyȱ above,ȱ Jacobiȱ makesȱ thisȱ clearȱ byȱ opȬ posingȱaȱpurelyȱ“scientific”ȱapproach,ȱconsistingȱofȱtheoreticalȱ thinking,ȱ propositions,ȱ andȱ demonstrations,ȱ toȱ concrete,ȱ realȱ things,ȱsuchȱasȱnativeȱcountry,ȱlaws,ȱandȱcompatriots,ȱthatȱcanȱ onlyȱbeȱintuitedȱbyȱreason.ȱAppliedȱtoȱaȱphilosophicalȱexposiȬ tionȱofȱGod,ȱthisȱmeansȱthatȱitsȱstartingȱpointȱisȱinȱtheȱbiblicalȱ stories,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱ“saga”ȱofȱtheȱcreationȱofȱheavenȱandȱearth,ȱ andȱtheȱstoryȱofȱGod’sȱselfȬrevelationȱtoȱMosesȱ(JWAȱ3:ȱ103ff.;ȱ 112ff.).ȱMoreover,ȱtheȱreasonableȱintuitionȱofȱtheseȱthingsȱisȱnotȱ anȱabstract,ȱdetachedȱkindȱofȱknowingȱbutȱaȱcommittedȱattitudeȱ ofȱconcreteȱindividuals.ȱForȱhisȱphilosophicalȱapproachȱtoȱGod’sȱ transcendence,ȱthisȱimpliesȱthatȱitȱisȱaȱkindȱofȱexposition,ȱresulȬ tingȱ fromȱ aȱ fundamentalȱ sympathyȱ betweenȱ theȱ philosopherȱ andȱtheȱobjectȱofȱhisȱthinking,ȱGod.ȱȱ

Sympathyȱ withȱ theȱ invisibleȱ reality,ȱ lifeȱ andȱ truthȱ isȱ faith.ȱ Theȱmoreȱfeelingȱforȱtheȱinvisibleȱinȱnatureȱandȱinȱhumansȱ someoneȱshows,ȱtheȱmoreȱeffectiveȱandȱactiveȱtheȱinvisibleȱ appearsȱtoȱbeȱinȱsuchȱaȱperson.ȱ(JWAȱ6:ȱ236)ȱ Bibliographyȱ Christ,ȱK.ȱ(1988).ȱJacobiȱundȱMendelssohn.ȱEineȱAnalyseȱdesȱSpinoȬ zastreits.ȱWürzburg:ȱKönighausenȱandȱNeumann.ȱ

Hegel,ȱ G.W.F.ȱ (1971).ȱ Werkeȱ inȱ zwanzigȱ Bänden.ȱ TheorieȬWerkȬ ausgabe.ȱFrankfurtȱamȱMain:ȱSuhrkamp.ȱ