Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-4thr5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T07:05:02.484Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Potency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2020

Benjamin Berger
Affiliation:
Kent State University
Daniel Whistler
Affiliation:
Royal Holloway, University of London
Get access

Summary

Schelling's On the True Conceptrejects in no uncertain terms Eschenmayer's reduction of material qualities to various proportions of repulsive and attractive force. And yet, as suggested above, in this same text Schelling also comes to see the value of constructing qualities in a quasi-Eschenmayerian – that is, quantitative – fashion. Indeed, On the True Conceptproposes that Eschenmayer's series of proportions might be supplemented with further series, thereby adding depth to Eschenmayer's single-dimensional, nature-philosophical construction: for Schelling, differences regarding the proportions of force constitute only the most basic stage or level of a more general, verticalseries that extends from the dynamic to the qualitative and culminates in the organic. And if natural qualities, such as chemical properties, belong to a more complicated series of stages – ‘higher’ or ‘greater’ than the more basic, dynamic stage – then it is possible to conceive such qualities in terms of quantity. Schelling identifies the general stages or levels of reality as ‘potencies’ or ‘powers’, and in this chapter we consider Schelling's adoption and transformation of this concept, a concept that begins to take centre stage in his metaphysics, at least in part, thanks to the controversy with Eschenmayer.

The concept of potency at the end of the eighteenth Century

In his 1796 Der polynomische Lehrsatz, Carl Friedrich Hindenburg, the leading figure of the Leipzig combinatorial school – the ‘most influential’ mathematical movement in Germany during the 1790s– remarks on the introduction of the term ‘potentiation’ into his text as follows:

This is, as far as I am aware, a word that has, until now, been quite uncommon … but nonetheless seems exactly fitting. If only all neologisms in mathematical language were always so blameless and never harmed its precision and simplicity! – a wish that could be extended to many phenomena in the unsettled domains of letters.

It has been frequently remarked that Novalis (and consequently many of those he influenced in Jena during the late 1790s) owes the term ‘potentiation’ to Hindenburg. It is also likely that Eschenmayer was heavily influenced – directly or otherwise – by the combinatorial school when it comes to his own appropriation of the terminology of potency and potentiation.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Schelling-Eschenmayer Controversy, 1801
Nature and Identity
, pp. 94 - 116
Publisher: Edinburgh University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Potency
  • Benjamin Berger, Kent State University, Daniel Whistler, Royal Holloway, University of London
  • Book: The Schelling-Eschenmayer Controversy, 1801
  • Online publication: 03 October 2020
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Potency
  • Benjamin Berger, Kent State University, Daniel Whistler, Royal Holloway, University of London
  • Book: The Schelling-Eschenmayer Controversy, 1801
  • Online publication: 03 October 2020
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Potency
  • Benjamin Berger, Kent State University, Daniel Whistler, Royal Holloway, University of London
  • Book: The Schelling-Eschenmayer Controversy, 1801
  • Online publication: 03 October 2020
Available formats
×