Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Doğanın Yeni Ontolojisi: Schelling’in Doğa Felsefesinden Kantçı Soykütüğün Silinişi

Yıl 2025, Sayı: 24, 360 - 369, 01.12.2025
https://doi.org/10.55256/temasa.1793888

Öz

Bilindiği gibi Kant, doğayı, transendental öznenin anlama yetisinin apriori kategorileri ve düzenleyici ilkeleri aracılığıyla kavranabilen bir fenomenler bütünü olarak değerlendirir. Bu bağlamda doğa, Kant felsefesinde, deneyimin olanaklılığının koşulları içerisinde şekillenen bir görünüşler dizgesi olarak karşımıza çıkar. Schelling ise bu Kantçı sınırlandırmayı aşarak doğayı, insan zihninden bağımsız, kendi içinde etkin, üretken ve yaratıcı bir varlık alanı olarak tasarlar. Onun radikal olarak nitelendirilebilecek bu bakış açısı, doğayı yalnızca epistemolojik bir mesele olarak ele alan Kant’tan köklü bir kopuşu temsil eder. Buna göre doğa, anlama yetisinin içine hapsedilmiş ve yalnızca mekanik yasalarla açıklanabilen bir nesneler topluluğu değildir. Schelling, doğayı organizma ile mekanizmayı, zorunluluk ile özgürlüğü birleştiren yaratıcı bir süreç olarak konumlandırır. Böylece Kant’ın doğaya ilişkin bilgi anlayışının kurucu etkisini ortadan kaldırır ve onun yerine, doğayı kendi başına var olan, dinamik ve üretken bir bütünlük olarak ele alan yeni bir ontolojik paradigma önerir. Bu ontolojik dönüşüm, Kantçı transendental idealizmin doğa anlayışını askıya alarak, doğayı kendi içkin ilkeselliği doğrultusunda düşünmeyi mümkün kılar ve böylece spekülatif doğa felsefesi için asli bir zemin hazırlar.

Kaynakça

  • Beekman, W. ve H. Jochemsen. “The Kantian Account of Mechanical Explanation of Natural Ends in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Biology,” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 44, sayı: 10 (2022). Erişim 14 Ekim 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-022-00484-0.
  • Beiser, Frederick C. German Idealism: The Struggle Against Subjektivism 1781–1801. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002.
  • Distaso, Leonardo V. The Paradox of Existence: Philosophy and Aesthetics in the Young Schelling. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2004.
  • Düsing, Klaus. “Ein Brief von Schelling an Steffens über Naturphilosophie,” Hegel-Studien 9, (1974): 39-42.
  • Düsing, Klaus. “Teleologie der Natur. Eine Kant-Interpretation mit Ausblicken auf Schelling” in Natur und Subjektivität: Zur Auseinandersetzung mit der Naturphilosophie des jungen Schelling, Editörler: Reinhard Heckmann, Hermann Krings ve Rudolf W. Meyer, 67–89. Stuttgart: Friedrich Frommann Verlag, 1985.
  • Fellbaum, Aaron. “Kants Organismusbegriff und seine Transformation in der Naturphilosophie F. W. J. Schellings,” Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 47, (2005): 215-23.
  • Grant, Iain Hamilton. Philosophies of Nature after Schelling. London: Continuum, 2006.
  • Heuser-Kessler, Marie-Luise. Die Produktivität der Natur: Schellings Naturphilosophie und das neue Paradigma der Selbstorganisation in den Naturwissenschaften. Berlin: Duncker & Humboldt, 1986.
  • Huneman, Philippe. “From the Critique of Judgment to the Hermeneutics of Nature: Sketching the Fate of Philosophy of Nature after Kant,” Continental Philosophy Review (2006). Erişim 14 Ekim 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-006-9017-2
  • Kant, Immanuel. Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1974.
  • Kant, Immanuel. Kritik der Urteilskraft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1974.
  • Lenoir, Timothy. The Strategy of Life: Teleology and Mechanism in Nineteenth Century German Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948.
  • Illetterati, Luca ve Andrea Gambarotto. “The Realism of Purposes: Schelling and Hegel on Kant’s Critique of Teleological Judgement,” Rivista di Estetica 74, (2020): 106-188.
  • Schelling, F. W. J. Ideen zu einer Philosophie der Natur. In Sämmtliche Werke, vol. II, 42–50. Stuttgart: Cotta, 1803. Schelling, F. W. J. Sämmtliche Werke. Vol. I/10. Stuttgart: Cotta, 1859.
  • Steigerwald, Joan. “Epistemologies of Rupture: The Problem of Nature in Schelling's Philosophy,” Studies in Romanticism 41:4, (2002): 545-584.

The New Ontology of Nature: The Erasure of Kantian Genealogy from Schelling's Philosophy of Nature

Yıl 2025, Sayı: 24, 360 - 369, 01.12.2025
https://doi.org/10.55256/temasa.1793888

Öz

As is well known, Kant conceives of nature as a totality of phenomena that can be apprehended through the a priori categories and regulative principles of the transcendental subject's faculty of understanding. In this context, nature, within Kantian philosophy, appears as a series of appearances constituted within the conditions of the possibility of experience. Schelling, however, transcends this Kantian limitation and conceives of nature as a realm of being that is independent of human consciousness—active, productive, and creative in itself. This perspective, which may be characterized as radical, represents a decisive break from Kant’s conception of nature as merely an epistemological issue. Accordingly, nature is not a collection of objects confined within the bounds of the faculty of understanding and explicable solely by mechanical laws. Rather, Schelling posits nature as a creative process that unites organism and mechanism, necessity and freedom. In doing so, he reconfigures the foundational role of Kant’s epistemology in the conception of nature and instead proposes a new ontological paradigm in which nature is regarded as an autonomous, dynamic, and productive totality. This ontological shift suspends the Kantian understanding of nature grounded in transcendental idealism and makes it possible to conceive of nature in accordance with its own immanent principles, thereby laying the groundwork for a speculative philosophy of nature.

Kaynakça

  • Beekman, W. ve H. Jochemsen. “The Kantian Account of Mechanical Explanation of Natural Ends in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Biology,” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 44, sayı: 10 (2022). Erişim 14 Ekim 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-022-00484-0.
  • Beiser, Frederick C. German Idealism: The Struggle Against Subjektivism 1781–1801. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002.
  • Distaso, Leonardo V. The Paradox of Existence: Philosophy and Aesthetics in the Young Schelling. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2004.
  • Düsing, Klaus. “Ein Brief von Schelling an Steffens über Naturphilosophie,” Hegel-Studien 9, (1974): 39-42.
  • Düsing, Klaus. “Teleologie der Natur. Eine Kant-Interpretation mit Ausblicken auf Schelling” in Natur und Subjektivität: Zur Auseinandersetzung mit der Naturphilosophie des jungen Schelling, Editörler: Reinhard Heckmann, Hermann Krings ve Rudolf W. Meyer, 67–89. Stuttgart: Friedrich Frommann Verlag, 1985.
  • Fellbaum, Aaron. “Kants Organismusbegriff und seine Transformation in der Naturphilosophie F. W. J. Schellings,” Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 47, (2005): 215-23.
  • Grant, Iain Hamilton. Philosophies of Nature after Schelling. London: Continuum, 2006.
  • Heuser-Kessler, Marie-Luise. Die Produktivität der Natur: Schellings Naturphilosophie und das neue Paradigma der Selbstorganisation in den Naturwissenschaften. Berlin: Duncker & Humboldt, 1986.
  • Huneman, Philippe. “From the Critique of Judgment to the Hermeneutics of Nature: Sketching the Fate of Philosophy of Nature after Kant,” Continental Philosophy Review (2006). Erişim 14 Ekim 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-006-9017-2
  • Kant, Immanuel. Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1974.
  • Kant, Immanuel. Kritik der Urteilskraft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1974.
  • Lenoir, Timothy. The Strategy of Life: Teleology and Mechanism in Nineteenth Century German Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948.
  • Illetterati, Luca ve Andrea Gambarotto. “The Realism of Purposes: Schelling and Hegel on Kant’s Critique of Teleological Judgement,” Rivista di Estetica 74, (2020): 106-188.
  • Schelling, F. W. J. Ideen zu einer Philosophie der Natur. In Sämmtliche Werke, vol. II, 42–50. Stuttgart: Cotta, 1803. Schelling, F. W. J. Sämmtliche Werke. Vol. I/10. Stuttgart: Cotta, 1859.
  • Steigerwald, Joan. “Epistemologies of Rupture: The Problem of Nature in Schelling's Philosophy,” Studies in Romanticism 41:4, (2002): 545-584.

Yıl 2025, Sayı: 24, 360 - 369, 01.12.2025
https://doi.org/10.55256/temasa.1793888

Öz

Kaynakça

  • Beekman, W. ve H. Jochemsen. “The Kantian Account of Mechanical Explanation of Natural Ends in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Biology,” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 44, sayı: 10 (2022). Erişim 14 Ekim 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-022-00484-0.
  • Beiser, Frederick C. German Idealism: The Struggle Against Subjektivism 1781–1801. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002.
  • Distaso, Leonardo V. The Paradox of Existence: Philosophy and Aesthetics in the Young Schelling. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2004.
  • Düsing, Klaus. “Ein Brief von Schelling an Steffens über Naturphilosophie,” Hegel-Studien 9, (1974): 39-42.
  • Düsing, Klaus. “Teleologie der Natur. Eine Kant-Interpretation mit Ausblicken auf Schelling” in Natur und Subjektivität: Zur Auseinandersetzung mit der Naturphilosophie des jungen Schelling, Editörler: Reinhard Heckmann, Hermann Krings ve Rudolf W. Meyer, 67–89. Stuttgart: Friedrich Frommann Verlag, 1985.
  • Fellbaum, Aaron. “Kants Organismusbegriff und seine Transformation in der Naturphilosophie F. W. J. Schellings,” Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 47, (2005): 215-23.
  • Grant, Iain Hamilton. Philosophies of Nature after Schelling. London: Continuum, 2006.
  • Heuser-Kessler, Marie-Luise. Die Produktivität der Natur: Schellings Naturphilosophie und das neue Paradigma der Selbstorganisation in den Naturwissenschaften. Berlin: Duncker & Humboldt, 1986.
  • Huneman, Philippe. “From the Critique of Judgment to the Hermeneutics of Nature: Sketching the Fate of Philosophy of Nature after Kant,” Continental Philosophy Review (2006). Erişim 14 Ekim 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-006-9017-2
  • Kant, Immanuel. Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1974.
  • Kant, Immanuel. Kritik der Urteilskraft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1974.
  • Lenoir, Timothy. The Strategy of Life: Teleology and Mechanism in Nineteenth Century German Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948.
  • Illetterati, Luca ve Andrea Gambarotto. “The Realism of Purposes: Schelling and Hegel on Kant’s Critique of Teleological Judgement,” Rivista di Estetica 74, (2020): 106-188.
  • Schelling, F. W. J. Ideen zu einer Philosophie der Natur. In Sämmtliche Werke, vol. II, 42–50. Stuttgart: Cotta, 1803. Schelling, F. W. J. Sämmtliche Werke. Vol. I/10. Stuttgart: Cotta, 1859.
  • Steigerwald, Joan. “Epistemologies of Rupture: The Problem of Nature in Schelling's Philosophy,” Studies in Romanticism 41:4, (2002): 545-584.

Yıl 2025, Sayı: 24, 360 - 369, 01.12.2025
https://doi.org/10.55256/temasa.1793888

Öz

Kaynakça

  • Beekman, W. ve H. Jochemsen. “The Kantian Account of Mechanical Explanation of Natural Ends in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Biology,” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 44, sayı: 10 (2022). Erişim 14 Ekim 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-022-00484-0.
  • Beiser, Frederick C. German Idealism: The Struggle Against Subjektivism 1781–1801. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002.
  • Distaso, Leonardo V. The Paradox of Existence: Philosophy and Aesthetics in the Young Schelling. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2004.
  • Düsing, Klaus. “Ein Brief von Schelling an Steffens über Naturphilosophie,” Hegel-Studien 9, (1974): 39-42.
  • Düsing, Klaus. “Teleologie der Natur. Eine Kant-Interpretation mit Ausblicken auf Schelling” in Natur und Subjektivität: Zur Auseinandersetzung mit der Naturphilosophie des jungen Schelling, Editörler: Reinhard Heckmann, Hermann Krings ve Rudolf W. Meyer, 67–89. Stuttgart: Friedrich Frommann Verlag, 1985.
  • Fellbaum, Aaron. “Kants Organismusbegriff und seine Transformation in der Naturphilosophie F. W. J. Schellings,” Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 47, (2005): 215-23.
  • Grant, Iain Hamilton. Philosophies of Nature after Schelling. London: Continuum, 2006.
  • Heuser-Kessler, Marie-Luise. Die Produktivität der Natur: Schellings Naturphilosophie und das neue Paradigma der Selbstorganisation in den Naturwissenschaften. Berlin: Duncker & Humboldt, 1986.
  • Huneman, Philippe. “From the Critique of Judgment to the Hermeneutics of Nature: Sketching the Fate of Philosophy of Nature after Kant,” Continental Philosophy Review (2006). Erişim 14 Ekim 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-006-9017-2
  • Kant, Immanuel. Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1974.
  • Kant, Immanuel. Kritik der Urteilskraft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1974.
  • Lenoir, Timothy. The Strategy of Life: Teleology and Mechanism in Nineteenth Century German Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948.
  • Illetterati, Luca ve Andrea Gambarotto. “The Realism of Purposes: Schelling and Hegel on Kant’s Critique of Teleological Judgement,” Rivista di Estetica 74, (2020): 106-188.
  • Schelling, F. W. J. Ideen zu einer Philosophie der Natur. In Sämmtliche Werke, vol. II, 42–50. Stuttgart: Cotta, 1803. Schelling, F. W. J. Sämmtliche Werke. Vol. I/10. Stuttgart: Cotta, 1859.
  • Steigerwald, Joan. “Epistemologies of Rupture: The Problem of Nature in Schelling's Philosophy,” Studies in Romanticism 41:4, (2002): 545-584.
Toplam 15 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular 19. Yüzyıl Felsefesi
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Oya Esra Bektaş 0000-0002-0976-8759

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Aralık 2025
Gönderilme Tarihi 30 Eylül 2025
Kabul Tarihi 22 Ekim 2025
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2025 Sayı: 24

Kaynak Göster

Chicago Bektaş, Oya Esra. “Doğanın Yeni Ontolojisi: Schelling’in Doğa Felsefesinden Kantçı Soykütüğün Silinişi”. Temaşa Erciyes Üniversitesi Felsefe Bölümü Dergisi, sy. 24 (Aralık 2025): 360-69. https://doi.org/10.55256/temasa.1793888.