deeply　speculative　in　character；　this；　however；　remains　isolated　and　independent；　and　deals　with
  this　one　point　alone；　in　Philosophy；　however；　nothing　isolated　can　be　worked　out　or　developed。　In
  the　various　presentations　of　his　views　Schelling　on　each　occasion　began　again　from　the　beginning；
  because；　as　we　may　see；　what　went　before　did　not　satisfy　him；　he　has　ever　pressed　on　to　seek　a
  new　form；　and　thus　he　had　tried　various　forms　and　terminologies　in　succession　without　ever　setting
  forth　one　complete　and　consistent　whole。　His　principal　works　in　this　connection　are　the　“First
  Sketch　of　a　System　of　Natural　Philosophy；”　1799；　the　“System　of　Transcendental　Idealism；”
  1800；　one　of　his　most　carefully　throughout　works；　“Bruno；　a　Dialogue　on　the　Divine　and　Natural
  Principle　of　Things；”　1802；　“Journal　of　Speculative　Physics；”　1801；　“New　Journal　of
  Speculative　Physics；”　1802　et　seq。　In　the　second　number　of　the　second　volume　of　his　“Journal　of
  Speculative　Physics；”　Schelling　made　the　commencement　of　a　detailed　treatment　of　the　whole　of
  his　philosophy。　Here　he　likewise　starts　to　a　certain　measure；　though　unconsciously；　from　the
  Fichtian　form　of　construction；　but　the　idea　is　already　present　that　nature　equally　with　knowledge　is
  a　system　of　reason。
  It　is　not　feasible　here　to　go　into　details　respecting　what　is　called　the　philosophy　of　Schelling；　even　if
  time　permitted。　For　it　is　not　yet　a　scientific　whole　organized　in　all　its　branches；　since　it　rather
  consists　in　certain　general　elements　which　do　not　fluctuate　with　the　rest　of　his　opinions。　Schelling's
  philosophy　must　still　be　regarded　as　in　process　of　evolution；　and　it　has　not　yet　ripened　into　fruit；（8）
  we　can　hence　give　a　general　idea　of　it　only。
  When　Schelling　made　his　first　appearance　the　demands　put　forward　by　Philosophy　were　as
  follows。　With　Descartes　thought　and　extension　were　in　some　incomprehensible　way　united　in　God；
  with　Spinoza　it　was　as　motionless　substance；　and　beyond　this　point　of　view　neither　of　them　ever
  passed。　Later　on　we　saw　the　form　develop；　partly　in　the　sciences　and　partly　in　the　Kantian
  philosophy。　Finally；　in　the　Fichtian　philosophy；　the　form　was　subjectivity　on　its　own　account；　from
  which　all　determinations　were　held　to　develop。　What　is　thus　demanded　is　that　this　subjectivity　of
  infinite　form　which　we　saw　dying　into　irony　or　arbitrariness　（pp。　507…510）　should　be　delivered
  from　its　one…sidedness　in　order　to　be　united　with　objectivity　and　substantiality。　To　put　it　otherwise；
  the　substance　of　Spinoza　should　not　be　apprehended　as　the　unmoved；　but　as　the　intelligent；　as　a
  form　which　possesses　activity　within　itself　of　necessity；　so　that　it　is　the　forming　power　of　nature；
  but　at　the　same　time　knowledge　and　comprehension。　This　then　is　the　object　of　Philosophy；　it　is　not
  the　formal　union　of　Spinoza　that　is　demanded；　nor　the　subjective　totality　of　Fichte；　but　totality　with
  the　infinite　form。　We　see　this　developing　in　the　philosophy　of　Schelling。
  1。　In　one　of　his　earlier　writings；　the　“System　of　Transcendental　Idealism；”　which　we　shall
  consider　first　of　all；　Schelling　represented　transcendental　philosophy　and　natural　philosophy　as　the
  two　sides　of　scientific　knowledge。　Respecting　the　nature　of　the　two；　he　expressly　declared　himself
  in　this　work；　where　he　once　more　adopts　a　Fichtian　starting…point：　“All　knowledge　rests　on　the
  harmony　of　an　objective　with　a　subjective。”　In　the　common　sense　of　the　words　this　would　be
  allowed；　absolute　unity；　where　the　Notion　and　the　reality　are　undistinguished　in　the　perfected　Idea；
  is　the　Absolute　alone；　or　God；　all　else　contains　an　element　of　discord　between　the　objective　and
  subjective。　“We　may　give　the　name　of　nature　to　the　entire　objective　content　of　our　knowledge；　the
  entire　subjective　content；　on　the　other　hand；　is　called　the　ego　or　intelligence。”　They　are　in
  themselves　identical　and　presupposed　as　identical。　The　relation　of　nature　to　intelligence　is　given　by
  Schelling　thus：　“Now　if　all　knowledge　has　two　poles　which　mutually　presuppose　and　demand　one
  another；　there　must　be　two　fundamental　sciences；　and　it　must　be　impossible　to　start　from　the　one
  pole　without　being　driven　to　the　other。”　Thus　nature　is　impelled　to　spirit；　and　spirit　to　nature；
  either　may　be　given　the　first　place；　and　both　must　come　to　pass。　“If　the　objective　is　made　the
  chief；”　we　have　the　natural　sciences　as　result；　and　“the　necessary　tendency；”　the　end；　“of　all
  natural　science　thus　is　to　pass　from　nature　to　intelligence。　This　is　the　meaning　of　the　effort　to
  connect　natural　phenomena　with　theory。　The　highest　perfection　of　natural　science　would　be　the
  perfect　spiritualization　of　all　natural　laws　into　laws　of　intuitive　perception　and　thought。　The
  phenomenal　（the　material　element）　must　entirely　disappear；　and　laws　（the　formal　element）　alone
  remain。　Hence　it　comes　to　pass　that　the　more　that　which　is　in　conformity　with　law　breaks　forth　in
  nature　itself；　the　more　the　outward　covering　disappears；　the　phenomena　themselves　become　more
  spiritual；　and　finally　cease　altogether。　The　perfect　theory　of　nature　would　be　that　by　which　the
  whole　of　nature　should　be　resolved　into　an　intelligence。　The　dead　and　unconscious　products　of
  nature　are　only　abortive　attempts　on　the　part　of　nature　to　reflect　itself；　but　the　so…called　dead
  nature　is　really　an　immature；”　torpid；　fossilized　“intelligence〃；　it　is　implicit　only；　and　thus　remains
  in　externality；　“hence　in　its　phenomena；”　even　though　“still　unconsciously；　the　character　of
  intelligence　shines　through。　Its　highest　end；　which　is　to　become　object　to　itself；　is　first　attained　by
  nature”　（instead　of　nature　we　should　call　it　the　Idea　of　nature）；　“through　its　highest　and　ultimate
  reflection；　which　is　none　other　than　man；　or；　more　generally；　it　is　that　which　we　call　reason；　through
  which　nature　for　the　first　time　returns　completely　within　itself；　and　whereby　it　becomes　evident　that
  nature　is　originally　identical　with　what　is　known　in　us　as　intelligence　or　the　conscious。　Through　this
  tendency　to　make　nature　intelligent　natural　science　becomes　the　philosophy　of　nature。”　The
  intelligent　character　of　nature　is　thus　spoken　of　as　a　postulate　of　science。　The　other　point　of　view　is
  “to　give　the　subjective　the　foremost　place。”　Thus　here　“the　problem　is　how　to　add　an　objective
  element　agreeing　with　it。　To　start　from　the　subjective　as　from　the　first　and　absolute；　and　to　make
  the　objective　arise　from　it；”　signifies　a　new　departure；　its　consideration　forms　the　content　of　true
  Transcendental　Philosophy；　or；　as　Schelling　himself　now　named　this　science；　“the　other　science
  fundamental　to　Philosophy。”　The　organ　of　transcendental　philosophy　is　the　subjective；　the
  production　of　inward　action。　Production　and　reflection　upon　this　production；　the　unconscious　and
  conscious　in　one；　is　the　？sthetic　act　of　the　imagination。（9）　Thus　these　two　separate　processes　are
  as　a　whole　very　clearly　expressed：　the　process　which　leads　from　nature　to　the　subject；　and　that
  leading　from　the　ego　to　the　object。　But　the　true　process　could　only　be　traced　out　by　means　of
  logic；　for　it　contains　pure　thoughts；　but　the　logical　point　of　view　was　what　Schelling　never　arrived
  at　in　his　presentation　of　things；
  a。　In　respect　of　the　ego；　as　principle　of　the　transcendental　philosophy；　Schelling　sets　to　work　in
  the　same　way　as　did　Fichte；　inasmuch　as　he　begins　from　the　fact　of　knowledge　“in　which　the
  content　is　conditioned　through　the　form；　and　the　form　through　the　content”　；　this　is　formal　A　=　A。
  But　does　A　exist？　The　ego　is　“the　point　where　subject　and　object　are　one　in　their　unmediated
  condition”　；　the　ego　is　just　Ego　=　Ego；　subject…object；　and　that　is　the　act　of　self…consciousness
  wherein　I　am　for　myself　object　to　myself。　In　self…consciousness　there　is　not　to　be　found　a
  distinction　between　me　and　anything　else；　what　are　distinguished　are　directly　identical；　and　there　is
  so　far　nothing　at　all　in　opposition　to　this　self…consciousness。　How　the　case　stands　with　regard　to
  external　objects　is　the　question　which　must　be　decided　later；　in　the　further　course　of　development。
  It　is　only　the　Notion　of　the　ego　which　is　to　be　laid　hold　of：　“The　Notion　of　the　ego；　that　is　the　act
  whereby　thought　in　general　becomes　object　to　itself；　and　the　ego　itself　（the　object）　are　absolutely
  one；　independently　of　this　act　the　ego　is　nothing。”　It　is　the　act　whereby　thought　makes　itself
  objective；　and　wherein　the　ego　is　brought　into　harmony　with　the　objective；　with　thought；　and　from
  this　standpoint　it　had　to　be　demonstrated　how　the　ego　makes　its　way　to　objectivity。　“The　ego；　as
  pure　act；　as　pure　action；　is　not　objective　in　knowledge　itself；　for　the　reason　that　it　is　the　principle　of
  all　knowledge。　If　it　is　to　be　object　of　knowledge；　this　must　come　to　pass　through　a　very　different
  kind　of　knowledge　than　the　ordinary。”　The　immediate　consciousness　of　this　identity　is　intuition；
  but　inwardly　it　becomes　“intellectual　intuition”　；　it　“is　a　knowledge　which　is　the　object：　sensuous
  intuition　or　perception　is　perception　of　such　a　nature　that　the　perception　itself　appears　to　be
  different　from　what　is　perceived。　Now　intellectual　intuition　is　the　organ　of　all　transcendental
  thought；”　the　act　of　pure　self…cons