Schelling and Dilthey
Well hell, I had no idea how much Dilthey has in common with Schelling. It's like he's taken some basic concepts and divisions from Schelling, purged them of that early Romantic tinge, and restated them in a way that sounds matter-of-fact and pragmatic, rather than sublime and overwrought.
Schelling - Two basic perspectives are possible, based on starting points in the "objective" and "subjective" components of knowledge; these are Natural Philosophy and Transcendental Philosophy, and they must aim in the infinite at total coincidence. Idealism's insistence on the primacy of the subjective is arbitrary and incomplete, and its use of teleological proofs is unconvincing, because knowing what must be the case in principle leaves much unknown about what is the case in fact. Only when a system of transcendental philosophy is fully worked out does it become clear why natural philosophy is necessary as a complementary science, and so stop asking questions of transcendental philosophy that can only be answered by natural philosophy.
Dilthey - Two basic perspectives are possible, starting from the "objective" and the "subjective" components of *experience*; these are Natural Science and Human Science, and Philosophy is the discipline that aims at bringing them into relation to one another, as an infinite progression. Idealism's tendency to deduce everything from conditions of possibility of knowledge ignores the conditions imposed on consciousness by natural forces, and produces a shallow picture of human experience that can't be related to life in the real world. The natural and human sciences have independent methodologies suited to their subject matter; there is no universal methodology, only a kind of universal reflection that can bring them to bear on the seamless combination of the human and the natural that we experience first of all.
I don't think Dilthey actually talks that much about Schelling. Or maybe I hadn't noticed his debt to Schelling because he's busy talking about people he disagrees with. Dilthey tends to be brutally honest with himself, and doesn't front much, so I bet it's the latter.
Schelling - Two basic perspectives are possible, based on starting points in the "objective" and "subjective" components of knowledge; these are Natural Philosophy and Transcendental Philosophy, and they must aim in the infinite at total coincidence. Idealism's insistence on the primacy of the subjective is arbitrary and incomplete, and its use of teleological proofs is unconvincing, because knowing what must be the case in principle leaves much unknown about what is the case in fact. Only when a system of transcendental philosophy is fully worked out does it become clear why natural philosophy is necessary as a complementary science, and so stop asking questions of transcendental philosophy that can only be answered by natural philosophy.
Dilthey - Two basic perspectives are possible, starting from the "objective" and the "subjective" components of *experience*; these are Natural Science and Human Science, and Philosophy is the discipline that aims at bringing them into relation to one another, as an infinite progression. Idealism's tendency to deduce everything from conditions of possibility of knowledge ignores the conditions imposed on consciousness by natural forces, and produces a shallow picture of human experience that can't be related to life in the real world. The natural and human sciences have independent methodologies suited to their subject matter; there is no universal methodology, only a kind of universal reflection that can bring them to bear on the seamless combination of the human and the natural that we experience first of all.
I don't think Dilthey actually talks that much about Schelling. Or maybe I hadn't noticed his debt to Schelling because he's busy talking about people he disagrees with. Dilthey tends to be brutally honest with himself, and doesn't front much, so I bet it's the latter.