Skip to Main Content
 

Global Search Box

 
 
 

ETD Abstract Container

Abstract Header

Schelling, Heidegger, and Evil

Hawkins, Devon M
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4586-8906
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=kent1429262478

Abstract Details

2015, MA, Kent State University, College of Arts and Sciences / Department of Philosophy.
My project is to establish a secularized concept of evil by filtering F.W.J. Schelling’s philosophy through that of Martin Heidegger. Schelling’s philosophy is essential to my project, because he seeks to claim a positive ontological status for evil, as do I. Schelling’s evil, despite its religious context, is not mired in concepts of malformation, or even original sin, as is the evil of his predecessors. I offer Aristotle and Immanuel Kant as Schelling’s key secular predecessors, in whose philosophies we find the beginnings of Schelling’s free-will theodicy. Similarly, Schelling stands apart from modern theodicy—that is, from G.W. Leibniz, who coined the term “theodicy”—in three key ways: Schelling focuses on human beings, rather than on God; he embraces nature, rather than seeking to overcome it, which requires that he also embrace chaos; and he insists that evil has a positive ontological status, rather than a negative one. These departures show the influence of both Kant and Aristotle on Schelling’s conception of evil. Over the course of this project, we will find that when we uncover evil’s positive ontology and lay bare its actualization by humans, we ground an approach to evil suited to the political necessities of the twenty-first century. That is, we see that a proper philosophical understanding of evil necessarily calls us to a political address of the same. What the evils of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have shown us, especially, is that a stronger, positive conception of evil enables us to assign accountability more effectively to those who commit evil acts. Hence, crafting a positive conception of evil outside of a theological framework will necessitate a moral framework. To that end, I engage the philosophies of Friedrich Nietzsche and Hannah Arendt in order to make clear the implications of an ontologically positive evil and draw conclusions regarding the best concept of evil for a contemporary context. My view is that the best concept of evil must combine perpetrator, victim, and by-stander approaches. Such a combination approach will allow us to not only promote good, but also prevent evil.
Gina Zavota, PhD (Advisor)
Kim Garchar, PhD (Committee Member)
Michael Byron, PhD (Committee Member)
Tammy Clewell, PhD (Other)
71 p.
Philosophy
Evil; Schelling; Heidegger; Ontology; Theodicy; Secular; Eichmann; Arendt; Kant; Aristotle; Nietzsche

Recommended Citations

Citations

  • Hawkins, D. M. (2015). Schelling, Heidegger, and Evil [Master's thesis, Kent State University]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=kent1429262478

    APA Style (7th edition)

  • Hawkins, Devon. Schelling, Heidegger, and Evil. 2015. Kent State University, Master's thesis. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center, http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=kent1429262478.

    MLA Style (8th edition)

  • Hawkins, Devon. "Schelling, Heidegger, and Evil." Master's thesis, Kent State University, 2015. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=kent1429262478

    Chicago Manual of Style (17th edition)

kent1429262478
2,585
© 2015, all rights reserved.
This open access ETD is published by Kent State University and OhioLINK.