The limited nature of gods: Schelling

I am imagining the comments: “what a drag again Schelling(1775-1854), you and he are two pain on the neck, I confirm fully this judge; but Schelling is very master for his speculative and limited description because regard to gods he says: “In Homeric gods isn’t expressed the immorality but alone the mere limitation. They work in this limitation, and they are divine for how they work in this limitation…In their limitation they work likewise  as every natural being in the owner freely, because work so his the their nature and they don’t know other law that isn’t their nature…In the their immorality, the Homeric gods are alone ingenuous; truly they aren’t neither moral nor immoral, but untied but this contradiction”; and for explication of this concept Schelling continues: “Generally the morality isn’t something of supreme, hence nothing that can attributed to gods, it is clear fro its contrast to the beatitude, contrast that has every ended”; so read it is incomprehensible, but the explication is very simple: everybody is subject to sorrow, and other harms, instead the blissful is exempt. The concept of limitation and unlimited is expressed in this step: “The gods whose nature is composed from the two natures, they don’t live a dependent life and conditioned, but a free and independent and although they are particular, they joy the blissful of absolutely…”it is simple concept; the gods although limited, this limit is expressed trough the word “particular”, they live the blissful the is until the concept of morality or immorality; but a contradiction of Schelling, because he has said that the gods are untied from these concepts of morality and immorality: “… since beautiful and the morality are the something, we can say that the gods are absolutely moral because they are beautiful”; it is  the contradiction because he has said that the gods are untied for these concepts. Interesting the genesis of ideas that Schelling has tied to the genesis of gods: the theogony is similar to birth from ideas is born by other; and interesting is also the synthetic note: “The representation  where the universal means the particular is the schematic; instead the representation where the particular means is in the universal it is allegory”; it is means that in schematic definition we can the universal, and example: when we see a three we can think that the nature has made this three, but other can interpret it as a will of God, hence from the particular to universal, this is from the three to God, and schematic fro his synthesis, is directly to the particular, because it is synthetic, hence the same example of three, without the nature, the factor of birth of three is God alone, from universal, this is God that is universal to three that is particular, inasmuch schematic; and the concept is ended trough the last fase, this is the symbolic that has merged both in alone concept; but Schelling has took also a citation from Kant(1724-1804), that has called the scheme: “ as the rule think is reality of production of an object”; this is  the synthetic  and real process of intelligence, that works but much synthetically  fro a creation of an object in the brain.

Alessandro Lusana