Home Philosophy The Polymorphous Political Theology of Novalis and Marcuse
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

The Polymorphous Political Theology of Novalis and Marcuse

  • Joseph Trullinger
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Anti/Idealism
This chapter is in the book Anti/Idealism

Abstract

In this paper I have two aims: 1) to demonstrate the mistakenness of Marcuse’s negative reading of Novalis in his dissertation on The German Artist Novel, and 2) to reconstruct how Marcuse’s utopianism would benefit from something like Novalis’ theory of Eros as divine. Because Novalis is tackling the theory of the drives that animates the central letters of Schiller’s Aesthetic Education of Man, and because Marcuse is dealing with a similar problematic in Freud’s theory of the struggle between Thanatos and Eros, Novalis proves to be a useful figure for illuminating overlooked possibilities for reconciling that problematic. I argue that Novalis puts forth a kind of “theology of Eros” that-as an elaboration of Schiller’s idea that “energetic beauty” follows from the play drive-allows an organism to perpetually progress in desire toward an ideal without exhaustion. This then allows us to conceive of Eros as similarly keen and self-evolving without devolving into self-denial. Such a conception would correct Marcuse’s metaphysics of mortality that undercuts his politics of life-affirming Eros.

Abstract

In this paper I have two aims: 1) to demonstrate the mistakenness of Marcuse’s negative reading of Novalis in his dissertation on The German Artist Novel, and 2) to reconstruct how Marcuse’s utopianism would benefit from something like Novalis’ theory of Eros as divine. Because Novalis is tackling the theory of the drives that animates the central letters of Schiller’s Aesthetic Education of Man, and because Marcuse is dealing with a similar problematic in Freud’s theory of the struggle between Thanatos and Eros, Novalis proves to be a useful figure for illuminating overlooked possibilities for reconciling that problematic. I argue that Novalis puts forth a kind of “theology of Eros” that-as an elaboration of Schiller’s idea that “energetic beauty” follows from the play drive-allows an organism to perpetually progress in desire toward an ideal without exhaustion. This then allows us to conceive of Eros as similarly keen and self-evolving without devolving into self-denial. Such a conception would correct Marcuse’s metaphysics of mortality that undercuts his politics of life-affirming Eros.

Downloaded on 25.2.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110586602-012/html
Scroll to top button