DOCSLIB.ORG

German Philosophy 1760-1860: the Legacy of Idealism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
German Philosophy 1760-1860: the Legacy of Idealism This page intentionally left blank GERMAN PHILOSOPHY -- The Legacy of Idealism In the second half of the eighteenth century, German philosophy came for a while to dominate European philosophy. It changed the way in which not only Europeans, but people all over the world, conceived of themselves and thought about nature, religion, human history, politics, and the structure of the human mind. In this rich and wide-ranging book, Terry Pinkard interweaves the story of “Germany” – changing during this period from a loose collection of principalities to a newly emerged nation with a distinctive culture – with an examination of the currents and complexities of its devel- oping philosophical thought. He examines the dominant influence of Kant, with his revolutionary emphasis on “self-determination,” and traces this influence through the development of Romanticism and idealismto the critiques of post-Kantian thinkers such as Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard. His book will interest a range of readers in the history of philosophy, cultural history, and the history of ideas. is Professor of Philosophy and German at Northwestern University. His publications include Hegel’s Dialectic: The Explanation of Possibility (), Hegel’s Phenomenology: The Sociality of Reason (), and Hegel (), as well as many journal articles. GERMAN PHILOSOPHY -- The Legacy of Idealism TERRY PINKARD Northwestern University Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge , United Kingdom Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521663267 © Terry Pinkard 2002 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published in print format 2002 - ---- eBook (NetLibrary) - --- eBook (NetLibrary) - ---- hardback - --- hardback - ---- paperback - --- paperback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of s for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. To Susan Contents Acknowledgements page ix List of abbreviations x Introduction: “Germany” and German philosophy The revolution in philosophy (I): human spontaneity and the natural order The revolution in philosophy (II): autonomy and the moral order The revolution in philosophy (III): aesthetic taste, teleology, and the world order :- Introduction: idealismand the reality of the French Revolution The s: the immediate post-Kantian reaction: Jacobi and Reinhold The s: Fichte The s after Fichte: the Romantic appropriation of Kant (I): H¨olderlin, Novalis, Schleiermacher, Schlegel –: the Romantic appropriation of Kant (II): Schelling vii viii Contents –: the other post-Kantian: Jacob Friedrich Fries and non-Romantic sentimentalism Introduction: post-revolutionary Germany Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit: post-Kantianism in a new vein Hegel’s analysis of mind and world: the Science of Logic Nature and spirit: Hegel’s system Introduction: exhaustion and resignation, – Schelling’s attempt at restoration: idealism under review Kantian paradoxes and modern despair: Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard Conclusion: the legacy of idealism Bibliography Index Acknowledgements Hilary Gaskin of Cambridge University Press first gave me the idea for this book. Without her encouragement both at first and all along the way, the book would never have been written. That she also contributed many helpful suggestions on rewriting the manuscript as it was under way all the more puts me in her debt. I have cited several of Robert Pippin’s pieces in the manuscript, but his influence runs far deeper than any of the footnotes could indicate. In all of the conversations we have had about these topics over the years and in the class we taught together, I have learned much from his sug- gestions, his arguments, and his ideas for how this line of thought might be improved. I have incorporated many more of the ideas taken from mutual conversations and a class taught together than could possibly be indicated by even an infinite set of footnotes to his published work. Fred Rush also read the manuscript; his comments were invaluable. Susan Pinkard offered not only support but the help of a historian’s gaze when I was trying to figure out how to make my way along this path. Without her, this book would not have been written. ix Abbreviations Briefe G. W. F. Hegel, Briefe von und an Hegel, ed. Johannes Hoffmeister, Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, , vols. –. HeW G. W. F. Hegel, Werke in zwanzig B¨anden, eds. Eva Moldenhauer and Karl Markus Michel, Frankfurt amMain: Suhrkamp, . KW Immanuel Kant, Werke, ed. WilhelmWeischedel, Frankfurt amMain: SuhrkampVerlag, , vol. Schellings Werke F. W. J. Schelling, Schellings Werke, ed. Manfred Schr¨oter, Munich: C. H. Beck und Oldenburg, . SW J. G. Fichte, S¨amtliche Werke, ed. Immanuel Hermann Fichte, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, . WTB Friedrich von Hardenberg, Werke, Tageb¨ucher und Briefe, eds. Hans-JoachimM¨ahl and Richard Samuel, Munich: Carl Hanser, . x Introduction: “Germany” and German philosophy In , one of the many contenders for the title “the first world war” – in this case, the “Seven Years War” – was concluded. Its worldwide effects were obvious – France, besides being saddled with enormous financial losses as a result of the war, was in effect driven out of North America and India by Britain, never to recover its territories there – but, curiously, the war had started and mostly been fought on “German” soil, and one of its major results was to transform (or perhaps just to confirm) the German Land of Prussia into a major European power. It is hard to say, though, what it meant for “Germany,”since, at that point, “Germany,”as so many historians have pointed out, did not exist except as a kind of shorthand for the German-speaking parts of the gradually expiring “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.” Once a center of commerce and trade in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, “Germany,” in that shorthand sense, had by the eighteenth century become only a bit player on the European scene, long since having lost much of its economic vitality as trade shifted to the North Atlantic following the voyages of discovery and the intensive colonization efforts in what Europeans described as the “New World.” After suffering huge population losses in the Thirty Years War (–), “Germany” found itself divided by the terms of the Treaty of Westphalia in into a series of principalities – some relatively large, some as small as a village – that were held together only by the more-or-less fiction of belonging to and being protected by the laws and powers of the Holy Roman Empire (which as the old joke had it was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire, and which was for that matter neither a state, a confederation, or a treaty organization but a wholly sui generis political entity difficult to describe in any political terms familiar to us now). For a good bit of its early modern history,“Germany” did not even denote a cultural entity; if anything, its major feature was its intense religious division into Protestant and Catholic areas, with all the wars and rivalries that followed fromthat division. Neither Protestant German philosophy – nor Catholic “Germany” thought of themselves as sharing any kind of joint culture; at most they shared a language (of sorts) and a certain accidental geographical proximity. “Germany” during that period must thus be put into quotation marks, since for all practical purposes there simply was no such thing as “Germany” at the time. “Germany” became Germany only in hindsight. Yet, starting in , “German” philosophy came for a while to dom- inate European philosophy and to change the shape of how not only Europeans but practically the whole world conceived of itself, of nature, of religion, of human history, of the nature of knowledge, of politics, and of the structure of the human mind in general. From its inception, it was controversial, always hard to understand, and almost always described as German – one thinks of WilliamHazlitt’s opening line in his re- view of a book by Friedrich Schlegel: “The book is German” – and it is clear that the word, “German,” sometimes was used to connote depth, sometimes to connote simply obscurity, and sometimes to accuse the au- thor of attempting speciously to give “depth” to his works by burying it in obscurantist language. Yet the fact that there was no “Germany” at the time indicates how little can be explained by appealing to its being “German,” as if being “German” might independently explain the de- velopment of “German” philosophy during this period. If nothing else, what counted as “German” was itself up for grabs and was being devel- oped and argued about by writers, politicians, publicists, and, of course, philosophers, during this period. Nonetheless, the questions those “German” philosophers asked them- selves during this period remain our own questions. We have in the in- terim become perhaps a bit more sophisticated as to how we pose them, and we have in the interimlearned a good bit about what kinds of it- erations or what kinds of answers to their problems carry what types of extra problems with them. Their questions, though, remain our ques- tions, and thus “German” philosophy remains an essential part of modern philosophy. What, then, was the relation of “German” philosophy to “Germany”? It is tempting to think of “Germany” becoming Germany because of the explosion in philosophical, literary, and scientific work that occurred at the end of the eighteenth century in that part of the world, such that “Germany” became a culturally unified Germany (or came to The line fromHazlitt is cited in Peter Gay, The Naked Heart (New York: W.W.Norton, ), p.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • History and Theory of Philosophy
    FEDERAL STATE BUDGETARY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION "BASHKIR STATE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY" OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTHCARE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION (FSBEI HE BSMU MOH Russia) HISTORY AND THEORY OF PHILOSOPHY Textbook Ufa 2020 1 UDC 1(09)(075.8) BBC 87.3я7 H90 Reviewers: Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, Head of the department «Social work» FSBEI HE «Bashkir State University» U.S. Vildanov Doctor of Philosophy, Professor at the Department of Philosophy and History FSBEIHE «Bashkir State Agricultural University» A.I. Stoletov History and theory of philosophy:textbook/ K.V. Khramova, H90 R.I. Devyatkina, Z.R. Sadikova, O.M. Ivanova, O.G. Afanasyeva, A.S. Zubairova-Valeeva, N.R. Mingazova, G.R. Davletshina — Ufa: Ufa: FSBEIHEBSMUMOHRussia, 2020. – 127 p. The manual was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Federal State Educational Standard of Higher Education in specialty 31.05.01 «General Medicine» the current curriculum and on the basis of the work program on the discipline of philosophy. The manual is focused on the competence-based learning model. It has an original, uniform for all classes structure, including the topic, a summary of the training questions, the subject of essays, training materials, test items with response standards, recommended literature. This manual covers topics related to the periods of development of world philosophy. Designed for students in the specialty 31.05.01 «General Medicine». It is recommended to be published by the Coordinating Scientific and Methodological Council and was approved by the decision of the Editorial and Publishing Council of the BSMU of the Ministry of Healthcare of Russia.
    [Show full text]
  • Qualitative Freedom
    Claus Dierksmeier Qualitative Freedom - Autonomy in Cosmopolitan Responsibility Translated by Richard Fincham Qualitative Freedom - Autonomy in Cosmopolitan Responsibility Claus Dierksmeier Qualitative Freedom - Autonomy in Cosmopolitan Responsibility Claus Dierksmeier Institute of Political Science University of Tübingen Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany Translated by Richard Fincham American University in Cairo New Cairo, Egypt Published in German by Published by Transcript Qualitative Freiheit – Selbstbestimmung in weltbürgerlicher Verantwortung, 2016. ISBN 978-3-030-04722-1 ISBN 978-3-030-04723-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04723-8 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018964905 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2019. This book is an open access publication. Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
    [Show full text]
  • The Outcome of Classical German Philosophy History 71600/CL
    The Outcome of Classical German Philosophy History 71600/CL 85000/PSC Prof. Wolin (GC 5114) Fall 2019 [email protected] Mon. 6:30-8:30 Room: GC ?? In 1886, Friedrich Engels wrote a perfectly mediocre book, Ludwig Feuerbach and the Outcome of Classical German Philosophy, which nevertheless managed to raise a fascinating and important question that is still being debated today: how should we go about evaluating the legacy of German Idealism following the mid-nineteenth century breakdown of the Hegelian system? For Engels, the answer was relatively simple: the rightful heir of classical German philosophy was Marx’s doctrine of historical materialism. But, in truth, Engels’ response was merely one of many possible approaches. Nor would it be much of an exaggeration to claim that, in the twentieth century, there is hardly a philosopher worth reading who has not sought to define him or herself via a confrontation with the legacy of Kant and Hegel. Classical German Philosophy – Kant, Fichte, Hegel, and Schelling – has bequeathed a rich legacy of reflection on the fundamental problems of epistemology, ontology and aesthetics. Even contemporary thinkers who claim to have transcended it (e.g., poststructuralists such as Foucault and Derrida) cannot help but make reference to it in order to validate their post- philosophical standpoints and claims. Our approach to this very rich material will combine a reading of the canonical texts of German Idealism (e.g., Kant and Hegel) with a sustained and complementary focus on major twentieth-century thinkers who have sought to establish their originality via a critical reading of Hegel and his heirs: Alexandre Kojève, Martin Heidegger, Michel Foucault, Theodor Adorno, and Jürgen Habermas.
    [Show full text]
  • 210 the Genesis of Neo-Kantianism
    SYNTHESIS PHILOSOPHICA Book Reviews / Buchbesprechungen 61 (1/2016) pp. (207–220) 210 doi: 10.21464/sp31116 of his book is that the movement’s origins are to be found already in the 1790s, in the Frederick Charles Beiser works of Jakob Friedrich Fries, Johann Frie- drich Herbart, and Friedrich Eduard Beneke. They constitute “the lost tradition” which pre- The Genesis of served the “empiricist-psychological” side of Neo-Kantianism Kant’s thought, his dualisms, and things-in- themselves against the excessive speculative idealism of Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel who Oxford University Press, tried to rehabilitate the dogmatic rationalist Oxford 2014 metaphysics of Spinoza, Leibniz, and Wolff after Kant’s critical project. Frederick Charles Beiser, professor of phi- The first chapter of the first part (pp. 23–88) losophy at Syracuse University (USA) whose is concerned with the philosophy of Fries field of expertise is the modern German phi- who tried to base philosophy on empirical losophy, is one of the most erudite historians psychology, and epistemology on psychol- of philosophy today. His first book The Fate ogy which could recognize the synthetic a of Reason: German Philosophy from Kant priori but not prove it. His book Reinhold, to Fichte (1987) didn’t only present a fresh Fichte und Schelling (1803) saw the history account of German philosophy at the end of of philosophy after Kant as the “struggle of th the 18 century, but it also introduced a new rationalism to free itself from the limits of method of historical research. His more re- the critique”. In his political philosophy Fries cent works, starting with The German His- was an anti-Semite, but gave the leading role toricist Tradition (2011) until the most recent to public opinion which could correct even Weltschmerz: Pessimism in German Philoso- the ruler, although he encountered problems phy, 1860–1900 (2016), have focused on the in trying to reconcile his liberal views with th main currents of the 19 century German the social injustice that liberalism created.
    [Show full text]
  • Rachel Elizabeth Zuckert Department of Philosophy 5728 N. Kenmore
    Rachel Elizabeth Zuckert Department of Philosophy 5728 N. Kenmore Ave, 3N Northwestern University Chicago, IL 60660 Kresge 3-512 1880 Campus Drive home: (773) 728-7927 Evanston, IL 60208 work: (847) 491-2556 [email protected] Education: 2000 PhD, University of Chicago, Department of Philosophy and the Committee on Social Thought 1995 MA, University of Chicago, Committee on Social Thought 1992 B.A. (1), Oxford University (Philosophy and Modern Languages) 1990 B.A. (Summa Cum Laude; Highest Honors in Philosophy; Phi Beta Kappa), Williams College Areas of Specialization: Kant and eighteenth-century philosophy Aesthetics Areas of Competence: Early modern philosophy Nineteenth-century philosophy Feminist philosophy Languages: French German Academic Employment: 2018- Professor of Philosophy, Northwestern University; affiliated with the German Department 2008-18 Associate Professor of Philosophy, Northwestern University; affiliated with the German Department 2011-18 2006-2008 Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Northwestern University 2001-2006 Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Rice University 1999-2001 Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Bucknell University Zuckert 2 Publications: Books Kant on Beauty and Biology: An Interpretation of the Critique of Judgment, Cambridge University Press, 2007. Awarded the American Society for Aesthetics Monograph Prize (2008); reviewed in British Journal for the History of Philosophy, Comparative and Continental Philosophy, Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal, Journal of the History of Philosophy, Metascience, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Review of Metaphysics, and subject of review essays in Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism and Kant Yearbook Herder’s Naturalist Aesthetics, Cambridge University Press, forthcoming (2019). Edited Volume Hegel on Philosophy in History, co-edited with James Kreines, Cambridge University Press, 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Immanuel Kant and the Development of Modern Psychology David E
    University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Psychology Faculty Publications Psychology 1982 Immanuel Kant and the Development of Modern Psychology David E. Leary University of Richmond, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/psychology-faculty- publications Part of the Theory and Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Leary, David E. "Immanuel Kant and the Development of Modern Psychology." In The Problematic Science: Psychology in Nineteenth- Century Thought, edited by William Ray Woodward and Mitchell G. Ash, 17-42. New York, NY: Praeger, 1982. This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Psychology at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Psychology Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 Immanuel Kant and the Development of Modern Psychology David E. Leary Few thinkers in the history of Western civilization have had as broad and lasting an impact as Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). This "Sage of Konigsberg" spent his entire life within the confines of East Prussia, but his thoughts traveled freely across Europe and, in time, to America, where their effects are still apparent. An untold number of analyses and commentaries have established Kant as a preeminent epistemologist, philosopher of science, moral philosopher, aestheti­ cian, and metaphysician. He is even recognized as a natural historian and cosmologist: the author of the so-called Kant-Laplace hypothesis regarding the origin of the universe. He is less often credited as a "psychologist," "anthropologist," or "philosopher of mind," to Work on this essay was supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant No.
    [Show full text]
  • J. G. Fichte-Gesamtausgabe III,6
    J. G. FICHTE-GESAMTAUSGABE 111,6 J. G. FICHTE-GESAMTAUSGABE DER BAYERISCHEN AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN Herausgegeben von Reinhard Lauth und Hans Gliwitzky BRIEFE BAND 6 JOHANN GOTTLIEB FICHTE BRIEFWECHSEL 1806-1810 Herausgegeben von Reinhard Lauth, Hans Gliwitzky, Peter K. Schneider und Erich Fuchs unter Mitwirkung von Ives Radrizzani, Erich Ruff und Manfred Zahn Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1997 Friedrich Frommann Verlag (Günther Holzboog) Herausgegeben mit Unterstützung der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft und des Bundesministeriums für Forschung und Technologie CIP-Kurztitelaufnahme der Deutschen Bibliothek Fichte, Johann Gottlieb: Gesamtausgabe der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften I J. G. Fichte. Hrsg. von Reinhard Lauth u. Hans Gliwitzky.­ Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboog ISBN 3-7728-0138-2 NE: Fichte, Johann Gottlieb: [Sammlung]; Lauth, Reinhard [Hrsg.] 3. Briefe Bd. 6. Briefwechsel1806-1810 I hrsg. von Reinhard Lauth ... unter Mitw. von Ives Radrizzani ... - 1997. ISBN 3-7728-1681-9 Einbandgestaltung und Typographie Alfred Lutz Schwäbisch Gmünd Satz und Druck Laupp & Göbel Nehren bei Tübingen © Friedrich Frommann Verlag (Günther Holzboog) Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1997 Einleitung Über vier fahre, erfüllt von einschneidenden Ereignissen, umfaßt dieser vorletzte Band der Briefereihe unserer Ausgabe. Die politisch-militärischen Ereignisse des Jah­ res 1806 sind von eminenter Bedeutung sowohl für Deutschland und Europa, als auch andererseits für das Individuum]. G. Fichte, den Familienvater, den Gelehrten und Lehrer der Philosophie. Europa erhält eine neue Ordnung, auf der Landkarte wie in den Köpfen und Herzen seiner Bewohner. Auch Fichte muß sich neu orientieren: Die Tätigkeit als Professor der Philosophie in Erlangen war nach einem arbeits- aber äußerlich wenig erfolgreichen Semester schnell wieder zu Ende gegangen. Mit der vor der siegreichen französischen Armee flüchtenden preußischen Staatsspitze reist der Philosoph im Oktober 1806 nach Königsberg, nachdem er sich vorher vergeblich dem preußischen König als ,Feldpredi­ ger' angeboten hatte.
    [Show full text]
  • “Austrian” and “German” Philosophy in the 19Th Century
    Christian Damböck (Dis-)Similarities: Remarks on “Austrian” and “German” Philosophy in the 19th Century In this paper, I re-examine Barry Smith’s 1994 list of features of Austrian Philosophy. I claim that the list properly applies only in a somewhat abbreviated form to all significant representatives of Austrian Philosophy. Moreover, Smith’s crucial thesis that the features of Austrian Philosophy are not shared by any German philosopher only holds if we compare Austrian Philosophy to a canonical list of Ger- man Philosophy II. This list, however, was established in 20th century as a result of historical misrep- resentations. If we correct these misrepresentations, we obtain another list of hidden representatives called German Philosophy I. German Philosophy I is fundamentally identical to Austrian Philosophy, whereas German Philosophy II is entirely different from both Austrian Philosophy and German Phi- losophy I. Therefore, a slightly modified version of Smith’s Austrian Philosophy account still makes sense as a tool to position the pro-scientific and rational currents of Austrian Philosophy and German Philosophy I against the tendentially anti-scientific and irrational current of German Philosophy II. Although Austria and Germany1 were independent nations in the 19th century, there are many aspects that overlap between the countries. Austria and Germany share the same language, and the borders between Austria and Germany were always more or less open for academics to move from one country to the other.2 Religious differences do exist, but they do not coincide with national borders. Whereas Austria is mainly Catholic and Germany is mainly Protestant, important parts of (southwestern) Germany are mainly Catholic as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Hegel's Concept of Desire
    Hegel’s Concept of Desire SCOTT JENKINS there is a longstanding tendency in philosophy, and in some pre-theoretical contexts, to regard persons as essentially disembodied points of view on the world. In the thought of figures as diverse as Plato, Descartes, and Thomas Nagel, this tendency results in the division of a person, with features of our conscious lives such as bodily awareness, the feeling of desire, or the relation to other persons relegated to inessential status. In what follows I propose one way of understanding some early developments in Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit that involves attributing to Hegel a concern with denying that these aspects of human experience may be sorted in this manner. My exposition of Hegel’s position focuses on his concept of desire, which figures most prominently in his assertion at the beginning of the fourth chapter that “self-consciousness is desire in general” (¶167).1 There are almost as many understandings of this assertion as there are interpretations of the Phenomenology, but I believe the reading I offer to be novel. I propose that we understand Hegel’s identification of self-consciousness and desire as the claim that desiring plays an important role in an apperceptive subject’s relation to itself. In arguing for this reading, I demonstrate that there exist deep affinities between Hegel’s remarks on self-consciousness and desire in the Phenomenology and Fichte’s treatment of these topics in his applied philosophy during the Jena period, in particular in his System of Ethics.2 Understood in this way, Hegel’s concept of desire figures in an ambitious attempt to establish relations of interdependence between subjective capacities regarded as essential to consciousness and those often relegated to inessential status.
    [Show full text]
  • The Philqsophy of Nature of Kant, Schelling and Hegel
    Citation: Dieter Wandschneider (2010) The Philosophy of Nature of Kant, Schelling and Hegel, in: Moyar, Dean (ed. 2010) The Routledge Companion to Nineteenth Century Phi-iosophy. London, New York: Routledge 2010, 64—‘l03 3 THE PHILQSOPHY OF NATURE OF KANT, SCHELLING AND HEGEL UFE‘' (“Fm -z =sSb:3Sl.C/J Q;r-Q3SE.SD...cs -a Translated by Patrick Leland Introduction Man, though himself a child of nature, is — in Herder’s words — a freed man of nature. Through reason he is able to disentangle himself from natural compulsions and adapt nature to his needs. Admittedly, that also means his relation to nature is not thoroughly determined by nature but rather is precariously open. Reason is thus continuously required to clarify and justify anew man’s relation to nature. In other words, it is constitutive of man that he has a concept of nature and hence also a fundamental need for a philosophy of nature. It is no accident that in the Ionian world the philosophy of nature was “the form in which philosophy as such was born” (Wahsner ZOOZ: 9). In this respect, it is surprising that the present age, which more than any previous era is determined by the results and applications of scientific research, has not developed a thoroughgoing philosophy of nature. Instead, it is the philosophy of science, or philo- sophical reflection on the foundations of natural science, which — prepared already in the second half of the nineteenth century — has attained a truly epochal status during the twentieth century and continues to dominate contemporary philosophy. As the latter has allowed the philosophy ofscience to supersede the philosophy ofnature, it has neglected to develop a concept of nature adequate for our time.
    [Show full text]
  • This Is a Postprint Draft! Please Do Not Cite
    This is a Postprint Draft! Please do not Cite. WHEN CITING ALWAYS REFER TO THE FINAL VERSION PUBLISHED IN EUROPEAN JOURNAL FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION, VOL. 10, NO. 4, 83–116. WITHDOI: 10.24204/EJPR.V11I1.2725 THE DIVINE SELF-MEDIATION IN THE UNIVERSE: EUTELEOLOGY MEETS GERMAN IDEALISM Thomas Schärtl University of Regensburg Abstract: The paper compares the non-standard theistic notion of God as presented by John Bishop and Ken Perszyk in their so-called “euteleological” concept of God with idealistic, especially Hegelian and post-Hegelian, concepts of the divine. Both frameworks not only share striking similarities, based on their guiding intuitions, but also have remarkably parallel problems that have already been discussed in 19th-century speculative German theology in the aftermath of German Idealism. The article offers some DOI: 10.24204/EJPR.V11I1.2725 proposals to strengthen the euteleological concept of God metaphysically — based on some insights coming from post-Hegelian discussions. I. INTRODUCTION . Citable Version has Version . Citable That the concept of a personal God should be placed under scrutiny is not just a recent idea or develop- ment, but, rather a basic tenet found for example in Johann Gottlieb Fichte’s highly disputed remarks on the notion of a divine governance of the world, in which he proposes that a personal concept of God nearly always falls prey to superstition and eventually becomes religiously inadequate. In the past two decades, a slightly different set of motives has fostered a comparable tendency to move beyond the notion of a personal God.1 We can distinguish between motives stemming from: (1) Please do not Cite do not Please DRAFT perceived inconsistencies among divine attributes (for instance, divine goodness, divine omnipotence, or divine omniscience); (2) metaphysical demands of naturalism and contemporary views on the origin of the universe or the evolution of life; and (3) evidential problems that any kind of supernaturalism, which seems to be a necessary ingredient of personal theism, must face.
    [Show full text]
  • Hegel After Augustine, an Essay on Political Theology Geoffrey J.D
    Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations (2009 -) Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Projects Transcending Subjects: Hegel After Augustine, an Essay on Political Theology Geoffrey J.D. Holsclaw Marquette University Recommended Citation Holsclaw, Geoffrey J.D., "Transcending Subjects: Hegel After Augustine, an Essay on Political Theology" (2013). Dissertations (2009 -). Paper 303. http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/303 TRANSCENDING SUBJECTS: HEGEL AFTER AUGUSTINE, AN ESSAY ON POLITICAL THEOLOGY by Geoffrey J. D. Holsclaw, B.A., M.Div. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Milwaukee, Wisconsin December 2013 ABSTRACT TRANSCENDING SUBJECTS: HEGEL AFTER AUGUSTINE, AN ESSAY ON POLITICAL THEOLOGY Geoffrey J. D. Holsclaw, B.A., M.Div. Marquette University, 2013 From where do political reformers and radicals come who are willing and prepared to challenge the status quo? Where are people formed who are capable of initiating change within a political system? Some worry belief in transcendence closes off authentic political engagement and processes of transformation. Others think that a transcendent orientation is the only means to protect and promote a more free and just society. Some see a positive commitment to transcendence as inimical to democratic practices, while others see such a commitment as indispensible for such a project. These general issues concern transcendence, immanence, and subjectivity as they bear on the question of political transformation. Explaining the differences between these fundamental orientations prompts an investigation of the philosophical and theological systems of Hegel and Augustine. Examining Hegel and Augustine around the issues of transcendence and freedom offers a way to understand these more localized disagreements between political philosophers and theologians, and even between theologians.
    [Show full text]