DOCSLIB.ORG

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Inhaltsverzeichnis Inhaltsverzeichnis Vorwort XXIII Verzeichnis der Siglen und Abkürzungen - XXXIII Der Briefwechsel um die Hallischen Jahrbücher (August 1837-Juni 1841) 1. Arnold Ruge an Adolf Stahr, 10. August 1837 3 2. Julius von Kirchmann an Arnold Ruge, 22. August 1837 4 3. Arnold Ruge an Karl Rosenkranz, 24. August 1837 5 4. Arnold Ruge an Otto Friedrich Gruppe (Fragment), 25. September 1837 6 5. Arnold Ruge an Ludwig Feuerbach, 14. Oktober 1837 7 6. Arnold Ruge an Jacob Grimm, 15. Oktober 1837 8 7. Arnold Ruge an Friedrich Ritschi, 15. Oktober 1837 8 8. Arnold Ruge an Karl Freiherr vom Stein zum Altenstein, 20. Oktober 1837 .... 9 9. Arnold Ruge an Karl Rosenkranz, 20.-22. Oktober 1837 10 10. Arnold Ruge an Theodor Echtermeyer und Julius Schaller, 26. Oktober 1837 ... 13 11. Adolf Stahr an Theodor Echtermeyer, 28. Oktober 1837 14 12. Arnold Ruge an Theodor Echtermeyer und Julius Schaller, Ende Oktober/ Anfang November 1837 16 13. Christian Hermann Weiße an Arnold Ruge, 1. November 1837 19 14. Arnold Ruge an Theodor Echtermeyer und Julius Schaller, 2. November 1837 ... 20 15. Ludwig Preller an Arnold Ruge, 2. November 1837 22 16. Arnold Ruge an Theodor Echtermeyer, 6. November 1837 22 17. Arnold Ruge an Friedrich von Uechtritz, 7. November 1837 23 18. Arnold Ruge an Theodor Echtermeyer, 9. November 1837 24 19. Karl Bayer an Arnold Ruge, 9. November 1837 24 20. Arnold Ruge an Theodor Echtermeyer, 11. November 1837 25 21. Arnold Ruge an Hermann von Meyer, 11. November 1837 25 22. Theodor Kind an Arnold Ruge und Theodor Echtermeyer, 11. November 1837 . 26 23. Arnold Ruge an Theodor Echtermeyer, 13. November 1837 26 24. Arnold Ruge an Theodor Echtermeyer, 15. November 1837 27 25. Arnold Ruge an Conrad Schwenck, 15. November 1837 28 26. Johann Hermann Detmold an Arnold Ruge, 18. November 1837 29 27. Ferdinand Deycks an Arnold Ruge, 22. November 1837 29 28. Ludwig Feuerbach an Arnold Ruge, 23. November 1837 30 Bibliografische Informationen digitalisiert durch http://d-nb.info/993395511 VI Inhaltsverzeichnis 29. Arnold Ruge an Friedrich Thiersch, 25. November 1837 31 30. Arnold Ruge an Agnes Ruge, 30. November/I.Dezember 1837 32 31. Friedrich Theodor Vischer an David Friedrich Strauß (Auszug), 2. Dezember 1837 34 32. Ludwig Feuerbach an Arnold Ruge, 5. Dezember 1837 35 33. Arnold Ruge an D. Zeil, 6. Dezember 1837 36 34. Ludwig Feuerbach an Arnold Ruge, 15. Dezember 1837 36 35. Arnold Ruge an Karl Rosenkranz, 16. Dezember 1837 38 36. D. Zeil an Arnold Ruge, 17. Dezember 1837 41 37. Arnold Ruge an Karl Immermann, 18. Dezember 1837 42 38. Arnold Ruge an Georg Friedrich Puchta, 18. Dezember 1837 43 39. Karl Bayrhoffer an Arnold Ruge, 18. Dezember 1837 43 40. Arnold Ruge an Ferdinand Deycks, 19. Dezember 1837 44 41. Arnold Ruge an Moritz Kind, 19. Dezember 1837 45 42. Carl Eduard Meinicke an Arnold Ruge, 20. Dezember 1837 45 43. Wilhelm Ernst August von Schlieben an Arnold Ruge und Theodor Echtermeyer, 22. Dezember 1837 46 44. Arnold Ruge an Karl Bayrhoffer, 24. Dezember 1837 46 45. Karl Bayrhoffer an Arnold Ruge, 24. Dezember 1837 47 46. Theodor Echtermeyer an Otto Friedrich Gruppe, 25. Dezember 1837 48 47. R. Schmied an Arnold Ruge, 25. Dezember 1837 50 48. Hermann Burmeister an Arnold Ruge, 30. Dezember 1837 51 49. Johann Hermann Detmold an Arnold Ruge, 30. Dezember 1837 51 50. J. Härtung an Arnold Ruge, 30. Dezember 1837 52 51. Karl Rosenkranz an Arnold Ruge, 31. Dezember 1837 53 52. Arnold Ruge an Robert Prutz, Ende 1837 53 53. Prospekt der Hallischen Jahrbücher, Januar 1838 54 54. Karl Wilhelm Göttling an Arnold Ruge, 1. Januar 1838 60 55. Friedrich Korn an Arnold Ruge, 2. Januar 1838 60 56. Adolf Stahr an Arnold Ruge, 3. Januar 1838 61 57. Heinrich Düntzer an Arnold Ruge, 4. Januar 1838 63 58. Arnold Ruge an Heinrich Düntzer (Entwurf), nach dem 6. Januar 1838 63 59. Georg Funke an Arnold Ruge, 7. Januar 1838 64 60. E.Schwarz an Arnold Ruge, 7. Januar 1838 65 61. Ernst Heinrich Weber an Arnold Ruge, 9. Januar 1838 66 62. Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer an Arnold Ruge, 12. Januar 1838 67 63. Ernst Förster an Arnold Ruge, 13. Januar 1838 67 64. Arnold Ruge an Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, 14. Januar 183 8 68 65. Ph. Laven an Arnold Ruge und Theodor Echtermeyer, 14. Januar 1838 69 66. Arnold Ruge an Karl Rosenkranz, 15. Januar 1838 70 67. E.Brauns an Arnold Ruge und Theodor Echtermeyer, 15. Januar 1838 71 68. Friedrich Theodor Vischer an Arnold Ruge, 16. Januar 1838 72 69. Friedrich Wilhelm Carové an Arnold Ruge, 18. Januar 1838 74 70. Friedrich von Uechtritz an Arnold Ruge, 20. Januar 1838 74 71. Wilhelm Ernst August von Schlieben an Arnold Ruge und Theodor Echtermeyer, 23. Januar 1838 75 72. Bleyel an Arnold Ruge, 24. Januar 1838 75 Inhaltsverzeichnis VII 73. Eduard Platner an Arnold Ruge, 24. Januar 1838 77 74. Arnold Ruge an Otto Wigand, 30. Januar 1838 77 75. Friedrich von Bülau an Arnold Ruge, 31. Januar 1838 79 76. Arnold Ruge an Johann Gustav Droysen, 1. Februar 1838 80 77. Arnold Ruge an Karl Rosenkranz, 4. Februar 1838 80 78. Eduard Baumstark an Arnold Ruge, 10. Februar 1838 81 79. Arnold Ruge an Ludwig Feuerbach, 12. Februar 1838 82 80. Ludwig Preller an Arnold Ruge, 14. Februar 1838 82 81. Heinrich Laube an Arnold Ruge, 15. Februar 1838 83 82. Karl Weinholtz an Arnold Ruge, 16. Februar 1838 84 83. Friedrich Theodor Vischer an Arnold Ruge, 16. Februar 1838 87 84. Karl Bayrhoffer an Arnold Ruge, 17. Februar 1838 88 85. Christian Wilhelm Niedner an Arnold Ruge, 18. Februar 1838 89 86. Arnold Ruge an Ludwig Wolfram, 20. Februar 1838 89 87. A. Boden an Arnold Ruge, 20. Februar 1838 91 88. Hermann Klemke an Arnold Ruge, 20. Februar 1838 92 89. Gustav Schwab an Arnold Ruge, 22. Februar 1838 93 90. Arnold Ruge an Karl Freiherr vom Stein zum Altenstein, 23. Februar 1838 .... 93 91. Arnold Ruge an Johannes Schulze, 23. Februar 1838 94 92. Eduard Meyer an Arnold Ruge, 23. Februar 1838 94 93. Eduard Poeppig an Arnold Ruge, 23. Februar 1838 95 94. Leopold August Warnkönig an Arnold Ruge, 23. Februar 1838 95 95. Joseph von Aschbach an Arnold Ruge, 24. Februar 1838 96 96. Reinhold Köstlin an Arnold Ruge, 24. Februar 1838 97 97. Reinhold Köstlin an Arnold Ruge, 26. Februar 1838 98 98. Ludwig Feuerbach an Arnold Ruge, 27. Februar 1838 98 99. Wilhelm Ernst August von Schlieben an Arnold Ruge und Theodor Echtermeyer, 27. Februar 1838 99 100. Georg Funke an Arnold Ruge, 28. Februar 1838 100 101. David Friedrich Strauß an Arnold Ruge, 1. März 1838 101 102. Johann Leutbecher an Arnold Ruge, 2. März 1838 102 103. Friedrich Kapp an Arnold Ruge, 3. März 1838 103 104. Wolfgang Stich an Arnold Ruge und Theodor Echtermeyer, 3. März 1838 104 105. Ernst Heinrich Weber an Arnold Ruge, 5. März 1838 104 106. Gustav Blumröder an Arnold Ruge, 9. März 1838 105 107. L. Krahner an Arnold Ruge, 10. März 1838 106 108. Reinhold Köstlin an Arnold Ruge, 11. März 1838 107 109. Sochratzy an Arnold Ruge, 12. März 1838 107 110. Peter Feddersen Stuhr an Arnold Ruge und Theodor Echtermeyer, 14. März 1838 108 111. Karl Biedermann an Arnold Ruge und Theodor Echtermeyer, 17. März 1838 . 109 112. Ferdinand Hitzig an Arnold Ruge, 20. März 1838 110 113. Hans Ferdinand Maßmann an Arnold Ruge, etwa 20. März 1838 110 114. Julius Schadeberg an Arnold Ruge, 24. März 1838 112 115. Max Duncker an Arnold Ruge, 27. März 1838 113 116. Wilhelm Arnold an Arnold Ruge, 28. März 1838 113 VIII Inhaltverzeichnis 117. Friedrich Theodor Vischer an Arnold Ruge, 28. März 1838 114 118. Wilhelm Schröder an Arnold Ruge, 30. März 1838 115 119. Georg Christian Rudolph Matthäi an Arnold Ruge, 1. April 1838 116 120. Arnold Ruge an Ludwig Preller, 3. Arpil 1838 116 121. Arnold Ruge an Friedrich Ritschi, 3. April 1838 117 122. Johann Gustav Droysen an Arnold Ruge, 3. April 1838 118 123. Moritz Haupt an Arnold Ruge, 3. April 1838 119 124. Arnold Ruge an Karl Rosenkranz, 4. April 1838 120 125. Max Götzinger an Arnold Ruge, 4. April 1838 121 126. Arnold Ruge an Johann Gustav Droysen (Entwurf), 5. April 1838 121 127. Alexander Böhme an Arnold Ruge, 5. April 1838 123 128. Karl Bayer an Arnold Ruge, 9. April 1838 124 129. Johann Caspar Bluntschli an Arnold Ruge, 9. April 1838 124 130. Ludwig Preller an Arnold Ruge, 9. April 1838 125 131. Otto Wigand an Arnold Ruge, 10. April 1838 126 132. Arnold Ruge an Gustav Kolb, 12. April 1838 127 133. Friedrich Ritschi an Arnold Ruge, 15. April 1838 128 134. Theodor von Kobbe an Arnold Ruge, 17. April 1838 128 135. Adolf Stahr an Arnold und Agnes Ruge, 18. April 1838 129 136. Gustav Schwab an Arnold Ruge, 19. April 1838 132 137. Ernst Susemihl an Arnold Ruge, 23. April 1838 133 138. Otto Wigand an Arnold Ruge, 23. April 1838 133 139. J. Escher an Arnold Ruge, 24. April 1838 134 140. Carl Conrad Hense an Arnold Ruge, 27. April 1838 134 141. L.Igelsheimer an Arnold Ruge, 29. April 1838 135 142. Heinrich Stieglitz an Arnold Ruge, 29. April 1838 136 143. Arnold Ruge an Ludwig Preller, 30. April 1838 137 144. Karl Rosenkranz an Arnold Ruge, Anfang Mai 1838 137 145. Hermann Burmeister an Arnold Ruge, etwa Mai 1838 138 146. E.Gervais an Arnold Ruge, 3. Mai 1838 138 147. Leopold August Warnkönig an Arnold Ruge, 8.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Introduction to Jacob Boehme
    This companion will prove an invaluable resource for all those engaged in research or teaching on Jacob Boehme and his readers, as historians, philos- ophers, literary scholars or theologians. Boehme is “on the radar” of many researchers, but often avoided as there are relatively few aids to understand- ing his thought, its context and subsequent appeal. This book includes a fi ne spread of topics and specialists. Cyril O’Regan, University of Notre Dame, USA 66244-139-0FM-2pass-r02.indd244-139-0FM-2pass-r02.indd i 55/31/2013/31/2013 88:46:56:46:56 AAMM 66244-139-0FM-2pass-r02.indd244-139-0FM-2pass-r02.indd iiii 55/31/2013/31/2013 88:48:14:48:14 AAMM An Introduction to Jacob Boehme This volume brings together for the fi rst time some of the world’s leading authorities on the German mystic Jacob Boehme to illuminate his thought and its reception over four centuries for the benefi t of students and advanced scholars alike. Boehme’s theosophical works have infl uenced Western culture in profound ways since their dissemination in the early seventeenth century, and these interdisciplinary essays trace the social and cultural networks as well as the intellectual pathways involved in Boehme’s enduring impact. The chapters range from situating Boehme in the sixteenth-century Radical Reformation to discussions of his signifi cance in modern theology. They explore the major contexts for Boehme’s reception, including the Pietist movement, Russian religious thought, and Western esotericism. In addition, they focus more closely on important readers, including the religious rad- icals of the English Civil Wars and the later English Behmenists, literary fi gures such as Goethe and Blake, and great philosophers of the modern age such as Schelling and Hegel.
    [Show full text]
  • Daub: Kierkegaard's Paradoxical Use of a Hegelian Sentry
    Daub: Kierkegaard's Paradoxical Appropriation of a Hegelian Sentry Jon Stewart Carl (or sometimes, Karl) Daub (1765-1836) is known today as little more than a footnote in the development of the right-Hegelian school. In this context he is often mentioned together with figures such as Philipp Marheineke (1780-1846), Karl Rosenkranz (1805-79) and Carl Friedrich Goschel (1784-1861). He was, however, a profoundly influential theologian in his own right and was recognized as such in his age. Indeed, in one account he is ranked together with Goethe (1749-1832), Hegel (1770-1831), Fichte (1762-1814) and Schleiermacher (1768-1834).' Daub authored a number of books which were significant for both the philosophical and the theological discussions of the day. While it has long been apparent to some Kierkegaard scholars that Daub played an important role in the development of the young Kierkegaard's thought, very few studies have been devoted to exploring this connection.' In particular, while it is clear that Kierkegaard read some of Daub's works as a young student, it remains an open question whether that reading left any enduring mark on his thought. The present article hopes to establish the importance of Daub as a source for Kierkegaard's thought and to problematize this relationship in a way that points out possible directions for future research. Karl Rosenkranz, Erinnerungen an Karl Daub, Berlin: Duncker und Humblct 1837, p. 40 (ASKB 743). 2 In fact, the only studies to date to treat it directly arc Emanuel Hirsch's "Die Einfllhrung in die Frage Glaube und Geschichte durch Karl Daub," in his Kierkegaard-Studien, vols.
    [Show full text]
  • John Dewey's "Permanent Hegelian Deposit" and the Exigencies of War
    John Dewey's "Permanent Hegelian Deposit" and the Exigencies of War Good, James A. (James Allan) Journal of the History of Philosophy, Volume 44, Number 2, April 2006, pp. 293-313 (Article) Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press DOI: 10.1353/hph.2006.0026 For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hph/summary/v044/44.2good.html Access Provided by Georgia Southern University at 10/31/12 8:48PM GMT JOHN DEWEY’ S “HEGELIAN DEPOSIT” 293 John Dewey’s “Permanent Hegelian Deposit” and the Exigencies of War JAMES A. GOOD* THE TRADITIONAL VIEW of John Dewey’s philosophical development dates back to Morton White’s The Origins of Dewey’s Instrumentalism, published in 1943. Accord- ing to White, Dewey embraced British neo-Hegelianism as a neophyte philoso- pher, but during the 1890s he began to criticize neo-Hegelianism and gradually overcame his need for transcendent realities, both in his philosophy and in his personal religious commitments. Dewey heroically liberated himself from his ab- solutist chains and proclaimed to the world his newfound philosophical freedom in the Studies in Logical Theory in 1903.1 For years, subsequent studies debated the precise timing of Dewey’s development during the 1890s, but accepted the Stud- ies in Logical Theory as his definitive declaration of independence.2 Perhaps few Dewey scholars still read the Studies in Logical Theory; when I first read it several years ago I was astonished to discover that Hegel was never mentioned in the book.3 Despite William James’s oft-quoted praise of the Studies, it is significant 1 According to White, during the 1890s Dewey “continued to hammer away at his [Hegelian] chains.” Morton White, The Origin of Dewey’s Instrumentalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1943), 106.
    [Show full text]
  • Hegel (1770-1731) and His Time - Timeline 1748-1841
    Hegel (1770-1731) and his time - Timeline 1748-1841 Kai Froeb, 2007 Year Hegel Other War of Austrian Succession ends Peace of Aachen Adam Smith begins to deliver public lectures in Edinburgh Montesquieu: On the Spirit of Laws 1748 Klopstock: Oden Klopstock: Messias Feb 6: Adam Weishaupt is born Jeremy Bentham is born Goethe is born 1749 Mirabeau is born The Little Ice Age (1500-1850) reaches its peak Sep 14: The British Empire adopts the Gregorian calendar Rousseau’s essay: Discourse on the Arts and Sciences 1750 Jul 28: Johann Sebastian Bach dies Karl August von Hardenberg is born Knigge is born Benjamin Franklin invents the lightning rod 1753 Lazare Carnot is born Beginning of the French and Indian War in North America Christian Wolff dies 1754 Feb 2: Charles Maurice de Talleyrand is born Aug 23: Louis XVI is born Karl Friedrich von Steiger is born First English dictionary is published by Samuel Johnson Nov 1: Lisbon destroyed by an earthquake Winckelmann: Gedanken über die Nachahmung der griechischen Werke in der Malerei und Bildhauerkunst 1755 (“edele Einfalt und stille Größe”) Lessing: Miss Sara Sampson Montesquieu dies Nov 2: Marie Antoinette is born Nov 17: later Louis XVIII of France is born Begin of Seven Year War (Prussia vs. Austria, England 1756 vs. France) Jan 27: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is born Pantheon built in Paris 1757 Marquis de Lafayette is born Stein is born Karl Leonhard Reinhold is born 1758 May 6: Maximilian Robespierre is born Sep 29: Horatio Nelson is born Year Hegel Other Jan 15: The British Museum opens Adam
    [Show full text]
  • "Max Stirner and Ludwig Feuerbach" by Lawrence Stepelevich
    MAX STIRNER AND LUDWIG FEUERBACH BY LAWRENCES. STEPELEVICH In the long series of studies directed to either Stirner or Feuerbach, no one has considered, in any detail, the relationship between these two Young Hegelians. This is regrettable, since it can be argued that their relationship-which took the form of a debate-exercised a powerful influence not only upon Feuerbach, but upon Marx as well. In another context, that of the recent "Hegel renaissance," the study of their debate takes on an even wider significance, for both Feuerbach and Stirner have been declared Hegel's most logical heirs. If, to some, it appears that "Feuerbach was Hegel's fate . Feuerbach belongs to Hegel as much as the beaker of hemlock to Socrates,"' and if to others, Stirner appears as "the last link of the Hegelian chain,"2 or as "an ulti- mate logical consequence of Hegel's historical system,"3then their debate cannot but be of interest, for the logical future of Hegelianism, has, in effect, already occurred. In sum, the "concrete universality" which stood at the logical terminus of Hegel's doctrine bifurcated, in full accordance with the so-called laws of dialectic, into two antithetical viewpoints: Stirner's concrete egoism and Feuerbach's universal altru- ism. This paper is intended to outline the nature and consequences of the debate which occurred between Feuerbach and Stirner. It appears certain that Stirner and Feuerbach were not personally acquainted. At the same time, it also appears improbable that they should not have met. Born in 1804, Feuerbach was Stirner's senior by two years, but both were, by at least a decade, senior to many of the 1Hermann Glockner, Die Voraussetzungen der Hegelschen Philosophie, quoted in Sidney Hook, From Hegel to Marx (Ann Arbor, 1962), 220.
    [Show full text]
  • Marcello-Musto-Another-Marx-Early
    A n o t h e r M a r x i Also available from Bloomsbury A e s t h e t i c M a r x , edited by Samir Gandesha and Johan Hartle Capitalism: Th e Reemergence of a Historical Concept , edited by Jürgen Kocka and Marcel van der Linden Workers Unite! Th e International 150 Years Later , edited by Marcello Musto ii Another Marx Early Manuscripts to the International M a r c e l l o M u s t o Translated by Patrick Camiller iii BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London WC1B 3DP, UK BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2018 Copyright © Marcello Musto, 2018 Marcello Musto has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identifi ed as Author of this work. For legal purposes the Notice on p. x constitutes an extension of this copyright page. Cover design: Adriana Brioso Cover image: Karl Marx (Photo by Time Life Pictures/Mansell/The LIFE Picture Collection/ Getty Images). Manuscript page of an article by Karl Marx, published 25 January 1873 in The International Herald newspaper (photo by Getty Images). All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book.
    [Show full text]
  • Bruno Bauer and Karl Marx
    BRUNO BAUER AND KARL MARX THE INFLUENCE OF BRUNO BAUER ON MARX'S THOUGHT by ZVI ROSEN |o M'N ol MARTINUS NIJHOFF / THE HAGUE / 1977 254 INDEX Spinoza, Baruch, 68, 69, 72-74, 104, 190 Wagener, Hermann, 8 Staats- und Gesellschaftslexikon, 8 Walton, Paul, 20on Stahl, F. I., 115 Weber, Max, 1511 Starkenburg, Heinz, i97n Weil, Eric, 11 in, ii3n Stein, Karl, Reichsfrh. von und zum, 111, Weisse, Christian Hermann, 53, 62, 160 115 Weitling, Wilhelm, 188, 226, 227, 231 Stein, Heinrich von, 220 Welcker, Karl Theodor, 60 Stirner, Max, 6n, 12, 131, 214, 223, 235 Welt als Geschichte, Die, 35n Strauss, David Friedrich, 20, 21, 27, 29¬ Wigands Vierteljahresschrift, 4 m, 2i9,n 239n 34, 36-38, 4°> 41* 46~48. 5°, 52-54, 131, 138, 208, 209 Wildermuth, Armin, I48n Stuhr, P. F., 117 Wilke, Christian Gottlob, 53 Stuke, Horst, 9, 12, 13, 35n, 73n, 103, 119, Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, i40n 123, I98n Zeitschrift fur Politik, nn Themistocles, 157 Zeitschrift fur Religions- und Geistesge- Timmer, Charles, B. VII schichte, ngn, i4on, 223n Tucker, Robert, i69n, 177, 203n Zeitschrift fur spekulative Theologie, 19, 37n, 42n, 48n, 5m, 62n Vanini, Lucilio, 29 Zeller, Eduard, 62 Vatke, Johann Karl Wilhelm, 19 Vierteljahresschrift fur Volkswirtschaft, Po- litik und Kulturgeschichte, i8n Voltaire, Francis Marie, 84 STUDIES IN SOCIAL HISTORY issued by the INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL HISTORY AMSTERDAM 1. W. H. ROOBOL. Tsereteli - A Democrat in the Russian Revolution, A Political Biography. 2. Zvi ROSEN. Bruno Bauer and Karl Marx. The Influence of Bmno Bauer on Marx's Thought. To my mother © Jfp77 by Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands All rights reserved, including the right to translate or to reproduce this booh or parts thereof in any form ISBN 90 247 1948 8 PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS CONTENTS Foreword vn - Abbreviations ix PART ONE BRUNO BAXTER AS A YOUNG HEGELIAN I I.
    [Show full text]
  • Textual Notes and Abbreviations Textual Notes and Abbreviations
    Textual Notes and Abbreviations Textual Notes and Abbreviations Textual Notes and Abbreviations I have attempted to keep as close to the original transcription as is compat- ible with reasonably idiomatic English. This has most often meant some modifying of sentence structures, and on other occasions altering as well the structures of paragraphs: in several instances, I rearranged paragraph order and their punctuation. My aim throughout has been to serve the in- terests of the reader, who cannot benefit from inflections of speech as did the original auditors. To elucidate satisfactorily the range and subtlety of Henrich’s argument, I have provided a good deal more in the way of scholarly aid than many English readers are accustomed to find. The footnotes throughout the vol- ume were not originally included in the lectures; I have consulted with Henrich throughout their preparation, but the final responsibility for them rests solely with me. Despite my best efforts, and all of those who have helped me, mistakes doubtless have remained undetected. Although I take solace in the counsel from no less a forger of the contemporary standards of historical scholar- ship than Spinoza—“nullus liber unquam sine mendis repertus est”—I shall nonetheless be grateful to those who, upon discovering errors, will report them to me. Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762–1814) ANPW An Attempt at a New Presentation of the Wissenschaftslehre. In Introduc- tions to the Wissenschaftslehre and Other Writings. Edited and translated Dan- iel Breazeale. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1994, pp. 1–118. AR “Review of Aenesidemus.” Translated Daniel Breazeale. In EPW, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Johann Eduard Erdmann Frommanns Klassiker Der Philosophie Begründet Von F Richard Falckenberg* Weil
    Johann Eduard Erdmann Frommanns Klassiker der Philosophie Begründet von f Richard Falckenberg* Weil. Dr. n. o. Professor an der Universität Erlangen XXX. Johann Eduard Erdniann Von Hermann Glockner Johann Eduard Erdmann Ton Hermann Glöckner Mit einem Bildnis Ttcr Stuttgart 1932 Fr. Frommanns Verlag (H. Kurtz) Copyright by Fr. Prominanns Verlag (H. Knrtz) Stattgart J. FINK, HOFBUCHDRUCKEREI / STUTTGART Dem Andenken meines unvergeßlichen Lehrers Paul Hensel gewidmet. „Wer nicht von dreitausend Jahren Sich weiß Rechenschaft zn geben, Bleib' im Dunkeln unerfahren, Mag von Tag zn Tage leben." Goethe. Vorwort Die neuere Philosophiegeschichtschreibung wurde aus dem Geiste des Hegeischen Systems geboren. In seinen epochemachenden „Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie", die 1833/36 zum ersten Male im Druck er­ schienen, hatte Hegel die Philosophiegeschichte als einen sinnvollen Zusammenhang von geistigen Taten vorgetra­ gen, deren geschlossene Reihe den notwendig-freien Gang der universalen Selbstbesinnung verewigt. Aber diese Vor­ lesungen bedeuten nur einen Anfang. Man darf behaup­ ten, daß sie vor allem eine philosophisch-systematische Leistung darstellen und erst in zweiter Linie als histori­ sches Werk zu betrachten sind. In doppelter Richtung ging der Anstoß zu weiterer Arbeit von ihnen aus. Einmal galt es im Sinne Hegels fortzufahren; es galt den großen Ge­ dankenzug festzuhalten und nach Möglichkeit zu vertiefen; die Philosophiegeschichte durfte nicht wieder zu Stoff­ sammlung, Räsonnement und Kompendiengelehrsamkeit herabsinken.
    [Show full text]
  • Vormärz-Handbuch
    Sonderdruck aus: Vormärz-Handbuch Herausgegeben von Norbert Otto Eke im Auftrag des Forum Vormärz Forschung AISTHESIS VERLAG Bielefeld 2020 Philosophie: Hegel’sche Schule, durch Nachschriften überliefert waren, in ein gut les- Links- und Rechtshegelianer, bares Buch verwandelt hat, schrieb bereits 1828, also noch zu Hegels Lebzeiten und vermutlich mit dessen Jung- und Althegelianer Zustimmung: Zwischen den literarischen Autoren des ‚Vormärz‘ und Cartesius, Spinoza, Kant und Fichte forderten wohl der zeitgenössischen deutschen Philosophie, beson- Bekenner aber keine mitarbeitende Schüler; im Principe ders derjenigen Hegels und seiner Schüler, gab es viele der gegenwärtigen Philosophie [damit ist die Philosophie Berührungen: Heinrich Heine, um nur ein prominen- Hegels gemeint; N. W.] dagegen liegt es, sich in Betreff auf tes Beispiel zu wählen, hörte bekanntlich noch Hegels Breite und Mannigfaltigkeit des zu bezwingenden Stoffes Vorlesungen (vgl. z. B. Lefebvre 1986, 31-50), war in nicht ohne die Hülfe mannigfach begabter Mitarbeiter Berlin mit Eduard Gans befreundet (Waszek 1998), vollenden zu können. (zitiert nach Ziemer 1994, 33) den er einmal den „Oberhegelianer“ nannte (Heine, HSA, Bd. 20, 273) und der wenig später tatsächlich Gut dokumentiert ist, dass sich Hegel, besonders in einflussreiche Editionen von Hegels Rechts- und sei- seiner letzten Wirkungsphase, die dreizehn Jahre ner Geschichtsphilosophie vorgelegt hat; später ging er an der Universität Berlin (1818-31), großer Lehrer- freundschaftlich mit Karl Marx um, als sich dieser ca. folge erfreuen konnte. Manche Studenten kamen nur 18 Monate in Paris aufhielt (Victor 1951; Höhn 32004, wegen ihm nach Berlin, hörten seine Vorlesungen 127-130 u. ö.), auch zankte er sich mit Arnold Ruge, über mehrere Semester und wurden oft treue Anhän- schrieb selber eine Geschichte der Religion und Philoso- ger.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-316-51998-1 — Hegel's Century Jon Stewart Excerpt More Information u Introduction When G. W. F. Hegel came to Berlin in 1818 to assume a professorship at the recently founded Royal Friedrich Wilhelm’sUniversity,hewasalready a well-known philosopher in the Germanophone world. The author of The Phenomenology of Spirit,theEncyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences,and the Science of Logic, he was regarded by the Prussian authorities as a suitable successor to the celebrated and controversial Johann Gottlieb Fichte, who had died in 1814. During Hegel’s tenure in Berlin, which lasted until his death in 1831, he gave a series of increasingly popular lecture courses that attracted students from all over Europe.1 A remarkable generation came to learn from him, which included figures such as the philosophers Ludwig Feuerbach, Bruno Bauer, and Max Stirner, the theologian David Friedrich Strauss, and the poet Heinrich Heine. These men found inspiration in his ideas and made use of them in different ways as their own thought developed. After Hegel’s death in 1831, a group of his students set to work to create the first collected edition of his writings.2 Over the next decade or so, they republished the four major monographs that Hegel had produced during his lifetime, along with his various articles and reviews. Aware of the importance of his lectures, they included these in their edition based on the redacted transcriptions of Hegel’s notes, when available, and those of his students. These notes were then collated and printed for the first time as the Lectures 1 See the useful “Übersicht über Hegels Berliner Vorlesungen,” in the edition of Hegel’s Berliner Schriften: 1818–1831, ed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Intellectual Development of Bruno Bauer Stan Michael Landry Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected]
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2003 From orthodoxy to atheism: the intellectual development of Bruno Bauer Stan Michael Landry Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Landry, Stan Michael, "From orthodoxy to atheism: the intellectual development of Bruno Bauer" (2003). LSU Master's Theses. 3891. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/3891 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FROM ORTHODOXY TO ATHEISM: THE INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF BRUNO BAUER A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in The Department of History by Stan Michael Landry B.A., University of New Orleans, 2000 May 2003 For William J. Sommers, Sine qua non My success at university, and in life ii Acknowledgements I owe many thanks to my thesis committee; Professors Suzanne L. Marchand, David F. Lindenfeld, and Meredith Veldman, for their instruction, insightful comments, and editorial advice. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Professor Marchand, a major professor after whom all major professors and directors of theses and dissertations should aspire. Professor Marchand’s guidance, as well as the academic opportunities she has opened up for me over the past two years, have been immeasurable.
    [Show full text]