The steady stream of books on medieval manuscripts addressed to a popular audience over the past two decades coincides with the advent of tablets such as Amazon's Kindle. As the flatlands of the digital realm encompass more of life, nostalgia for a tactile realm of reading, whether in the making or the perception of artifacts, asserts itself, as does the desire to immerse oneself in the real space of the conventional book, as opposed to the virtual yet denatured spaces of (...) the metaverse. No accident, then, that, following an introduction that gestures toward medieval subjects and to readers other than Christian, Wellesley's engaging, if episodic, account of medieval manuscripts (published in the United States by Basic Books as The Gilded Page: The Secret Lives of Medieval Manuscripts) opens with a prologue in which she recounts her hands-on visit to a parchment maker, during which she tried to slough the hair off a hide using an implement known as a scudder.Manuscripts permit one to come into contact with the past, or at least to harbor the illusion that one can. Wellesley's book repeatedly evokes the contingency of landmarks and masterworks that make up the history of culture. Pendant chapters treat “Discoveries,” medieval as well as modern, of books that, when first encountered, had been lost to view for the better part of a millennium, as well as the “Near-Disasters” by which famous works such as Beowulf (or indeed entire libraries) made it down to modernity by only a hair's breadth—despite the devil's assurance in Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita that “manuscripts don't burn.” Within a binding held tight by clasps, parchment—even when exposed to fire—can survive, if it is not then reduced to a mess by the water used to douse the flames. Having been rescued from the ruins of Ashburnham House, which burned in 1731, the detached pages of the Cotton Genesis at the British Library—one of a handful of illustrated biblical manuscripts from late antiquity—now look like soggy, burned toast pressed between glass sheets to conserve what little is left.Other chapters in this book make things personal, matching brief biographies of celebrated manuscripts with famous (or not so famous) persons, whether patrons, scribes, or artists—a sequence that reflects their order of importance in the Middle Ages. To have included an afterword as well as an epilogue seems indulgent: one, too brief, on the impact of printing (focused on the English printer Caxton), the other on “The Use and Misuse of the Past,” which dwells on the dispersal of monastic libraries after the English Reformation. The focus on the British Isles, to the neglect of the continent, risks being too narrow for a book so general in scope. The book's very British flavor, however, is also part of what lends it a familiar, chatty tone. A pleasant, companionable read, this extended essay does not advance our knowledge of medieval manuscripts, but it does help diffuse it to a larger audience in a way that makes old books seem companionable. Rather than Hidden Hands, the book might well have been called Comites latentes: hidden friends. (shrink)

The following reflections are submitted in awareness of an unfortunate situation which currently finds both psychologists and philosophers concerned with the search after criteria for assessing human conduct, yet with either profession suspicious of the contributions to be expected from the other. The objections frequently entertained against psychologizing philosophers are only matched by those entertained against philosophizing psychologists. Yet, if the worst is said, it still remains true that much psychological work, devoted to problems of mental health, maturity or neurosis, (...) makes contact with moral issues. It also is true that such contact has so far not been fruitful to the point of encouraging psychologists or philosophers to expect new illumination from each other. Unless it be groundless, in principle, to look towards psychological findings as potentially relevant for moral theory or vice versa, it would seem that the only cure for poor relations between the two disciplines are better ones rather than none at all. At any rate, it is on the assumption that more successful relations are possible that I shall now comment upon what appears to be both a most influential and unsuccessful attempt by one psychologist to solve an ethical problem. I shall take my departure from B. F. Skinner's recent Science and Human Behavior,∗ especially from his chapters on value and the survival concept. (shrink)

Michael Quante, Menschenwürde und personale Autonomie. Demokratische Werte im Kontext der Lebenswissenschaften Content Type Journal Article Pages 601-603 DOI 10.1007/s10677-011-9278-7 Authors Claudia Wiesemann, Department of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, University Medical Center Göttingen, Humboldtallee 36, 37073 Göttingen, Germany Journal Ethical Theory and Moral Practice Online ISSN 1572-8447 Print ISSN 1386-2820 Journal Volume Volume 14 Journal Issue Volume 14, Number 5.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Logik-Vorlesung: Unveröffentlichte Nachschriften I (Logik Bauch), and Logik-Vorlesung: Unveröffentlichte Nachschriften II (Logik Hechsel, Warschauer Logik)Hoke RobinsonTillmann Pinder, editor. Logik-Vorlesung: Unveröffentlichte Nachschriften I (Logik Bauch), and Logik-Vorlesung: Unveröffentlichte Nachschriften II (Logik Hechsel, Warschauer Logik), vols. 8 and 9 of the series Kant-Forschungen, general editors Reinhard Brandt and Werner Stark. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1998. Vol. 8, pp. lxx + 268; vol. 9, pp. vii + 718. NP.Between (...) 1755, when he received the venia legendi, and 1796, when he ended his teaching activity, Kant taught logic some 30 times. In accordance with the requirements of the Prussian ministry of culture, his course lectures were built around a recognized text, G. F. Meier's 1752 Auszug aus der Vernunftlehre. Kant did not merely present Meier's views, however, but commented on and criticized these as he thought appropriate; his own copy of Meier was full of marginal notes and interleaved with notes on separate bits of paper. When in 1799 he entrusted G. B. Jäsche with this material for the compiling of a logic text, the thought was presumably of a Kantian logic organized around Meier's framework.Since logic plays such a prominent role in the Critical philosophy, one would expect the Jäsche logic to be viewed as an important tool for the interpretation of the Critical philosophy. But dissatisfaction with it was evident right from its original publication in 1800, and later scholars were even more negative (in 1913 Erich Adickes referred to it [End Page 603] as "the contrivance [Machwerk]... that Jäsche published under the name of Kant's logic," Erich Adickes, quoted in Ak. XXIV.960). And in fact, as Pinder's careful and detailed introduction points out, the nature and origin of the Jäsche logic presented a serious problem for Wilhelm Dilthey's organization of the now-standard Akademie-Ausgabe (Kants gesammelte Schriften, herausgegeben von der königlich preussischen [now: deutschen] Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1902- Cited as "Ak.").Dilthey conceived of four divisions of the Akademie-Ausgabe: Kant's published writings, his correspondence, his literary remains ("handschriftlicher Nachlass") and his lectures ("Vorlesungen"). Where, exactly, did the Jäsche logic belong? Kant had himself compiled a similar text from his lecture notes on anthropology, and this text was published in the first division (in volume VII). But did the Jäsche logic count as Kant's work? It was indeed authorized by Kant and based on Kant's own lecture notes; but these notes themselves were to be published in the Nachlass division. Furthermore, as it turned out, Jäsche had also employed manuscripts compiled from the lectures themselves, and these were to be published in the Vorlesungen division. This would not include his own transcription, as Erdmann had conjectured. It turns out Jäsche never heard Kant lecture on logic—he was never in Königsberg when they were being held! (xxvi, n. 29). The resulting controversies delayed the publication of the Jäsche logic in vol. IX from 1908 until 1923, after the 1914 publication in the Nachlass division of the notes on which it was based.Dilthey's projected Vorlesungen division itself was called into question by Benno Erdmann, Dilthey's successor as Akademie-Ausgabe general editor. Erdmann recognized the questionable nature of the Jäsche logic and the other compilations, but considered Dilthey's aim for a "critically secured" edition of the lecture manuscripts as "hopeless." Still, interest in the manuscripts resulted in their piecemeal publication independently of the Akademie-Ausgabe, and when the Nachlass division's publication had been completed in 1955, the Vorlesungen division was resurrected. Vol. XXIV (in two parts) appeared in 1966; it contained the logics Blomberg, Philippi, Pölitz, Busolt, Dohna-Wundlacken and the Vienna logic, the short logic Herder, and fragments of the lost logics Hintz and Hoffmann. The Pinder volumes reviewed here contain the logics Bauch, Hechsel, and the Warsaw logic.What exactly are the manuscripts in question? If Kant had been concerned merely to explicate Meier, his students could perhaps have been content with their marginal notes in the text and a few further ones for elucidation. But... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:488 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY most extensive study of this aspect of Schelling's thought, at least until 1806. However, even if Schelling was not, as it is frequently stated, indifferent to the problems and the vicissitudes of politics, his theoretical thinking on this subject never went beyond temporary systematizations, to be given up, or modified, after a while. The author shows how Schelling, especially in this fieM, was influenced either (...) by his environment in general, or by some personalities he happened to contact: first his "republican" and francofile friends of the Ttibingen Stilt, afterwards the romantic circle of Jena, and, between 1801 and 1803, Hegel. The author studies in his first chapter, devoted tO the non-philosophic writings of the TUbingen period (1790-1795), not only Kant's and Herder's influence on Schelling, which are usually taken for granted, but also the impact of C. G. Heine and of other GSttingen scholars. This is a stimulating suggestion, showing the need for a more detailed study on the diffusion of the "historicocritical" method in circles, as the Ttibingen school, dominated rather by philosophical and theological than by philological and historical interests. In the following chapters, Schelling is closely related again to the intellectual history of his time; Schelling's relationship to the Aufkliirer Nicolai produces some surprises, and the same may be said about some new particulars (implementing F. Rosenzweig's and F. Bthm's research) on the close connection between Schelling and Htlderlin in 1795-1796. The fourth chapter is devoted to the correlation between theories on "natural philosophy" and moral political theories. The fifth concerns the philosophy of history and of government. This remarkable study, founded on sound scholarship, and conducted with a sharp historical mind, is to be recommended not only to students of Schelling, but to all those who have some interest in early XIXth Century German political thought. GIORGIO TONELLI State University of New York at Binghamton Gesammelte Werke, Vol. IV. By Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Ed. Hartmut Buehner and Otto Ptggeler. (Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1968. Pp. 622. DM 86.00) Despite the high reputation Germany has long enjoyed with regard to its scientifically reliable editions, up to this very moment, a historic-critical edition of the totality of Hegel's works has not existed. There were only provisional texts of single works available whose philological reliability differed in its sometimes doubtful variety. This is a rather strange fact, considering that Hegel died in 1831. It can be explained only by a phenomenon peculiar to this philosopher: at the peak of his fame, numerous students from all countries of the world attended Hegel's lectures, assiduously taking notes and frequently publishing as authentic what they had understood and jotted down. The philosopher was very generotis in authorizing various versions of his lectures and thus, the international market was swamped with quite incongruous editions of some of his writings at the moment of Hegel's death. Despite this rather confused state of affairs, distinguished scholars have tried, for BOOK REVIEWS 489 more than six decades, to bring order into the posthumous manuscripts of the philosopher, and these efforts were successful, but only to a certain extent. Next to the pioneering publications of Wilhelm Dilthey, Herman Nohl and Frans Rosenzweig, lesser known savants, in the first place, Georg Lasson and Johannes Hoffmeister have devoted many years of self-denying efforts to make /mportant parts of Hegel's manuscripts available to the public and looked for new possibilities to edit the large body of lectures. But the task proved too difficult for individual scholars. For this reason, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, a government-sponsored organization, has commissioned the publication of an all-encompassing historic-critical edition of Hegel's works and arranged for the appointment of a senatorial commission for advising the editors of such a mammoth undertaking. Members of the commission were the aforementioned scholars (see title) and W. Wieland. The Ministry of Education of the State of Nordrhein-Westfalen has opened a research center, originally directed by F. Nicolin, since 1968 by O. Ptggeler. Thus the edition can now be published continuously. Before discussing the contents of volume four, the only volume hitherto published, let's take... (shrink)

[The review is in German] Theunissen has developed an interesting account of metaphilosophy that–as a discipline–does not start in 1960s, but already and especially with Kant, Fichte and Hegel. The constant growth of philosophical theories around 1800 (what Koselleck called “Sattelzeit”) made metaphilosophical constructions necessary. He reads–and is not the first author who does so–Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit as a metaphilosophical theory. Although I like and share many ideas with Theunissen, there are three objections that I raise in my review: (...) (i) His account of isosthenia as a basic problem behind all philosophical positions (which makes metaphilosophy necessary) undermines the importance of dissent, dogmatism and intra-philosophical struggles; (ii) Theunissen’s understanding of metaphilosophy is not neutral (just as any account of metaphilosophy): it is predetermined by Hegel’s thought and the author’s understanding of Phenomenology of Spirit; (iii) Therefore, it fits well to this particular work of Hegel, but not (a) to the overall system of Encyclopedia and (b) Kant’s metaphilosophical deliberations (which Theunissen misses). I end the review with the statement that we need to ask ourselves how metaphilosophy is possible as a unified discipline despite of different philosophical backgrounds of authors–we need a meta-metaphilosophy or a critique of metaphilosophical reason. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Kant-Index: Band 5: Stellenindex und Konkordanz zur "Wiener Logik,"Riccardo PozzoNorbert Hinske. Kant-Index: Band 5: Stellenindex und Konkordanz zur "Wiener Logik," Erstellt in Zusammenarbeit mit Heinrich P. Delfosse und Michael Oberhausen unter Mitwirkung von Hans-Werner Bartz, Christian Popp, Tina Strauch und Michael Trauth. Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboog, 1999. Pp. Cxiii + 865.The Wiener Logik has long led a shadowy existence. This has nothing to do with the quality of the (...) text, but rather with accidental conditions. When the manuscript of the Wiener Logik was discovered in 1913, the planning of the Akademie-Ausgabe of Kant's complete works had already been largely completed and eight volumes of the works, three of the correspondence and two of the Nachlaß were published. Erich Adickes' edition of Kant's Reflexionen über die Logik appeared in 1914. Hinske suggests that, had Adickes considered it, the Wiener Logik would have played a valuable role in integrating Kant's reflections (xi). This double-volume makes up for all this by highlighting the relevance of this lecture transcript with special reference to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, which is close to it not only in time but also systematically. It contains a lemmatized main index that makes a recognition of the language of the logic course possible and a concordance that allows one to check the corresponding passages. The introduction and more than twenty pages of editorial notes elaborate on the relationship of the Wiener Logik to other Kantian texts while correcting and integrating the references to sources indicated in its 1966 edition by Gerhard Lehmann within the Akademie-Ausgabe (lxxii-xcvi). At the same time, the index correcs more than one hundred fifty errors of the 1966 edition (lviii-lxvii).The Wiener Logik was translated into English by J. Michael Young in the volume of The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant dedicated to the Lectures on Logic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992, 251-377). Young made clear that the Wiener Logik is constituted by two different parts (ibid., xxv f.). In fact the manuscript shows a first part written by the hand of a professional copyist, which covers Kant's course until almost the end of the theory of judgement (Akademie-Ausgabe, vol. 24, 790-937), and a second part constituted by a single page written by another hand (probably a student while sitting in Kant's classroom), which deals with the very end of the theory of judgement and the beginning of the theory of syllogism (ibid., 937-40). One needs to recall, though, that the text of the Wiener Logik is incomplete, given that a large part of the theory of syllogism as well as the theory of method, of discourse and of character are missing. The first part of the Wiener Logik shows several parallels with the edited fragments of the Logik Hoffmann (ibid., 944-52), while the second part shows parallels with the Logik Hechsel, which was discovered in 1983 and has recently been made accessible by Tilman Pinder (cf. Logik-Vorlesungen: Unveröffentliche Nachschriften, Hamburg: Meiner, 1998, 271-499). In fact, J. Michael Young found it convenient to complete his translation of the missing parts of the Wiener Logik by the attaching to it the corresponding parts of the Logik Hechsel (cf. Lectures on Logic, 381-423).Hinske provides new arguments as regards the dating of the Wiener Logik by objecting to both the late dating to the nineties suggested by Wilhelm Jerusalem and the early dating before 1781 by Reinhard Brandt and Tilman Pinder. Hinske remarks that while for the terminus ad quem one should consider the years indicated on the frontispice (1794 [End Page 284] and 1796), the terminus a quo should be set after the final redaction of the Critique of Pure Reason (xxiii f.). Following Hinske's lead and on the basis of an accurate examination on the cross-references between the texts, Bruno Bianco has proposed that the terminus a quo be set not before the publication of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (cf. the Italian translation edited by Bianco, Milan: Angeli, forthcoming).What makes the Wiener Logik and this index particularly interesting for Kant... (shrink)

Las fuentes principales para la reconstrucción de la teoría del conocimiento de Hegel en su Sistema maduro son la filosofía del espíritu subjetivo y la Lógica subjetiva o Lógica del Concepto. En este respecto, la filosofía del Espíritu Absoluto ocupa en principio, dentro de la estrategia general adoptada por Hegel para exponer su pensamiento gnoseológico, un lugar periférico; sin embargo, toda vez que las formas del Espíritu Absoluto, esto es, el Arte, la Religión y la Filosofía, son para Hegel resultados (...) de la progresiva explicitación del tipo de contenidos que implica la lógica interna de los sucesivos actos cognitivos del sujeto, en el marco de la exposición de la filosofía del Espíritu Absoluto Hegel desarrolla y precisa ulteriormente su teoría general sobre los actos de conocimiento. En este contexto, el tratamiento del concepto de la religión en las lecciones berlinesas sobre filosofía de la religión ofrece una oportunidad privilegiada -por regla general inadvertida- para profundizar en el análisis de las reflexiones de Hegel sobre el fenómeno del conocimiento humano. En sus cuatro cursos berlineses -1821, 1824, 1827 y 1831- sobre filosofía de la religión, Hegel divide a esta disciplina en tres partes, a saber: el Concepto de la Religión, la Religión Determinada y la Religión Consumada; en la primera de esas partes, esto es, en la que dedica al concepto de la religión, Hegel desarrolla las diferentes formas subjetivas de la conciencia religiosa sin considerar su contenido (de su contenido versarán las dos partes siguientes), es decir, analiza los actos cognitivos del sujeto de un modo puramente formal, tal como lo había hecho antes en el marco de la filosofía del espíritu subjetivo. En esta medida, la exposición del concepto de la religión ofrece una verdadera filosofía del espíritu subjetivo en compendio en la que se retoman, pero también se complementan las tesis expuestas en la filosofía del espíritu subjetivo -más precisamente, en la Psicología- en sentido estricto. El objetivo de nuestro trabajo es analizar la teoría de los actos de conocimiento presente en las Lecciones sobre Filosofía de la Religión; en razón de los requisitos de extensión que debe cumplir este trabajo, nos limitaremos a analizar los desarrollos que Hegel ofrece en el manuscrito que usa como texto base para el dictado de su primera Lección sobre Filosofía de la Religión en el semestre de verano de 1821 (cf. G.W.F. Hegel, Vorlesungen. Ausgewählte Nachschriften und Manuskripte. Bd. 3. Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion. 1. Einleitung und Begriff der Religion, Hamburg, Felix Meiner, 1983, pp. 95-163). (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:BOOK REVIEWS 239 die Herausgeber nicht mit, von wem. Jedem Dialog geht eine Gliederung voran; jeder Band ist mit einer recht brauchbaren Bibliographie versehen. Es ist erstaunlich zu erfahren, dass der erste Band, erstmalig in 1957 erschienen, in 1963 eine Auflage von 78000 erreicht hat; bleiben auch die Auflageziffern der fibrigen B~inde dahinter zurfick, so sind sie doch genfigend eindrucksvoll. Man wfinscht, der Verlag m6chte doch, durch diesen Erfolg (...) ermutigt, das nach Obgesagtem noch Fehlende--und dazu noch Platons Gedichte--in einem Erg~inzungsband bringen, wie immer man fiber die Echtheit der Stficke denkt. Der stilistische Unterschied zwischen den ~bersetzungen von Schleiermacher (erstmalig: 1804-1810) und von H. und F. H. Mfiller ist ausserordentlich. Dies ist nicht etwa auf die gr6ssere Sprachmeisterschaff Schleiermachers zurfickfiihren. Vielmehr liegt seiner Obersetzungsmethode eine h6chst interessante Theorie zugrunde (die F. A. Wolff, der Schleiermachers ~bersetzung verhShnt und Wilamowitz, der sie als ungeniessbar bezeichnet hatte, offenbar unbekannt war). Dieser Theorie zufolge ist es die Aufgabe des ~2bersetzers, den Leser besffindig daran zu erinnern, dass er nur eine l~bersetzung vor sich hat. Einem ~bersetzer, der sich brfistet, dass sich sein Text so liest, wie ihn der Autor geschrieben h~itte, wenn er in der Sprache des ~bersetzers und seines Publikums gedacht h~itte, sollte erwidert werden "Daffir bin ich dir so dankbar, wie ich es w~ire, wenn du mir das Bild eines Mannes zeigtest und sagtest--So wiirde er ausgesehen haben, wenn ihn mit seiner Mutter ein anderer Vater gezeugt h~tte." In anderen Worten: da sich Inhalt und Ausdruck nicht abtrennen lassen, sollte der f2bersetzer, start das Original seiner Sprache anzueignen, vielmehr--wir gebrauchen hier den bekannten Brechtschen Begriff--im Leser einen Verfremdungseffekt erzeugen. Wie man sieht, ist Schleiermachers ~3bersetzungstheorie jeder "rationalistischen " strikte entgegengesetzt; ja, man k6nnte sagen, dass sie das ganze Wesen des Romantisch-Irrationalen eben auf ein Einzelproblem, das des l~bersetzens angewendet, aufs beste ausdrfickt. Und Schleiermachers f2bersetzungspraxis entspricht genau seiner Theorie. Dies ist ihre Eigentfimlichkeit. Und ich denke, dass diese Theorie mehr Au{merksamkeit verdient, als ihr in den nie endenden Diskussionen darfiber, welchen Prinzipien der Obersetzer folgen sollte, geschenkt wird. PHILIP MERLAN Scripps College, Claremont, Calif. Platon der Erzieher. Von Julius Stenzel. Mit einer Einffihrung von Konrad Gaiser. (Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1961. Pp. xxx + 337. DM 26.) Platon der Erzieher was first published in 1927. The present edition, with 240 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY the exception of the preface by Gaiser, is an exact reproduction of the earlier one. As a reviewer of the reissue, I feel myself obligated to formulate what seems to me relevant today. I remember that, when I read the first edition about the time of its appearance, I was full of admiration and felt myself indebted to the book for many years. Today it seems to me more dated than most writings on Plato of that period, including various publications of Stenzel. Criticizing Platon der Erzieher, I criticize what I once read differently. Julius Stenzel had earlier established his reputation as a Platonic scholar with his Studien zur Entwicklung der platonischen Dialektik von Sokrates zu Aristoteles (1917). This book as well as most of Stenzel's later investigations have exercised a considerable influence on international Platonic scholarship. In Germany it prefaced a new approach to ancient and especially to Platonic philosophy. In spite of the spadework done by German scholars in the nineteenth century and still by men like Apelt, Constantin Ritter and Theodor Gomperz, Plato's image in German thought about the end of the First World War was mainly determined by three sources: the neo-Kantian interpretation and Natorp's monograph in particular ; the highly original but very personal and philosophically naive "biography" of Wilamowitz-Moellendorff; and the vision of the Plato gestalt by the George circle. Stenzel dedicated the Studien to Wilamowitz and, while paying his respect to Natorp, stated that in contrast to the philosophical Plato interpretation of the Marburg school, he had chosen a philological and historical approach. As for the George circle, he did not acknowledge its significance, though I believe that at least in his later works he was indirectly influenced by it. In the years following World War I, it became important that Stenzel and... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Kants Philosophic des Subjekts. Systematische und entuncklungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Verhältnis von Selbstbewusstsein und Selbslerkennlnis by Heiner F. KlemmeEric WatkinsHeiner F. Klemme. Kants Philosophic des Subjekts. Systematische und entuncklungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Verhältnis von Selbstbewusstsein und Selbslerkennlnis. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1996. Pp. ix + 430. Cloth, DM 148.In this impressive work Klemme provides a detailed historical account of the development of Kant’s views on self-consciousness from the (...) early 1770s to the second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason. In the first part of his book Klemme considers Kant’s views [End Page 471] in the 1770s as presented in his Inaugural Dissertation, newly available transcripts from his anthropology lectures, the so-called Duisburg Nachlass, and transcripts from his metaphysics lectures. Klemme first (Chapter 1) indicates briefly the place of psychology and anthropology in metaphysics in eighteenth-century Germany and identifies two general types of processes through which it was thought that self-knowledge might be attained. He then (Chapter 2) turns to a discussion of Kant’s project in the early 1770s—basing his philosophy on a spontaneous, free, and self-conscious I—and how it is developed against the background of (i) Kant’s “great light” of 1769, (ii) the awakening out of his “dogmatic slumber,” and (iii) the discovery of antinomial conflict. Klemme’s original thesis is that Moses Mendelssohn’s Phädon (1767) and especially Marcus Herz’s Betrachtungen aus der spekulativen Weltweisheit (1771), as well as Kant’s personal correspondence with these figures, are crucial to understanding how Kant comes to see the deficiencies of his view as presented in the Inaugural Dissertation. Klemme discusses Kant’s “remedy” (in Chapter 3): a new theory of the self, documented in the anthropology transcripts, according to which one has direct intuition of oneself as a simple, spontaneous, immaterial substance. Later in the 1770s (especially as documented in the Duisburg Nachlass) Kant finds himself unable to derive the categories from the self in either rational or empirical psychology and is thus forced to revise his theory in his first Critique.In the second part of his book Klemme discusses Kant’s account of self-consciousness in his Critical period. Accordingly, he presents interpretations of the Transcendental Deduction and the Paralogisms in both editions of the first Critique as well as some of the central theses of Transcendental Idealism. Fundamental to Kant’s theory of self-consciousness in the Critical period is a distinction between self-knowledge and self-awareness. The former is knowledge of the empirical self, whereas the latter is knowledge of the self considered “not as appearance nor as thing in itself” (B423) but rather pre-categorically as an indeterminate existence. With respect to self-knowledge, Klemme argues that Kant adheres to three distinct models from 1781 to 1787. In the first edition of the first Critique Kant endorses the analogy model, according to which the regulative use of reason allows one to connect all of the self’s mental states in inner sense “as if it were a simple substance” (A 672/B 700). By the time of the second edition he adopts the mediation model, according to which “the categories can be applied to inner sense because we can represent time to ourselves only through recourse to outer sense as a line” (240). In the transcripts from his anthropology lectures (as well as in his published Anthropology) Kant seems to adopt a third model of self-knowledge, according to which the categories cannot be applied to inner representations at all; such knowledge amounts to nothing more than a mere history of our representations.Klemme concludes his discussion by considering Kant’s account of self-awareness. Kant is often thought (e.g., by Dieter Henrich) to hold a reflection model, according to which the self literally reflects on itself in self-awareness, giving rise to problems of circularity. Klemme argues against such an interpretation (as well as Manfred Frank’s “intellectual intuition” interpretation) in favor of a view, according to which the self can be determined practically “as a mere intelligence according to the moral law” (395). Such a view is consistent with Kant’s theoretical assertions about... (shrink)

A new and critical edition of Hegel’s Religionsphilosophie Vorlesungen is in preparation. These important lectures will also appear in English and Spanish translation concurrently with the German edition. Walter Jaeschke of the Hegel-Archiv staff is constructing the German text, to be published by Felix Meiner Verlag ; Peter C. Hodgson of Vanderbilt University is editing the English translation; Ricardo Ferrara of the University of Buenos Aires is editing the Spanish translation. Jaeschke, Hodgson and Ferrara have entered into an agreement (...) regarding common editorial principles for the different language versions. Jaeschke explained the background and some of the guiding principles of the project in a two-part article printed in the 1980 Owl. Hodgson followed the second part of Jaeschke’s article with his own statement of procedures for the English translation. My purpose in this paper is to provide an update to Hodgson’s statement by giving additional information about the new edition, a progress report on work on the English translation, and a foretaste of some of the interesting differences which are emerging as the distinct lecture series become clearly and accurately distinguished from one another for the first time. (shrink)

Kant und die Alternativen Heiner F. Klemme Manfred Kühn, Dieter Schönecker. H . Klemme / M. Kühn / D. Schönecker (Hg.) Moralische Motivation Kant und die Alternativen Meiner KANT-FORSCHUNGEN Begründet von Reinhard Brandt und ...

This volume is an authorized and slightly emended English translation of the second revised German edition of Die Logik der Dichtung, a work whose influence on the philosophy of literature is perhaps comparable only to that of Roman Ingarden, Emil Staiger, or Northrop Frye. The study aims at a phenomenological description of literature by appeal to logic, ontology, and the scientific study of literature. All of its analytical intricacies notwithstanding, the book is not overwhelmingly abstract and unremittingly formal in its (...) presentation, and its analyses are amply buttressed with concrete examples drawn predominately from European but also from Anglo-American literature. At a time when neo-Marxists such as Sartre have pronounced the concept of literature itself ideologically suspect and structuralists like Todorov, who contends that the very existence of literature constitutes its greatest paradox, Hamburger correctly discerns that the logic of literature has its foundation in the general theory of language. (shrink)