This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps, and other notations in the work.This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely (...) copy and distribute this work, as no entity has a copyright on the body of the work.As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803) gehört unangefochten zu den Klassikern der europäischen Geistesgeschichte. Seinen Lebensunterhalt verdiente er im Predigeramt, seine erste Anstellung nach dem Studium im ostpreußischen Königsberg fand er in Riga. Hier in Livland beginnt ein homiletisches Schaffen, das ihn über seine Lebensstationen hinweg bis nach Weimar beschäftigen wird. Die vorliegende Edition erschließt erstmals vollständig Herders Predigtnachlaß, zunächst für die erste Epoche seines Wirkens. Sie umfaßt die Zeit bis Mai 1769, ediert sämtliche erhaltenen Predigten aus der Rigaer Periode, weist verlorene (...) Texte nach und berücksichtigt auch die Entwürfe aus Schul- und Studienzeit, die bis etwa 1758 zurückgehen. Einleitende Aufsätze und ein Kritischer Apparat erschließen das Corpus und machen es auch für Nichtfachleute zugänglich. (shrink)

Band 10 der Gesammelten Schriften Sulzers enthalt den gesamten Briefwechsel zwischen J. G. Sulzer (1720-1779) und J. J. Bodmer (1698-1783), der hier zum ersten Mal vollstandig nach den Handschriften transkribiert und kommentiert wird. Fur die Edition von Sulzers Schriften ist dieser Briefwechsel geradezu fundamental: Mit seinen 453 Briefen, die in 35 Jahren (1744-1779) entstanden sind, zahlt er zu den umfangreichsten Korrespondenzen Sulzers und liefert zahlreiche neue Informationen zu zentralen Themenfeldern der europaischen Aufklarung, zur Genese von Sulzers und Bodmers Schriften, zu (...) ihrem Netzwerk, insbesondere in Preuaen und in der Schweiz, sowie zu Aspekten ihres Privatlebens. Damit erweist sich dieser Briefwechsel als eine unumgangliche Quelle, will man die Formierung des literarischen und akademischen Feldes in der Aufklarungsepoche untersuchen. (shrink)

This paper discusses the formation of Castoriadis’s concept of imaginary significations and relates it to his changing readings of Marx and Weber. Castoriadis’s reflections on modern capitalism took off from the Marxian understanding of its internal contradictions, but he always had reservations about the orthodox version of this idea. His writings in the late 1950s, already critical of basic assumptions in Marx’s work, located the central contradiction in the very relationship between capital and wage labour. Labour power was not simply (...) transformed into a commodity, as Marx had argued; rather, the instituted attempt to treat it as a commodity was a contradiction in itself, between the subjectivity and the objectification of labour. Castoriadis then moved on to link this claim to Weber’s analysis of the interconnections between capitalism and bureaucracy. The main contradiction of modern capitalism, whether wholly bureaucratised as in the Soviet model or increasingly bureaucratised as in the West, now seemed to be a matter of incompatible systemic imperatives: the need to control and to mobilise the workforce. Finally, difficulties with this model – and with the revolutionary expectations based on it – led to a more decisive break with classical theories and to the formulation of a bipolar image of modernity, where the vision of an autonomous society is opposed to the logic of calculation and domination, embodied in capitalist development. On both sides there is an imaginary component, irreducible to empirical givens or systemic principles. In this regard, Castoriadis remained closer to Weber than to Marx, but he also anticipated, in a distinctive way, later emphasis on the cultural dimension of modernity, and more specifi cally the notion of modernity as a new civilisation. (shrink)

Pars 1. Contemplativa -- Pars 2. Activa.

Arthur Schopenhauer studierte von 1809 bis 1811 in Göttingen und besuchte vor allem historische und naturgeschichtliche Lehrveranstaltungen. Einer seiner wichtigsten Lehrer war dabei Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, der damals berühmteste Göttinger Naturforscher. Schopenhauer setzte die in Göttingen begonnenen naturwissenschaftlichen Studien auch nach der Entscheidung für eine Laufbahn als Philosoph und dem Wechsel an die neugegründete Universität in Berlin fort. Sein Interesse und seine Kenntnisse auf dem Gebiet der Naturwissenschaften und insbesondere der Physiologie sind ein wichtiger Schlüssel zum Verständnis seiner Philosophie. Schopenhauers (...) Mitschriften von Blumenbachs Vorlesungen zur Naturgeschichte, Mineralogie, Anatomie und Physiologie dokumentieren aber nicht nur Blumenbachs Einfluss auf die intellektuelle Entwicklung des Philosophen. Sie sind zugleich eine wertvolle und anschauliche Quelle für die Tätigkeit Blumenbachs als Hochschullehrer. Mit seinen äußerst populären Vorlesungen prägte er mehrere Generationen von Studenten und hatte entscheidenden Anteil daran, den modernen Naturwissenschaften einen Platz im Geistesleben des 19. Jahrhunderts zu verschaffen. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain (...) in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

Die ZKph im Gespräch mit Johannes Ebert, Generalsekretär des Goethe-Instituts.

This paper argues against the call to democratize artificial intelligence (AI). Several authors demand to reap purported benefits that rest in direct and broad participation: In the governance of AI, more people should be more involved in more decisions about AI—from development and design to deployment. This paper opposes this call. The paper presents five objections against broadening and deepening public participation in the governance of AI. The paper begins by reviewing the literature and carving out a set of claims (...) that are associated with the call to “democratize AI”. It then argues that such a democratization of AI (1) rests on weak grounds, because it does not answer to a demand of legitimization, (2) is redundant in that it overlaps with existing governance structures, (3) is resource intensive, which leads to injustices, (4) is morally myopic and thereby creates popular oversights and moral problems of its own, and finally, (5) is neither theoretically nor practically the right kind of response to the injustices that animate the call. The paper concludes by suggesting that AI should be democratized not by broadening and deepening participation but by increasing the democratic quality of the administrative and executive elements of collective decision making. In a slogan: The question is not so much whether AI should be democratized but how. (shrink)