Der Autor stellt in seinem Buch zum Pantheismusstreit dezidierte historische und struktural-theoretische Überlegungen zur Spinoza-Rezeption in Deutschland an. Der Streit darüber, ob Lessing Pantheist war, geht in einen Streit um die Philosophie Spinozas und den Rationalismus über. Im Laufe der Zeit wird der Korrespondenzstreit zwischen Jacobi und Mendelssohn öffentlich und spricht das deutsche Bewusstsein und Unterbewusstsein an, daher engagiert sich das gesamte "gebildete Deutschland" in dieser philosophischen Auseinandersetzung. Die Arbeit hat grosse Bedeutung für das Verständnis der Situation der deutschen (...) Philosophie am Ende der Aufklärung, aus der wiederum der deutsche Idealismus entstand - ein Denken, das einerseits die deutsche Aufklärung krönte, andererseits aber neue zeitgenössische Perspektiven in der Philosophie eröffnete. Das Buch ermöglicht ein besseres Verständnis von Gegebenheiten, die für die deutsche Philosophie an der Wende des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts von grosser Bedeutung waren. Da die Denkanschauungen dieser Zeit in gewissem Masse noch immer auf die philosophischen Felder des zeitgenössischen Denkens einwirken, kommt der Arbeit auch eine besondere philosophische Relevanz zu."--Publisher's description. (shrink)

Tak zwany spór o panteizm był istotnym wydarzeniem filozoficznym w niemieckim krajobrazie intelektualnym dwóch ostatnich dekad XVIII wieku, który spowodował jednocześnie odrodzenie zainteresowania Spinozą w Niemczech. Istnieje ogromna literatura dotycząca tego sporu z perspektywy zarówno filozoficznej, jak i czysto historiograficznej, jednakże pomimo intensywnie dyskutowanej tetralogii Jonathana I. Israela na temat historii oświecenia, wciąż brakuje nowej, szerszej debaty wokół relacji sporu o panteizm do globalnej dynamiki późnego oświecenia i jego wewnętrznych napięć. W artykule omawiane są kluczowe idee sformułowane przez Herdera, Goethego, (...) Fichtego, Kanta, Schleiermachera i Novalisa jako odpowiedzi na 'wyzwanie panteistyczne', które w formie prowokacji przedstawił Jacobi, a następnie pokazane jest, w jaki sposób ujawniają one pewne zasadnicze ideologiczne napięcia typowe dla nowoczesności. Wskazane są dwie podstawowe osie jako środki ciężkości całego sporu: oś transcendencji/immanencji oraz oś autonomii/heteronomii. Twierdzi się, że historyczny fenomen 'panteizmu' nie powinien być a priori wiązany z pewnym konkretnym emancypacyjnym potencjałem, lecz raczej potraktowany jako rodzaj 'soczewki' albo 'narzędzia sondującego' słabe punkty oświecenia i jego zaniedbane problemy, które w wielu przypadkach zostały wykorzystane przez kontroświeceniową reakcję. Podkreśla się jednak, że panteizm jako idea odegrał fundamentalną rolę w szybkim procesie de-eschatologizacji i jednocześnie jest znaczącym symptomem politycznej reorientacji w obrębie nowoczesności w sposób, który jednak nie ma nic wspólnego z tak zwaną klasyczną 'tezą o sekularyzacji' Löwitha, Schmitta czy Taubesa. (shrink)

Contemporary philosophers frequently assume that Kant never seriously engaged with Spinoza or Spinozism --certainly not before the break of Der Pantheismusstreit, or within the Critique of Pure Reason. Offering an alternative reading of key pre-critical texts and to some of the Critique's most central chapters, Omri Boehm challenges this common assumption. He argues that Kant not only is committed to Spinozism in early essays such as "The One Possible Basis" and "New Elucidation," but also takes up Spinozist metaphysics as (...) Transcendental Realism's most consistent form in the Critique of Pure Reason. (shrink)

Hegel uses the term Einsicht (‘insight’) throughout several key subsections of Chapter Six of the Phenomenology of Spirit (notably in ‘Faith and Pure Insight’ and ‘The Struggle of the Enlightenment with Superstition’). Nowhere else in his work does the term enjoy such a sustained treatment. Commentators generally accept Hegel’s use of the term in the Phenomenology as simply referring to the type of counter-religious reasoning found in the French Enlightenment. I show how Hegel derives the term, through the lens of (...) Kant’s essay, ‘What Does It Mean to Orient Oneself in Thinking?’ from the Pantheismusstreit, the philosophical debate between Mendelssohn and Jacobi about knowledge of God. The Aufklärung provenance of Einsicht shows how a deep complicity between faith and reason, in the form of immediate knowing, leads beyond the Terror to a happier outcome in the Morality section. Finally, passing reference to Einsicht in the Vorbegriff of the Encyclopaedia Logic confirms its role in the ethical and political vocation of Hegel’s Science. (shrink)

In part I I reply to Seymour Feldman's criticism of volume 1 of The Marrano of Reason. I try to show that Professor Feldman misreads me, first, by overlooking the transformation of Spinoza's Marrano traits from the world of religion to the world of reason; second, by failing to recognize the diversity of Marrano responses as part of my own thesis; and thirdly, by paying no heed to the mental (or, phenomenological) structures and analysis upon which a good deal of (...) my argument relies. Since many of Feldman's particular points hinge upon the first two points, I need not address each item separately. This leaves a few smaller points. I also restate the methodological boundaries of my ?Marrano? thesis, what the book does and does not do. In parts II and III I respond to criticisms on volume 2 of The Adventures of Immanence from Henry Allison and Richard Schacht. I admit the book calls for a chapter on Lessing and the Pantheismusstreit, and also on existentialists like Sartre (and Heidegger too), though not Kierkegaard. I defend, against Allison, my not self?evident decision to include Kant, whose position I characterize as ?immanent humanism?. Although Kant opposed reason to nature, his revolution made the human mind, rather than a transcendent God, the source of objectivity in knowledge, morality in action, legitimacy in politics, and even sanctity in religion. I also defend my reconstruction of Marx's immanentist ontology. I further clarify two crucial distinctions: a philosophy of immanence is not necessarily the same as ?Spinozism?, and is not necessarily critical. Hence my protagonists need not be strict Spinozists, or critical philosophers, to figure in the ?adventures of immanence?. My debate with Schacht concerns the question whether Nietzsche and Marx saw the immanent world as divine (which I deny); the place of pantheism in these thinkers (in Nietzsche I see it as a temptation which amor fati has to overcome); and whether Hegel's discovery of the role of the social world in mediating knowledge depended on his metaphysical anthropomorphism (viewing the immanent domain as subject and Spirit, and assigning the human race a privileged ontological ? and theological ? role in it: I deny that dependence). Finally, in the reply to both Allison and Schacht I rephrase my criticism of Nietzsche's ?cult of transitoriness and explain my preference for ?tentative rationality"? (shrink)

Desde la polémica mantenida entre Jacobi y Mendelssohn en 1785 sobre el supuesto spinozismo de Lessing, se ha considerado que sistema de razón , fatalismo y panteísmo (y con él el spinozismo como forma más perfecta) constituyen una tríada de conceptos inseparables, de ahí la afirmación clave de Schlegel en el Indierbuch : “der Pantheismus ist das System der reinen Vernunft” (KA VIII, 249; Cit. por Schelling en SW I/VII 339, n. a ; 117). De esta manera, Schelling no deja (...) de ser un “vástago” del Pantheismusstreit de Mendelssohn y Jacobi: una polémica cuyo fantasma, personificado por Schlegel, aparecerá entre las páginas del Freiheitsschrift. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:The Philosophers and the Bible: The Debate on Sacred Scripture in Early Modern Thought ed. by Antonella Del Prete, Anna Lisa Schino, and Pina TotaroPiet SteenbakkersAntonella Del Prete, Anna Lisa Schino, and Pina Totaro, editors. The Philosophers and the Bible: The Debate on Sacred Scripture in Early Modern Thought. Brill's Studies in Intellectual History 333. Leiden: Brill, 2022. Pp. xiv + 303. Hardback, €135.16.This volume has its origins (...) in an international conference held in May 2019 in Rome and Viterbo. In its scope and approach, it surpasses the average volume of conference proceedings, owing to the editors' wise decision to invite additional papers to enhance its thematic coherence. Even with this expansion, they managed to get the book published within fifteen months—a remarkable achievement. Apart from chapters 12 and 13, which are in French, the volume is entirely in English. Most authors are proficient enough, but there are occasional slips, for instance, redundant definite articles ("the scripture" [61], "truths of the faith" [251]) or mistranslations ("prevent men from attacking and killing themselves" instead of "… killing each other" [87]).The generous bibliographies, one for every chapter, are a treasure trove. They are up to date and mostly well balanced. Taking into account that all but two of the authors are Italian, the literature referred to is impressively international in scope—more so than one usually sees in edited volumes, where English rules supreme. Chapters 1 and 3, which deal with Italian philosophers, have few non-Italian titles, and chapter 9 (on Pascal) few non-French titles.Textbook histories of philosophy pay little or no attention to what philosophers have said about the Bible: as a matter of course, the subject is assigned to the realm of theology and religion. As the editors rightly point out in their introduction (1–2), that is to ignore the massive presence of Scripture in Western culture. They even speak of the "biblical foundations" of early modern and contemporary thought (2). While that appraisal may seem exaggerated, they certainly have a point when they insist on the far-reaching and lasting influence of the Bible on Western thought—science and philosophy included. That the subject has been overlooked by historians of philosophy may in part be due to the academic division of labor with its rigid demarcations between disciplines and a near absolute divide between sciences and humanities. This distorts our view of the early modern period, when these qualifications had not yet been coined and demarcations between what would become separate disciplines were altogether fluid. Those who are now called "scientists" were formerly known as "natural philosophers." The present volume therefore deals not only with [End Page 325] Ficino, Hobbes, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Conway, Pascal, Wolff, and other thinkers now primarily classified as philosophers, but also with Galileo (though not directly addressed, "the 'Galileo affair' constitutes the background of the book" [8]), Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton, as well as with influential figures who defy our habitual classifications, for example, Biddle or Mersenne. The book boldly situates itself in what has gradually become a broad tradition of interdisciplinary scholarship, cultivated by luminaries such as Eugenio Garin, Paul O. Kristeller, Amos Funkenstein, and Anthony Grafton.The subtitle of the book, The Debate on Sacred Scripture in Early Modern Thought, may conjure up images of a historical debate among philosophers, along the lines of, say, the German Pantheismusstreit (pantheism dispute) of the 1780s. A curious aspect of the involvement of philosophers (in the broadest sense) in matters related to the Bible, however, is that the "debate" was a confrontation of philosophers with theologians, clerics, ecclesiastical and very often also civil authorities, rather than a mere philosophical dispute. This also means that individual philosophers' freedom of expression varied considerably depending on their denomination and environment. Thus, Galileo clashed head-on with the Roman Catholic Church, Descartes sought the approbation of the theologians of the Sorbonne, the Jesuits who inveighed against Pascal did so with little or no interest in the biblical text (see D'Agostino's chapter 9, 169). The Reformation took the Word of God for its foundation, so that Protestant settings (England, the Dutch Republic, and the Lutheran countries) were... (shrink)

This study shows that despite the fact that Leo Strauss published little about Jacobi, the misunderstood thinker about whom he wrote his doctoral dissertation exercised a crucial influence on what is often thought to be Strauss's most enduring achievement: his rediscovery of exotericism. A consideration of several of Strauss's writings that do mention Jacobi but remained unpublished at the time of his death—in particular his studies on Moses Mendelssohn, who was Jacobi's principal target in the Pantheismusstreit —reveal that Strauss (...) considered Jacobi to be an exoteric writer. Appropriately enough, it is only a Straussian-style reading of Strauss's claims that exotericism lapsed after Lessing's death that reveals Jacobi's influence between the lines. Some consideration is given to the question of why Strauss wrote about Jacobi in this secretive way. (shrink)

L'Essai sur l'être, traduit ci-dessous pour la première fois en français, fut rédigé par Herder en 1763-1764, pendant ses années d'études à Königsberg, à l'écoute de Kant. Reprenant et discutant certains des arguments développés par Kant dans ses conférences et écrits précritiques consacrés à la métaphysique, Herder pose les bases philosophiques de son œuvre future. L'étude du texte permet de réévaluer la thèse, jadis avancée par Dilthey, selon laquelle le futur protagoniste de Jacobi dans le débat sur le spinozisme infléchit (...) alors la pensée vers un « panthéisme esthétique » dont Hölderlin, Schelling et Hegel se feront plus tard les hérauts: le chemin suivi par la philosophie en Allemagne, après Kant, fut d'abord, effectivement, celui de l'esthétique — mais seulement parce que et dans la mesure où cette discipline fut comprise comme la « science du mode de connaissance et d'exposition sensible » (A. G. Baumgarten). Der Versuch über das Sein, hier erstmals in französischer Übersetzung vorgelegt, wurde von Herder in den Jahren 1763-1764 verfaßt, also während seiner Königsberger Studienjahre, als er regelmäßig die Vorlesungen Kants hörte. In der Aufnahme und in der Auseinandersetzung mit bestimmten Argumenten, die Kant in denjenigen seiner vorkritischen Vorlesungen und Schriften entwickelte, die der Metaphysik gewidmet sind, schuf Herder die philosophischen Grundlagen seines zukünftigen Werkes. Die vorliegende Deutung des herderschen Textes führt zu einer Neubewertung der seinerzeit von Dilthey vorgetragenen These, derzufolge dieser (neben Jacobi) zukünftige Hauptakteur im Pantheismusstreit das philosophische Denken in Richtung auf einen « ästhetischen Pantheismus » gebeugt habe, dessen Herolde später Hölderlin, Schelling und Hegel geworden wären. Der Weg der deutschen Philosophie nach Kant war tatsächlich derjenige der Ästhetik — allerdings nur dann, wenn diese Disziplin als die Wissenschaft, die das Sinnliche wahrnimmt und darstellt (A. G. Baumgarten), verstanden wird. (shrink)

Nach Orientierung fragt man erst, wenn man sie verloren hat. Kant hat das Bedürfnis nach Orientierung sowohl in den unscheinbarsten Regungen des Alltags wie in den großen Fragen des Glaubens aufgespürt. Die Idee zu einer Philosophie der Orientierung findet sich bereits in seinen vorkritischen Schriften. Kant hat sie jedoch erst anläßlich des Pantheismusstreits zwischen Mendelssohn und Jacobi expliziert, als seine Vernunftkritik ihren Kredit unter den Zeitgenossen und bei der preußischen Obrigkeit zu verlieren drohte. Insbesondere die These einer Leiblichkeit der Orientierung (...) verbindet Kants Position mit der phänomenologischen Tradition bei Cassirer, Merleau-Ponty und Plessner. Welches Potenzial in Kants Naturgeschichte und Phänomenologie der Orientierung steckt, zeigt die vorliegende Untersuchung, indem sie einen weiten Bogen von der Genealogie des Orientierungsdiskurses im 18. Jahrhundert zur diskursiven Praxis der Vernunft in der Gegenwart spannt. (shrink)

The paper studies the historical background for the ‘idealist’ reading of Spinoza usually traced back to British and German Idealism. Here, I follow this history further back than and focus on one earlier idealist reading, indeed perhaps the mother of them all. It can be found in the _Elucidarius cabalisticus, sive reconditae Hebraeorum philosophiae brevis et succincta recensio_ by Johann Georg Wachter, a kabbalist interpretation of Spinoza published in 1706. I am principally interested in the importance that Wachter’s book may (...) have had for German philosophy in the second half of the eighteenth century. Focusing on Moses Mendelssohn’s _Philosophische Gespräche_ of 1755, I argue that, via Mendelssohn, the Elucidarius cabalisticus is perhaps the earliest possible source of the idealist reading of Spinoza that dominated the German _Spinozabild_ from throughout the _Pantheismusstreit_ up to the second edition of Herder’s 1800 _Gott: Einige Gespräche_, culminating with Hegel’s ‘acosmist’ reading of Spinoza in the 1825–26 lectures on the history of philosophy. (shrink)

Článek se zabývá pojmem panteismus v období renesance. Ačkoli termín panteismus se objevil až na konci 17. století a později v kontextu tzv. “Pantheismusstreit”, za předchůdce moderního panteistického myšlení byl označen renesanční filosof Giordano Bruno. Následně i Mikuláš Kusánský, a to jakožto pokračovatel myšlení Mistra Eckharta, začal být považován za panteistu. Jak Kusánský, tak Bruno v určitém smyslu obhajovali imanenci božského ve světě, avšak zároveň oba zdůrazňovali rozdíl mezi Bohem a přírodou a připisovali Bohu transcendenci nebo přinejmenším transcendentální aspekty. (...) Toto není v souladu s definicí panteismu v tzv. silném slova smyslu, kdy se tvrdí striktní identita Boha a světa. Zdá se, že pojem renesanční panteismus je konstruktem, který byl vytvořen skrze násilnou aplikaci terminologie osvícenské filosofie na renesanční období. (shrink)

The Vocation of Man is Fichte’s response to Jacobi. Fichte follows a double strategy: he provides us with his defense against the accusations made to the Doctrine of Science in Jacobi’s Letter to Fichte (subjectivism, solipsism, nihilism), on the other part, he tries to build a link to the non-knowledge of Jacobi. With the ternary structure of the work, Fichte shows its commitment to the position that was already his at the time of the pantheism controversy: he still believes in (...) the necessity of a mediation of Knowledge between Doubt and Faith and does not agree with the Jacobian salto mortale. But Fichte’s account of “knowledge” and ‘faith” in the in the last two books of the work are precisely calibrated to demonstrate to Jacobi their agreement in these two areas. The reaction of Jacobi shows the discrepancy between the Fichte’s intentions and accomplishments. Die Bestimmung des Menschen bringt Fichtes Antwort auf Jacobi. Fichte verfolgt zwei Ziele : es gilt auf der einen Seite fur ihn, sein Verteidigungssystem gegen die im Brief an Fichte entgegen der Wissenschaftslehre geau.erten Anschuldigungen (Subjektivismus, Solipsismus, Nihilismus) darzustellen, auf der anderen Seite einen Ubergang zum jacobischen Nichtwissen zu ermitteln. Mit der dreiteiligen Struktur der Schrift zeigt Fichte, da. er der Position, die er schon beim Pantheismusstreit vertrat, treu bleibt: er halt eine Vermittlung durch das Wissen zwischen dem Zweifel und dem Glauben fur notwendig und setzt sich dem jacobischen salto mortale entgegen. Aber die in den zwei letzten Buchern der Schrift inszenierten Wissen und Glaube sind genau darauf abgezielt, um Jacobi ihre Ubereinstimmung in jenen zwei Bereichen unter Beweis zu stellen. Jacobis Reaktion zeigt die ganze Diskrepanz zwischen Fichtes Erwartungen und dem Ergebnis. (shrink)

As a sign that interest in Schelling is growing beyond its initial reception within more continentally inflected studies, Lara Osteric has collected eleven generally impressive essays that are organized around the chronological development of Schelling’s thinking, and that reassess his place in the history of philosophy.Eric Watkins enters the debate around the decisive influences on Schelling’s early thinking. Conceding the well-known influences of Hölderlin, Fichte, Jacobi, and the Pantheismusstreit, his reactionary Tübingen teachers, and Reinhold’s attempt to provide a firm (...) foundation for Kantian critical philosophy, Watkins argues for... (shrink)

Morning Hours is the first English translation of Morgenstunden by Moses Mendelssohn, the foremost Jewish thinker of the German Enlightenment. Published six months before Mendelssohn's death on January 4, 1786, Morning Hours is the most sustained presentation of his mature epistemological and metaphysical views, all elaborated in the service of presenting his son with proofs for the existence of God. But Morning Hours is much more than a theoretical treatise. It also plays a central role in the drama of the (...) Pantheismusstreit, Mendelssohn's "dispute" with F. H. Jacobi over the nature and scope of Lessing's attitude toward Spinoza and "pantheism". In Morning Hours Mendelssohn attempts to set the record straight regarding his beloved Lessing in this connection, not least by demonstrating the absence of any practical difference between theism and a "purified pantheism". (shrink)