Ferguson, I, VI On the first page of the Virtue Speech, Schiller coins a resilient guiding construct for both his future critical thought and artistic production on freedom and happiness when he poses the teleologically informed question as to what decides between virtue and vice. Thus begins a decades long pursuit of happiness through art intended to resonate and effect change in the sphere of public authority.
Reason tests each choice according to whether it will lead to greater happiness than its alternative, the deciding factor. If the love of greater happiness, which implies selfless conduct even in the single most extreme case, guides the individual in all choices between the competing inclinations virtue and vice, then the most grave and telling choice is that of a virtuous death over an unfree life. Erhabner nichts unter hohem, bestirntem Himmel vollbracht!
I see the most sublime thinker ever born in the ancient world, who never caught the faintest glimmer. No more sublime deed done under the great starry heavens! NA But Schiller could have found other examples of such behavior and did so in almost all of his major works. Schiller returns to the singularity of this test case in the subsequent paragraphs and in his later portrayals of Socrates.
The second part of the definition, the thesis as well as the metaphorical leitmotif of the speech, appears another four times, at least once in. In the second segment, comprising paragraphs , Schiller, like Shaftesbury and Hutcheson above, strictly differentiates between the moral inspiration of a deed and its reception, between appearance and ulterior motives. All Ferguson references appear in Adam Ferguson, An Essay on the History of Civil Society, reprint of the 4th edition of London , with chapter and page numbers. Indeed, it is baffling why it took until for Schiller to be accused of outright blasphemy.
The historical figures Schiller invoked to illustrate this early moral-aesthetic theory mirror the actual later characters in his dramas. Therefore, all too much kindness, sociability, and great generosity does not constitute the harmonious band between love and wisdom — for it cost no struggle […] This is not virtue; NA It would be unrealistic to expect Schiller to express himself entirely freely in writing at an institution where once mere feudal subjects were sentenced to teenage years spent in the total absence of freedom. This makes it difficult to discern what in the Karlsschule writings Schiller wants to write, and what he is required to write.
It is highly likely that Schiller developed his trademark kaleidoscope of metaphors in response to the police state censorship of the Karlsschule. See also Jeffrey L. To the question of whether the chaff in question is more inspired by Socrates or the Bible,41 the logic appears to indicate the. There is no mention here of the ungodly to be blown away like chaff; on the contrary, it is the heavens that will be blown away like chaff, and left standing will be the sage, Socrates, in his impenetrable virtue. Throughout the essay, Christ is never mentioned by name. Was ihn von ihr entfernt, wird ihn schmerzen.
That which distances him from this goal will cause him pain. That what hurts him, he will avoid, that which delights him, he will pursue; NA The highest and ultimate challenge […] the promotion of general happiness […] the education of the individual and the people; NA No one will doubt that [ When one compares the First Virtue Speech to the later theoretical treatises, one finds the arguments from the former restated in new contexts. Nicholas Martin, Schiller and Nietzsche.
Untimely Aesthetics Oxford: Clarendon Press, Socrates appears as an example in four of them. Given the context and the earlier comparison to Socrates, the text makes entirely more sense with the latter. Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws. Harmon, Lucian, vol. See Robert E.
Eerdmans Publishing, As Franklin himself documented, he was not a Christian, but a deist. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers, in his government of the world, with any peculiar marks of his displeasure.
Franklin questions the divinity of Christ without interest in researching the matter, and, in agreement with Socrates, he does not believe that a supreme being would take any interest in whether an individual believes in any religion, much less in a specific religion. Both of these positions stand in stark contrast to Christianity as articulated in quotes attributed to Christ in the Bible, the only canonical source.
Franklin summarily offers the conditional proposition that he would see no harm in Christianity, if its consequences were good, that is, if its adherents observed the teachings of Christ specifically, but not necessary those of the apostles or Church leaders. Franklin never mentions the Christian churches in the letter. As Joshua D. Socrates respects the freedom of the individual, his right to find the truth for himself, Jesus preaches a prescribed path toward salvation. Upon completion of his book, Priestley immediately sent a copy to the President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, who had clearly already given the subject some thought, and would continue to do so over the next two decades.
La Morte de Socrates, , one in a series of significant Socrates paintings from the eighteenth century. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, eds. He was too wise to believe, and too honest to pretend that he had real and familiar converse with a superior and invisible being. He probably considered the suggestions of his conscience, or reason, as revelations, or inspirations from the Supreme mind, bestowed, on important occasions, by.
On the contrary, in the same letter to William Short cited above, Jefferson provides insight into his materialist understanding of his Socrates by entirely disqualifying Plato for an inconsistent and implausible spiritual portrayal of Socrates. In the same vein, and again, in a comparison of Socrates and Christ, Jefferson dismisses the very divine foundations of Christianity in defense of his Secular Jesus: That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore.
But that he might conscientiously believe himself inspired from above, is very possible. The whole religion of the Jews, inculcated on him from his infancy, was founded in the belief of divine inspiration. Cappon, ed. Peterson, ed. And how many of our wisest men still believe in the reality of these inspirations, while perfectly sane on all other subjects.
Jefferson, In other words, Jefferson, who is a serious devotee of the moral philosophy of Christ, writes that it is insane to believe in the divinity of Christ. To the truths already uttered in the Athenian prison, Christianity added little or nothing, except a few symbols, which, though perhaps well calculated for popular acceptance, are more likely to perplex than to instruct, and offer the best opportunity for priestly mystification.
Mackey Mackey and the Shelleys, however, belong to an increasingly silent minority. In , R. Wenley prefaces his Socrates and Christ: A Study in the Philosophy of Religion with a series of quotes intended to bolster the argument of his work, that Christ is superior to Socrates because Christ gave life where Socrates could not. All three quotes appear in the front matter on page ii.
Not an action of man but will have its truth realized and will go on for ever. I should put Buddha and Socrates above him in those respects. Most such efforts, informative as they may be, embark from the premise that Christ was the son of god. Scott, How do we know this?
On the other hand, there is no rational sense to be made of the metaphysical presuppositions that serve as arguments for the Christ-apologists against the relative merits of Socrates as a philosopher and martyr for humankind. Accessed on 2 January Frankfurt am Main: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag, Evidently, however, it did not; it merely brought the promise of heaven and the threat of hell to those who would believe it, and much worse still to those who would instrumentalize it, priests and politicians.
For Schiller and many of his contemporaries, the belief in heaven as a reward for earthy virtue and the threat of a punishment in hell stood counter to the very idea of virtue. According to the Christian narrative as Wenley portrays it here, Christ in end effect removed the responsibility for philosophy from human individuals and relocated it in the promise of a heaven inconveniently located just beyond their reach for the duration of their lives. It is little wonder the secularist thinkers of the eighteenth century sought support in the non-Christian thinkers of ancient Greece. King London: Loeb Classical Library, Morrison New York: Harper and Brothers, Ironically, if one removes the divine aspect from the Jesus story, as Thomas Jefferson did in The Jefferson Bible, the moral-political story gains endlessly.
Christ appears in a league with the pagans Socrates, Marcus Aurelius, and the fictional Cathmor in his moral resistance to persecution on a story level, but, due to his function as a divine messenger, not in the ultimate measure of disinterested and human virtue. So der Gottmensch auf dem Tabor! In battle, Socrates was the greatest Athenian warrior, carrying a man on his back, walking miles in his bare feet on ice, and surviving as the only soldier in an entire army who did not contract the plague.
As a poor teacher, he lived under a ban on teaching rhetoric passed against him by Charicles, with an additional personal restraining order against consorting with the youth. During his political persecutions, he raised a large enough following of disciples to survive his silent betrayal by Critias, then suffered renewed persecution by sophists and priests in charges of impiety and corrupting the youth of Athens under the restored democracy.
Finally, he chose his own death over injustice and demonstrated sublime composure at an unjust end. And he was just a man. But this is exactly the point of the Secular Jesus movement. Happiness and freedom from coercion are human — not divine — pursuits, and in a contest of dueling martyrs to be decided by moral resistance, virtue derived from reason, and the goal of human happiness, it is not only advantageous to be human rather than divine, it is a requirement.
Only a human — a citizen of the world — will do. I could use such a friend. It is likely that all the eighteenth-century thinkers require from Socrates is his resistance against the religious state and his insistence on the practice of reason in the sphere of public authority, regardless of personal belief. Likewise, all other similarities notwithstanding, resistance against religious persecution is all that is required of Rousseau to make him Socrates-like.
Accordingly, for Schiller, the notion of immortality Socrates represents in the First Virtue Speech is not metaphysical, but moral, political, and aesthetic. Schiller, Hume und die Religionspsychologie. Jahrhundert hervorgebracht hat. Umrisse einer Rezeptionsgeschichte, frommann-holzboog, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt , bes. Vom 1. Im Gegensatz zu den genannten Passagen aus Herders Oeuvre ist die Frage, ob Schiller wirklich Hume rezipiert, schwieriger zu entscheiden. Zu diesem Komplex verweise ich auf meine Dissertation zu Schillers Religionskritik.
Sie wird betreut von Prof. Die Rekonstruktion des Ideentransfers gestaltet sich bei Schiller komplizierter als im Falle von Herder. Leben — Werk — Zeit, 2 Bde. Resignation entgegentreten. Oder doch besser dem carpe-diem-Diktum folgen und auskosten, was das Leben an Freuden zu bieten hat? Ihre Vorhersage bewahrheitet sich. Alle folgenden Zitate aus dieser Fassung. Neue Perspektiven, hrsg. Eine Quellenedition zum Philosophieunterricht an der Stuttgarter Karlsschule — Siehe dazu den Kommentar ebd. Studierte er die Schrift selbst, wusste er mithin um die Herkunft des von seinem Lehrer vorgetragenen Arguments und hatte die Naturgeschichte vor Augen, als er das Gedicht Resignation verfasste?
Ein Beleg, dass er die Schrift schon zu Schulzeiten kennenlernte, steht jedoch aus. Insbesondere ein Dokument aus den Akten der Akademie verspricht, zumindest ein wenig Licht ins Dunkle zu bringen. Auf den Spuren der herzoglichen Bibliothek. In den Akten der Karlsschule, die im Landesarchiv Stuttgart verwahrt sind, befindet sich keine Auflistung aller zu jener Zeit angeschafften Werke. Der genaue Bestand der Bibliothek zu Schillers Schulzeit ist somit nicht erfasst.
Zudem ist ein kleiner Teil vermutlich nicht erhalten geblieben, sondern fiel den Angriffen britischer Bomber in der Nacht vom September zum Opfer. Jahrhundert, konnte jedoch durch Auslagerung vor der Vernichtung gerettet werden. Jahrhundert nicht vorhanden. Als dessen vermischter Schriften Zweyter Theil.
Liebich, Stuttgart , S. Geschichte seines Lebens und Charakteristik seiner Werke, 3 Bde. Par Mr. Offensichtlich war er nicht nur mit der Diskussion um Humes erkenntniskritische Schrift vertraut, sondern hegte besonderes Interesse an Campbells ausgewogener Stellungnahme zu den religionskritischen Thesen des Schotten. Siehe dazu Streminger, David Hume, a.
Lockes opinion concerning personal identity. Locke, philos. Conenz a Neufchatel Hutcheson Lond. Abel selbst muss mit den von ihm aufgelisteten Schriften vertraut gewesen sein, als er Schiller unterrichtete. Humes Naturgeschichte der Religion findet sich unter den aufgelisteten Schriften allerdings nicht. Gekannt haben mag er das Werk dennoch. Jahrhunderts nicht. Martin P. Zu dieser ideengeschichtlichen Tradition siehe auch meine Dissertationsschrift, die den Versuch unternimmt, Schiller in diesem Kontext zu verorten.
In seinem Gedicht An Schiller. Despite their title, the Philosophical Letters henceforth Letters have received little attention from philosophers. It seems that there are good reasons for this neglect. It appears then that there is little for the philosopher to do apart from identifying the organicist and vitalist motifs of the piece, perhaps as background for philosophical ideas developed more systematically and fully in later works. See too Safranski , 97 and ; and Macor , The guidance offered to the reader of the Letters about how she should take the doctrines contained in them reinforces this impression.
Why then read the Letters philosophically at all? First the absence of a central concern of later works with aesthetic experience leaves more scope for the development of a direct connection between experience as such and morality. Second because the picture of human experience and so of the relation of human beings to their world that is presented here is claimed to be mandatory for moral reasons, something one ought to accept and something that ought to be the case, if morality is possible.
The philosophy done in the Letters is not done in order to address philosophical problems, but rather to subordinate philosophy to morality. Reading the Letters with the Dissertation in View. Given the relation between one-sidedness and the moral concern raised at the outset, it is important to settle what exactly the problem is.
This interpretation fits but only partly. This would make Raphael a materialist. Yet, these identifications do not fit that well either. I think the better option is that we view the criticisms of one-sidedness as criticisms of philosophies that fail to acknowledge the need for interconnection of the mental and the material. To do this we need to take his views seriously. Doing so, however, presents problems.
More seriously for our purpose, which is to understand the philosophical motivation of the position, the problems to which it is intended to be a solution are not clearly spelt out. I will argue that individually neither work offers enough by way of philosophical argument, but together they present interaction between the mental and the physical as a moral necessity, something that ought to be the case for the good moral order of human life.
So if we think of the basic ontological commitments of the position we have the power or force to which individuals resemble in some way they are alike, share a likeness and then what we usually think of as the external world is not different from what is in me but are both symbols or signs of this basic power. In short we have three levels let us say, the power, the likeness to the power, and the signs of the power. This is admittedly very obscure. Julius does not, in other words, subscribe to some exotic version of the doctrine of ideas, namely that the perceiving and knowing subject has direct access to ideas in the mind from which the existence and, more problematically, features of the external world are inferred.
Wherever I see a body I anticipate a spirit. It is a monism insofar as there seems to be one substance only, what he calls power or God. In other words, the monism does not preclude a quite definite differentiation between two sorts of things, mental and physical. So rather than having one thing that simply presents itself under two aspects, we are encouraged to consider how the two differentiated things, a and b, interact with one another even though they are fundamentally parts or elements or manifestations of a single substance.
The difference is that rather than a modification in a, being ipso facto a modification in b, or a and b peacefully coexisting alongside one another, Julius has a more complex story to tell about the interaction of mental and physical. This positive doctrine of interactionism can be described -and Julius describes it- without reliance on the terminology of ciphers and powers.
It is a doctrine about the relation between inner and outer, and so between what is traditionally designated as the world of ideas and the world of physical nature. Clearly, given monism, these are not literally two worlds, but what is important and interesting about the position is that monism does not magically solve the interaction issue, the interaction is between two genuine aspects of the whole and is described in some detail it is the metaphysical side that remains vague.
A condition once perceived by us, we enter into it immediately L , see too , We may distinguish three elements to the contagion thesis. This is more in evidence in 3 and partly in 1. Second there is a further element, clearly stated in 2 , that we are capable of immediate perception of values in the specific contexts in which we encounter them. This valuetheoretical element states that we just get what is beautiful, true or excellent without mediation by thinking and deliberation, we are simply sensitive to such things.
There is a way of understanding this as a description of how things stand with us, a sort of phenomenological element that is at the same time a corrective to self-alienating dualisms. The expression thesis can be found in passages such as: 1 In whatever beauty, excellence, or enjoyment I produce outside myself, I produce myself L To pardon is to recover a property that has been lost.
Misanthropy is a protracted suicide; egotism is the supremest poverty of a created being L There are different elements in the expression thesis. If we read this again together with the contagion thesis we get the idea that the nature of our thoughts depends on the nature of the world but also that the world is not an inert thing but rather that in which our agency finds expression.
Über die politische Philosophie im Daodejing
As we said before, Julius just describes his views he does not argue for them, though he draws occasionally on examples from life, including shared experiences with Raphael, and from literature. The laws in a way then summarise and formalise the previous discussion emphasising the connection between the mental side and the physical side of our constitution.
So we may not look for proofs in the Dissertation. The difference is perhaps that Raphael appears to present a thesis about metaphysical ignorance not about contingent limitations of the current state of scientific knowledge. But then what is presented as a scientific dissertation is effectively also a metaphysical treatise. So it is not clear that Schiller makes a clear distinction between the two. We shall return to this in later on. Let us first look at the laws in question. Thus, as perfection is ever accompanied by pleasure, imperfection by the absence of pleasure But this is not the whole story.
No specific ontology is presented or favoured. Here it is not a theosophical insight that resolves the conflict but a lesson that the human being occupies a midway position. The question is what sort of lesson is this? Or: to what sort of problem is interactionism the solution? Nor does it seem that interactionism is a solution to the so-called problem of consciousness, that is, of locating phenomenal or mental items in a physical world.
When Schiller talks about the relation between mental and physical phenomena he seems happy to accept both descriptions as perfectly good, showing no interest in reducing the one to the other see too the discussion at the start of this section. We said earlier that the laws he proposes may best be seen as having deontic necessity, as saying that such and such ought to obtain. In contrast to the modest reading, that souls and bodies do in fact interact most of the time after a fashion, the deontic reading is that they ought so to do in order to function properly after some weighty conception of proper function.
These ideas do not of course amount to a fully worked out ethics of worldly being. However, we have enough here to locate the concerns of these early works in the moral domain. One debate to which these pieces could be considered as contributions is that of placing normative phenomena, broadly understood, within the view of the world presented in the natural sciences. On this view what Schiller attempts is to show how certain moral ideals, of harmony and of perfection, can fit in a more generous conception of what is natural and apt to be studied by the natural sciences.
This view is especially plausible if we consider that Schiller proposes his argument in the Dissertation, from within one of the natural sciences that is also a practical science of healing. What the problem is which motivates this response is the topic of the last section. The Natural Place of the Soul. Clearly, the issue of how the mental and the physical connect does not appear out of a philosophical void. Interactionism is mainly associated with Descartes and is the idea that the mind and the body, despite being different substances, are through their causal interactions bound closely with one another.
Leibniz rejects Cartesian interactionism because he believes that it is not metaphysically possible for any set of finite substances causally to VOLUME 5 This impossibility arises because the causing substance would have to have the power to create a new accident in the substance on which it exercises its causal power. But the creation of such a new accident poses a problem, for it is not clear where the accident originates, whether it belongs to the causing substance or not.
If the accident does not belong to the causing substance, then it would appear out of nothing, which is scarcely preferable. And they also suggest a degree of sustained engagement with these ideas, which were very much live issues in eighteenth century German metaphysical debates. What remains to be analysed is what kind of moral problem Schiller diagnoses as onesidedness. He does not explain why this is a mistake, in particular, why it is morally relevant. So at issue cannot be merely the possibility or actuality of the influence but rather its character, whether it is beneficial or not.
Those who consider the body a prison clearly do not consider such influence beneficial. So the argument is not that given such and such moral ends, if we take into account the body we will have a better chance at realising them.
Table of contents
Rather Schiller subtly moves the goal-posts suggesting that an ideal that does not have a place for the whole of the human, body and mind, is not worthy and once we have this ideal then we need to view the relation differently if we are to realise it. However, as we said repeatedly, it is hard to pin down exactly which doctrine, or which precise theoretical division one-sidedness stands for. At the same time our experiences, cited at the start of this process, are not blind, they are informed by ideas and ideas belong with other ideas and so on.
This brings us to the other side of the relation, culture and history. This can, of course, be seen as just a sign of a faulty methodology that mixes up historical and developmental issues with what is proper to a study of human physiology. The opening emphasis on the moral significance of the work, however, suggests that this expansive sense of what is relevant, here the broader environment, is part of the overall argument.
Of course the correlative of this view of the environment, what we may call naturalised spirit, is a self-conception of the human as part of the whole, a message that is powerfully conveyed in the Letters. From the perspective opened by prioritizing the moral concerns of the Letters, we can see interactionist monism as a tentative articulation of a kind of moral realism, which is admittedly merely hinted at but which has as key elements the interaction of agent and her environment, and a due appreciation of physical and cultural constitution of agency.
Bibliography Schiller, F. Philosophische Schriften. Erster Teil. Schiller, F. London: George Bell. Beiser, F. A Re-Examination. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Leibniz, G. Ariew and D. Hackett: Indianapolis. Macor, L. Essays on His Receptin and Significance. High, N. Martin and N. Camden House: Rochester-New York, pp. Martinson, S. Camden House: Rochester-New York. Newark: University of Delaware Press. Pugh, D. Montreal and Kingston: McGill Queens. Riedel, W. Safranski, R. Faustino Oncina. Murcia, Secretariado de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia, , pp.
Pisa, Edizioni ETS, , pp. Barcelona, Tusquets, , p. Friedrich Schiller dall illuminismo al criticismo9. Spencer, John: De Legibus Hebraeorum. Ritualibus et earum Rationibus. Libri tres.
- Modern Law and the Power of Pictures.
- Book Reviews - - The German Quarterly - Wiley Online Library.
- Magic Mates and the Puppy Panic.
- aus Wikipedia, der freien Enzyklopädie.
- The Legacy of Hatred!
Reprint of the second English edition, New York, Garland Publishing, RILLA ed. German philosophy from Kant to Fichte. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, , p. The genesis of modern political thought Esta doctrina Es tan eterna como el mundo. La historia universal es el juicio final.
Tu fe es la dicha que te ha sido concedida. Newark, University of Delaware Press, Asimismo, Schiller, F. Antonio Bueno, El visionario. Barcelona, Icaria, Desde este momento se escribe su libertad Berlin, Aufbau Verlag, Barcelona, Grijalbo, , p. A reexamination, ed. Ahora bien, el razonamiento y las conclusiones de Marcuse ofrecen un panorama bien distinto del expuesto por Freud.
Madrid, Alianza, A philosophical inquiry into Freud. Boston, Beacon Press, Barcelona, Ariel, Al aparecer los hermanos, es precisamente cuando finalmente se introduce la heterogeneidad y la multiplicidad en la primera sociedad humana 63 pero, al mismo tiempo, esa heterogeneidad acaba destruyendo la igualdad originaria de la misma. Sin embargo, esta lectura de Schiller como si fuera una suerte de pensador proto-marxista genera, a su vez, ciertos problemas.
State, society and the aesthetic ideal of ancient Greece. Wien, Internationalen Psychoanalystichen Verlag, Madrid, Alianza Editorial, , p.
Como afirma Freud, la libertad individual no es un bien cultural Freud postula una primordial y originaria hostilidad entre los hombres que la cultura se ve obligada a reprimir Sin cursiva en el original. Barcelona, Anthropos, , pp. Todo puede ser sacrificado para el bien del Estado, excepto aquello a lo que el Estado sirve como medio. Schiller, Werke. Nationalausgabe, inziata da J.
Petersen, proseguita da L. Blumenthal, Benno v. Wiese e N. XXII, p. Schiller, La passeggiata. Natura, poesia e storia, a cura di G. Pinna, Roma, Carocci, , pp. Koopmann, Der Dichter als Kunstrichter. Tale diagnosi implica una distinzione tra i generi basata sul rapporto tra io poetico e oggetto della rappresentazione che non si differenzia troppo, almeno in linea di principio, da quella comunemente formulata nelle estetiche tardo-illuministiche da Batteux a Engel a Mendelssohn. Mendelssohn, Von der lyrischen Poesie, in Id. III, p. Sulla teoria della lirica di Mendelssohn vedi L.
Su questo vedi W. Alt, Schiller. Eine Biographie, 2 voll. II, p. Questa deve dunque valere abbastanza da essere esposta al mondo e ai posteri. III, pp. Sulla questione si vedano, oltre al sopra citato H. Koopmann, Der Dichter als Kunstrichter, cit. Festschrift zum Geburtstag v. Preisendanz, Hamburg, Hoffmann und Campe, , pp. Alt, Friedrich Schiller. Eine Biographie, cit.
II, pp. Hamburger, Schiller und die Lyrik, cit. Dyppel, Wilhelm von Humboldt. Per un confronto tra i due autori rimando a G. Feger e H. Pinna, Palermo, Aesthetica, , p. NA XX, pp. Sul concetto di immaginazione in Schiller si veda H. Ovviamente si tratta di un nesso non determinante nel senso della conoscenza scientifica, ma analogico. Berghahn, Schillers mythologische Symbolik, in Friedrich Schiller. Angebot und Diskurs, a cura di H. Brandt, Berlin-Weimar, Aufbau-Verlag, , pp. Per il kantiano Schiller la musica rimanda al tempo in quanto forma del senso interno e funge in un certo senso da regola ovvero da schema trascendentale estetico per la poesia.
Franzini e W. Scotti, Milano, SE, , p. NA X, p. Sulla concezione schilleriana dei generi poetici cfr. Pott, Schillers spekulative Gattungspoetik und Eichendorffs Poesie, cit.
Angeletics Work in Progress
Szondi, Gattungspoetik und Geschichtphilosophie. In: ders. Stuttgart , S. Julius Petersen, Norbert Oellers u. Weimar ff. Schiller und der Geheimbund der Illuminaten. Zuvor schon ders. Auch ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des jungen Schiller. Leben — Werk — Zeit. In: Jahrbuch der dt. Schmal von Umfang, ist es nach Ertrag ein Schwergewicht. In: ders: The Interpretation of Cultures. Selected Essays. New York , S. Schiller — Goethe — Kleist. In: Verf. Werke, Bd. Umrisse zu einer Theorie der Geschichte. In: Otto Brunner u. Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland.
Stuttgart In: Kants Werke. Denn nur wenig will so schlecht zu ihrem Selbstbild passen wie die Tatsache, dass ihre Revolutionen mehrheitlich, wie unter Wiederholungszwang, jenen fatalen Umschlag durchexekutierten. Arnold Gehlen: Die Seele im technischen Zeitalter. Sozialpsychologische Probleme der industriellen Gesellschaft In: Gesamtausgabe. Karl-Siegbert Rehberg.
- Germany in Central America: Competitive Imperialism, 1821-1929.
- Cotton Reloaded - 04: Die Verschwundenen (German Edition)!
- 1. Einleitung?
- War Memories of a Young Frenchman?
- Short and Simple Guide to Life Insurance!
- THE THINGS YOU CAN DO: A Childrens Story About Confidence in Dr. Seuss Style Rhyme (Meus Tales #4)!
Gerd Kadelbach. Augustenburger Brief vom 7. Januar Berghahn: Nachwort. Friedrich Schiller als Denker des Politischen. Im Spiegel seiner theoretischen Schriften. Goethe Society of India Yearbook Philologie , S. In: Riedel Anm. In: Manfred Baum Hg. FS Wolfgang Janke. In: DVjs 76 , S. Schillers politische Philosophie. Heidelberg , S. A ReExamination. Oxford , S. In: Koopmann 2 Anm. In: Steven D. Martinson Hg.
Log in to Wiley Online Library
Drama, Thought and Politics. Cambridge , S. In: Matthias Luserke-Jaqui Hg. Leben — Werk — Wirkung. Schiller und Hegel, zuerst in: Euphorion 53 , S. Berghahn Anm. In: Brigitte E. Anthropologische Aporien in Schillers philosophischen Schriften. Anthropologie und Literatur im Noch die Textanordnung in den Kleineren prosaischen Schriften von muss dieses Angewiesensein der Briefe auf das von ihnen Ausgeschlossene belegen.
Selbst wenn man von dieser Pointierung einiges abzieht, bleibt evident, dass die Wahrheit dazwischen liegen muss. Drei Thesen sollen in den Kapiteln zwei bis vier belegt werden. NA 20, S. Rolf-Peter Janz [Nachdr. Helmut Koopmann. Berghahn [Anm. Stefan Matuschek. Schenkungsbrief des Prinzen: NA I, Nr. Brand des Kopenhagener Schlosses verbrannt. Folgen wir also dem Gang seiner Argumente. Danach im 2. Aufgrund einer Briefstelle vom Februar , Nr.
Warum ausgerechnet Theorie der Kunst? Neue verm. Friedrich von Blanckenburg]. Leipzig , Bd. In: Schings Anm. Johann Georg Sulzer: Vermischte philosophische Schriften. Hier v. Dazu im Einzelnen Verf. Reinhardt Brandt. Hamburg , bes. In: Jacob Friedrich Abel. Eine Quellenedition zum Philosophieunterricht an der Stuttgarter Karlsschule In: Koopmann , S.
Und nicht nur in dieser. Sie war aber auch mehr als nur ein Tribut an den allerneuesten Diskussionsstand. Juli , Nr. Wie konnte es zu dieser — in Schillers Augen — welthistorischen Katastrophe kommen? Paris dt. November , Nr. Es gilt zu erweisen, dass und wie die Kunst eigentlich auf die Seele wirkt. Zum stoizistischen Profil dieses Theoriekapitels bei Schiller Verf.
Wer allerdings rein argumentationslogisch sucht, wird es nicht finden. Dieses Erschrecken zwingt Schiller zugleich die Auseinandersetzung mit seinem rousseauistischen Gedankenerbe auf. Unversehens gelangt Schiller so in ein ganz neues — und scheinbar ganz fernes — Feld, in die menschliche Entwicklungsgeschichte. Aber nicht um dem Heute auszuweichen! Kurt Weigand. Hamburg , S. Zur Ideengeschichte der medizinischen Schriften und der Philosophischen Briefe. Motive der Mitleidsdiskussion im Schings Anm.
Giorgio Colli, Mazzino Montinari. Drei-Stufen-Modell der menschlichen Entwicklung will er diese Frage beantworten Literarische Anthropologie um Paris Thomas Hobbes: Vom Menschen. Stuttgart , 2 , S. In: Norbert Oellers Hg. Gedichte von Friedrich Schiller. Jena , S. In: Abel Anm. Das ist sein Punkt! Schiller entwirft in diesem Brief so etwas wie eine historische Anthropologie des Kulturerwerbs aus dem Distanzgewinn.
In: Gesammelte Werke. Bonn 2 , S. Seine Natur und Stellung in der Welt In: Werke. Wolfgang Pross. Berlin ; ders. Ein Grund mehr, sie hier zusammenzunehmen. In: Gesammelte Schriften. Horst Bredekamp u. Berlin , S. Herder Anm. Heintel: Art. In: Manfred Fuhrmann Hg. Probleme der Mythenrezeption. Paris ; dt. In: AKA 8, S. In: Koopmann Anm. Herbert G. Darmstadt Abels sog. In: Alt u. Nicht wie das Ich auf Welt und Andere schaut, steht nun im Fokus, sondern wie es von ihnen betrachtet wird, wie es ihnen sich zeigt und zeigen will. Der Gedanke ist klar. Grund auf. Damit ist das entscheidende Wort gefallen, und die verhaltensanthropologische, zugleich moralisch-politische Pointe des vierten Briefs tritt offen zutage.
Und nichts Geringes geht Schiller in ihr auf! Johann Gottlieb Fichte: Grundlage des Naturrechts In: Fichtes Werke. Immanuel Hermann Fichte. Berlin Prinzip der wechselweisen Anerkennung! Untersuchungen zu Hegels Jenaer Philosophie des Geistes. In: Klaus Hammacher Hg. Kommentare zu den Hauptwerken. In: Wolfgang Wittkowski Hg.
Der SchillerExkurs darin S. Dezember , Nr. Dennoch, lesen wir weiter in diesem Brief, wird schnell deutlich, dass es nur strategisch-rhetorische Funktion besitzt. Er schiebt ihn in die Philosophie ab, um die Praxis davon zu entlasten. Mehr ist dazu nicht zu sagen? Zweimal Heteronomie also, in der Natur und in der Vernunft? Man muss sie eine pragmatische nennen. Vielleicht aus diesem Grund sind ihr im dritten Brief nur wenige Zeilen gewidmet. Lob des Zweitbesten! Schon wie ein Soziologe blickt Schiller hier auf das Problem. Er sieht die Religion rein funktional, als soziale, nicht als metaphysische Institution.
Schillers Bild von ihm, erschreckensgesteuert, hat freilich viel von einem Phantasma. Fraglos auch eine Art Realismus! NA 22, S. Hierzu Schings Anm. Schiller, Abel und die Illuminaten. Wie der kategorische Imperativ, so kippt auch der Erhebungsappell der Theorie des Erhabenen im Praxistest der faits sociaux ins Irrelevante. Studien zur deutschen Literaturgeschichte.
In: Publications of the English Goethe Society. NF 11 , S. In either case, you will need a lawyer who is experienced in fighting for the rights of injured Police Officers. We can help you secure compensation for pain, suffering, lost wages and benefits and medical costs. If you are police officer with a line of duty injury, you should call the Oshman and Mirisola law before you accept an offer from the police Department or from an insurance company. Call us today or fill out our short form for a free consultation. There is no cost to you until your case is settled or won and you receive your settlement.
For a free consultation give us a call at or fill out our short form.