ZusammenfassungDas Bekanntwerden der Schriften des Aristoteles im 13. Jahrhundert hat zu einer lebhaften Kommentierung seiner Schriften durch die abendländischen Philosophen und Theologen geführt. Zu ihnen zählt Dietrich von Freiberg. Es fällt auf, daß er häufig in seinen Schriften nicht nur den antiken Philosophen zitiert, sondern auch arabische Philosophen, vor allem Averroes. Das gilt für philosophische Fragen wie die Erkenntnislehre, kaum aber für theologische wie die Eschatologie.Er scheut sich jedoch nicht, die Möglichkeit des selbständigen Bestehens der Akzidentien philosophisch zu untersuchen, da (...) Thomas von Aquin das Transsubstantiationsdogma von 1215 philosophisch zu begründen versuchte. Er zieht, wie Thomas, Aristoteles und seinen arabischen Kommentator heran und weist nach, daß – philosophisch gesehen – die Abtrennbarkeit der Akzidentien von der Substanz unmöglich ist. Damit wird deutlich, daß jedenfalls mit Hilfe der aristotelisch-averroistischen Philosophie die Lehraussage des Transsubstantiationsdogma nicht bewiesen werden kann.SummaryThe introduction of Aristoteles' writings during the 13th century led to a vibrant commentating of his writings by western philosophers and theologians. Among them is Dietrich of Freiberg. One notices, that Dietrich not only quote this antique philosopher, but also Arab philosophers, especially Averroes. This is the case in philosophical questions like the field of realisation, less in theological questions like eschatological ones.Nevertheless, Dietrich does not hesitate to examine from a philosophical point of view the possibility of the independent existence of the akzidenz, as Thomas of Aquin tried to support the doctrine of transubstantiation of 1215 with philosophical arguments. Dietrich uses, like Thomas, Aristotles' and his Arab commentaries and proves – from a philosophical point of view – the impossibility of separating the akzidenz from the substanz. It becomes obvious, that it is of no help to use the Aristotelian-Averroes philosophy to prove the doctrine of transubstantiation. (shrink)

Commodity fetishism and the fetish of capital as an effect of western civilisation. Marx was aware that economic categories do not live an autonomous conceptual life, that they presuppose, in particular, the material and practical relations which humanity, as an organic living species, establishes with non-human nature. Such relations are to be examined in terms of their development in various historical and geographical milieus. The aim of the article is to highlight the importance of such variable conditioning. To do so, (...) it addresses the categories of fetishism and value, looking at the quantitative orientation of the production of material goods which has developed in western-type civilisation over the last 5,000 years. (shrink)

Der Kinder- und Jugendgesundheitssurvey soll repräsentative, gültige Daten und Erkenntnisse zur gesundheitlichen Situation von Kindern und Jugendlichen in Deutschland als entscheidende Voraussetzung für die Bewertung und die Verbesserung von deren gesundheitlicher Lage schaffen. Forschung und insbesondere Blutentnahmen an nichteinwilligungsfähigen Personen erfordern eine profunde ethische und rechtliche Überprüfung. Der Beitrag befasst sich damit, welche medizinethischen Empfehlungen und welche rechtlichen Grundsätze in Deutschland für die Bewertung relevant sind. Nach geltendem deutschen Recht können Eltern zu Blutentnahmen bei ihren Kindern nur zustimmen, wenn diese (...) in deren individuellem gesundheitlichen Interesse liegen. Ein „gruppenspezifischer Nutzen“, wie er von Medizinethikern national und international als Voraussetzung für ethische Akzeptabilität (bei minimalem Risiko der Untersuchungen) ebenfalls für sinnvoll und wichtig angesehen wird, und der in dem geplanten Survey in jedem Falle gegeben wäre, genügt deutschen Rechtsansprüchen nicht. Im Pretest hat sich der potenzielle individuelle Nutzen der Blutentnahmen bestätigt: Viele Kinder hatten biochemisch nachweisbare Gesundheitsrisiken (z. B. verborgener Nährstoffmangel, allergische Sensibilisierung, Hinweise auf Impflücken oder langfristige Gesundheitsrisiken), die ohne Blutuntersuchung nicht feststellbar gewesen wären. Bei über 90% der Kinder waren nach schriftlicher Einwilligung der Eltern und Jugendlichen sowie informeller Zustimmung der Kinder, die in jedem einzelnen Falle berücksichtigt wurde, Blutentnahmen möglich. Nach der Befragung einer Unterstichprobe ist die Akzeptanz insgesamt gut. (shrink)

Der Kinder- und Jugendgesundheitssurvey soll repräsentative, gültige Daten und Erkenntnisse zur gesundheitlichen Situation von Kindern und Jugendlichen in Deutschland als entscheidende Voraussetzung für die Bewertung und die Verbesserung von deren gesundheitlicher Lage schaffen. Forschung und insbesondere Blutentnahmen an nichteinwilligungsfähigen Personen erfordern eine profunde ethische und rechtliche Überprüfung. Der Beitrag befasst sich damit, welche medizinethischen Empfehlungen und welche rechtlichen Grundsätze in Deutschland für die Bewertung relevant sind. Nach geltendem deutschen Recht können Eltern zu Blutentnahmen bei ihren Kindern nur zustimmen, wenn diese (...) in deren individuellem gesundheitlichen Interesse liegen. Ein „gruppenspezifischer Nutzen“, wie er von Medizinethikern national und international als Voraussetzung für ethische Akzeptabilität (bei minimalem Risiko der Untersuchungen) ebenfalls für sinnvoll und wichtig angesehen wird, und der in dem geplanten Survey in jedem Falle gegeben wäre, genügt deutschen Rechtsansprüchen nicht. Im Pretest hat sich der potenzielle individuelle Nutzen der Blutentnahmen bestätigt: Viele Kinder hatten biochemisch nachweisbare Gesundheitsrisiken (z. B. verborgener Nährstoffmangel, allergische Sensibilisierung, Hinweise auf Impflücken oder langfristige Gesundheitsrisiken), die ohne Blutuntersuchung nicht feststellbar gewesen wären. Bei über 90% der Kinder waren nach schriftlicher Einwilligung der Eltern und Jugendlichen sowie informeller Zustimmung der Kinder, die in jedem einzelnen Falle berücksichtigt wurde, Blutentnahmen möglich. Nach der Befragung einer Unterstichprobe ist die Akzeptanz insgesamt gut. (shrink)

Enth.: Pars posterior, secundam editionem et indices continens.

The non-clerical („unpfäffisch“) Schleiermacher. Karl Glutzkow and the Schleiermacher image of Young Germany. Towards a construction of a countermyth. After Friedrich Schleiermacher’s death on February 12, 1834, his disciples and his family endeavoured to idealize him as an exemplary figure of the church by publishing a complete edition of his published and unpublished works as well as a selection from his letters. (1) Schleiermacher’s Christian death („christliche Euthanasie“). This endeveaour began with the sermons delivered at the funeral and the (...) notes of his wife, Henriette Schleiermacher, about his pious death. (2) Gutzkow’s obituary in the „Allgemeine Zeitung“. The journalist Gutzkow in particular protested against this portrayal in an obituary in which the old Schleiermacher was declared to have been senile and without substantial importance for the present time. On the other hand, an image of the young Schleiermacher, the friend of the Romantics, was to be preserved for the younger generation. (3) The replies of Schleiermacher’s disciples. A forthright reply to Gutzkow’s obituary appeared in the same journal. His view was contradicted by means of an extensive biographical sketch by Friedrich Lücke, one of Schleiermacher’s disciples. (4) Gutzkow’s publication of „Schleiermacher’s Vertraute Briefe über Friedrich Schlegels Lucinde“. Gutzkow supported his view with a new edition of Schleiermacher’s early work, to which he added a provocative preface. As a result, the edition was banned. (5) Abuse of Schleiermacher or a gallant service to him? The reception of the „Vertraute Briefe“. The reactions were divided between considering the work as an early youthful indiscretion of Schleiermacher, and the idea of an intellectual identity running through Schleiermacher’s whole life. The other authors of Young German aligned themselves with Gutzkow. (6) The end of the myth of Schleiermacher: Gutzkow’s „Wally. Die Zweiflerin“. This novel, which derives the protagonist’s suicide from his religious doubts, caused the literary movement Young Germany to be banned in all of Germany, and also led to the imprisonment of the author. In the novel itself, Schleiermacher’s role is rather minor. Later on, Gutzkow did not renew the image of an non-clerical Schleiermacher. – I shall also re-edit a conventional obituary, Gutzkow’s obituary as well as an anonymous reply in the Allgemeine Zeitung (Augsburg). (shrink)

Die hier vorgelegte Ausgabe der Religionsschrift ist eine vollständige Neuedition auf der Grundlage der B-Auflage von 1794. Die Ausgabe verzeichnet die Paginierungen der B-Auflage und der Akademie-Ausgabe ebenso wie die wichtigsten Varianten der A-Auflage und Handschriften, Konjekturen und Textrevisionen sowie wesentliche Lesarten früherer Editionen. Das Schwergewicht der Ausgabe liegt neben der Bereitstellung eines verläßlichen Textes auf dem Nachweis zeitgeschichtlicher Bezüge. Neben einer Einleitung, Informationen zur Textgeschichte, zum Zensurstreit und der zeitgenössischen Rezeption sowie Anmerkungen zum Textverständnis und der Quellenlage enthält sie (...) neue Sach- und Namensregister sowie ein umfangreiches Register der von Kant direkt und indirekt zitierten Bibelstellen. (shrink)

Ludwig von Mühlenfels as Advocatus Schleiermacheri. An addendum. The editorial copy of the “Allgemeine Zeitung” has survived in the Cotta-Archive with the names of the contributors. This has made it possible to identify belatedly the author of the apologia “Another word about Schleiermacher” in the “Außerordentliche Beilage der Allgemeinen Zeitung” (Augsburg) of April 2, 1834. It was Ludwig Friedrich von Mühlenfels (1793–1861). Mühlenfels, who led a rather varied life, was related to Schleiermacher’s wife Henriette, and thus belonged to Schleiermacher’s extended (...) family. (1) Member of Lützow’s Freicorps. On Schleiermacher’s suggestion, Mühlenfels participated in the war of liberation against Napoleon as a volunteer with the “Black Hunters”, in the end in the so-called Battle of the Nations at Leipzig. He finished the study of law in 1816 and, on probation, joined the prosecutor’s office in Cologne where the French legal code was still in force. (2) Incarcerated as a demagogue under the investigating judge E. T. A. Hoffmann. Mühlenfels became one of the formative figures in the early history of German fraternities and participated in the Wartburg Festival in October 1817. He was arrested in July 1819 by the authorities in Berlin, charged with activities as a demagogue and incarcerated in Berlin on September 17. Mühlenfels contested the jurisdiction of the authorities in Berlin and refused to testify. The investigative judge was the writer and composer E. T. A. Hoffmann who wanted to have Mühlenfels released, and who later used him as a literary figure in a satirical novel. (3) Flight from Berlin – Exile in Sweden. On May 5, 1821, Mühlenfels succeeded in fleeing to Sweden where he made a meagerly living as a private tutor. (4) Professor for German and Scandinavian Literature in London – Return to Prussia. In October 1827, Mühlenfels reached London. Supported by some German scholars, he obtained the Chair for German and Scandinavian at the newly founded University College. He taught there until 1831 and publishedseveral textbooks. When he was acquitted by a court ruling in 1830, he returned to the Prussian public service in August 1831 and gradually built a solid career. (5) The defender of Schleiermacher. His apologia of Schleiermacher written in opposition to the obituary by Gutzkow is a masterpiece of literary and legal writing. – First publication: Six letters between Mühlenfels, Henriette and Friedrich Schleiermacher, and Georg Andreas Reimer. (shrink)

Bd. 1. Acht Bücher Physik.--Bd. 2. Vier Bücher über das Himmelgebäude und zwei Bücher über Entstehen und Vergehen.--Bd. 3. Fünf Bücher von der Zeugung und Entwickelung der Tiere.--Bd. 4. Über die Dichtkunst. 2. Aufl.--Bd. 5. Vier Bücher über die Teile der Tiere.--Bd. 6. Politik Teil 1, Text und Übersetzung.--Bd. 7. Politik, Teil 2, Inhaltsübersicht und Anmerkungen.

The essays in this volume represent an approach to human knowledge that has had a profound influence on many recent thinkers. Popper breaks with a traditional commonsense theory of knowledge that can be traced back to Aristotle. A realist and fallibilist, he argues closely and in simple language that scientific knowledge, once stated in human language, is no longer part of ourselves but a separate entity that grows through critical selection.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Notes and Discussions ARISTOTLE'S ALLEGED "REVOLT" AGAINST PLATO Hermippus' most conspicuous contribution to Aristotle's biography probably was his determined effort to depict Aristotle as the founder of an original school of philosophy which was wholly independent of Plato and Platonic teachings. Among the several and, in all likelihood, fanciful stories about Aristotle he invented or propagated, the most startling was the account, subsequently widely accepted (...) (and widely exploited by the detractors of Aristotle), that after having been a disciple of Plato for a while, he seceded from the Academy and from Plato's philosophic teachings while Plato was still alive. 1 Accordingly, he owed little to Plato and to the Academy. This story, invented and propagated by an inveterate Peripatetic (Hermippus), was intended to demonstrate the original philosophic genius of Aristotle which developed in complete independence of Plato and necessitated a break with the master's teachings. In devising his argument, Hermippus might have made use of a report, found in some of Aristotle's ancient biographers, that a few brash young men (members of the Academy?) revolted against Plato and, in a spirit of independence, defiance and antagonism, attempted to start a school of their own which would rival the intellectual standing of the Academy. 2 Hermippus, it appears, subsequently identified these young "rebels" with Aristotle, a substitution convenient to Hermippus" aim to depict Aristotle as a wholly independent and totally original philosopher who owed nothing whatever to Plato and his teachings. In all likelihood, Diogenes Laertius' statement that Aristotle "seceded from the Academy while Plato was still alive," a is just an echo either of a statement made by Hermippus himself or is a conclusion drawn from the several unpleasant stories about Aristotle invented and reported by some of Aristotle's detractors. According to these derogatory stories, there existed many serious personal as well as doctrinal 4 disagreements or rifts between Plato and the Stagirite--disagreeDiogenes Laertius, V. 2. See also Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, XV. 2. 3, and ibid., XV. 2. 13 (Aristoxenus); Aelian, Varia Historia, IV. 9; Theodoretus, Graecorum Affectionum Curatio, IV. 46; St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, VIII. 12; Philoponus, Comment. in Aristotelis Analytica Posteriora, CIAG, vol. XIII, part 3, pp. 133, 30 ft. 2 See Aelius Aristides, Oratio XLVI, 249. 10. See also note 1, supra. s Diogenes Laertius, V. 2. See also Vita Aristotelis Marciana 9; Vita Aristotelis Latina 9. 9 See, for instance, Plutarch, Adversus Coloten 14 (Moralia, III5A); Cicero, Academica I. 9. 33; Eusebius, op. cir., XV. 2, passim; Diogenes Laertius III. 37; Justin Martyr, Cohortatio ad Graecos 5 (Migne, PG. vol. VI. p. 247); Cyrillus, Contra Julianum II. 47; Proclus, [91] 92 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY ments whichmarred the relations between these two men and which were indicative of Aristotle's ingratitude, bad taste and unwarranted conceit. The report of Diogenes Laertius, in an oblique manner, may also refer to the fact that already during his active association with the Platonic Academy (367-348 B.c.), that is, in his On (the) Ideas and On the Good, Aristotle had begun to disagree with, and criticize, some of Plato's fundamental teachings. It may also, in a distorted form, refer to the following specific incident which, however, cannot be verified: According to Aristoxenus, during the absence of Plato in Syracuse (and while Heracleides of Pontus was the "acting scholarch" of the Academy),5 some unnamed young members of the Academy, or "students" or, perhaps, some "outsiders " attempted to start a rival school (within the Academy?).6 As a matter of fact, Aelian, who apparently dramatizes this incident, reports that during Plato's last years, that is, some time after Plato's return from his third and last voyage to Syracuse, a serious conflict or confrontation arose within the Academy. Aristotle, together with some of his friends, or "conspirators," we are told, harrassed and molested the aging Plato by constantly putting questions to him, by arguing with him in an insolent manner, by contradicting him on every point, and by attempting to involve him in hair-splitting dialectics. At the time Xenocrates was in Chalcedon, and Speusippus was gravely ill. Hence, neither of them could come to the succor of Plato. In... (shrink)

In his De Iside et Osiride, Plutarch writes: "The Chaldaeans call two of the planets, which they consider benign gods, the authors or sources of everything that is good, two, on the other hand, the authors or sources of everything that is evil, and the three remaining planets they regard as being 'in between,' participating in the two opposite qualities.... It is worthwhile also to observe that the [Greek] philosophers are in accord with the Chaldaeans. For this reason Heraclitus [of (...) Ephesus] declared 'war the father, king and ruler of everything....' After him Empedocles designates the benign principle as 'love and friendship,' and at times as 'the harmony of the serene eye,' while at the same time he defines the evil principle as 'the cursed discord' and 'the bloody struggle....' Aristotle [by following this tradition] proclaims the [principle of] form and [the principle of] privation....". (shrink)

Hermann Karl Usener published his monumental Epicurea in 1887. The volume is a collection of Epicurean texts and citations from a wide range of classical authors including Arrian, Cicero, Diodorus, Euripides, Plato and Seneca. The volume includes critical texts of Epicurus' most important letters: Letter to Menoeceus, Letter to Herodotus and Letter to Pythocles, preserved by the third-century compiler Diogenes Laertius. The letters give important summaries of Epicurus' philosophy. Usener's pioneering work represented the first attempt to deal critically (...) with the manuscript traditions behind Epicurean texts. His reconstructions of the texts included in this volume are based on a thorough understanding of the trajectories of textual transmission. Each text is supported by a detailed critical apparatus, and another apparatus records manuscript glosses and scholia. This work provided for the first time accurate and reliable texts for the critical study of Epicureanism. (shrink)

The passage 18a34-⁠b5 of Aristotle’s famous sea-battle chapter has often been misunderstood. My aim is to show, firstly, that Aristotle in this passage attempts to prove that the unrestricted validity of the Principle of Bivalence entails, in the case of singular statements, the validity of the Principle of Truth-value Distribution for the contradictory pairs they are members of. According to the latter principle either the affirmative member of a contradictory pair of statements must be true and the negative (...) false or vice versa. Secondly, I want to show what consequences the correct understanding of the passage in question has for the understanding of the introductory passage of the chapter (18a28-⁠33) and for the dispute over whether Aristotle exempts singular statements about contingent future events from the domain of the Principle of Bivalence. The thesis, advanced by some modern interpreters, that Aristotle refrains from doing so even though he exempts the contradictory pairs such statements are members of from the domain of the Principle of Truth-value Distribution will be rebutted as resulting from a fallacious line of reasoning. (shrink)