Ettore Regàlia.--Herbert Spencer.--F. C. S. Schiller.--Giorgio Hegel.--Giorgio Berkeley.--Giovanni Ruskin.--Rodolfo Eucken.--Federico Nietzsche.--Carlo Michelstaedter.--Giambattista Vico.--Enrico Bergson.--Giovanni Vailati.--Otto Weininger.--Mario Galderoni.--Ciuang-tse.--La Toscana e la filosofia italiana.--Nota bibliografica (p. 351) Indice alfabetico.

L’influenza dell’ideologia risorgimentale si indirizza a rendere centrale, nell’Italia di fine Ottocento, le tematiche della costruzione dello stato e dell’educazione dei cittadini, e stimola lo stesso Giovanni Vailati, seguito dall’allievo Mario Calderoni, a imbastire un discorso sulla valenza educativa del fare cultura e ad attribuire all’uomo di cultura ufficio di sommo educatore. Il dibattito vailatiano sull’«educazione liberale» verte su tre aree di discussione: a] «unità del sapere» come ideale educativo; b] definizione di filosofia; c] definizione di storia delle (...) scienze. (shrink)

Hegel and the Challenge of Spinoza explores the powerful continuing influence of Spinoza's metaphysical thinking in late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century German philosophy. George di Giovanni examines the ways in which Hegel's own metaphysics sought to meet the challenges posed by Spinoza's monism, not by disproving monism, but by rendering it moot. In this, di Giovanni argues, Hegel was much closer in spirit to Kant and Fichte than to Schelling. This book will be of interest to students and (...) researchers interested in post-Kantian Idealism, Romanticism, and metaphysics. (shrink)

En este artículo se revisa el lugar que ocupa Eckhart en L’essence de la manifestation, a fin de establecer correspondencias y afini­dades entre el místico renano y la peculiar concepción que de la fenomenología sostiene Michel Henry. Se trata de analizar la es­trecha cercanía entre el alma humana y Dios postulada por Meister Eckhart y su vinculación con la conocida noción de Vida presente en el autor francés. Henry es proclive a fundar una filosofía primera asociada a la pura autoafección, (...) describiendo la Vida sea como pura inmanencia, sea como una ipseidad algo problemática. En general, el trabajo teórico de los representantes del “giro teológico de la fenomenología francesa” (Janicaud) cuestiona al sujeto clásico de la Modernidad, sin por eso traer a colación la causa de un Dios Revelado ni el que resulta de una teología natural. Este trabajo, en suma, no es el esfuerzo de pensar a un Dios confesional ni tiene un propósito evangélico. Lejos de ello, se trata de precisar el nexo entre Henry y Eckhart, puesto en escena por aquél, y si tal nexo es coherente con lo que Henry piensa acerca de un modo de manifestación que ya no implica distancia fenomenológica alguna: la manifestación del pathos de la Vida. (shrink)

The theologians of the late German Enlightenment saw in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason a new rational defence of their Christian faith. In fact, Kant's critical theory of meaning and moral law totally subverted the spirit of that faith. This challenging new study examines the contribution made by the Critique of Pure Reason to this change of meaning. George di Giovanni stresses the revolutionary character of Kant's critical thought but also reveals how this thought was being held hostage to (...) unwarranted metaphysical assumptions that caused much confusion and rendered the First Critique vulnerable to being reabsorbed into modes of thought typical of Enlightenment popular philosophy. Amongst the striking features of this book are nuanced interpretations of Jacobi and Reinhold, a lucid exposition of Fichte's early thought, and a rare, detailed account of Enlightenment popular philosophy. (shrink)

Two conferences recently held in Europe, one on Reinhold and the other on Jacobi, reflect this new development. Both testify to the present high degree of maturity reached by the scholarship on the subject. In both, the two philosophers finally emerge as figures spanning the distance between the late Aufklärung and the nineteenth century. In some respects, Jacobi and Reinhold are closer in mental attitudes to our contemporary world than any of the idealists. So far as the present writer is (...) concerned, the most interesting development noted in the conferences was however the repeated references made in the presentations to “common sense” philosophy, to the influence that this originally Scottish phenomenon had on the Aufklärung in general, and to the more specific influence that Thomas Reid had on both Jacobi and Reinhold. Manfred Kühn is of course the one who wrote the now classic work on the Scottish “common sense” background of Kant’s philosophy. But it now appears that the same background also extended to, and influenced, the post-Kantian developments. Hegel’s disparaging remarks regarding common sense philosophy, and his sharp criticisms of both Jacobi and Reinhold, are well known. One should not however make the mistake, in reading these remarks, of concentrating exclusively on their negative tone, and thereby forgetting that, in engaging in controversy with his chosen opponents, Hegel was at the same time defining his own problematic—by implication, therefore, making his own the opponents’s themes and problems. I have already said that Jacobi and Reinhold shared many of our contemporary mental attitudes. It might well be that one way of undercutting historically the normally assumed opposition between the analytical tradition of philosophy and the more idealistic, as well as phenomenological traditions, is to recover the common ground of them all in the philosophical discourse of the late Enlightenment. (shrink)

In a transcendental argument, a judgement ≫S is P≪ is unpacked into the two reflective claims: ≫I say that S is P≪, and ≫What I say is indeed the case≪; and the truth of the second is made to rest on the authority of the ≫I say≪ of the first. The argument has all the features of a testimony, where the reliability of the testimony (as in juridical cases) depends on the extent to which, in being rendered, it conforms to (...) stipulated canons of objectivity. As presented in 1804, Fichte’s Wissenschaftslehre can be interpreted as a protracted argument of this kind, inasmuch as, since its avowed subject-matter, the One, is ex hypothesi ineffable, its validity as a narrative about it depends solely on its internal logic as narrative. Such a narrative can only be one which, in constructing any schema about its transcendent subject-matter, at the same time de-constructs it: in the course of this process it methodically and exhaustively uncovers the genesis of otherwise merely accepted facts of experience, manifesting them for what they truly are (a disappearing appearing), and also allowing the necessarily unspoken evidence of the One to shine through (at least, for those willing to freely give themselves over to the discipline of Fichte’s Science). The Wissenschaftslehre 1804 is a type of apophantic theology. It is a Spinozism, but one developed from the standpoint of a finite subject who knows that he exists in a universe where, in truth, there is no explainable room for finitude. (shrink)

Born from the combination of two projects--a presentation of the important essays from the Critical Journal of Schelling and Hegel that were still untranslated and an anthology of excerpts from the works of the generation of German thinkers ...

In this essay, I reply to the above four critics of In Defense of Kant’s Religion (IDKR). In reply to George di Giovanni, I highlight the interpretive differencesthat divide the authors of IDKR and di Giovanni, and argue that di Giovanni’s atheist reading of Kant does not follow, even granting his premises. In reply to Pamela Sue Anderson, I show that if her reading of Kant is accurate, Kant’s own talk of God becomes empty and contemptible by (...) his own lights, and I then show how her empirical bias prompts a significant misreading of IDKR. In reply to Stephen Palmquist, I expose four fallacious maneuvers in his paper, which comprise the bulk of his essay. And in reply to Michalson, I address a series of minor concerns raised in his essay, and then set the record straight on the motives behind IDKR in general and my own take on Kant’s compatibility (or lack thereof) with Christianity in specific. (shrink)