This is a review of a volume comprising 18 of Eckart Förster’s most important essays. Written between 1987 and 2022, all of them touch upon the theme of limits of cognition. Among the issues tackled are Kant’s Opus Postumum, Goethe’s project of a scientia intuitiva or science of the intuitive understanding, the significance of §§76–77 of the third Critique for post-Kantianism, the case for Hölderlin’s authorship of the Oldest System-Programme of German Idealism, and Hegel’s early ideas on logic and phenomenology. (...) My discussion of the volume focuses on three aspects. (i) I give a brief outline of its structure and goals; (ii) I investigate some of its highlights and central themes; and (iii) I place Förster’s picture of Kant and post-Kantianism within current scholarship and confront it with an alternative interpretive option: a reading of Kant as concerned with non-contrastive limits of cognition and intelligibility. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Kant-Studien Jahrgang: 108 Heft: 1 Seiten: 158-162.

Name der Zeitschrift: Kant-Studien Jahrgang: 110 Heft: 2 Seiten: 323-326.

Stuttgart‐Bad Cannstatt: frommann‐holzboog 2012. VIII, 458 S., 63 Abb., geb., € 148,00. ISBN 978‐3‐7728‐2568‐2.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Eclecticism RediscoveredUlrich Johannes SchneiderMichael Albrecht, Eklektik. Eine Begriffsgeschichte mit Hinweisen auf die Philosophie- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1994 (Quaestiones 5), 771p.Patrice Vermeren, Victor Cousin. Le Jeu de la Philosophie et de l’Etat, Paris: Editions L’Harmattan, 1995 (Collection “La philosophie en commun”), 390p.Not so long ago eclecticism was held to be little more than a non-systematic form of thinking or constructing, and still today that is the (...) generally accepted meaning of the term. Moreover, eclecticism has lost its traditional bad reputation and seems increasingly attractive to late twentieth-century thought in search of non-dogmatic and non-systematic forms of philosophizing. At the same time, however, historians of philosophy are discovering that eclecticism was a distinct and important feature of European intellectual history. In particular eclecticism can be recognized within early modern thinking especially at the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth century, and in France the philosophy of the nineteenth century can be seen as essentially eclectic until the revolution of 1848.Whatever the significance of the postmodern state of mind, recent views concerning philosophical eclecticism are largely the product of researches into the history of philosophy. There is an obvious inclination of today’s intellectual historians to investigate background figures of European modernity. The increasing willingness of historians to enlarge the notion of philosophy in both its disciplinary and historical definition seems to be in agreement with a similar disposition of contemporary philosophers. As we can learn from Michael Albrecht’s and Patrice Vermeren’s books, a critical appreciation of eclecticism throws light both on the conditions of contemporary philosophizing and on the politics of philosophy in the modern age.What Albrecht does in his encyclopedic examination of eclectic ideas is very different in scope and method from Vermeren’s study of Cousin. However, [End Page 173] both authors address philosophy as a university discipline, and both suggest that eclecticism resonates in certain strategic ways with contemporary lines of thinking. Although the eclecticism of early modern Germany and that of nineteenth-century France arose in different contexts, here, too, there are important similarities. Both varieties wanted to distance themselves from the mainstream philosophy of their time—German eclectics fighting the influence of Cartesianism, while France’s foremost eclectic, Cousin, was trying to supersede Hegel and Schelling.The first to point out the importance of eclecticism in early modern European philosophy was Helmut Holzhey, 1 and the most condensed account of the whole “syndrome” was given by Horst Dreitzel. 2 We know now that eclecticism was unjustly removed from the history of philosophy. In its past articulation, mainly in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, eclectic thinking combined the claim for freedom of thought with the rejection of dogmatism and sectarianism. Michael Albrecht shows with great diligence and with more than abundant evidence that eclecticism is a genuine part of modern scientific and philosophical thought, and any reader of Albrecht’s long list of eclectic thinkers can have no doubt about the importance of the idea.Over more than six hundred pages Albrecht divides his findings into forty-eight chronological chapters. He tries not to comment on his subject, although eclecticism quickly reveals itself as a tricky thing. Albrecht talks loosely about “the idea of eclecticism,” the “eclectic thought,” the “eclectic claim” because he wants to keep the idea of eclecticism close to the literal sense of the word: in Greek ek-legere means selecting, or choosing. Broadly speaking, philosophical eclecticism turns out to be in general just a claim. It was used by those who did not want to be regarded as dogmatic, sectarian, or systematic thinkers. Albrecht reports that claiming to be eclectic did in practice not amount to very much, and indeed he notes (457) that no philosopher ever wrote an eclectic work.Around 1600 Justus Lipsius and Jacopo Manzoni were among the very first to advocate eclecticism openly, and here already Albrecht draws his general conclusion: “Practically no author embracing eclecticism... has made the idea work” (382). This is especially true for philosophers. In medicine and in physics we know of Daniel Sennert and Johann Christoph Sturm who practiced a method based on... (shrink)

This is a review essay in English of Dietrich von Engelhardt’s new 2,000-page, four-volume project: 'Medizin in Romantik und Idealismus: Gesundheit und Krankheit in Leib und Seele, Natur und Kultur' (Medicine in Romanticism and Idealism: Health and Illness in Body and Soul, Nature and Culture). (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboog, 2023), 4 Vols., LII + 1964 pp.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 39.2 (2001) 304-305 [Access article in PDF] Wildfeuer, Armin G. Praktische Vernunft und System. Entwicklungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur ursprünglichen Kant-Rezeption Johann Gottlieb Fichtes. Stuttgart-Bad/Cannstatt : Frommann-Holzboog, 1999. Pp. 596. Cloth, DM 168. The subtitle of this book, a slightly revised dissertation from the University of Bonn (1994), reads: "Investigations into the developmental history of Johann Gottlieb Fichte's original reception of Kant." The (...) work comes to almost 600 pages. The main text is heavily overlaid with detailed footnotes, extensive quotations and supplementary material in smaller print and narrow line spacing. To the reader who is patient enough to face this scholastic mode of presentation, there emerges behind it a valuable contribution to our overall understanding of Fichte's philosophical work in general and its core discipline, the Wissenschaftslehre or first, transcendental philosophy, in particular.In the grand narrative about the development of German idealism Fichte is placed between Kant and Schelling. More precisely, he is typically portrayed as continuing but also revising Kant's work under the double influence of the leading early post-Kantian, Karl Leonhard Reinhold (1758-1823), and the skeptical anti-Kantian and anti-Reinholdian, Gottlob Ernst Schulze (1761-1833), called "Aenesidemus" after the title of his anonymous main work.Wildfeuer's investigations supplement this picture with a detailed consideration of what could be called "Fichte before Fichte": the early development of Fichte's thought, prior to his encounter with Reinhold and prior even to his encounter with Kant (1790). To be sure, Wildfeuer also deals with Fichte's continued philosophical development up through 1794, and he has many interesting things to say about the lasting presence of Fichte's earliest concerns in his more mature work. But the chief merit of the book is the sustained attention it pays to the very beginnings of Fichte's thought.Much of the prehistory of Fichtean philosophy has to be conjectured, given the scarcity of documents about Fichte's years of study (1780-84) and of his work as itinerant tutor (1785-1793). From Fichte's own testimony in his correspondence it is clear that prior to encountering Kant's three Critiques he held a determinist position regarding nature as well as human conduct. Based on some indications in Fichte's later works, Wildfeuer identifies as the chief source of Fichte's determinism the work of Karl Ferdinand Hommel (1722-1781), a professor of law at Leipzig, whom Fichte could have heard as a student and whose pseudonymous treatise Alexander von Joch... On Reward and Punishment According to Turkish Laws (1770) Fichte cites. Hommel (alias von Joch) maintains a deterministic view of human action, while justifying the social practice of punishment and reward. In particular, he maintains the dependence of the will on the intellect and of the latter on sensations or sensory impressions. Wildfeuer refers to this position, as it was temporarily adopted by Fichte, as that of the primacy of the understanding over the will.But Wildfeuer also shows that from early on Fichte's determinist leanings in speculation were counterbalanced by the conviction that feeling, especially feeling in religious matters, is an equally valid source of truth. For Wildfeuer, this early duality of speculation and feeling is the lasting basis of Fichte's life-long concern with reconciling the competing demands of head and heart. In particular this pre-Kantian key concern [End Page 304] in Fichte informs the latter's central systematic occupation with the unity of the mind amidst its differentiation into faculties or kinds of mental activity.Further texts which Wildfeuer examines in pursuit of the pre-Kantian Fichte are his Latin Valedictory Address, given upon graduating from one of Germany's finest secondary schools at the time, the Princely College of Pforta (1780), and the "Aphorisms on Religion and Deism" (1790).On the basis of this material Wildfeuer goes on to reconstruct the distinct reception that each of Kant's three Critiques received by Fichte. According to Wildfeuer, the Critique of Pure Reason originally was read by... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Kategorische und andere Imperative: Zur Entwicklung von Kants praktischer Philosophie his 1785Heiner F. KlemmeClemens Schwaiger. Kategorische und andere Imperative: Zur Entwicklung von Kants praktischer Philosophie his 1785. Forschungen und Materialien zur deutschen Aufklärung. Hrsg. von Norbert Hinske und Clemens Schwaiger. Abt. 2, Monographien, vol. 14. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboog, 1999. Pp. 252. Cloth, DM 88.00.Diese Studie zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der praktischen Philosophie Kants, die den Zeitraum von 1762 (...) bis zur Publikation der Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten untersucht, orientiert sich an der in Abschnitt II der Schrift von 1785 vorgenommenen Einteilung aller Imperative in problematische, assertorische und apodiktische. Da diese Einteilung in besonderem Maße geeignet ist, "die Architektonik von Kants praktischer Philosophie insgesamt zu erhellen" (S. 19), wird man durch den behutsamen Nachvollzug ihrer Ausdifferenzierung erwarten dürfen, neue Einsichten in die Entwicklung von Kants Denken zu gewinnen. Damit ist für den Interpreten keine leichte Aufgabe gestellt. Ohne philologische Umsicht, breite Kenntnis der zeitgenössischen Literatur, des Kantischen Oeuvres und der internationalen Sekundärliteratur sowie ein Gespür für Fragen der Datierung und Gewichtung von Kants Reflexionen und den studentischen Nachschriften seiner Vorlesungen, ist ein derartiges Unterfangen von vornherein zum Scheitern verurteilt. Schwaiger verfügt über diese Fähigkeiten und Kenntnisse.Nach einer informativen Einleitung, in der Stellung bezogen wird zum Stand der Forschung, der Kantischen Dreigliederung der Praxis als dem Leitfaden der Untersuchung, zur Methodik und den erzielten Ergebnissen, wendet sich Schwaiger in Teil I zunächst Kants moralphilosophischen Texten bis einschließlich 1770 zu. Mit Blick auf die 1762 verfasste und 1764 publizierte Untersuchung über die Deutlichkeit der Grundsätze der natürlichen Theologie und der Moral weist Schwaiger den entscheidenden Einfluss von Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten (vgl. S. 43) auf Kant nach, wohingegen seiner Einschätzung nach die Bedeutung von Crusius in der Literatur bei weitem überschätzt worden ist. Der moralphilosophische Ansatz von Baumgarten ist vor allem auch deshalb für Kant so wichtig, weil dieser Ansatz am Begriff der Verbindlichkeit ausgerichtet ist (vgl. S. 50). Kant übernimmt von Baumgarten den von diesem bereits verbindlichkeitstheoretisch gedeuteten Terminus des Imperativs, nicht ohne jedoch darauf hinzuweisen, dass Baumgartens moralische Grundregeln tautologisch sind (vgl. S. 166 f.). Als weitere mögliche Quelle für Kants strengen Begriff der moralischen Verbindlichkeit verweist Schwaiger auch auf eine Abhandlung von Elie de Joucourts, die in David Fordyce´ Anfangsgründe der moralischen Weltweisheit (Zürich, 1757) erschien (vgl. S. 59 f.).Die Ausdifferenzierung des Baumgartenschen Praxisbegriffs in Kants ´Bemerkungen´ in den Beobachtungen über das Gefühl des Schönen und Erhabenen ist nach Schwaiger als eine genuin Kantische Leistung anzusehen, auf die Rousseau, wie einige Autoren meinten, keinen Einfluss gehabt hat. Die Inauguraldissertation von 1770 gibt schließlich Kants Gedanken einer Metaphysik der Sitten einen neuen Gehalt. Schwaiger vertritt gegenüber Josef Schmucker und Dieter Henrich die wohlbegründete These, dass Kants Ethik nicht schon um 1765 in ihren wesentlichen Grundzügen vorliegt. Erst nach der [End Page 443] "´platonischen Revolution´" (S. 25) von 1770 sind die Voraussetzungen für den Weg zur Grundlegung geschaffen, erst nach 1770 verwendet Kant beispielsweise den Terminus ´Imperativ´. Hätte Kant bereits in der Mitte der sechziger Jahre eine Metaphysik der Sitten publiziert, wäre der Anteil der empirischen Moral sicherlich sehr umfangreich gewesen (vgl. S. 80).Auch die in Teil II vorgelegten Resultate sprechen für eine allmähliche Ausbildung der kritischen Ethik, die nicht geradlinig verlaufen ist. Die 1770er Jahre sind nach Schwaiger durch Kants Bemühen gekennzeichnet, die im Bereich der Logik gewonnene Unterscheidung zwischen problematischen, assertorischen und apodiktischen Urteilen auch auf praktische Sätze anzuwenden. Des weiteren findet sich erst in den siebziger Jahren, nach Kants Wende zur reinen Moralphilosophie, die Unterscheidung zwischen einem Dijudikations- und einem Exekutionsprinzip (vgl. S. 91 ff.).Schwaigers Studie zeigt eindrucksvoll, dass quellengestützte begriffsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen für die Erforschung der Entwicklungsgeschichte der Kantischen praktischen Philosophie unverzichtbar sind. Aber sie scheint in dieser methodischen Einseitigkeit auch mit einigen Mängeln behaftet zu sein. Ich möchte drei Gründe für dieses Urteil nennen. Erstens wird nicht recht deutlich, dass die Kenntnisnahme der entwicklungsgeschichtlichen Aspekte für das philosophische Verständnis von Kants Einteilung der Imperative, so wie sie... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 39.3 (2001) 440-442 [Access article in PDF] Reinhard Lauth. Descartes ' Konzeption des Systems der Philosophie. Stuttgart (Bad Cannstatt): Frommann-Holzboog, 1998. Pp. x + 227 pp. Cloth, DM 64.00. Reinhard Lauth's Descartes ' Konzeption des Systems der Philosophie is an interesting addition to the literature on Descartes. Written by a renowned scholar of German Idealism, it does not represent an attempt (...) to respond to scholars of Descartes, to take part in the debate regarding aspects of Descartes's philosophy, nor to explain the role of Descartes's thought in the tumultuous seventeenth century, but rather to explain to scholars of German Idealism why Descartes should be considered the first and one of the greatest transcendental philosophers. It is no accident that in the index we find close to 50 references each to Kant and Fichte, while Descartes's important "rationalist" comrades, Spinoza and Leibniz, receive half as much attention; nor is it an accident that the first and last philosopher mentioned in the book is Fichte.Lauth's book is in the tradition of Gueroult's monumental Descartes selon l ' ordre des raisons (Paris, 1968, 2nd edition) and, as the title indicates, the subject of the book is Descartes's philosophy as a system, not as a collection of independent theses about various philosophical problems. However, unlike Gueroult, who concentrated on an [End Page 440] analysis of the Meditations, Lauth draws extensively on the Rules for the Direction of the Mind, Discourse on Method, Meditations, and Descartes's correspondence. That Descartes viewed philosophy as ideally constituting a system of human knowledge should not come as news to anyone who recalls Descartes's claim in the Preface to the Principles of Philosophy that all of philosophy is like a tree whose roots are metaphysics, trunk physics, and branches medicine, mechanics, and morals, or his claim in the Preface to the Meditations that there is a clear order of argumentation or reasons and that his goal is to lay bare the foundations of philosophy. How exactly Descartes's philosophy is to constitute a system is the trickier question that is Lauth's concern.According to Lauth, the order of reasons that one finds expressed in Descartes's first philosophy is not simply a series of biographical events, filling a psychological need in Descartes (cf. Alquié, La Découverte métaphysique de l ' homme chez Descartes [Paris, 1966]), but rather the "systematic path of the cogito itself" (X). And Lauth attempts to show that there is something inexorable in the way that conclusions about the world from the point of view of the thinking subject are made and follow from one another. This takes him along the well-known path of the Meditations: from the existence of the self, to the nature of the self, to the existence and nature of God, to the external world, and finally to the relation of mind and body. And here two interesting observations on Lauth's part should be singled out. First, Lauth does an admirable job in intimating the tension regarding the places of the thinking subject and God as the supreme principles in Descartes's system. On the one hand, it would seem that the thinking subject should be the highest principle in Descartes's philosophy insofar as its existence is the first thing known; but, according to Lauth, it cannot be the highest principle because it does not contain the principle of its own existence (76). On the other hand, if we claim that God is the highest principle then we must recognize that a system following from this principle must fail insofar as genuine knowledge of God surpasses the bounds of our finite, human knowledge (99-100). Second, in claiming that Descartes was a "transcendental philosopher," Lauth reminds us of the extent to which Descartes is concerned with the bounds of human knowledge as determinable from the thinking subject itself.While this work contains many useful insights—especially for those scholars of German Idealism who are looking for new ways of reflecting on their subject—it has... (shrink)

Ein kritischer Literaturbericht zu: Gernot Böhme, Die Natur vor uns. Naturphilosophie in pragmatischer Hinsicht. Kusterdingen : Die Graue Edition. 2002; M. Drieschner, Moderne Naturphilosophie. Eine Einführung. Paderborn : Mentis. 2002; M. Esfeld, Einführung in die Naturphilosophie. Darmstadt : Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 2002; T. S. Hoffmann, Philosophische Physiologie. Eine Systematik des Begriffs der Natur im Spiegel der Geschichte der Philosophie. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt : Frommann-Holzboog. 2003; R. Huber, Natur-Erkenntnis. Band 1. Naturphilosophie von der Antike bis Descartes. Paderborn : Mentis. 2002; K. (...) Köchy, Perspektiven des Organischen. Biophilosophie zwischen Natur- und Wissenschaftsphilosophie. Paderborn : Schöningh. 2003; H. D. Mutschler, Grundkurs Philosophie: Naturphilosophie [Band 12]. Stuttgart : Kohlhammer. 2002, in: Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, 58. Jg. (2004), S. 447-456. (shrink)