German idealism: the struggle against subjectivism, 1781-1801 PDF
Preview German idealism: the struggle against subjectivism, 1781-1801
GERMAN IDEALISM Frederick C. Beiser German Idealism The Struggle against Subjectivism, 1781–1801 HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge,Massachusetts,London,England 2002 Copyright©2002bythePresidentandFellowsofHarvardCollege Allrightsreserved PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData Beiser,FrederickC.,1949– Germanidealism : thestruggleagainstsubjectivism,1781–1801 / FrederickC.Beiser. p. cm. Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex. ISBN0-674-00769-7(alk.paper) 1.Idealism,German—History—18thcentury. 2.Subjectivity—History—18thcentury. 3.Philosophy,German—18thcentury. I.Title. B2745.B47 2002 141(cid:1).0943(cid:1)09033—dc21 2002017186 ForJulia Preface “German idealism” is a common phrase in literary, historical, and philo- sophical circles. Broadly, it designates the philosophical doctrines initiated by Kant and then continued by Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel. But, beyond this very general definition, it is difficult to give the phrase a more precise meaning.Thatisnotverysurprising.WhatidealismmeansinKant,Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel has been a matter of discussion and dispute for cen- turies. Thepresentstudycontinuesthatdiscussionanddispute.Itschieftaskisto explain the meaning of idealism in Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and the young romantics(Hölderlin,Novalis,andFriedrichSchlegel).Mychiefexcusefor doingsoisthat,atleastinthecaseofFichte,Schelling,andtheromantics, thoughlesssointhecaseofKantandHegel,themeaningofGermanideal- ism has remained comparatively underexplored in the English-speaking world.TherehavebeenmanystudiesofKant’stranscendentalidealismand a few of Hegel’s absolute idealism; but there has been very little in English aboutGermanidealismasawhole.ThegreateststudentofGermanidealism intheAnglo-AmericanworldwasJosiahRoyce,whoseSpiritofModernPhi- losophy and Lectures on Modern Idealism have influenced generations of stu- dents. Yet I hope to show that, for all its merits, Royce’s interpretation has beenprofoundlymisleading;inanycase,Roycewrotewithoutthebenefitof muchofthematerialavailabletoday. There are good reasons for rethinking the meaning of German idealism. Since the 1960s there has been a remarkable resurgence of interest in the subject. Prima facie this is puzzling, since so much contemporary philoso- phy—whetherinthepragmatic,existentialist,oranalytictradition—hasits rootsinthereactionagainstGermanidealism.Thereisindeednogoingback to the age when the absolute once ruled the philosophical firmament. Yet, vii viii Preface paradoxically, the very reasons for the obsolescence of German idealism have also been the reasons for its revival. These modern traditions under- standthemselvesonlywhentheyappreciatewhattheygrewoutofandre- acted against. If pragmatists, existentialists, and analytic philosophers wish to recover their roots, they must eventually grapple with German idealism itself. TherenewedinterestinGermanidealismhasasmuchtodowithitsabid- ingphilosophicalrelevanceasitsvasthistoricalsignificance.Recentepiste- mology still struggles to find some middle path between the extremes of skeptical subjectivism and naive realism, foundationalism and relativism, materialismanddualism,Platonismandhistoricism.Butthesewereessen- tially the concerns of the German idealists themselves, whose attempts to findthatmiddlepathweresubtleandsophisticated.Contemporaryphiloso- phersseekingtoavoidthesedilemmascanstillfindarichsourceofinspira- tioninGermanidealism. Aftercenturiesofintensivescholarship,noworkonGermanidealismcan claimgreatoriginalityornovelty.Ofcourse,thisstudyisnoexception.My debts to previous scholarship, which I have tried to acknowledge in many footnotes,arewideanddeep.Itisprobablyworthwhile,however,topoint outafewrespectsinwhichthisstudydiffersfrompastwork,especiallythe grand surveys of the subject in the German tradition. First, I have not at- temptedtodojusticetothefullscopeofGermanidealism,itscontributions tothefieldsofaesthetics,morals,andmetaphysics,aswellastoepistemol- ogy.Thisstudyismuchmorelimitedinfocus.Itconcentratesononespecific theme: the meaning of idealism itself, and more specifically the reaction againstsubjectivism.Ihavefocuseduponthisspecificthemebecauseithas beenfatefulforthereceptionofGermanidealism,whichhassooftenbeen dismissedasagrandioseformofsubjectivism.Mycentralthesisisthat,from itsveryinception,Germanidealismwasareactionagainstsubjectivism,an attempt to prove the reality of the external world and to break out of the egocentric predicament. Second, I have made the young romantics— Hölderlin,Schlegel,Novalis—intocrucialfiguresinthedevelopmentofGer- man idealism. The romantics have usually been placed either outside the idealisttraditionentirelyorinsideitasmeretransitionalfigures.Butneither viewiscorrect:theearlyromanticswerethetruefoundersofabsoluteideal- ism.Third,thisstudyofGermanidealismomitsHegel,anditisindeedare- actionagainsttheHegelianlegacy.Hegel’shistoryoftheperiod,whichinter- Preface ix prets it as a progression culminating in his own system, is tendentious philosophically and anachronistic historically. Fourth, there is no teleology tomyhistory.IdonotseeGermanidealismeitherasaprogressiontoward HegelorasadeclinefromKant.Ifweimpartiallyandthoroughlyexamine eachthinkerinhisownterms,itisunlikelythattheresultswillshowsimple progressordecline.Eachthinkerismorelikelytohavehisuniquestrengths and weaknesses—a gain here is a loss there—so that the end result is an aporiaorinvitationtoeclecticism.Fifthandfinally,Ihaveattemptedtointe- grate Kant’s Opus postumum into the general history of German idealism; Kant’sfinalyearsmarksuchanimportantdevelopmentinhisthoughtthat theycannotbeignored. Mymethodologyhasbeenessentiallyhistoricalandhermeneutical.Asfar aspossible,myaimhasbeentoreconstructanauthor’sworkinitsindividu- alityaccordingtohisoriginalintentionandcontext.Sincetheycanbeten- dentious and anachronistic in application to historical material, I have bracketed contemporary philosophical concerns and concepts. I have also given primacy to textual exegesis over philosophical criticism, partly be- cause the interpretation of the texts is so controversial, and partly because themostfairandaccuratecriticismhastocomefromthemostthoroughand sympatheticinterpretation. Inthiswork,unlikemypreviousstudiesofclassicalGermanphilosophy,I havenotattemptedtointerpretatextinitsculturalandpoliticalcontext.Al- though I regard cultural and political interpretation as essential, I do not thinkthatthetimeisripeforitinthecaseofGermanidealism.Theproblem is that the basic philosophical content of the texts is still too indeterminate and controversial. No one who approaches them can afford to ignore the fraughthistoryoftheirinterpretation.Without,however,anunderstanding oftheircontent,anyculturalorpoliticalinterpretationisahazardousbusi- ness.AscholarwhofailstoappreciatetheprecisestatusofFichte’sabsolute ego,forexample,cannotappraiseitspoliticalandculturalsignificance. ThisstudydoesnotpretendtobeacontributiontowhattheGermanscall “Konstellationsarbeit,”thatis,detailedresearchintothecontextandinterac- tions of German philosophers in Jena in the 1790s. While such research is invaluable, and indeed a necessary basis for work like my own, I have not beenabletoundertakeitinanydetailedorconcertedmannerhere.Muchof my work has rested on the more detailed research of Dieter Henrich, ManfredFrank,MichaelFranz,ViolettaWaibel,andothers.Giventhegen-
Description:The list of books you might like
