Born a slave, but later earning his freedom and founding a school for teaching Stoicism to the sons of Roman noblemen, Epictetus has been a popular source of Stoic philosophy for centuries. Originally published in 1894 by the German scholar Adolf Bonhoeffer and here translated into English for the first time, this work remains the most systematic and detailed study of Epictetus' ethics. The basis, content, and acquisition of virtue are methodically described, while important related points in Stoic ethics (...) are discussed in an extensive appendix. Epictetus is compared throughout with the other late Stoics, Cicero, the early Stoics, and Christian moral thought. This approach shows that Stoic ethics continues to have great practical and pedagogical value. (shrink)

This Elibron Classics title is a reprint of the original edition published by Ferdinand Enke in Stuttgart, 1894.

Der Spätidealist Friedrich Adolf Trendelenburg zählt zu den wirkungsmächtigen Universitätsphilosophen des mittleren 19. Jahrhunderts. Diese Erstveröffentlichung seiner Ethischen Untersuchungen (ca. 1851) versteht sich als weiteres Mosaikstück in der wiederbelebten Trendelenburgforschung. Bei dem Manuskript handelt es sich um ein Fragment eines nie geschriebenen Hauptwerkes, das mit den Logischen Untersuchungen (1840) Bausteine zu einem System der Philosophie liefern sollte. Eingeleitet durch den ausführlichen Kommentarteil wird das Fragment neben der faksimilierten Wiedergabe der Zeugen zunächst in einer diplomatischen Umschrift sowie einer eigens (...) an die spezielle Überlieferungslage angepassten linearen textgenetischen Darstellung wiedergegeben. Die anschließend dargebotenen Lesefassungen sollen als Klartextangebote erstmals den Zugang für einen größeren Leserkreis ermöglichen. Die Präsentation schließt mit einem ausführlichen Editionsbericht ab. (shrink)

On September 12, 1949, the liberal politician Theodor Heuss, party leader of the „Freie Demokratische Partei“ (FDP), was elected by the Bundesversammlung (Federal Convention) as the first Bundespräsident, i. e. head of state, of the newly founded Bundesrepublik Deutschland. As a young man Heuss had been a close friend and political ally of Friedrich Naumann, the protestant pastor and left wing liberal politician, supported by Ernst Troeltsch. Heuss then working as a political journalist for liberal newspapers and Naumann’s weekly (...) journal Die Hilfe, was an admirer of Troeltsch, and since 1910 they often met in Heidelberg, at Villa Fallenstein, Ziegelhäuser Landstraße 17, where Max and Marianne Weber as well als the Troeltschs lived; Heuss frequently visited Max Weber’s Sunday jour fixe. When in 1915 Troeltsch became a professor at the Philosophical Faculty of Berlin University Heuss regularly kept in contact with him especially through Hans Delbrück’s „Mittwochabend“, a weekly gathering of liberal intellectuals, professors, politicians and journalists discussing political reforms and the ongoing war. Both Troeltsch and Heuss, 19 years younger, demanded the democratization of the Deutsches Reich, and after the end of the war and the revolution of 1918/19 they became members of the newly founded left wing liberal party „Deutsche Demokratische Partei“ (DDP). After Troeltsch’s sudden death on February 1st, 1923, Heuss wrote an obituary, and, together with his wife Elly Heuss-Knapp, attended the funeral service conducted by Adolf von Harnack. Heuss was a member of the „Demokratischer Klub Berlin“, founded in 1919 by liberal politicians, bankers and academics to regularly discuss the political situation of the new democratic state, the Weimar Republic. Unknown until now, seven weeks after Troeltsch’s death the „Demokratische Klub“ invited its members (the club only had male mebers!) to a memorial act for Troeltsch. On this occasion Heuss delivered a speech „Zu Ernst Troeltschs Gedächtnis“ („To the Memory of Ernst Troeltsch“) which is published here for the first time. (shrink)

Die Studienausgabe der Mitschrift Adolf Heimanns von Hegels letzter Berliner Ästhetikvorlesung im Winter 1828/29 schließt die exemplarische Dokumentation einzelner Quellen aus den Jahren 1820/21, 1823 und 1826 ab. Zudem ist diese Quelle die einzige erhaltene Nachschrift von 1828/29, die H.G. Hotho für die Edition der Ästhetik genutzt hat. Heimanns Mitschrift der letzten Berliner Ästhetikvorlesung informiert über eine Reihe von Neuerungen. Die wohl wichtigste ist die von Hegel eingangs vorgetragene, an der Enzyklopädie von 1827 orientierte, differenzierte Bestimmung der Bedeutung der (...) Kunst für die moderne Welt. An die Stelle einer inhaltlichen Orientierung durch Kunst setzt Hegel die These ihrer Funktion als Stimulans der kritischen Auseinandersetzung mit der abend- und morgenländischen Kultur. Auf dieser Basis diskutiert er einzelne Kunstwerke, aktuelle Kunstereignisse und Theorien seiner Zeitgenossen. (shrink)

The article deals with the so-called „System Althoff“, that is the network of advisers Friedrich Althoff, ministerial director of the Prussian ministry of cultural affairs, created and employed in order to administer the faculties of theology at Prussian universities. In addition to leading the process of decision making in the ministry itself, he recruited a number of theology professors from the two dominant Church parties to advise him on appointing new professors. Famously, he consulted the opponents Hermann Cremer, a (...) “positive” biblicistic Systematic professor in Greifswald, and Adolf Harnack, a Ritschlian Church Historian in Berlin, but he also counted theologians like Friedrich Loofs and Martin Kähler among his advisers. The article’s main body focusses on Althoff’s correspondence with Cremer and Harnack in order to analyse the minister’s practice of administration in depth. In a second step the paper will relate the minister’s relationship with his two most prominent theological advisers to the wider „System Althoff“ in theology. Both parts serve to show that Althoff rationalized and professionalized the process of decision making in the ministry of cultural affairs by carefully considering different professorial advises in light of the current (church) political climate. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Bonhoeffer the Assassin? Challenging the Myth, Recovering His Call to Peacemaking by Mark Thiessen Nation, Anthony G. Siegrist, and Daniel P. UmbelDallas J. GinglesBonhoeffer the Assassin? Challenging the Myth, Recovering His Call to Peacemaking Mark Thiessen Nation, Anthony G. Siegrist, and Daniel P. Umbel grand rapids, mi: baker academic, 2013. 272 pp. $29.99In their new book Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, Mark Thiessen Nation, Anthony G. Siegrist, and Daniel P. (...) Umbel painstakingly reread primary texts in order to challenge the widely held belief that Dietrich Bonhoeffer participated in an attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler. Their alternative to the usual narrative of Bonhoeffer’s life holds that early in his career, long before the crisis of the Confessing Church and the rise of Nazism, Bonhoeffer made a commitment to [End Page 205] Christian pacifism that endured even through the war years and his resistance to Hitler.To argue for this alternative telling, the authors analyze Bonhoeffer’s three main “ethical” texts: the early “Barcelona lectures,” Discipleship, and finally Ethics. On their telling, while the early ethics lectures were theologically deficient, by the time that Bonhoeffer wrote Discipleship he had developed “integration,” which was “the primary theological catalyst for the ethical transition from Barcelona to Discipleship” (129). Discipleship is, they conclude, the pinnacle of Bonhoeffer’s thought, and anything that comes after it, including Ethics, cannot in any fundamental way differ from it.Alongside this diachronic analysis of Bonhoeffer’s main ethics texts, the authors emphasize two letters that Bonhoeffer wrote in 1935 and 1936. In the first, Bonhoeffer asserts that, because of his theology, he is “sometimes perceived as fanatical” (223). The second he wrote describing his “conversion experience” in 1930, in relation to the Sermon on the Mount and “Christian pacifism.” Read singly, these letters are interesting examples of Bonhoeffer’s thought and life of faith. As the authors present the argument, though, the letters comprise a unified narrative and function as an interpretive lens by which the primary texts should be understood. They think that the “fanaticism” of the first letter refers to the faith brought about in the conversion experience described in the second. The “fanaticism” letter is important because in it he asserts that, “if he were to become more ‘reasonable,’ he would have to ‘chuck [his] entire theology’” (223).Because Bonhoeffer wrote that he would have to “chuck” his theology if he made it more “reasonable,” the authors think that the theology that emerged from the conversion experience has a foundational role in his later works. Whatever Bonhoeffer wrote in Ethics, then, simply cannot disagree with the “fanaticism” that “is most fully articulated in … Discipleship” (223). Because of the importance of the “Christian pacifism” of the conversion and Discipleship, it is thus impossible—or at least highly unlikely—that Bonhoeffer participated in the assassination attempts.Bonhoeffer scholars and nonspecialists alike will find this text provocative and interesting. The conclusions, though, are finally unconvincing. For the authors, the “conversion experience” is the central key to understanding Bonhoeffer, and it is clear that they understand “Christian pacifism” to be of primary importance in the conversion, but they never tell us to what variety of Christian pacifism Bonhoeffer converted. It is very likely that Bonhoeffer’s Christian pacifism was different in kind than the Christian pacifism that the authors seem to endorse. That anachronistic reading alone renders the conclusions of the text suspect.Apart from simple historical questions, the methodology the authors use to construct their hermeneutical lens is also problematic. It is difficult to submit [End Page 206] Bonhoeffer’s entire corpus to two earlier letters that he wrote a full year apart. While readers may understand and agree that Bonhoeffer was not, in reality, an assassin (the minor claim), it will be hard to convince readers of the impassibility of his “Christian pacifism” (the major claim).Dallas J. GinglesSouthern Methodist UniversityCopyright © 2015 Society of Christian Ethics... (shrink)

On one level this is a case study in science, religion, and morality, with special attention to the consequences for morality of science's embeddedness in society. On another level this is the science-and-theology dialogue between the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his brother Karl-Friedrich, a physicist. The influence of Karl-Friedrich and the brothers' exchanges on Dietrich's prison theology receives special attention. Because this study is set in Germany in the 1930s and 40s, and Karl-Friedrich's work intersected Germany's efforts (...) to develop a nuclear weapon, the discussion leads to Los Alamos and the Manhattan Project. The attention there is to the interplay of science, religion, and morality at the time the bomb was detonated at the Trinity site. (shrink)

In the course of his active teaching career of over fifty years, Adolf von Harnack only once lectured on the „Encyclopaedia of Theology“. This occured in the summer of 1884 when he was a young university professor in Gießen, lecturing twice a week from 9 to 10 in the morning. The handwritten script of the dictation booklet has so far gone unnoticed in the literature. It is documented here for the first time and in a full reproduction. These lecture (...) notes present a condensed, overall impression of Harnack's concept of theology, probably unlike any other his texts. Of particular interest is the detailed outline of a concept of religion that Harnack developed through an intense examination of drafts on this topic by Friedrich Schleiermacher and Albrecht Ritschl as well as Ritschl's prominent students, Julius Kaftan and Wilhelm Herrmann. Within the history of Harnack's opus, the lecture for the Encyclopaedia was done in close working relationship with the great literary project of the Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. (shrink)

The German theologian and martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer is not widely known for engaging with scientific thought, having been heavily influenced by Karl Barth's celebrated stance against natural theology. However, during the period of his maturing theology in prison Bonhoeffer read a significant scientific work, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker's The World View of Physics. From this he gained two major insights for his theological outlook. First, he realized that the notion of a "God of the gaps" is futile, not just (...) in science but in other areas of human inquiry. Second, he felt that an infinite universe, as considered by science, would be self-subsistent and could exist as if there were no God. Bonhoeffer replaced Barth's radical critique of religion with the even more extreme view that it is a mere passing phase in history that grown-up humanity can dispense with. At the same time Bonhoeffer began an important critique of Barth's reaction, namely, the latter's retreat to a "positivism of revelation." While Bonhoeffer did not go quite as far as one might like, his approach opened up hopeful avenues for an answer to "the liberal question" and even a revived place for some kind of natural theology. (shrink)

Adolf Deißmann (1866–1937), New Testament scholar in Heidelberg and Berlin as well as one of the most important figures in the ecumenical movement after World War I, studied with the neo-Kantian Hermann Cohen (1844–1918) in Marburg and felt a lifelong debt to him. Documents presented here from Deißmann's literary estate not only convey insight into the personal relationship between Deißmann and Cohen, but also show the connections between Cohen's philosophy and Deißmann's engagement in Friedrich Naumann's National Social Union (...) as well as his research on the New Testament. The edition thus serves at the same time as a contribution to the controversial matter of the relationship between Kulturprotestantismus and liberal Judaism around 1900. (shrink)

Dieser Band umfasst 35 Texte des Wiener Philosophen und Wissenschaftstheoretikers Friedrich G. Wallner aus den 1980er Jahren. Sie setzen sich allesamt auseinander mit dem sprachphilosophischen Denken des fruhen wie spaten Wittgenstein. Die Auseinandersetzung erfolgt dabei in einer zweifachen Weise: In einem ersten Teil gilt es den Texten, Grundgedanken Wittgensteins zu analysieren, zu erhellen sowie deren Pragungen und Einflusse aufzuzeigen. Dabei werden der Ansatz seines Denkens sowie dessen Bedeutung fur Wissenschaftstheorie und Dichtung erortert. In einem zweiten Teil verfolgen die Texte (...) das Ziel, im Anschluss an Wittgenstein ein Konzept von Philosophie auszuarbeiten, welches Philosophie als Therapie begreift. Ein Konzept, welches im Horizont der Einzelwissenschaften mehrfach zur Anwendung kommt.". (shrink)

The Christian does not live in a vacuum, says the author, but in a world of government, politics, labor, and marriage. Hence, Christian ethics cannot exist in a vacuum what the Christian needs, claims Dietrich Bonhoeffer, is concrete instruction in a concrete situation. Although the author died before completing his work, this book is recognized as a major contribution to Christian ethics. The root and ground of Christian ethics, the author says, is the reality of God as revealed in Jesus (...) Christ. This reality is not manifest in the Church as distinct from the secular world such a juxtaposition of two separate spheres, Bonhoeffer insists, is a denial of God's having reconciled the whole world to himself in Christ. On the contrary, God's commandment is to be found and known in the Church, the family, labor, and government. His commandment permits man to live as man before God, in a world God made, with responsibility for the institutions of that world. (shrink)

Called by Karl Barth the brilliant Ethics of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, this book is finally being recognized as Bonhoeffers magnum opus and one of the most important works of Christian ethics of the last century.

This paper offers a refutation of P. Duhem's thesis that the falsifiability of an isolated empirical hypothesis H as an explanans is unavoidably inconclusive. Its central contentions are the following: 1. No general features of the logic of falsifiability can assure, for every isolated empirical hypothesis H and independently of the domain to which it pertains, that H can always be preserved as an explanans of any empirical findings O whatever by some modification of the auxiliary assumptions A in conjunction (...) with which H functions as an explanans. For Duhem cannot guarantee on any general logical grounds the deducibility of O from an explanans constituted by the conjunction of H and some revised non-trivial version R of A: the existence of the required set R of collateral assumptions must be demonstrated for each particular case. 2. The categorical form of the Duhemian thesis is not only a non-sequitur but actually false. This is shown by adducing the testing of physical geometry as a counterexample to Duhem in the form of a rebuttal to A. Einstein's geometrical articulation of Duhem's thesis. 3. The possibility of a quasi a priori choice of a physical geometry in the sense of Duhem must be clearly distinguished from the feasibility of a conventional adoption of such a geometry in the sense of H. Poincare. And the legitimacy of the latter cannot be invoked to save the Duhemian thesis from refutation by the foregoing considerations. (shrink)

According to some cosmologists, the big bang cosmogony and even the (now largely defunct) steady-state theory pose a scientifically insoluble problem of matter-energy creation. But I argue that the genuine problem of the origin of matter-energy or of the universe has been fallaciously transmuted into the pseudo-problem of creation by an external cause. A fortiori, it emerges that the initial "true" and "false" vacuum states of quantum cosmology do not vindicate biblical divine creation ex nihilo at all.