Richard Wagner has come to be seen as the quintessential artist of the nineteenth century, whose work embraces all the arts of the period. Dieter Borchmeyer here provides the first systematic and comprehensive account of Wagner's aesthetic theory, examining his hitherto neglected prose writings and his ideas on music drama from the various standpoints of literature, the linking of ideas, and the sociology of art. The pre-eminent importance for Wagner of classical Greek art and mythology emerges with particular (...) clarity, while his links with the great figures and forms of world theatre - Shakespeare, the commedia dell'arte, the popular theatre, and the puppet theatre - are traced in detail. The influence on Wagner of the historical and social novel is also discussed. The author provides the first comprehensive analysis of Cosima Wagner's Diaries, and throws unexpected sidelights on Wagner's relationship with Nietzsche, in particular his important contribution to Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy. -/- Central to the present study are Wagner's music dramas from Die Feen to Parsifal. These are examined in their literary, ideological, and socio-political contexts (including the problem of anti-Semitism). First published in German in 1982, this book has become established as a standard work of Wagner scholarship, and now appears for the first time in English in a completely revised edition incorporating a number of new chapters on the music dramas. (shrink)
These two books, both by distinguished authors, are excellent. Though they are written by and for physicists, they are an invaluable resource for philosophers interested in the grand theme of how classical physical phenomena emerge from the quantum realm. Both individually and taken together, they are fine representatives of the present state of knowledge about this theme, and about many more specific topics falling under it. They are also pedagogic, though aimed at an advanced level—graduate students and beyond, in physics (...) and mathematics. Thus, they are packed with sophisticated expositions of such topics as quantum Brownian motion, and decoherence in quantum field theory (Joos 2003), the rigorous definition of macroscopic observables and of their evolution laws in quantum statistical physics (Sewell 2002), and the rigorous treatment of open quantum systems (Joos 2003; Sewell 2002). So overall, they provide an invaluable overview of a large and lively research area of physics. But the books are also different in several ways. The first book, by Joos et al., has six authors, all theoretical physicists based in Germany and part of the ‘Heidelberg school’ of decoherence physics, which has grown up in the last twenty-five years under the tutelage of Heinz-Dieter Zeh. The second book is a monograph: Sewell is a British mathematical physicist, most of whose work has been in the algebraic approach to quantum statistical mechanics. Other, less obvious, differences follow on from these. By and large, the material in Decoherence is both more familiar and more accessible to philosophers of physics. And for reviewing the books for philosophers of physics, it will be a convenient strategy to spell out the three reasons for this contrast. But as we shall see, Quantum Mechanics being more difficult need not mean it is less valuable. First, decoherence processes of the kinds that Joos, et al., mostly discuss are now well-known to philosophers of quantum theory, not least through the work of the Heidelberg school itself (and the acclaimed first edition of this book) and of the ‘Los Alamos school’ of Zurek and coauthors. Indeed, Joos’ own Chapter 3, “Decoherence through Interaction with the.... (shrink)
Frankfurt School critical theory has long opposed metaphysical philosophy because it ignores suffering and injustice. In the face of such criticism, proponents of metaphysics (for example Dieter Henrich) have accused critical theory of not fully investigating the questions is raises for itself, and falling into partial metaphysical positions, despite itself. If one focuses on Max Horkheimer's early essays, such an accusation seems quite fitting. There he vociferously attacks metaphysics, but he also develops a theory that pushes toward metaphysical questions. (...) His work can thus seem laden with unpacked metaphysical baggage, and fraught with contradiction. The aim of this paper is to show that Horkheimer's critique of metaphysics makes sense and is not contradicted by a surreptitious metaphysics. To show this, Horkheimer's views will be compared with Bas van Fraassen's in The Empirical Stance . Ultimately, the paper should show that Horkheimer's early philosophy can be reconstructed in such a way that it employs a 'materialist stance'. (shrink)
