Vor dem Hintergrund eines kurzen historischen Rückblicks argumentiert der Beitrag für die Bedeutung einer an Texten (statt nur Begriffen oder Sätzen) ausgerichteten ideenhistorischen Forschung und plädiert spezifisch für das Forschungsfeld einer ›Literaturgeschichte der Philosophie‹ (doppelter Genitiv) als ein zentrales Arbeitsgebiet der vorliegenden Zeitschrift.

Though contextualism is a powerful orthodoxy in the Humanities, it is not without its critics. They complain that reliance on context creates the illusion of full meaning at a work’s point of origin, unjustly contains the work within a historical box, and neutralizes the critical potential of past texts and ideas. Starting with the Spitzer-Lovejoy debate over Geistesgeschichte and History of Ideas in the 1940s and moving to a discussion of recent critics of contextualism, the essay concludes by rethinking the (...) nature of contextual knowledge. (shrink)

Von Diltheys Konzeption der Geisteswissenschaften als dem philosophischen Bezugspunkt für Literatur und Geistesgeschichte aus zeigen sich Gesichtspunkte, die für aktuelle Fragestellungen wieder interessant sein können. In Diltheys erstem Entwurf stand die Absetzung der Geisteswissenschaften von der Naturwissenschaft im Mittelpunkt. Man kann die Unterschiede, die er hervorhebt, auch als positive Beschreibung der geisteswissenschaftlichen Arbeit auffassen: Geisteswissenschaften sind danach in ihrer Bestimmung auf naturwissenschaftliche Fragestellungen bezogen und für sie offen. Im Unterschied zur Methode der Naturwissenschaft stellen sie aber eine Vielzahl von Vorgehensweisen (...) dar, die im praktischen Leben einer Gesellschaft wurzeln. In diesem Zusammenhang kann man für heutige ›Humanities‹ zum Beispiel Diltheys Hinweise auf ›Verfahren‹ aufnehmen, die der ›Methode‹ in einem praxeologischen Sinne zugrunde liegen und vorausgehen. (shrink)

The concepts »labor« and »work« have different etymologies that have become entwined in the course of European history. By tracing the changes in meaning these words have undergone, we gain a view to the current situation of anthropogenic climate change and the efforts to think through how this situation affects our categories more broadly. That has consequences for the humanities.

The topical focus of the following inquiry is the critical engagement of French scholars and writers ca. 1800 – for example, Madame de Staël or Charles de Villers – with German philosophical aesthetics. With regard to this case study, the changing relationship of literary criticism and aesthetics within different national contexts can be brought into view. In France, the concept »esthétique«, which was imported as a translation of the German neologism »Ästhetik« current since the publication of Baumgarten’s work, met with (...) firm resistance from the middle of the 18th century on. The task of the following contribution is to analyze the reasons for this rejection in French intellectual circles at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th centuries. In the background of these often quite intensely conducted discussions lies the question whether philosophy can legitimately claim to produce a specific discourse regarding literature. (shrink)

Taking as its point of departure certain necessary distinctions to be drawn regarding the concept of Geistesgeschichte – a concept by no means reducible to the early 20th-century school of literary-historical research –, this contribution calls to mind some enduring tasks of our discipline. The role played by the epistemic tools of conceptual history in the fulfillment of those tasks is exemplified and discussed with regard to a normatively rich concept of understanding as the final goal of literary studies.

In the historical, literary, and philosophical history of concepts, large-scale concepts or, more precisely, »Kollektivsingulare« [collective singular concepts] – as Koselleck described them with considerable effect on the practice of social history – are regarded as metaphysical, ideological, or at least as simplifications. The essay does not deny that this is justified, but with a certain melancholy it pleads for a careful archiving and also for the ongoing use of the terms in question including their multifaceted historical semantology. This even (...) applies to the term »Geist.« To reject this concept cannot really mean replacing it or – more drastically – erasing it altogether. (shrink)

The article explores the possibilities of literary studies as a hermeneutics of the social by focusing on intermediations of literary and social studies in the present and in the early days of the DVjs, i.e. in the 1920s. It first investigates, how sociology interrogates itself by reading detective stories (Kracauer, Boltanski). As a testing ground for the productivity of the proposed orientation the article then takes a closer look at German crime fiction of the interwar years (Perutz, Jacques) and demonstrates (...) how these novels problematize the workings of a social imaginary in the »time of monsters«. (shrink)

A closer look reveals that the intensely researched decade of German Geistesgeschichte was a heterogeneous formation, lacking a unified method and a uniform discursive space, whether of philosophical or any other provenience. By the same token, today one can observe the spectral return of demonized aspects of Geistesgeschichte in similarly capacious and hence diffuse concepts (Anthropocene, diversity, ecology). Against those tendencies, the article suggests a return to the problem of literary history, first articulated by Geistesgeschichte and unsolved to this day.

The idea of a unity of intellectual history (Geistesgeschichte) is a genuinely philosophical thought. In the shadow of Hegel, it is about the legitimation of historiographical work in a universal perspective thought centered in Europe. The legitimation strategies are complex and amount to the formation of a canon of philosophy. This project is associated with the name of the philosopher and historian of philosophy Wilhelm Dilthey. Dilthey saw it as his task to secure the unity of intellectual history. To this (...) end, he introduced a pluralism of methods – logic, psychology, anthropology, philosophy of history, hermeneutics, literary research and others – into the study of intellectual history. I am speaking here of the Dilthey project, whose actuality, chances and risks are discussed in the article. (shrink)

Geistesgeschichte was a serious response to a modal-quantitative problem in Classical German Philosophy. In an attempt at solving the problem, it glorified the historically given as spirit, and for this reason became ideology. Nonetheless, Geistesgeschichte is heir to the promise that history, as the history of the spirit, may yet rise to transcend what is given.

Die Verbindung der Begriffe Geist und Geschichte entstand an der Schwelle zur Moderne. Vorstellungsleitend war der Versuch, die nach den epochalen Neuerungen des 18. Jahrhunderts eingetretene Situation als geistige Situation zu erfassen. Verbunden damit war die Erwartung, dass die aufgenommene Besinnungsarbeit nicht nur in diesem historischen Augenblick, sondern von der kommenden Zeit überhaupt und ganz generell gefordert sei. In beispielloser Weise auf sich selbst gestellt, schien die Moderne des wegbegleitenden Einsatzes reflexiver, frei und unabhängig agierender Instanzen zu bedürfen. Als eine (...) solche Instanz verstand und versteht sich bis heute die Geistesgeschichte. (shrink)

The following observations reflect on the moral-psychological value of the form of reading and writing that Nietzsche referred to as the human, all too human, particularly as he saw it embodied in Goethe, and as taken up by Hans Blumenberg in his collection Goethe zum Beispiel.

The concept of the periodical (DVjs) when it was founded in 1923 is submitted here to a rereading, with a selective plea for three possibilities of productive development: Geist is reconceived as an activity of »burrowing«, Geistesgeschichte as a history of problems informed by the sociology of culture and of knowledge, and the research library as a problem library.

Taking as its point of departure the first systematic definition of the concept of literary studies (Literaturwissenschaft) as formulated by Ernst Elster, the essay explores the question to what degree literary studies can be conceived as a discipline that inquires after the principles of literature.

From the perspective of praxeological scientific research as well as quantitative methods and on the basis of archival materials, it becomes apparent that it is not in the ›geistesgeschichtliche‹ method, but in the implicit recognition of disciplinary, methodological, and theoretical plurality that the unity of literary studies lies that the DVjs expects from its articles.

This contribution examines the beginnings of the literary research program based in Geistesgeschichte by considering the work of one of its prominent practitioners, Fritz Strich. The aim is to identify an understanding of geistesgeschichtliche methodology that is relevant and practicable today, in contrast with its original »novelistic« implementation in Strich’s work.

The idea of Geistesgeschichte was an idealistic program. The critique of this program, however, leaves us with the task of thinking the historicity of spirit: There is no history without spirit. This thesis requires a materialist explanation.

The contribution explores the demands that arise when, instead of speaking of »intellectual history« or »history of ideas«, one proposes using once again the term »Geistesgeschichte« – to be sure, in a methodologically revised form. In that case, it is argued here, the synthetic claims that inhere in the concept »Geist« understood as a singular term would have to be reformulated in a manner keyed to contemporary assumptions. The essay makes several recommendations how that could occur.

The essay discusses the contribution of Periodical Studies to histories of knowledge, the arts, and theory. Special attention is given to the fact that magazines and journals have often been conceptualized and imagined as embodiments of »Geist« in time and space.

ZusammenfassungAnhand von Erläuterungen der Begriffe Geisteswissenschaften und Geistesgeschichte, die zwischen den 20er und den 60er Jahren des 20. Jahrhunderts von Erich Rothacker vorgelegt wurden, wird der Frage nachgegangen, inwiefern diese Begriffsarbeit zum Verständnis von »Kultur« und »literarischer Kultur« im digitalen Zeitalter beiträgt.

The fixation on canonical works that characterizes the disciplines of literary study in Germany is an inheritance of Geistesgeschichte; only literary historical curiosity, however, can secure the epistemological basis of literary study and protect it from disciplinary tedium.

The essay considers the question of whether fiction can be read as a sociological or historical source in light of contemporary fiction-writers’ debates about appropriation. It raises questions about writers’ and readers’ responsibilities by juxtaposing ideas of Emile Zola, José Ortega y Gasset, and Junot Díaz.

How is it possible to investigate philosophical texts analytically, but simultaneously to contextualize them historically and thus to pursue an analytic Geistesgeschichte? The following contribution answers this question in four theses: (1) According to the Nominalism-Thesis, individual texts as opposed to general trends or ideas are to be attended to. (2) The Relationism-Thesis holds that these texts are always to be related to other texts within their historical context. (3) The Multi-Perspectivism-Thesis emphasizes the fact that texts in various contexts are (...) to be considered so that different kinds of relation become clear. (4) Finally, the Historiography-Thesis requires that in addition to the texts themselves interpretive schemata are also to be critically examined. All four theses are explicated with reference to medieval philosophy. (shrink)

The question is whether literature can be said to have a bearing on philosophical issues, and if so, what a philosophical criticism would entail. The claim is that literature can have such a function by being a form of reflective thought itself and that there can be a form of criticism attentive to such a dimension.

The article explores the interface between literature and ideas by highlighting a core »literary« idea, the notion of the text itself. All »text-immanent« interpretation reposes, after all, on the work of editors. Recent debates in textual editing are reviewed to demonstrate how difficult – or for some, how undesirable – it is to fix the identity of the text. Both orthodox and antinomian positions on textual identity are themselves fueled by »ideas.«.

Die Übertreibungen bei der Textinterpretation der letzten Jahrzehnte haben die literarische Hermeneutik, ja die Philologie überhaupt in Misskredit gebracht und die Fokussierung auf andere Dimensionen der Literatur als den Sinn befördert. Dabei bleibt die Frage, ob eine strengere Praxis der Interpretation nicht immerhin den Kern der »Literaturwissenschaft« sowohl als der »Geistesgeschichte« ausmacht. Dies wollen wir prüfen anhand der Rekonstruktion der kritischen Philologie, die Christoph König in Anspruch nimmt.

The history of political thought of the so-called »Cambridge School« is certainly only one of many methodological successors of the old German »Geistesgeschichte«. Yet it may be regarded as the latter’s most influential replacement. The essay discusses the relation between Quentin Skinner’s history of political thought and literary studies which leads to the differences between the approach promoted by the »Cambridge School« and the »Geistesgeschichte« of the inter-war years. The essay concludes by discussing the »Cambridge School’s« potential for literary studies (...) as well as the significance of literary texts for studying political thought and political ideas in history. (shrink)

Opening with an essay entitled »Faust und die Sorge«, the first issue of the DVjs entered the world in a year of economic crises, national bankruptcy, and hyperinflation. This situation suggests viewing the project of Geistesgeschichte as reflecting stories of care (Sorge) and crises of the spirit (Geist). The thematization of such stories is here traced with respect to various scenes: Goethe’s Faust II, conflicts regarding hermeneutic power, and finally the history of political economy itself.