Panentheism is an often-discussed alternative to Classical theism, and almost any discussion of panentheism starts by way of acknowledging Karl ChristianFriedrich Krause (1781–1832) as the person who coined the term.1 However, apart from this tribute, Krause's own panentheism is almost completely unknown. In what follows, I first present a brief overview of Krause's life and correct some misconceptions of his work before I turn to the core ideas of Krause's own panentheistic system of philosophy. In brief, Krause (...) elaborates a scientific holism that is anchored in intellectual intuition of the Absolute as the one principle of being and recognition. The task of philosophical speculation consequently is twofold: the analytic-ascending part of philosophy proceeds by way of transcendental reflection and according to Krause enables us to obtain intellectual intuition. The synthetic-descending part of philosophy starts by way of showing that science as a whole is an explication of the original union of the Absolute as apprehended in intellectual intuition. Once this is achieved, Krause argues that the emerging philosophy of science is most adequately referred to as “panentheism” since everything is what it is “in and through” the Absolute, while the Absolute itself is not reducible to anything in particular. I end by showing how to relate Krause's panentheism to recent philosophical discussion. (shrink)
Karl ChristianFriedrich Krause war ein bemerkenswerter Denker des Deutschen Idealismus. Seine Schriften können ohne Zweifel mit denen Hegels, Schellings und Fichtes konkurrieren. Gerade im Bereich der theoretischen Philosophie bietet das Krausesche Œuvre eine Fundgrube an Einsichten und Argumenten, die der heutigen, oftmals betont postmodernen oder atheistischen Philosophie eine dringend benötigte Kontrastfolie sein können. Sinn und Zweck der Arbeit ist es, den Panentheismus Krauses zeitgemäß darzustellen und Brückenschläge zur heutigen religionsphilosophischen Debatte aufzuzeigen.
In Friedrich Nietzsche and the Politics of History, Christian Emden explores “Nietzsche’s response to the historical and political culture in Europe in the age of the modern nation state” (xi). The book is volume 88 of the Ideas in Context series (edited by Quentin Skinner and James Tully). Emden’s goal is to position Nietzsche firmly in the history of modern political thought, starting from the belief that “Nietzsche’s intellectual and political environment plays a prominent role in his historical (...) thought and his understanding of the political” (xi). Emden argues that Nietzsche’s political philosophy is one of “political realism” in contrast to the ideological fault lines of modern political culture. What I would .. (shrink)
K. C. F. Krause, a disciple of Fichte and Schelling, distinguished himself by elaborating a coherent philosophy of law. In his exhaustive study Dierksmeier first mentions the various authors who influenced Krause, to point out next the latter’s criticism of Fichte, who did not succeed in clarifying the foundation of law. Krause himself sees this foundation in the human person and the rational nature of man. Rather than following Fichte and Schelling, Krause joins Kant: rights and law are an expression (...) of accomplished humanity. In Schelling’s view, on the other hand, right is the organ of freedom. For Kant, law itself must create order to be law. Krause is convinced that the basic structure of man’s intellectual life consists in striving toward wisdom, love, religion, and art. Using Kant’s distinction between analytical and synthetic thought, Krause considers law as being an absolute, irreplaceable category of the practical reason, prior to every juridical order. In complete freedom our reason must reach the Wesenschau, that is, penetrate the essence of things. Laws must agree with man’s essence, which exists in a likeness to God. Therefore, to express what is right, in the full sense of the term, law must be considered a property of God and something divine. (shrink)
According to Christian Niemeyer, professor of social education in Dresden, Germany, we are currently witnessing “a crisis of overproduction” in Nietzsche research. For several years, an “actual Nietzsche industry” has provided “a plethora of introductions, commentaries, monographs, readers, and editions for an apparently still hungry audience”. Though acknowledging that there are many important books among them, Niemeyer, first, deplores the fact that many “postmodern” interpreters mistake Nietzsche’s programmatic lack of system as carte blanche for ignoring scholarly methods and thereby (...) arbitrarily producing a “highly idiosyncratic Nietzsche”. Second, he harshly criticizes two prominent “schools” of... (shrink)
Ludwig Büchner wrote one of the most popular and polemical books of the strong materialist movement in the later nineteenth-century Germany, his Kraft und Stoff (Force and Matter) (1855). He tried to develop a comprehensive worldview, which was based solely on the findings of empirical science and did not take refuge in religion or any other transcendent categories in explaining nature and its development, including human beings. When Büchner tried to expose the backwardness of traditional philosophical and religious views in (...) scientific matters, his arguments had some force, but the positive part of his programme was not free of superficiality and naivety. Büchner’s writings helped to strengthen progressive and rational traditions inside and outside philosophy, but they can also serve as the prime example of the uncritical nineteenth- century belief in science’s capacity to redeem humankind from all evil. (shrink)
The importance of GS for understanding Nietzsche’s philosophy cannot be overestimated. While it can be disputed whether or not modern Nietzsche scholarship started with the revaluation of GS—as the editors claim with Giorgio Colli—the work forms an important link between the early and late writings of Nietzsche and especially Z. Klassiker Auslegen—Interpreting Classics—is a series dedicated to interpreting important works of philosophy as a whole through chapters successively discussing the individual chapters of the work. The book at hand consists of (...) two introductions—one for the volume, another one discussing the genesis of the edition of GS—and eight chapters covering each of the preface, the “Prelude in... (shrink)
Two names often grouped together in the study of religion are Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1884) and Rudolf Otto (1869–1937). Central to their understanding of religion is the idea that religious experience, characterized in terms of feeling, lies at the heart of all genuine religion. In his book On Religion, Schleiermacher speaks of religion as a “sense and taste for the Infinite.” In The Christian Faith, Schleiermacher grounds religion in the immediate self-consciousness and the “feeling of absolute dependence.” Influenced by (...) Schleiermacher, Otto also grounds religion in an original experience of what he calls “the numinous,” which can only be grasped through states of feeling. This article discusses the views of Otto and Schleiermacher on religion as feeling. It examines how both men conceived of feeling, the reasons they believed religion had to be understood in its terms, and the common threads linking their perspectives. It also considers Schleiermacher's interpretation of religious feeling as transcendental experience. (shrink)