The Relevance of Romanticism (Conference)

Villanova University is hosting a conference The Relevance of Romanticism April 16-17. The lineup is quite strong and the keynote speakers are Manfred Frank and Frederick Beiser, two figures that have done a lot to clarify the philosophical contribution of the German Romantics. Here you will find the conference program.

The Relevance of Romanticism (CFP)

The Relevance of Romanticism

A conference sponsored by the Greater Philadelphia Philosophy Consortium (GPPC)

April 16-17, 2010

Villanova University

KEYNOTE SPEAKERS:

Manfred Frank, Universität Tübingen

Frederick Beiser, Syracuse University

With the recent increase of interest in philosophical romanticism, it seems appropriate to ask the question, why romanticism now. What were the philosophical questions and concerns of Romanticism, and why do they seem particularly apt for contemporary philosophical and non-philosophical discussions? What is the value of Romanticism as a philosophical movement, both within the history of philosophy, and for philosophy today? Is Romanticism a fundamentally distinct movement, which offers something to the history of philosophy or to contemporary philosophical discussions, which other movements (Idealism, for example) do not? Can we speak of “philosophical Romanticism” at all? What is philosophical about Romanticism?

The conference is dedicated to raising and attempting to answer some of these questions, in light of the work of the two keynote speakers, Manfred Frank and Frederick Beiser. We are seeking papers which address the theme of philosophical Romanticism and its relevance, from a historical or a contemporary perspective. Interdisciplinary approaches to the relationship between philosophical Romanticism and other disciplines (art, science, literature, theology) are also welcome. Papers should exhibit some familiarity with the works of Manfred Frank and/or Frederick Beiser, and, to some degree, engage with their contributions to the field.

In addition to the keynote addresses, Manfred Frank and Frederick Beiser will participate in a roundtable discussion with the conference participants.

Submissions: Please submit a completed paper (3,500 words) no later than January 31, 2010 to dalia.nassar@villanova.edu. Papers should be prepared for blind-review. Submissions should be in .doc or .pdf format. Questions: contact Dalia Nassar at:
dalia.nassar@villanova.edu.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Subscription

I'm a big fan of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I noticed they have a new initiative that I think many readers will be interested in. For a very reasonable sum of money, you can subscribe to the encyclopedia and download clean Pdfs of their articles. More here.

Also, check out the new Novalis entry by Kristin Gjedal.

Novalis Review

An interesting review appeared today in NDPR by Jane Kneller. She is reviewing the new translation by David Wood of Novalis's Notes for a Romantic Encyclopaedia: Das Allgemeine Brouillon. Her review is very positive, but what I find interesting is that she sets up Wood's translation and introduction as a challenge to the work of Manfred Frank. Frank has defended the thesis that Novalis's Fichte-Studies are his most important and philosophical work, and against Dieter Henrich, Frank has claimed that the Fichte-Studies are also the most thorough critique of Fichte's foundationalism presented in the 1790s. What is interesting about the Fichte-Studies is that as Novalis moves away from Fichte, he appears to become more Kantian.

Novalis's Romantic Encyclopaedia is much more than a critique of Fichte or an investigation of the Critical Philosophy--it is in the words of Kneller "an important set of short essays, aphorisms, fragments and musings on the sciences and the nature of systematic knowledge. In true early romantic fashion it is wide-ranging in content and style, touching on topics from art to experimental method in the sciences, from philosophy and religion to butter softening, colic, gout, fever and the symbolism of human dress."

Both of these works are significant and essential to understanding Novalis's thought. Frank spends little time writing about Novalis's more poetic and wide ranging fragments like those found in the Encyclopaedia, which is unfortunate and to some extent might limit his understanding of the Fichte-Studies. As far as I can tell, the two projects continue a similar like of investigation that is focused on understanding the limits of science and systematization. Maybe they should be even read together, as a single project. In that case, the question of which is more important or more mature looses some of its allure.

Novalis and Lanugage

Here you will find an essay on Novalis and language by Katie Terezakis (Rochester Institute of Technology) published in the new edition of Janus Head. Janus Head is an online interdisciplinary journal that publishes philosophical essays, art and poetry. This issue has some essays on technology, Goethe, and poetry by Paul Celan.

Novalis Reviews

Here at the Times Literary Supplement is a nice review of some recent Novalis translations. Reviewed are David Wood's translation of Notes for a Romantic Encyclopaedia: Das Allgemeine Bruillon and Bruce Donehower's translation of Novalis's letters and journal in The Birth of Novalis.

Hölderlin's Hyperion

Ross Benjamin's new translation of Hölderlin's Hyperion is set to come out in Spring 2008, but if you can't wait that long you should get a copy of New England Review where some excerpts of the his translation have appeared. Here you can order the current issue for pretty cheap. The translation is noticeably different, and while improving on the poetry found in the William Trask translation (Continuum), Benjamin's translation is clearer and easier to read. Readers might remember that I posted about this new translation here.

Idealism Texts Online

Recently, I posted about some Hegel material that is online. At the same site there is a good bit of material from other figures:

Kant

Herder

Fichte

Schlegel

Schelling

Johann Gottlieb Fichte: A Romantic Novelist? (David W. Wood)

(A few months ago I promised that Self and World would host some Guest Bloggers. Well, we have our first installment from guest blogger David W. Wood. David recently published with SUNY a translation of Novalis writings, Notes for a Romantic Encyclopedia: Das Allgemeine Brouillon. He is currently writing an article on Fichte, Novalis and the arts for Fichte-Studien.)

It is no secret that the philosophy of J.G. Fichte made an enormous impact on the young romantics. According to Novalis’s own admission, he heavily fell under Fichte’s spell: “Fichte is the most dangerous thinker I know. He powerfully enchants one into his circle.” Novalis was not alone: The early Schelling ended up becoming the “town crier of the Fichtean I”, Hölderlin hitch-hiked to the university in 1794 to sit at the feet of the man who was “the soul of Jena”, while Friedrich Schlegel famously placed the Wissenschaftslehre alongside the French Revolution and Goethe’s Wilhelm Meister “as one of the three greatest tendencies of the age,” wildly praising Fichte himself “as a philosopher for whom Hamlet would have sighed in vain!” Schlegel and Novalis then carried out a sym-philosophical analysis of the Wissenschaftslehre – a joint study for which they coined the neologism “Fichticizing”.

However, could Fichte himself – the mentor of the Romantic School – ever be classified as a romantic? If explosive documents in the Gesamtausgabe (GA) of Fichte’s works are to be believed, the tentative answer is ‘yes’, and a romantic novelist at that. Frequently derided as the philosophical equivalent of a street-fighter, it now seems there was a much more feminine and ‘romantic’ side to Fichte. For like Hölderlin with Hyperion and Hardenberg (Novalis) with Heinrich von Ofterdingen, Fichte too tried his hand at writing a poetic-philosophic novel. Was Fichte then inspired by the literary efforts of these young romantics? The short answer is ‘no’, since Fichte the budding screenwriter came years before Fichte the philosopher of the Ich.

In 1788 in Zurich, while the three Friedrichs – Schlegel, Hölderlin and Hardenberg – were still fawning over the local Fräuleins and spurning the charms of Diotima, Johann Gottlieb was all pensive and Werther-like, busily composing for posterity a long meditation on love. It was only published 60 years later in 1846, by his son Immanuel Hermann; that is to say, more than 30 years after Fichte’s death, so chronologically we have to rule out any direct novelistic influence of the young romantics on Fichte.

But why has his literary gem been forgotten? – For in all fairness to the great philosopher from Rammenau, he easily holds his own with Goethe and almost out-romantics the romantics. Is not even the title of his piece: Das Thal der Liebenden – “The Valley of the Lovers” – a model of romantic irony? And the question now giving sleepless nights to the leading Fichte scholars: – is it possible to detect in Fichte’s unfinished novella from 1788 a prefiguring of the “A = A” of the Jena Wissenschaftslehre of 1794/95? Or perhaps, of the nova methodo of the Wissenschaftslehre of 1798/99; or dare we say it, of the Königsberg Wissenschaftslehre of 1807, surely conceived under the Schwärmerei of the recently departed Kant?

Finally, the novella once and for all puts paid to the horrible rumour of Fichte’s inelegant writing style (apparently started by a jealous Schiller), and to the stereotype of a Fichte wanting to create the world from out of his own I (apparently started by the dastardly Hegel) – he obviously wanted to create it through the might of his own pen. In any event, we leave it for sober readers to judge for themselves. Rescuing the tale from undeserved oblivion, we are delighted to provide a first English translation of the beginning of Fichte’s The Valley of the Lovers:

In the most charming region of Veltelin, a stone’s throw from the frontier to Italy, lies a tiny valley – called ‘the valley of the lovers’. Its groves are crammed with berries, oranges and lemons, all of which flourish without being tended, infusing summer and winter with the most exquisite smells. A tiny myrtle forest is nestled in its centre, and within this tiny myrtle forest lies a large grave-mound, encircled by roses permanently in bloom. Over-arched by towering wooded mountains and fenced in by crags, a mortal eye seldom catches sight of it, and the erring foot of a hiker rarely wanders here. All but a handful have penetrated this far. They experienced something like a spiritual breath – the kisses of an angel, wafting against their cheeks; a tender longing filled their souls; and unbeknown, tears streamed from their eyes – it was altogether delicious for them! Images of departed friends or loved ones passed before their souls, and they were overcome with inklings of reunion, with premonitions of eternal life, as they glimpsed the five small flames on the grave-mound in the tiny myrtle forest, symbols of reunited faithfulness after death. ….

Shepherds relate how centuries earlier a young knight had strayed into these parts. Lost at night in the dense thickets, exhausted and famished, he spied afar a fire through the scrub. It belonged to some shepherds guarding their flock. The shepherds willingly shared their meagre meal with him as he warmed himself by the fire. “It’s howling again in those bushes”, said one, as he suddenly approached the group. “The ghost of the poor hermit is whimpering and wailing again! God knows, how my skin crawls whenever I pass by there.” And another replied, “Me too, I’d much prefer to make the one-hour detour. And yet, he was such a good and pious man, the hermit… (GA II/1: 267ff.)

With its cognitive rigor and unmistakable political subtext, we are mystified as to why German scholars have drawn parallels with Lucinde – Friedrich Schlegel’s outrage aux bonnes moeurs. In conclusion, we also recall Novalis’s nocturnal wanderings to Sophie’s grave – and his cry of anguish on failing to find “the idea of infinite love” in Fichte. Star-crossed conjunctions indeed for the Romantic School and the whole course of German literature – if only Fichte had mustered enough philosophical courage to finish and publish The Valley of the Lovers!

(In a subsequent instalment of Fichte and the Romantics we will consider Fichte’s own romantic poetry. Yes, Fichte’s poetry).

New Hölderlin Translation

Good news on the Hölderlin front. A new translation of Hölderlin’s novel Hyperion is currently in preparation by Ross Benjamin for Archipelago Books. A new translation, I think, should illuminate aspects of Hölderlin’s German not available to English readers, without obscuring the original or perverting English syntax. From what Ross has told me, it sounds like his translation will do just that. With Hölderlin’s German, Ross is working to bring out its musicality. Hölderlin’s poetry is well known for its musical character, and in my experience, translations have not sufficiently recognized its pervasiveness, so I’m excited to see what Ross has in store for us.

We can expect the translation sometime in the Spring of 2008. If you are not familiar with Archipelago Books, you should seek out their somewhat recent publication of Novalis' The Novices Of Sais (Archipleago, 2005). The Novalis book is a beautiful edition that is accompanied by the drawings of Paul Klee. They have also published books by Musil, Buchner, and Rilke.

Jane Kneller's New Book on Kant

Jane Kneller (Colorado State University) recently published with Cambridge Press an exciting new work on Kant titled Kant and the Power of Imagination (Cambridge, 2007). I am preparing a review of it for the Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal and thought I would first share my thoughts here. All citations are to her book.

Kneller's book is just as much about the German Romantics (Novalis in particular) as it is about Kant. Kneller argues for a continuity thesis between Kant and the Romantics that brings Kant closer to the Romantic's enthusiasm for the creative imagination and Novalis closer to Kant's modesty about knowing the absolute, unconditioned ground of the self. Fichte, on such a reading, is taken to have overstepped what one can reasonably say about the self with his claim that intellectual intuition provides a rational insight into the grounding act of self-consciousness.

The lynchpin of Kneller's arguments for the continuity thesis is her claim that imaginative freedom (reflective judgment) suggests that "political and moral progress may be intimately connected with our ability to make universally valid aesthetic judgments" (38). Kneller believes if we consider imaginative freedom, it is possible to show how the highest good can actually be realized. Such a reading is meant to found hope for a moral world not in Kant's postulation of God, but in the human, imaginative capacity. Novalis' imperative, "The world must be romanticized", does not seem too far off.

Along with the Kantian ideas of theoretical and practical freedom, Kneller points to imaginative freedom, which is grounded in aesthetic reflective judgment and independent of the theoretical and practical domains. Reflective judgment does not exactly involve the categories and operates independently of the Categorical Imperative; "no concepts must be applied, no commands must be followed," Kneller says (43). The imaginative freedom of reflective judgment can be defined negatively as not constrained by theoretical reason or practical reason. Even further, when judging an object with disinterestedness the imagination is not tied to inclination, the good, habit or anything of the like, but reigns free. The imagination also operates freely for the artist who produces in art "aesthetic ideas".

Kneller's account of imaginative freedom is meant to reveal the possibility of the highest good's realization. A requirement it seems for one to believe in the possibility of a moral order is that one believe that through our own agency we can possibly bring about a moral world. Kneller thinks that this belief can be grounded in the power of imagination: "Our ability to represent such a world in imagination would allow us to believe in the possibility of a moral world on earth and in ourselves as creators of that world" (52). In other words, it is through imagination that we conceive of such a world order, which is then the highest good. God does not need then to be some motivating postulate since our own imaginative capacity is good enough to motivate us.

Many find Kant's postulation of God as reason to believe happiness and a moral world order are possible to be at least suspect and quite possibly inconsistent with his critical project. What is nice about Kneller's argument is it seems to displace the need for a postulate and grounds the possibility of a moral world order in human capacities. The argument seems to be a conceivability argument.

I guess the difficulty I find with the argument is that it does not seem to make any progress in demonstrating the possibility of our actualizing a moral world order. There is a real difference between the possibility of something and the possibility of our actualizing something. The difficulty is that something's possibility is simply not a motivating factor, and as it stands achieving a moral world order seems to lack a motivating factor. Kneller does remark on this point: "Whether in this world or in the next, it is hard to see how any mere postulate of reason, whether as a belief in God and immortality, or in human progress in history, or as a pact with reason itself, really solves the problem for Kant, because the problem is not just one of attitude, but of rational motivation: It is a matter of having good reason to imagine ourselves achieving what reason demands, of feeling that possibly we ourselves can accomplish a just world" (50). I think there is a disconnection between possibility and motivation, and I guess Kant would want to fill in the lacuna with the idea of respect for the moral law.

I think Kneller is right to suggest this as a consistent way of reading Kant. I also think she is right to claim that because of the argument's emphasis on thinking imaginatively about the world, Kant is brought closer to the Romantics in a way consistent with his own project.

Sir Isaiah Berlin Speaks!

I found this entertaining, which I read about at the blog Virtual Philosopher. It is a recording, available here, of Sir Isaiah Berlin speaking without breathing, with much disgust, and much misunderstanding, perhaps willful misunderstanding, about the Romantic movement and the German Idealists who, according to Berlin were enthusiasts of what he calls the indomitable will that creates values ex nihilo. Here's a quote about the Romantics and Idealists' view: "The heart of the entire process is invention, creation, making out of literally nothing, or out of any materials that may be to hand, and the most central aspect of this view is of course that your universe is, of course, as you choose to make it to some degree, at any rate; that is the philosophy of Fichte, that is to some extent the philosophy of Schelling…" The recording and similar materials can be found at The Isaiah Berlin Virtual Library.