The six essays presented in this volume afford the English-reading public the first serious and considered overview of the uniquely Germanic movements of psychological aesthetics and Kunstwissenschaft.

A partir de las reflexiones de dos conocidos historiadores del arte del siglo XX, Heinrich Wölfflin y Aby Warburg, se examina la vigencia de dos aspectos centrales de la teoría estética kantiana: por un lado, la posibilidad de emitir juicios de gusto plenamente acabados, lo que justificaría la empre..

A partir de las reflexiones de dos conocidos historiadores del arte del siglo XX, Heinrich Wölfflin y Aby Warburg, se examina la vigencia de dos aspectos centrales de la teoría estética kantiana: por un lado, la posibilidad de emitir juicios de gusto plenamente acabados, lo que justificaría la empresa de una deducción trascendental de los mismos, y, por el otro, su implicación en el conjunto de la vida cultural y social, es decir, la significación de la experiencia estética de (...) la forma, tan enfatizada en la doctrina kantiana del gusto. On the basis of the reflections of two well-known art historians of the 29th century, Heinrich Wölfflin and Aby Warburg, the article examines the validity of two central aspects of Kantian aesthetic theory: on the one hand, the possibility of providing fully complete judgments of taste, which would justify their transcendental deduction, and, on the other hand, their involvement in cultural and social life, that is, the significance of aesthetic experience as emphasized in the Kantian doctrine of taste. (shrink)

Now available in English for the first time, The Visibility of the Image explores the development of an influential aesthetic tradition through the work of six figures. Analysing their contribution to the progress of formal aesthetics, from its origins in Germany in the 1880s to semiotic interpretations in America a century later, the six chapters cover: Robert Zimmermann (1824-1898), the first to separate aesthetics and metaphysics and approach aesthetics along the lines of formal logic, providing a purely syntactic way of (...) using signs, regardless of objective content; Alois Riegl (1858-1905), who went on to further develop aesthetics on the model of formal logic, creating a theory of style in response to Zimmermann's call for an aesthetics oriented toward formal logic; Heinrich Wölfflin (1864-1945), who represents a step toward an understanding of consciousness by using pictures as cognitive tools; Konrad Fiedler (1841-1895), the Saxon philosopher who considered the possibility that some kinds of images are made and viewed not for what they show, but for their visibility's sake alone; Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961), responsible for taking up the connections between the problems of reducing the range of potential meanings and contexts of a given image down to just the picture surface; Charles William Morris (1901-1979), who set out to establish whether a picture with no objective reference, such as an abstract painting, still counts as a sign, and if so, in what sense. Bringing these thinkers together and interlinking their ideas, Lambert Wiesing presents an engaging history of formal aesthetics, while reconstructing the philosophical foundations for the appearance of new image forms in the 20th century, including the video-clip, abstract collage, digital simulation and virtual reality. Using this original approach, The Visibility of the Image introduces the rise of modern image theory and provides a valuable account of our engagement with pictures in the 21st century. (shrink)

Vor dem Hintergrund von Heinrich Wölfflins Kunstgeschichtlichen Grundbegriffen (1915) untersucht der Beitrag anhand kennerschaftlicher und formalistischer Forschungsansätze des 20. Jahrhunderts die Verwendung von Metaphern für die Beschreibung von graphischen Kunstwerken. Mittels musikalischer und anthropomorpher Begriffe wird gezeigt, wie sich insbesondere Metaphern mehr als andere sprachliche Mittel oder Begrifflichkeiten je nach methodischer Ausrichtung für Argumentationen vereinnahmen ließen und Konnotationen entsprechend wechseln konnten. Zugleich eignet ihnen ein besonderes rezeptionsästhetisches Potenzial, mit dem Kunstwerke scheinbar ›intuitiver‹ erfasst werden können.

In The Psychologizing of Modernity, Mark Jarzombek examines the impact of psychology on twentieth-century aesthetics. Analysing the interface between psychology, art history and avant-gardist practices, he also reflects on the longevity of the myth of aesthetic individuality as it infiltrated not only avant-garde art, but also history writing. The principal focus of this study is pre-World War II Germany, where theories of empathy and Entartung emerged; and post-war America, where artists, critics and historians gradually shifted from their reliance on psychology (...) to philosophy, and, most recently, to theory. Included are discussions of writers such as Heinrich Wölfflin, Ludwig Volkmann, John Dewey, Vincent Scully and Richard Arnheim, among others. The Psychologizing of Modernity is a broad and erudite study of the evolution of modern aesthetic thinking in the fields of art and architectural history. (shrink)

In a historiographical and methodological comparison of Formal Aesthetics and Iconology with the method of Affordance, the latter is to be introduced as a new method in Visual Cultural Studies. In extension ofepistemologically relevant aspects relatedtostyle and history of the artefacts, communicative and furthermoreaction and decisionrelevant aspects of artefacts become important. In this respect, it is the share of artefacts in life that the new method aims to uncover. The basis for this concern is the theory and methodological tools of (...) Visual Semiotics, which I have already presented. A direct comparison of the three methods based on the same example should clarify the points of contact and the respective performance of the methods. For this purpose, theChrist among the Doctorsof Albrecht Dürer from 1506 will be used, which was already examined in 1905 and indirectly in 1915 by the prominent representative of Formal Aesthetics Heinrich Wölfflin,and in 1914 and finally in1943by the founder of Iconology Erwin Panofsky. With the new method thecommunicative-actionand decision relevant aspects and thus their share in life should be shown. (shrink)

Renaissance and Baroque, two terms unknown in the ages they describe, are now an integral part of the general public's cultural vocabulary. The first encompasses European civilization from the mid-fifteenth century to around 1550, and the second refers to developments in the seventeenth century, with the intervening fifty years forming a period of transition termed Mannerism. Beginning with the appearance of Heinrich Wölfflin's Kunst geschichtliche Grundbegriffe in 1915, these two great epochs of intellectual development have been described quite successfully (...) by juxtaposing the one with the other. Wölfffin, for example, saw five great categories of discrimination between the two, namely Linear and Painterly, Plane and Recession, Closed and Open Form (Tectonic and A-tectonic Form), Multiplicity and Unity (Multiple Unity and Unified Unity), and Clearness and Unclearness (Absolute and Relative Clearness). More recently, Wylie Sypher in Four Stages of Renaissance Style has extended the list with the polar characteristics of Cyclic-Broken (Cyclothym-Schizothym), Exact-Abstract (Representational-Nonrepresentational), Visual-Haptic, Nearseeing-Farseeing, Dark-Light, Horizontal/Vertical-Oblique/Spiraling, and Points/Lines-Planes/Volumes. (shrink)

Nick Zangwill has done more than any person recently to resuscitate aesthetic formalism. I say "resuscitate" because formalism has not been in favor for several decades. Zangwill writes that "Aesthetic Formalism has fallen on hard times. At best it receives unsympathetic discussion and swift rejection. At worse it is the object of abuse and derision." The reasons many today believe aesthetic formalism is not viable have been the subject of discussion since the pendulum swing away from New Criticism, via the (...) work of William Wimsatt, Cleanth Brooks, Clement Greenberg, André Levinson, and Heinrich Wolfflin. Most of these reasons have been discussed thoroughly, and those that I will review here that have been discussed I will spend little time reconsidering. I believe, though, that there are a few more reasons why formalism has fallen on hard times, reasons that have not been much discussed, or at least not directly. They are the subject of this article. (shrink)

La mayoría de las épocas histórico-artísticas han adquirido su denominación en tiempos recientes. La época comprendida entre el siglo XVII y la primera mitad del XVIII terminó siendo bautizada por Heinrich Wölfflin como Barroco, aunque el concepto ya existía previamente con otras acepciones y no como estilo. A partir de las obras del escritor suizo Renacimiento y Barroco (1888) y de Conceptos fundamentales de la historia del arte (1915) el concepto comenzó a adquirir unas dimensiones insospechadas hasta el punto (...) de que a nuestra época se la ha denominado neobarroco, por las analogías con aquélla. En el presente trabajo voy a utilizar el concepto de barroco como un instrumento de corte, ante todo, estético y estilístico que, al mismo tiempo, va unido a cuestiones epocales y anímicas con objeto de analizar determinadas propuestas artísticas en diferentes campos, como la pintura y la música, mostrando que la proyección del concepto abarca ámbitos de la realidad de gran eficacia hermenéutica. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reflections on Raphael PAUL BAROLSKY The essence of all appreciation and analysis of art is the translation of visual perceptions into compelling verbal form. —Ralph Lieberman cultural unity Horace Walpole, Sir Joshua Reynolds, Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Eugène Delacroix, Honoré Balzac, Friedrich Hegel, Charles Baudelaire, Friedrich Nietzsche, Pierre Renoir, Nathaniel Hawthorne, August Wilhelm von Schlegel, Heinrich von Kleist, Franz Grillparzer, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Ivan Turgenev, Wilhelm Heinrich Wackenroder, George (...) Eliot, Jean-Auguste Dominique Ingres, Roger Fry, Bernard Berenson, Theodor Hetzer, Roberto Longhi, Heinrich Wölfflin, and Stendhal are among the many essayists, critics, novelists, poets, painters and art historians who have responded to Raphael’s work as painter, architect or archeologist over the centuries. I can well imagine all of those listed above, among many others, united in an imaginary painting similar to the School of Athens—in other words, a vision that reconciles their various views of the world in a harmony analogous to the unity of philosophers in Raphael’s great fresco. Raphael is a towering figure in the history of European culture. The year 2020 was the 500th anniversary of the death of the great painter in Rome at the age of thirty-seven. In the wake of recent exhibitions that commemorated the artist’s achievement, I propose to touch briefly and lightly on a few aspects arion 28.2 fall 2020 100 reflections on raphael of Raphael’s life and works. Please think of these remarks as a series of suggestions, not attempts at definitive interpretation. I think of this essay as a rather experimental piece. THE SCHOOL OF ATHENS i should like to begin with a few brief remarks on what must be Raphael’s most famous work of art. I mean his School of Athens (fig. 1), which is, like Leonardo’s Mona Lisa and Last Supper or like Michelangelo’s David and Creation of Adam, an image widely known and admired. What more is there to say about The School Of Athens, one of the central images in the Stanza della Segnatura? You might spend the rest of your life reading about this great work and never understand it fully. Nevertheless, I want to focus for a moment on a central detail of the work and, on the basis of my description, point to a significant aspect of the fresco that has been universally overlooked. First the description, then the aperçu. Fig. 1. School of Athens. Ca. 1510–1512. Photo Credit : Erich Lessing / Art Resource, NY. Paul Barolsky 101 At the center of the School of Athens we behold the two great philosophers of classical antiquity: Plato and Aristotle. Plato holds a copy of his Timaeus, a dialogue that concerns the harmony of the heavens; Aristotle holds a copy of his Ethics, a work that pertains to human relations in this world. It was the goal of Renaissance thinkers to create a harmony or concord of the thought of these philosophers: a Concordia Platonis et Aristotelis. Raphael’s fresco, as is well known, presents the visual ideal of such harmony. Whereas Aristotle gestures downward, alluding to this world, in which his Ethics matter, Plato points heavenward, evoking the order of the cosmic realm described in Timaeus. Raphael makes visible the ideal of concordia when he movingly pictures the way in which the two philosophers gaze into each other’s eyes, as if to suggest this harmony. Borrowing from the language of Raphael ’s friend, Baldassare Castiglione, Raphael renders “the joining” of their souls. The monumental architecture of the scene, which echoes Bramante and has taproots in Piero della Francesca and Perugino, consists of three barrel-vaults beyond which we see patches of blue sky and puffs of cloud (fig. 2). The grandiose architecture of the image magnifies Raphael’s philosophers. Within this architectural framework, Plato’s gesture is deeply meaningful, since it prompts the viewer to look up and thus ascend toward the perfection of the celestial realm, beyond the imperfections of the physical world. Above the first barrel vault in the fresco we behold a section of the drum of a dome which is open to the sky. Within this section of drum there are two columns that are lined up directly... (shrink)

This is an English translation of “‘Das Problem des Stills in der bildenden Kunst’” (1915). It is Erwin Panofsky’s first published essay and provides a critique of the famous theory of pictorial style by Panofsky’s distinguished predecessor, Heinrich Wölfflin.

Drawing on recent attempts to critically reconstruct the ideas of Heinrich Wölfflin, this paper argues that there is a specific ‘logic of depiction’ that is distinctive to visual as opposed to verbal forms of representation. The aim is to provide a set of objective parameters that can allow a comparative analysis of the formal organization of pictures despite differences in period, subject matter, format, etc. The paper seeks to show that such an analysis is possible and that it possesses (...) explanatory force. Its frame is a critical engagement with Richard Wollheim's theory of style. Wollheim holds that general style terms are merely tools of classification and that they are relative to the changing point of view of those who seek to understand the art of the past. However, the critical reconstruction of Wölfflin's fundamental concepts aims to identify necessary conditions for visual representation as such. The fundamental concepts function not as taxonomic categories but as ‘limit concepts’ that demarcate a scale of possibilities and thus enable meaningful comparison of artworks. (shrink)

This paper, based on a talk given at the Art Gallery of New South Wales, is presented as an example of philosophy done in an art gallery. Its subject is Tom Roberts’ painting Holiday Sketch at Coogee (1888), and as well as responding directly to the painting in the environment of the gallery, it draws on the author's memories of seeing that painting in other times and places. It draws on these personal experiences to relate Roberts’ painting to a controversial (...) idea laid out by art historian Heinrich Wölfflin, and to more recent conventionalist and resemblance theories of pictorial representation. It finishes by affirming one of Roberts’ important achievements: his discarding of inherited European ways of picture‐making, and his place among the first generation of non‐indigenous artists to represent the real colours of the Australian landscape. (shrink)

Erwin Panofsky explicitly states that the first half of the opening chapter of Studies in Iconology—his landmark American publication of 1939—contains ‘the revised content of a methodological article published by the writer in 1932’, which is now translated for the first time in this issue of Critical Inquiry.1 That article, published in the philosophical journal Logos, is among his most important works. First, it marks the apogee of his series of philosophically reflective essays on how to do art history,2 that (...) reach back, via a couple of major pieces on Alois Riegl, to the 1915 essay on Heinrich Wölfflin.3 Under the influence of his colleague at Hamburg Ernst Cassirer, the principal interpreter of Kant in the 1920s, Panofsky from 1915 on exhibits in his work ever more Kantian thinking and language.4 But Logos was not an art-historical review or one dedicated to aesthetics but a principal mainstream journal of the philosophy of culture. So ‘On the Problem of Describing and Interpreting Works of the Visual Arts’ has a good claim to be the culmination of Panofsky's philosophical thinking in his German period under the Weimar Republic. · 1. Erwin Panofsky, Studies in Iconology: Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance , p. xv; hereafter abbreviated SI. See Panofsky, ‘Zum Problem der Beschreibung und Inhaltsdeutung von Werken der bildenden Kunst’, Logos 21 : 103–19; trans. Jaś Elsner and Katharina Lorenz under the title ‘On the Problem of Describing and Interpreting Works of the Visual Arts’, Critical Inquiry 38 : 467–82; hereafter abbreviated ‘P’.· 2. See the discussion in Carlo Ginzburg, ‘From Aby Warburg to E. H. Gombrich: A Problem of Method’, Myths, Emblems, Clues, trans. John and Anne C. Tedeschi , pp. 17–59, esp. pp. 36–41.· 3. See Panofsky, ‘Das Problem des Stils in der bildenden Kunst’, Deutschsprachige Aufsätze, ed. Karen Michels and Martin Warnke, 2 vols. , 2:1009–18; ‘Der Begriff des Kunstwollens’,Deutschsprachige Aufsätze, 2:1019–34, trans. Kenneth J. Northcott and Joel Snyder under the title ‘The Concept of Artistic Volition’, Critical Inquiry 8 : 17–33; and ‘Über das Verhältnis der Kunstgeschichte zur Kunsttheorie: Ein Beitrag zu der Erörterung über die Möglichkeit kunstwissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe’, Deutschsprachige Aufsätze, 2: 1035–63, trans. Lorenz and Elsner under the title ‘On the Relationship of Art History and Art Theory: Towards the Possibility of a Fundamental System of Concepts for a Science of Art’, Critical Inquiry 35 : 43–71.· 4. On neo-Kantianism in pre-Nazi Germany, see Michael Friedman, A Parting of the Ways: Carnap, Cassirer, and Heidegger , pp. 25–37; Éric Dufour and T. Z. R. Créteil, ‘Le Statue du singulier: Kant et le néokantisme de l’École de Marbourg', Kantstudien 93 : 324–50; Edward Skidelsky, Ernst Cassirer: The Last Philosopher of Culture , pp. 22–51; and Peter E. Gordon, Continental Divide: Heidegger, Cassirer, Davos , pp. 52–86. Specifically on the Cassirerian Kantianism of Panofsky, see Michael Podro, The Critical Historians of Art , pp. 181–82; Michael Ann Holly, Panofsky and the Foundations of Art History , pp. 91–92, 147–52; Silvia Ferretti, Cassirer, Panofsky, and Warburg: Symbol, Art, and History, trans. Richard Pierce , pp. 174–77, 182–84; David Summers, ‘Meaning in the Visual Arts as a Humanistic Discipline’, in Meaning in the Visual Arts: Views from the Outside, ed. Irving Lavin , pp. 9–24; Mark A. Cheetham, Kant, Art, and Art History: Moments of Discipline , pp. 68–77; Paul Crowther, The Transhistorical Image: Philosophizing Art and Its History , pp. 70–73; Allister Neher, ‘“The Concept of Kunstwollen”, Neo-Kantianism, and Erwin Panofsky's Early Art Theoretical Essays', Word and Image 20 : 41–51; Georges Didi-Huberman,Confronting Images: Questioning the Ends of a Certain History of Art, trans. John Goodman , pp. 4–6, 90–138; and Lorenz and Elsner, ‘Translators’ Introduction', Critical Inquiry35 : 33–42, esp. pp. 38, 40–42. (shrink)

The article is an inquiry into the contribution that choreology made to the Russian/State Academy of Artistic Sciences (GAKhN) as both an institutional and research project. Choreology was a new discipline that Aleksei Sidorov and Aleksandr Larionov created following up Vassily Kandinsky’s idea that dance and, more widely, the art of movement, should be a subject of scholarly and scientific investigation. In his capacity as the academic secretary of GAKhN, Sidorov founded the Choreological Laboratory (1922–1929), and Larionov served as its (...) head. Both took an active part in movement analyses, made sketches and notes, and used photography to capture dance movements and to create a system of dance notation. Their search was informed by Allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft, and especially by Heinrich Wölfflin; at the same time, their interest in dance notation grew from their search for occult signs and symbols. In Sidorov’s notes and sketches from the 1920s, one can see the process of making signs for a language of dance notation. The attempt by the Russians to schematize movement and find an abstract language for dance paralleled an effort by the Central-European choreographer and dance theoretician, Rudolf von Laban. A unique and only half-realized project, choreology was a valuable contribution to the new “artistic sciences.”. (shrink)

It was the general practice until not at all long ago to look at Turner as one of the moderns, if not as one of the founding fathers of modern art. He was a man straddling the fence between two periods, but he was looking forward. In a history of art that marches through time, forever endorsing what is about to be forgotten, wrapping up, as it were, one style to open eagerly the package of the next, such a position (...) is most enviable for, no matter where the times may be going, it is a hallmark of greatness to be ahead of one's time. There were things to be explained, of course, Turner himself, a keen pessimist, did not approved of the future and had little use for the present.1 His love of art was schooled on Reynolds' Discourses, and he remained loyal to them; his poets were Thomson and Pope and, among contemporaries, the rather frigid but delicate Samuel Rogers, a classicist par excellence. Above all, however, Turner looked back to classical antiquity for training and guidance, and for the delectation of his heart. And the poetry of the ancients, such as he could obtain it in translation, was as important to him as their art. What does one do with a declared classicist whom a historicizing hindsight feels compelled to rescue as a man of the future by making him a Romantic? It is a challenge stylistic analysis likes to meet, for it goes beneath what it declares to be the surface of a work of art to find its style, the essence that must conform to the presumed spirit of the age in question. The triumphant result of such studies in depth is a forgone conclusion as much as it is a surprise to the uninitiated. The facade of the Louvre, for example, used to suffice to make it a building in the classical style; it took the acumen of a Wölfflin to prove that it really was "baroque." The more the artist struggled not to be of his time, the more, poor man, he betrayed to the analyst that he was of his time. The Louvre facade stands convicted of being "classicizing-baroque."2 · 1. On Turner's view of the modern art of his time see John Gage, Color in Turner: Poetry and Truth , pp.97-105. On his literary education and taste see the seminal essay by Jerrold Ziff, "Turner on Poetry and Painting, " Studies in Romanticism 3 no. 4 : 193-215. Turner's poetical writings have been edited by Jack Lindsay, The Sunset Ship: The Poems of J.M.W. Turner . For the most recent and also most elegantly practical introduction to the work and life of Turner, see the catalogue of the Turner Exhibition of the Royal Academy and the Tate Gallery, Turner, 1775-1851 . · 2. This is now a commonplace of art historical teaching. See, for example, Gardner’s Art Through the Ages, 6th ed. Horst de la Croix and Richard G. Tansey , p. 632. On the theory behind the application to the particular case, see Heinrich Wölfflin, Principles of Art History, trans. M. D. Hottinger . Philipp Fehl, artist and art historian, is currently preparing a collection of essays, Art and Morality: Studies in the History of the Classical Tradition. He is a professor in the department of art and design at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "Farewell to Jokes: The Last Capricci of Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo and the Tradition of Irony in Venetian Painting" was published in Summer 1979 in Critical Inquiry. (shrink)

Künstlerbiographien sind seit jeher eine beliebte Darstellungsform der Kunstgeschichte. Eine Untersuchung der Genese dieser Textgattung fehlte jedoch bislang. Nahezu zweihundert Jahre waren die in der Tradition Vasaris entstandenen Viten vorherrschend. Nach 1700 wandten sich von dieser Frühform der Biographie allerdings auch jene Autoren ab, denen es weiterhin ein Anliegen blieb, "Geschichte der Künstler" zu vermitteln, jedoch erprobten sie innerhalb der Künstlergeschichte neue methodische Ansätze. In diesem Buch wird erstmals die historische Entwicklung dargestellt, in deren Verlauf sich die topos- und anekdotenreiche (...) Vita zur wissenschaftlichen Künstlerbiographie wandelte. In diesem Prozess kristallisierten sich die entscheidenden strukturellen Merkmale heraus, die noch heute für das Genre charakteristisch sind. So lässt sich für die Künstlerbiographien im 18. und in der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts ein ähnlicher Verwissenschaftlichungsprozess feststellen wie für die anderen historiographischen Gattungen dieser Jahrzehnte. Das zeigt die Analyse einer Reihe bedeutender Biographien vor allem zu Künstlern der Renaissance wie Dürer, Cranach und Raffael, die in dieser Zeit im deutschsprachigen Raum entstanden. Dabei wird vornehmlich die Umgewichtung im Verhältnis von Lebensbeschreibung und Werkanalyse systematisch nachgezeichnet. Besondere Bedeutung kommt in der Untersuchung dem Mythos der Kongruenz von Künstlerleben, Charakter und Œuvre zu. Während der zentrale Topos vom "tugendhaften" und "erfinderischen" Künstler in der Vita noch zu einer Unterscheidung zwischen empirischer Person und Künstlerexistenz zwang, gelang es im Rahmen des biographischen Konzeptes der "Künstlerbiographie" zunehmend, die beiden Aspekte unter dem Begriff des "Genies" zu vereinen. Einen weiteren Schwerpunkt bildet die Rekonstruktion der Rezeptionsgeschichte der Künstlerbiographien. Die zahlreichen theoretisch-methodologischen Reflexionen in den Jahrzehnten zwischen 1820 bis 1840 zeugen von dem Versuch der frühen Kunsthistoriker, die Biographie zu einer führenden Methode der Kunstgeschichte zu etablieren. Es werden auch die Dispute untersucht, die in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts und den ersten Jahrzehnten nach 1900 für die Kanonisierung der Kunstgeschichte als Wissenschaft grundlegende Bedeutung hatten und bei denen der biographische Ansatz eine wichtige Rolle spielte. Nicht zuletzt die vernichtende Kritik Heinrich Wölfflins, des Verfechters einer "Kunstgeschichte ohne Namen", der die Biographie der Unwissenschaftlichkeit bezichtigte, hat entscheidend dazu beigetragen, diese, wenngleich nicht aus dem Schrifttum, so doch aus der Wissenschaftsgeschichte zu verdrängen. Erst der fundamentale Paradigmenwechsel von der Künstlergeschichte hin zur überpersönlichen Stilgeschichte, der sich ab der Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts vollzog, konnte jahrhundertelang den Blick auf die Tatsache verstellen, dass der biographische Aspekt der Kunstgeschichte damit keineswegs obsolet geworden ist. (shrink)

Einleitung.--Die begriffliche Erkenntniss der Körperwelt.--Natur und Geist.--Natur und Geschichte.--Die historische Begriffsbildung.--Naturphilosophie und Geschichts-Philosophie.

A fundamental notion in a large part of mathematics is the notion of equicardinality. The language with Hartig quantifier is, roughly speaking, a first-order language in which the notion of equicardinality is expressible. Thus this language, denoted by LI, is in some sense very natural and has in consequence special interest. Properties of LI are studied in many papers. In [BF, Chapter VI] there is a short survey of some known results about LI. We feel that a more extensive exposition (...) of these results is needed. The aim of this paper is to give an overview of the present knowledge about the language LI and list a selection of open problems concerning it. After the Introduction $(\S1)$ , in $\S\S2$ and 3 we give the fundamental results about LI. In $\S4$ the known model-theoretic properties are discussed. The next section is devoted to properties of mathematical theories in LI. In $\S6$ the spectra of sentences of LI are discussed, and $\S7$ is devoted to properties of LI which depend on set-theoretic assumptions. The paper finishes with a list of open problem and an extensive bibliography. The bibliography contains not only papers we refer to but also all papers known to us containing results about the language with Hartig quantifier. Contents. $\S1$ . Introduction. $\S2$ . Preliminaries. $\S3$ . Basic results. $\S4$ . Model-theoretic properties of $LI. \S5$ . Decidability of theories with $I. \S6$ . Spectra of LI- sentences. $\S7$ . Independence results. $\S8$ . What is not yet known about LI. Bibliography. (shrink)

In this paper we discuss Gabbay's idea of basing nonmonotonic deduction on semantic consequence in intuitionistic logic extended by a consistency operator and Turner's suggestion of replacing the intuitionistic base system by Kleene's three-valued logic. It is shown that a certain counterintuitive feature of these approaches can be avoided by using Nelson's constructive logic N instead of intuitionistic logic or Kleene's system. Moreover, in N a more general notion of consistency can be defined and nonmonotonic deduction can thus be based (...) on a logical system satisfying the Deduction Theorem. (shrink)

Text: Reproduktion nach Scan der Ausgabe von 1934, Verlag von J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) in Tübingen. - Von dem kleinen Buch, das ich hier der Öffentlichkeit übergebe, bitte ich den Leser, nichts anderes zu erwarten, als das, was sein Titel ausdrücklich sagt. Es handelt sich in ihm nicht etwa um die Grundlinien eines Systems der Philosophie, sondern ausschließlich um dessen Probleme, und wenn diese sich auch nicht darlegen lassen, ohne die Richtung anzudeuten, in der das System bei der (...) Ausführung sich zu bewegen hätte, so sollen doch in dieser Schrift hauptsächlich Fragen gestellt, nicht Antworten gegeben werden. Oft brechen die Darlegungen dort ab, wo mancher Leser glauben kann, daß die größten Schwierigkeiten noch ungelöst sind. Ja mehr: nur die Grundprobleme der Philosophie werden erörtert, und das Eingehen auf Sonderfragen ist fast überall vermieden. Einzelheiten sind dann allein herangezogen worden, wenn es zur Verdeutlichung der Hauptbegriffe wünschenswert erschien. [Auszug aus dem Vorwort des Buches]. (shrink)