Im 18. Jahrhundert bestand ein uberraschend grosses Interesse am Denker, Schriftsteller und Menschen David Hume (1711-1776), das die ganze Vielheit in den Voraussetzungen und Zielen der deutschen Aufklarung widerspiegelt. Zunachst standen die religionsphilosophischen Thesen Humes im Vordergrund; sie wurden durchweg abgelehnt und haufig nur polemisch zuruckgewiesen. Gerade als sich die Chance einer sachgerechteren Beurteilung Humes bot, revolutionierte Kant die gesamte Philosophie, und Hume wurde nur noch als der auslosende Faktor der Kantischen Metaphysikkritik gesehen. Die umstrittene Frage, wann und durch welches (...) seiner Werke Hume Kants dogmatischen Schlummer unterbrach, wird zur Entscheidung gebracht und damit zugleich eine neue These zu Kants philosophischer Entwicklung prasentiert. In the 18th century there was a surprisingly large amount of interest in the thinker, author and human being David Hume (1711-1776), and this interest reflected the entire range of requirements and goals of the German Enlightenment. To begin with, the focus was on Humes theories of the philosophy of religion, theories which were rejected without exception and often only polemically repudiated. Just when there was a chance of having an objective assessment of Humes work, Kant revolutionized philosophy, and Hume was seen merely as the factor which triggered Kants metaphysics. The controversial question of when and in which of his works Hume interrupted Kant's dogmatic slumber is brought to a head, and thus at the same time a new theory pertaining to Kant's philosophical development is presented. (shrink)

This article wants to recall a hitherto unnoticed edition of Cicero’s De Natura Deorum, which the classical philologist Matthäus Dresser (1536–1615) published with an extensive commentary. This edition, however, represents a remarkable peculiarity within the reception history of Cicero’s text, since Dresser neither claims to be a philologist, interested in textual criticism, nor a neutral historian of the philosophy of religion. Rather, as an apologetically oriented Protestant in times of confessional conflict, he is concerned with the argumentative validity of the (...) different answers to the questions discussed in Cicero’s text: Do gods exist? What qualities do they have? What activities do they display? And which relevance do these answers have for Christian monotheism? Hence, we may speak of a selective commentary, first and foremost interested in the truth or falsehood of the various answers to these main questions, in order to set contemporary readers (especially scholars and students) on the right track and to save them from severe religious errors. Dresser aims to achieve his goal by adding to the text not only extensive Annotationes, but also an introductory Argumentum to each of the three Ciceronian books of De Natura Deorum. He also gives two Disputationes (in the form of theses) at the end of each book, which provide a résumé and further guidance on interpretation. Thus he firmly rejects the atomism of Epicureanism and its denial of Providence, as explained in the first book. Dresser has to take a differentiated view of the views of Stoicism as presented in the second book: Besides many beneficial doctrines, this school of philosophers also holds fatalistic and pantheistic views which have to be rejected as dangerous to the Christian faith. As the sceptic Cotta radically rebukes the religious views of Epicureanism in the third book, but also attacks in large part Stoic theism and its idea of providence, which is also dear to Dresser’s heart, he is forced to oppose academic scepticism. This gives rise to a “theodicy” avant la lettre by Dresser, since Cottas denial of providence had also argued with the existence of evil in God’s creation. The Epicurean conceptions of God are thus not an option. Those of Stoicism are acceptable if purged of dangerous elements. Scepticism in its radical academic form must be eliminated by argument. In this article, these features of Dresser’s Annotationes and Disputationes are described and analysed in detail. Important parts of his commentaries are quoted in the author’s translation. Completely translated are the Disputationes 1 and 2 to Book III, dealing with the sceptical ’epoché’ or retention of judgement. Thus, the contribution not only represents a unique example of the reception of Cicero’s De Natura Deorum in the age of confessionalism, but also gives an insight into the reception of the three Hellenistic schools of philosophy in the early modern period in general, especially that of scepticism. (shrink)

British philosophy in the eighteenth century was thoroughly unacademic. Its representatives were men of various professions, not professors . They aimed at a unified explanation of phenomena, both physical and moral, and the improvement of human affairs. They wrote for the general public and therefore preferred the easy style of the essay, letter or dialogue to the heavy bulk of the treatise. Their patterns of thought were set by Newton and Bacon, and among ancient philosophers it was Cicero to whom (...) they felt most akin. (shrink)

It is well-known among historians that rhetoric was at the centre of the studia humaniora in the Italian Renaissance and an important part of education in those times. In this essay the author draws attention to three short tracts discussing the merits of rhetoric from various points of view. Ognibene da Lonigo claims in Oratio de laudibus eloquentiae that rhetoric is absolutely indispensable in all fields of human life. In Filippo Beroaldo’s Declamatio philosophi, medici et oratoris de excellentia disceptantium, the (...) orator gains the victory over his rivals. Both these writers argue mainly by citing ‘authorities’. In his Dialogus de eloquentia, Marcantonio Maioragio tries to argue by rational argument for the higher value of the studia humaniora over an exclusively Christian education. None of the three authors achieves more than plausibility for his claim. The echo of Cicero’s philosophical and rhetorical works is clearly perceptible in all of them. (shrink)

In his essay the author draws attention to two 16th century humanists who engaged in the debate on Cicero the Man. In 1534, Ortensio Lando, a man of letters, published Cicero relegatus & Cicero revocatus, which was a collection of objections to Cicero’s character and habits brought forward in an imaginary conversation, as well as of arguments in his defence proposed in an equally fictitious public hearing, thus producing an apparent equilibrium. Lando, however, did not leave us guessing about his (...) meaning, but gave us hints about his own attitude to Cicero. In 1537, Sebastiano Corrado, an editor and commentator of various Ciceronian writings, published In M. T. Ciceronem Quaestura, a collection of textual emendations to his œuvres. In order to make it more attractive reading, he wrote it in dialogue form and called the readings he approved of, ‘gold coins’, those he rejected, ‘false coins’, thus building a stock of allegedly reliable readings. The coin metaphor recurred in Corrado’s Egnatius, sive Quaestura which was an attempt to lay, in form of dialogue, the foundations of a reliable biography of Cicero. Here three scholars discuss all the information provided by Cicero himself, his contemporaries and later sources on his life and work. Information they approve of is treasured as gold coin, the rest is rejected as false coin. It turns out, however, that Corrado was strongly prejudiced against Greek sources shedding an unfavourable light on Cicero. The result was an apology rather than a biography of Cicero. (shrink)

Vorwort - O. Bayer: Johann Georg Hamann - Radikaler Aufklarer als Metakritiker - D. Berman: Hume and Collins: Two Ways of Lying Theologically - U. Dierse: Nachtrage zu G. F. Meiers Religionsphilosophie - K. Dusing: Schema und Einbildungskraft in Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft - J. Ecole: Des rapports de l'essence et de l'existence selon Wolff - E. J. Engel: Mendelssohn und Spinoza: Dankesschuld und Rettung - N. Hinske: Die Kritik der reinen Vernunft und der Freiraum des Glaubens. Zur Kantrezeption (...) des Jenaer Fruhkantianismus - H.-U. Hoche: Anthropologische Komplementaritat und die Einheit der Sache. Versuch einer skeptischen Losung eines skeptischen Zweifels - M. Hossenfelder: Der Liberalismus als Naturrecht im Anschluss an Kant - L. Kreimendahl: Hume uber das Misslingen aller philosophischen Versuche in der Theodizee um 1748 - R. H. Popkin: Scepticism and Optimism in the Late 18th Century - H. Graf Reventlow: Vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit. Bibel und Philosophie von Thomas von Aquin bis H. S. Reimarus - W. Schneiders: Vernunft und Verstand - Krisen eines Begriffspaares - W. Schroder: Aporien des theologischen Liberalismus. Johann Lorenz Schmidts Pladoyer fur 'eine allgemeine Religions- und Gewissensfreyheit' - R. Specht: Sind einfache Ideen einfach und gegeben? - I. Strohschneider-Kohrs: Anmerkungen zu Lessings Selbstdeutungs-Bildern - W. Strube: Der Begriff des Erhabenen in der deutschsprachigen Asthetik des 18. Jahrhunderts - Bibliographie Gunter Gawlick 1956-1993. Zusammengestellt von U. Golembek. (shrink)