The aim is to examine Alois Riehl’s contribution to the “culture war” (Kulturkampf) in the second half of the nineteenth century. We show that he used Kant’s autonomy principle to argue against the idea that religious dogmatism is a fundament of morality. We prove this thesis by focusing on the forgotten historical background, which is important for an understanding of Morals und Dogma. Originally this essay was an expert opinion for the court case of the socialist H. Tauschinski who was (...) accused of blasphemy. Tauschinski wrote an article in which he doubted the immortality of the soul and the existence of a personal God. These two dogmas of the Catholic Church were considered bу the Austrian authorities to be the foundations of public order. Riehl questioned not only the charge but also the validity of religious dogmas for morality. Based on Kant’s ethics, he argued for a moral indifferentism of religious dogmas. His career was significantly influenced by this essay, because of its anti-clerical content. During the culture war, Riehl repeatedly had problems with the authorities, especially in the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. The “Neurath-Haller Thesis” argues that in Austria the appointment of professorships was controlled and monitored by the state, with the goal of installing a philosophy which was beneficial to the interests of the state, and a strong anti-Kantianism in Austrian Philosophy as a consequence. We can agree with this thesis insofar as Riehl in the period of the “Catholic Renaissance” in Austria was not allowed to succeed Ernst Mach. The analysis of Riehl’s arguments allows us furthermore to understand Riehl as a neo-Kantian as early as 1871/1872, which has been questioned by many authors who think the early Riehl was no Kantian. (shrink)

With the first edition of the Philosophical Criticism, published in the 1870s and 1880s, Alois Riehl became the founder and most important representative of Realistic Criticism, and emerged as one of the leading figures in German-speaking philosophy at the turn of the century. In 1901, he applied for a chair at the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Vienna. In the appointment procedure for the succession to Ernst Mach, he was chosen by the committee with the recommendation unico loco, (...) and also confirmed by the faculty. Nevertheless, the Minister of Education, Wilhelm von Hartel, rejected the recommendation for political and ideological reasons. Using previously unpublished archival sources, the present study reconstructs Riehl’s academic career, the conditions of the appointment procedure, the internal decision-making processes, and the reasons that ultimately led to his rejection. The aim of the article is to develop a case study that, first, makes educational policy in Austria visible and, second, critically evaluates the term Austrian Philosophy that dates back to this time. (shrink)

Das vorliegende Buch greift mit dem Vermögen der Einbildungskraft ein Thema auf, das in eine lebhafte Forschungsdiskussion eingebettet ist. Dem Band gelingt es, namhafte Forscherinnen und Forscher aus verschiedenen Disziplinen — der Philosophie, der Wissenschaftsgeschichte und den Kunstwissenschaften — zu diesem Thema zu versammeln. Aus diesem Grund ist das Buch für Aufklärungsforscherinnen und Aufklärungsforscher unterschiedlicher Richtungen von großem Interesse.

Viennese Brain Research and the Formation of Austrian Positivism. In this paper, I want to argue that the Vienna School of Medicine and especially the Viennese Brain Anatomy had an impact on the formation of the Austrian positivism. I argue that Carl von Rokitansky's (1804–1878) doctrine that psychological phenomena must be translated into anatomical facts and Theodor Meynert's (1833–1892) theory of brain functions served as one basis for the formation of the Austrian positivism. In this sense, two of the main (...) early positivistic thinkers, Ernst Mach (1838–1916) and Richard Wahle (1857–1935), used Meynert's brain theory to argue for a bundle view of the Self. Friedrich Jodl (1849–1914) also thought about his theory, and even Moritz Schlick (1882–1936) who demanded a ‘reduction of the psychology to the brain physiology’ grappled with this approach. Meynert, a scholar of Rokitansky, the founder of the Vienna School of Medicine, was a leading figure in the history of neurology and has made several significant contributions to this discipline. He argues that the Self does not exist from an anatomical point of view. As Richard Wahle tells us, Meynert's theory of the brain functions was widely accepted under the brain researchers by the end of the nineteenth century and at the beginning of the twentieth century. He makes clear that brain researchers did in common refer to Meynert's theory to explain psychical functions as brain functions. He says from their point of view there was no doubt about it. Mach talks about Meynert's theory in Erkenntnis und Irrtum. There he says that Meynert's brain theory explains the nature and conditions of the consciousness. Michael Hagner argues that Mach's “Das Ich ist unrettbar” is hardly imaginable without the cerebral embedding of the mental functions. (shrink)

This book discusses questions concerning mind and matter, substance and accident, and knowledge and experience in the work of a wide range of nineteenth and early twentieth century philosophers, giving a problem-oriented account of Austrian philosophy and its role in the conception of analytic philosophy and logical empiricism. At the centre of the book is the debate about the relation between empirical science and metaphysics, and the question of whether empirical psychology depends on the metaphysics of the soul - the (...) mental substance. Friedrich Albert Lange’s famous dictum to create a “psychology without a soul” pointed the way. (shrink)

Zusammenfassung Dieser Aufsatz widmet sich Riehls Auseinandersetzung mit empirischen Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften. Der Neukantianer Riehl wurde in diesem Zusammenhang bisher kaum berücksichtigt. Ein großes Interesse verdient er sich aufgrund seiner Ablehnung des Ansatzes der Südwestdeutschen Schule des Neukantianismus, die sich aus seiner erkenntnistheoretischen Position ergibt. Er sprach sich gegen einen Methodendualismus zwischen Geistes- und Naturwissenschaften und für eine wertfreie Geschichtswissenschaft aus. Ähnlich wie Karl Lamprecht fordert er eine strikte Trennung zwischen Wissenschaft und Weltanschauung und die Implementierung einer kausal-genetischen Betrachtungsweise. Aus (...) diesem Grund trat er in den späten 1880er Jahren als wichtiger Förderer und Wegbereiter der Ethnologie in Freiburg in Erscheinung, förderte in Berlin Anfang der 1900er Jahre die Wissenschaftstheorie wesentlich und erwarb sich schließlich auch als ein Förderer der experimentellen Psychologie Verdienste. (shrink)