Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury
Anthony Ashley Cooper [ ˈæʃlɪ ˈkuːpə ], 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury [ ˈʃɑːftsbərɪ ] (also Ashley-Cooper , Shaftesbury for short ; * February 16 jul. / February 26, 1671 greg. In London ; † February 4 jul. / 15. February 1713 greg. In Chiaia , Naples ), was an English philosopher, writer, politician, art critic and literary theorist . He is considered one of the most important spokesmen for the early Enlightenment .
The philosopher 's grandfather of the same name , the first Earl of Shaftesbury , was a peer of the English nobility . Under the direction of the enlightener John Locke , the future third earl received a thorough education, which he deepened on a trip through several European countries from 1687 to 1689. From 1695 to 1698 he was a member of the House of Commons . When his father died in November 1699, he inherited his title of nobility and membership in the House of Lords . This marked the beginning of a new phase of political activity for him, which lasted until 1702. In the following years he concentrated on his extensive writing activities. When his health deteriorated, he sought rest in Italy in 1711. He spent the last fifteen months of his life in Naples .
As a politician, Shaftesbury campaigned for liberal causes. He fought for the aims of the Whigs , a parliamentary group that advocated the primacy of parliament in the state order. As a writer, he promoted the ideal of an enlightened, honest, cultured and art-understanding gentleman .
In the philosophical field, Shaftesbury's interest was in the foundations and principles of ethics and aesthetics . With his main work, the Characteristicks of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times (characteristics of people, customs, opinions, times) , published in 1711 , he created an overall representation of his humanistic view of the world and people, which he revised until his death.
A key element of Shaftesbury's thought is its criticism of traditional religious practice. He rejected the priesthood claim to know a truth imparted by God and to be entrusted with the authoritative interpretation of this revelation . As a defense against religious fanaticism, he recommended humor. In his rejection of Christian dogmatics , he included all doctrines that he considered unethical and irrational, especially the biblical notion of reward and punishment in the hereafter . He countered the belief in revelation with his concept of a “natural” religion , which he derived from his reflection on nature. According to his understanding, religion does not justify morality , but presupposes it as a natural given and is based on it. The basis for this was Shaftesbury's foundation of ethics in the moral sense , an autonomous moral sense, the existence of which he postulated. This sense, like the aesthetic experience, is inherent in people and enables the individual and the social community to develop harmoniously.
With the theory of the natural disposition, Shaftesbury wanted to bring ethics and aesthetics back to a common root and anchor them in a given world order. He considered moral striving and a thirst for beauty to be inseparable characteristics of man. He examined in detail the requirements and foundations of significant creative achievements in the visual arts . For painting he formulated detailed quality criteria, for poetry and writing he described the requirements that an author must make of himself.
Shaftesbury's ideal of life, his optimistic image of man and his cult of beauty became groundbreaking for a broad readership in the Enlightenment. His ideas inspired numerous thinkers and writers. However, his philosophy also met with violent opposition, especially in conservative Christian circles. A staunch opponent was the social theorist Bernard de Mandeville , who rejected the traditional moral model and presented an alternative model of society.
Life
Origin and early youth (1671–1686)
The grandfather of the philosopher was the statesman Anthony Ashley Cooper (1621-1683), who received the newly created hereditary title Earl of Shaftesbury from King Charles II in 1672 and was made Lord Chancellor . He had served on the State Council under Oliver Cromwell during the Republican era , but had helped restore the monarchy after Cromwell's death . In 1673 he fell from grace and was dismissed from the office of Lord Chancellor. In the period that followed, the Earl made a name for himself as a spokesman for the liberal opposition and defender of parliamentary rights against the absolutist aspirations of Charles II. Finally, in 1682, he had to flee to Holland. His son and successor, the second Earl of the same name (1651–1699), was sickly and lived in seclusion. In 1669 he married Lady Dorothy Manners († 1698), whose father, the politician John Manners , had been the eighth Earl of Rutland since 1641 . The philosopher was the first child from this marriage. He was born on February 26, 1671 at Exeter House, the family's London residence. He was baptized on March 7th.
The grandfather, disappointed in his son, formally took custody of the grandson in March 1674. He ordered the child to be entrusted to the philosopher John Locke , one of the most notable thinkers of the early Enlightenment. Locke, a friend of the statesman, supervised the schooling of the future third earl. At the age of eleven, the boy had already mastered Latin and ancient Greek . His upbringing was shaped by Locke's liberal principles. Young Anthony was brought up in the spirit of the then emerging Whig movement, to which he always remained faithful. A central element of whiggism was opposition to the uncontrolled exercise of power. This conviction was expressed in the struggle against absolutist aspirations of the rulers and against the monarchical principle of Catholicism .
After the death of his grandfather in January 1683, the young Anthony came under the parental control of his father, who took over the title of Earl of the deceased. His parents sent him to Winchester , where he was taught at Winchester College from November 1683 to 1685/86 . The conditions there, however, by no means corresponded to his inclinations. He disliked the atmosphere of the school because of the widespread drunkenness and because the conservative, monarchist and authoritarian attitude of the Tories prevailed there, which was contrary to his Whig convictions. He was resented at Winchester College because his liberal grandfather was hated there. Since he was bullied because of it, he asked his father to leave college. During this time his lifelong aversion to the conventional school system solidified.
Educational trip (1687–1689)
In the summer of 1687, Shaftesbury set out on his Grand Tour , the educational tour of several continental European countries customary for young men of the British upper class. The tour then formed the end of the educational program; it served to broaden horizons, refine customs and establish international contacts. In Holland, Shaftesbury met John Locke, who had been in exile there since 1683, and was introduced to his liberal circle of friends. He stayed in Paris for eight months, then in Italy for almost a year. An important goal was to visit cultural sites and important works of art. At the same time there was an opportunity to get to know the political situation. The return journey led via Vienna, Prague, Dresden, Berlin and Hamburg. Shaftesbury's notes on his travel experiences show his attitude, which was shaped by the principles of the Whigs: distrust of the royal courts, sharp rejection of Catholicism and the clergy as well as a position against the expansive policy of King Louis XIV of France, who, according to the young Englishman, was “presumptuous and treason “wanted to subdue all of Europe. In a letter to his father, Shaftesbury commented with deep satisfaction on the upheaval in his homeland, the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which led to the expulsion of King James II , a pro-France Catholic. The new king, Wilhelm III. , was a Protestant and decided opponent of Louis XIV.
Family and administrative burdens (1689–1695)
After returning home in the spring of 1689, Shaftesbury continued his private studies and cultivated a wide network of contacts and friendships with like-minded people. Family problems and conflicts required a lot of attention. Since his father was chronically ill and his mother was also seriously ill, he had to take responsibility for his six younger siblings.
During this time, Shaftesbury was also engaged in a task that his grandfather had already performed: He was Lord Proprietor of the English colony of Carolina in North America and the Bahamas , so he oversaw the administration there and was also responsible for the defense. His letters show that he supported the Huguenots who emigrated to Carolina and tried to curb the mistreatment of the indigenous population . From a distance he had to grapple with serious evils in the colony. His correspondence shows his bitterness at the chaotic conditions in Carolina.
Activity in the House of Commons and study visit to the Netherlands (1695–1699)
After much hesitation, Shaftesbury decided to enter active politics. As a twenty-four year old he ran successfully in a lower house by-election in the constituency of Poole in May 1695 . Although he considered himself a Whig, he emphasized his independence and did not follow any party discipline . His most important achievement in parliament was a contribution to the protection of civil rights: he campaigned for a law that secured the right of remand prisoners accused of treason to legal assistance. The adoption of the proposed law, the Treason Bill , in January 1696 was attributed, among other things, to Shaftesbury's commitment. Another concern of the young MP was to renounce a standing army in times of peace. Because of a deterioration in his health - he suffered from asthma - he was unable to run again in the new election in 1698.
After the dissolution of the House of Commons, Shaftesbury withdrew to the Netherlands for nine months in July 1698. There he was associated with a group of scholars that included Pierre Bayle , Jean Le Clerc , Pierre des Maizeaux and Benjamin Furly.
Influence in the upper house (1699–1702)
When his father died in November 1699, the young Anthony Ashley Cooper inherited the title of Earl of Shaftesbury and thus the rank of peer associated with a seat in the House of Lords . The House of Lords was then the more important of the two parts of parliament. It represented the nobility and had more power than the House of Commons, which consisted of elected representatives . From January 1700 the new earl took part in the deliberations of the lords. The main theme of English politics at that time was the question of how to react to the dangerous expansionist aspirations of France under Louis XIV. After the death of the childless Spanish king, Charles II , in November 1700, the French monarch had the opportunity to secure the crown of Spain for his nephew and thus to bring about a major shift in power in Europe in favor of his family, the Bourbons . This was opposed by an alliance of the threatened states in the War of the Spanish Succession , which broke out in 1701. England was part of the alliance, but the Tories, unlike the Whigs, tended to be pro-France and not convinced of the need for war. Shaftesbury was a staunch advocate of the Allied military action to restore the threatened balance of power . Even domestically, he advocated the positions of the Whigs as a country party (country party) the Tories as a court party (court party) faced. In the election campaign for the general election in December 1701, he campaigned strongly for candidates for the Whigs. His commitment impressed King William III., Who was well-disposed to him and offered him a government office, but Shaftesbury declined for health reasons. At that time the earl was one of the king's advisors; after the Whigs' election victory in December 1701, he was at the height of his political influence.
A change occurred when Queen Anne took office after Wilhelm's death in 1702 . The new ruler leaned toward the Tories and did not appreciate Shaftesbury. In 1702 she withdrew from him the office of Vice Admiral of Dorset , which he held as his father's successor, and gave it to a Tory. This was an insult because the office, though of little practical importance, was valued as an honor and was usually held for life. In these circumstances, the earl largely withdrew from active politics. In addition to the unfavorable political climate, he was also motivated by his lung disease.
Concentration on the literary life's work (1703–1711)
In August 1703 Shaftesbury went to Rotterdam for a year . He spent the next seven years in England again. Now he devoted himself to his life's work as a writer in order to promote his philosophical, political and cultural ideas. After several individual publications, he published his collected works in 1711 under the title Characteristicks of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times . Because of his weak lungs, he suffered from the bad London air. Therefore, he spent much time at his home in the village of Little Chelsea near Chelsea , which at that time was not yet a part of the capital, and finally retired in 1709 after Reigate in the county of Surrey back.
The Earl delayed starting a family for a long time. He repeatedly expressed his inclination to remain unmarried in order to be able to concentrate on his spiritual interests undisturbed. A letter he wrote to his brother Maurice in 1705 indicates a homoerotic orientation. Nevertheless, he finally decided to marry, since as lord he considered it his duty to father a son who would become his inheritance. On August 29, 1709 he married Jane Ewer. As the daughter of Esquire Thomas Ewer, the bride was of relatively modest social rank. She gave birth to his only son on February 9, 1711, the future fourth Earl of Shaftesbury , who was given the paternal name.
End in Italy, death and burial (1711–1713)
When Shaftesbury's health deteriorated, he sought relaxation in the warm Italian climate. In July 1711 he sailed from Dover with his wife . He traveled via Paris, Turin, Florence and Rome to Naples, where he arrived on November 15th. There he chose the Palazzo Mirelli in the Chiaia district by the sea with a view of the Gulf of Naples as his residence.
After the philosopher had recovered from the rigors of the journey, he worked on a new edition of the Characteristicks , which, however, only appeared after his death. He also prepared a new work, a collection of essays on art and aesthetics, for the title of Second Characters, or The Language of Forms (Second characters or the language of the forms) was provided. This presentation of his art philosophy and art criticism should complement the writings on ethics. The project remained unfinished, however, and he was only able to complete two of the four planned essays before his death. The new project was an expression of the philosopher's increased interest in the visual arts. During this time he also worked as an art collector.
Shaftesbury passionately followed the course of the War of the Spanish Succession, worrying him about the risk of the anti-French alliance breaking up. It took an effort to distract himself and to break free from his fixation on political and military processes. He did not live to see the Peace of Utrecht , which ended the war in spring 1713.
Towards the end of 1712 the lord's condition worsened and he died on February 15, 1713. The body was transferred to England and buried in the church of Wimborne St Giles in Dorset , where a family seat was located.
Works
The writer's oeuvre consists partly of works that he himself published or prepared for printing, and partly of letters, drafts, notes and comments that were not ready for printing or not intended for publication. Following a custom that was widespread at the time, he had his works printed anonymously.
Edition of Sermons by Benjamin Whichcotes
Shaftesbury's first publication, Select Sermons of Dr Whichcot , is a compilation of twelve selected sermons by the Cambridge platonist Benjamin Whichcote (1609-1683), which he published anonymously in 1698 in a version he edited himself and provided with a foreword. With the kindred Whocote he found ideas that corresponded to his own convictions. Shaftesbury saw in the Cambridge thinker a champion of the moral self-determination of man, which was a central concern of his. As he explained in the preface, he wanted to promote an optimistic image of man that he, as an alternative to both the moral relativism of Thomas Hobbes and to the Sündhaftigkeitsvorstellung recommended conservative theologians.
An Inquiry concerning Virtue, or Merit
Shaftesbury's first own work is An Inquiry Concerning Virtue, or Merit (an inquiry into virtue or merit) . The religious critic John Toland had this treatise printed anonymously in November 1698, allegedly without the author's permission. An authorized version appeared in 1711. With the inquiry , the philosopher presented the first foundation of his ethics. He examined the affects , the moral disposition and the origin of reprehensible behavior. It was important to him to demonstrate the independence of virtue from religious commandments and the independence of a non- denominational ethics aimed at objectively good . The Inquiry is Shaftesbury's only systematically structured writing. Later he distanced himself from this way of presenting philosophical content because his thinking methodically refused to accept the system.
A Letter concerning Enthusiasm
The literary letter of enthusiasm is addressed to John Somers, a friend and political activist. Shaftesbury had the work printed in 1708. The occasion for writing was the appearance of the "French prophets", a group of Huguenot refugees from France who appeared in London from 1706 onwards. The French Protestants, who had escaped persecution in their homeland, developed an enthusiastic preaching activity in exile, accompanied by ecstatic phenomena. This phenomenon inspired Shaftesbury to investigate enthusiasm. He came to a differentiating assessment. On the one hand, he targeted the exaggeration and the demand for knowledge of religious fanatics, on the other hand, he praised enthusiasm as an extremely valuable human disposition. From an enlightenment point of view, he explained how one could distinguish constructive, justified enthusiasm from fanatical zeal: the absurd can be exposed as ridiculous. A humorous approach is helpful. Merriment is the opposite of the melancholy of the deluded, which is the breeding ground for fanaticism and is reinforced by the experience of oppression and persecution.
The moralists
In 1709, The Moralists appeared in letter form . In the subtitle it is described as a "philosophical rhapsody ". The main literary characters are the originally skeptical Philocles, the misanthropist Palemon and the enthusiastic nature lover Theocles. Philocles writes to Palemon; he reminds him of a discussion between the two and then reports on conversations that he had with Theocles and that turned out to be a turning point for him.
The main subject of the reflections is a central theme of the author: the nature of human beings and their role as social and aesthetic beings in a world determined by order, beauty and functionality, whose unity and coherence must be recognized so that ethics can be lived. The form of dialogue means that the thoughts are not presented in a didactic and systematic manner, but rather emerge in the conversation, whereby the different characters and attitudes of the participants are asserted. This is intended to illustrate the dynamics of a common frank finding of truth. The reader should get an impression of how a person who is open to ethical and aesthetic values takes up suggestions that help him to broaden his horizons. It is described how Theocles succeeded in awakening the love of nature and humanity in Philocles with an enthusiastic glorification of the beautiful and the good. This enthusiasm proves its justification by the fact that it is able to assert itself in critical discourse against skeptical objections. However, the skeptical position is not refuted; As Philocles, the reporter, states in his letter, it remains intact as an option in the end.
Sensus Communis
After the letter about enthusiasm had received opposition from the conservative Christian side, the author defended and explained his view in the programmatic essay Sensus Communis , designed as a letter to a friend , which he published in 1709. He took up an ancient Latin expression in the title and gave it a special meaning. The sensus communis - literally common sense - is in Shaftesbury not the common sense , the " common sense " to which those called to explain the unthinking majority opinions fit per se. Rather, what is meant is a sense of community : a sense of the common good , of justice , solidarity and humanity . Associated with this are tactfulness (sense of manners) and consideration for the particulars of circumstances, situations and people. This attitude is shown in a non-hurtful way of expression. The common sense thus conceived is presented in the essay as the ineradicable basic impulse of human beings.
Soliloquy
In the 1710 essay published Soliloquy, or Advice to an Author ( talking to himself , or advice to a writer) the conditions are contemplated, which must be met for an advisory font can be helpful. The starting point is the question of what is meant by beneficial advice and who is entitled to act as an expert and advisor. Each author faces his readers in the role of the wiser and instructor, and this often implies a claim to power and manipulates the audience. Morally legitimized, however, is only a disinterested and impartial author who, thanks to critical self-examination, knows himself, has his affects under control and thus fulfills a classic concern of philosophy. This competence is achieved through self-knowledge in self-talk. Such an inward turn does not serve useless speculation, but improves the mind, frees from prejudice and promotes virtue.
Characteristicks of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times
Around 1710, Shaftesbury was working on the project to combine his five philosophical writings, published since 1699, with supplementary reflections and comments to form an overall representation of his findings and convictions. This large work in three voluminous volumes appeared in the spring of 1711 under the title Characteristicks of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times . The supplementary texts, Miscellaneous Reflections on the preceding- Treatises, and other Critical Subjects (Mixed reflections on the previous papers and other objects of criticism) , make up the third volume. There, criticism that has arisen since the individual writings were first published is dealt with in a relaxed style, and the author's known positions are confirmed, but his efforts to date are also re-examined with self-critical remarks.
Even before the appearance of Characteristicks the author began work on a stylistically more sophisticated, with stitches fine new version, which he designed in his last two years of life. He did not live to see the appearance of this second, lavishly furnished edition in 1714.
Lesser known works
In response to current events, Shaftesbury and John Toland published the pamphlet Paradoxes of State in January 1702 , a statement on the threat to England from the offensive policies of Louis XIV. The two activists reassured their quarreled compatriots that the divisions in the past were no longer relevant Opposition between republicans and monarchists had been overcome; now it was only a matter of confronting the French threat together.
Two writings on aesthetic subjects are late works by the philosopher. They were intended for the planned art-philosophical essay collection Second Characters or The Language of Forms , which no longer came about. Shaftesbury calls "characters" signs, elementary means of human expression. In contrast to simple, arbitrarily chosen characters such as words and syllables, the “second characters” mean the “imitative” forms of the visual arts, highly developed forms which, through their resemblance to what is designated, are intended to reveal its nature.
One of the two devoted to this thematic works, A Notion of the Historical Draft or Tablature of the Judgment of Hercules (conception of history image or tableaux from the judgment of Hercules ) , the presentation dealt with a mythological theme in painting. The concrete starting point for the deliberations was the production of the large oil painting Hercules at the Crossroads , which the painter Paolo de Matteis created in Naples for Shaftesbury and according to his instructions. The subject of the picture is the hero Hercules, who according to an ancient legend handed down by Xenophon , has to choose between the personifications of virtue and pleasure. The treatise explains how a picture can represent a sequence of times. It gives detailed instructions for the design of the three figures, the location, the background and the colors. This example illustrates the rules of aesthetics. The other work, A Letter concerning the Art, or Science of Design , is addressed to John Somers as a cover letter to the Notion of the Historical Draft . It should form the introduction to the planned collection of essays. Here the art theorist describes the implementation of his design by the painter Paolo de Matteis and discusses the situation in the fine arts, music and architecture in England since the Glorious Revolution. The focus is on art-political explanations from the Whigs' perspective.
Not intended for the public were notebooks with often dated handwritten entries, most of which date from the time of the stays in Rotterdam, but which were continued until 1712. They have been preserved and were first edited in 1900. In the two volumes with the Greek title Askemata (exercises) , the philosopher lined up questions and instructions to himself, reflections, quotations and excerpts.
philosophy
general basics
The starting point of Shaftesbury's thinking is the examination of the views of his teacher John Locke. He criticizes Locke's approach for the fact that ethics, aesthetics and epistemology stand side by side without any relation, instead of supporting each other and combining to form a coherent unit. Thus epistemology becomes ethically meaningless, morality arbitrary and beauty a matter of fashion; there is no mediation between the approaches of philosophy and religion. The moral good is reduced to mere conventions , which the respective legislature arbitrarily determines. This makes action by nature ethically indifferent and the concept of virtue empty. But such a way of thinking misses the real task of philosophy. According to Shaftesbury, this consists in gaining the most comprehensive insight possible into the whole - the totality of the world order. Without such knowledge one cannot understand and classify the individual parts. Hence his writings are not each devoted to a single philosophical discipline; rather, the subject areas are linked, their contents are presented together and presented from the context. This results in a uniform, coherent view of the world with the right to be consistent in every respect. Since such an overall understanding of reality cannot tolerate any incompatible or unrelated elements next to one another, a complete clarification of the relationship between philosophical insights and dogmatic truth claims of religion is inevitable. The religious worldview must merge with the philosophical one.
Shaftesbury is deeply suspicious of philosophical systems. This skepticism towards unrealistic theory finds a concise expression in his often-quoted statement that a system is "the cleverest means of making a fool of yourself". He defines the goal of the striving for knowledge - in connection with the ancient understanding of philosophy and the personality ideal of Renaissance humanism - strictly as a practical one. Shaftesbury considers the speculative, abstract university philosophy, shaped by the scholastic method, to be unworldly, sterile and useless. He is not interested in any accumulation of knowledge, but in gaining and following the principles for a successful life. The value of knowledge is that it serves the purpose of leading a good life. Thus, ethics is the core discipline of philosophy.
This model is based on a decidedly optimistic view of the world and people. Its main prerequisite is the assumption that the universe, not only according to the impression of a human observer, but also objectively forms a meaningfully ordered unit characterized by the good and the beautiful. The cosmos is viewed as an aesthetically designed whole, all of the components of which are internally interrelated and based on universal values and common prosperity. Accordingly, the intrinsic value of the world order is reflected in the mind of the perceiving and judging subject . That means that ethical and aesthetic principles and values are not disposable prescriptions of human arbitrariness; rather, they together form a factual knowledge in the human mind about the actual nature of the world.
Shaftesbury does not provide any evidence for this basic thesis, but he considers it to be so plausible that an unbiased, observing and judging person would be able to intuitively recognize its correctness . This gives rise to the enlightening aspect of his thinking: for each individual, their own judgment becomes the sole decisive authority, which has to make all distinctions between true and false, good and bad on their own responsibility. This is linked to the demand to reject any claim to authority that contradicts this autonomy of the subject.
In terms of cultural history , the philosopher's optimistic view of man implies the assumption that man has always been a social being who has been able to form a functional community on the basis of recognized virtues from the start. This view contradicts the historical model of Thomas Hobbes , according to whose theory the original natural state of mankind was determined by purely egoistic impulses and thus general war ruled. Shaftesbury criticizes that Hobbes only knows fear and the striving for power as original passions. The resulting interpretation of history is self-contradicting. It can not explain the emergence of humanity from the supposedly unsocial original state and the emergence of civilization , because this process already presupposes the acceptance of values and virtues. Against Hobbes' thesis that man is a wolf to man, Shaftesbury objected that wolves behave very socially towards their fellows in packs. He pointed out that wolves share their prey and look after their offspring together. He also asserted that Hobbes did not behave according to his own image of man, because if he had been consistently selfish, he would not have published his findings about egoism but would have kept them to himself so as not to warn the environment about his own wolf nature. After all, his elaboration of the weighty role of greed for power is helpful, because it shows the necessity of limiting and dividing political power.
A central concept in Shaftesbury's conceptual structure is politeness , a special form of the contemporary gentleman ideal. Among the gentlemen's elite, the group of those who can be described as polite (cultured) stands out. These are those educated people who are characterized by a pleasant demeanor, good taste, a liberal disposition and an alert, critical mind. As participants in the discourse, they do not take on anything unchecked and understand how to have an entertaining and instructive conversation at the same time. The authoritarian pedant appears as the opposite of such a gentleman .
Ethics as a natural given and a task
The embedding of the individual well-being in the general one
The starting point of Shaftesbury's interpretation of the world is a reflection, the correctness of which he believes is evident: although the order of nature is only known in part, the physical structures and functions of living beings reveal a common purpose. Each of them has a natural equipment that is intended to serve its individual well-being, the "private good". This is defined as that which is consistent with the natural destiny of the living being. The drives, passions and emotions aim to achieve and maintain an optimal state for the individual. At the same time, however, the living being also belongs to a species whose well-being and continued existence is linked to its own. The individual being is integrated into more comprehensive systems as a “private system”: into the system of its kind, into the totality of the plant and animal world, into the system of the earth, the solar system and finally the system of the universe. All systems together form the structure of the one cosmos, and each of them is determined by its relation to the whole. They support one another and thus stand in an appropriate relationship of cooperation to one another and to the whole. This benefits the individual systems and at the same time the whole. This fact suggests that the harmony of the individual with the general good is a universal principle in the cosmos.
Within this world order, humans have a special position because they alone can understand the structure of the system of systems to which they belong. In doing so, he distanced himself spiritually from the world in which he lived: He became an investigative thinker who recognizes nature and is able to grasp the well-being and interest of a superordinate whole and to make it a criterion for himself. In this way he can introduce the concept of public interest and gain knowledge of morally good and bad, right and wrong. He thus becomes the possible realizer of the good in the true sense, the specifically human good. This is characterized by the fact that its wearer has a more comprehensive idea of goodness than those who are only concerned about their own well-being, because they are able to focus on the well-being of an entire system and to recognize their own prosperity as part of it. Only those who can gain such insight can be called meritorious and virtuous. Virtue is based on the understanding of the higher-level good that affects the larger system and shows itself as a tendency to promote this system.
The realization that the tendency towards a comprehensive good is a fundamental structural principle of the world enables an insight into the unity and order of the universe. A full understanding of the sense of the world remains denied to human reason, but the meaning of the whole can be inferred from the self-meaning and meaningfulness of the individual. Then the ethical character of the world order and thus the objective reality of ethics come into focus. This results in a basis for people's mutual relationships and obligations that does not require the use of religion or state power.
The moral sense as a basic requirement of ethics
If ethics is not to be understood as an arbitrary invention, but as a natural principle, it must be present in the consciousness of a rational creature as a natural given. Shaftesbury believes this is the case. The determination of the bearer of reason as a naturally ethical being (moral being) is the core idea on which his philosophy is based. The man is a significant natural moral sense (moral sense) attributed to the actuation of which is a sense of what is morally right and wrong in some ways comparable with seeing and hearing. The good is an object of perception for this sense, just as the beautiful is for the sense of sight. It is experienced like an object of the sense organs, grasped in its special quality and spontaneously assessed affectively. This results in the decision for morally correct action. Perception, recognition, judgment and action are closely linked. Here, however, the cognition and judgment does not arise directly from perception, but is a separate process that represents the actual achievement of the moral sense. The latter perceives, as it were, seeing, but his activity consists primarily not in perceiving, but in judging. He is the authority that judges the primary, spontaneous impulses of the mind and thereby generates secondary feelings of liking or dislike relating to these impulses. Through such reflection, through reflected sense , he brings the moral order to the fore. He learns through practice, success and failure. He is developing into a "moral taste" (moral taste) , which can be described in analogy to the sense of taste.
The often misunderstood moral “sense” in Shaftesbury's is not - as in later sentimentalism - an autogenic or autonomous sensual faculty, but reason in its sensual appearance.
An argument for the universality of the moral sense is its recognizable presence even where perversion has already occurred. Since man is moral by nature, even a corrupt person in a specific individual case advocates what is natural and honorable and disapproves of the opposite, unless he has a personal interest in the matter in question.
Morality and the pursuit of happiness
Shaftesbury's concept of happiness is embedded in the considerations on moral nature . According to him, from observing living beings it can be inferred that everyone is happiest when it fulfills its particular natural purpose. For people, this consists in promoting the common good. This does not mean, however, that individuals, by supporting the general public for the sake of their personal happiness, subjectively assign a value to the common good which they arbitrarily generate and which has no correlate in external reality. Rather, for Shaftesbury, the common good is an objectively existent value based on the structure of the world. This value does not come from the emotional sphere to which the balance of happiness belongs, but is based on a natural condition that exists independently of the affects. Thus, although morality is inherently linked to happiness, the order of values does not depend on the pursuit of individual happiness and cannot be derived from it.
Dealing with the emotions as a core task
Because man naturally strives for the good, his natural feeling and desire is at the same time a moral and therefore the right prerequisite for moral behavior. His emotions, the emotions (affections) , standing by itself with the demands of ethics in a natural harmony. In the reality of life, however, one cannot rely on the affects immediately indicating what is natural and correct, because a multitude of disturbing influences continuously make it impossible or falsify the apprehension of what is actually good and the orientation towards it. Therefore, the natural, simple mere goodness of the human being is not sufficient as a guideline for the conduct of life. To avoid going astray, he must first understand what good is and practice the virtue that leads to it. In order to gain the necessary understanding, the emotions that determine action must be made the subject of reflection and judgment. Practice then builds on this, the constructive cultivation of inclinations and passions. The aim is to ensure that the morally desirable inclinations and goals are always experienced as pleasing.
It is characteristic of Shaftesbury's approach that the ethical quality does not depend on the conscious decision to take a certain action. It is not only the decision or the deed that is carried out that is good or bad, rather the ethical assessment must start earlier: It is about the emotional movement and attitude that brought about the decision. Man is responsible for his inclinations and attitudes, and they - not actions - must be the primary subject of ethical inquiry and evaluation. It depends on whether the person makes the good of the respective systems, which are affected by his actions, the direct object of his emotional movement. Only to the extent that this happens is it a good posture and then also a good action. An act caused by an improper emotion is ethically bad even if its effects appear beneficial and legitimate. What is done without emotion is neither good nor bad; it is ethically irrelevant. Since it only depends on the inner motivation and not on the visible consequences, presumptuous judgments by outsiders who classify other people's actions as good or bad are in principle questionable.
Analysis of the emotions shows that they fall into three classes. The first class consists of the social affects that go beyond the pursuit of personal gain and aim at the unselfish promotion of the superordinate systems. The second class are those emotions that serve self-preservation and personal well-being; they strive for what is good for the individual system. Man is naturally endowed with both classes. If every affect can develop properly, that is, in the manner appropriate to it and the whole system, then there is a balanced equilibrium between all emotions. Then the mind is structured in a meaningful way, and thanks to the constructive interaction of the various affects the person can live as it corresponds to his true nature. Only such a life is happy. If, on the other hand, affects are too strong or too weak, the result is an unnatural state, and thus the third class arises: the vices that lead to misfortune.
The emotional life is naturally ordered when its structure reflects the hierarchical order of the systems in the external world. This means that the social affects that are geared towards the welfare of the higher systems take precedence. Their functionality must not be impaired by the effects of the impulses aimed at personal welfare. But it should also be noted that the selfish emotions are not in themselves questionable; rather, they are absolutely necessary for a successful life. The individual is good or bad about himself as well, promoting or neglecting his own good.
Wrong developments are based on the fact that individual affects disturb the balance because they are either excessively or too weakly developed. Failure to properly measure the details leads to an imbalance in the whole. Then the proportions are no longer correct, the order is violated and this is the perversion of the emotional life. Shaftesbury explains this theory in detail using examples. He attributes vices such as cowardice, avarice, greed, debauchery, arrogance and laziness to an excess of self-preservation affects. He interprets neglect of one's own well-being and inaction in the face of dangers as the effects of a weakness in the affects that serve the well-being of the individual system. But he also sees destructive potential in social emotions if they go beyond measure: not only excessive egoism, but also excessive and thus unnatural altruism is harmful. Inordinate self-love endangers society, but the opposite extreme is a bad attitude with fatal consequences for those affected. As an example of the harmfulness of an unfree, one-sided fixation on the other, the philosopher cites the consequences of exaggerated motherly love. He pays special attention to the analysis of the individual undesirable developments in character, always presenting the deviations from the natural and appropriate against the background of the natural impulses, the distortions of which they are according to his understanding. The criterion for differentiating between right and wrong, natural and unnatural is always compliance or disregard of measure and proportion. No element of the whole should be missing, unnecessarily added, come into an inappropriate context, be underdeveloped or overgrown.
Analysis of religion
Critique of the belief in revelation
The unconditional primacy that Shaftesbury gives to the principles of autonomy and the moral good must apply unconditionally in the religious field as well. Faith cannot be a special area that eludes philosophical analysis and judgment. Religious or irreligious concepts such as theism , atheism and belief in fate trigger emotions that affect people's moral judgment. From this point of view, they are to be assessed from the perspective of the educator.
For Shaftesbury, the good, the just and the true are absolute conditions that are beyond any arbitrariness. Whoever wants to trace them back to a will, a decision or a law empties their meaning; they then no longer have any content. Thus, even God or a religion can neither establish nor restrict or influence these principles. Even the common designation of God as good, just and true presupposes the corresponding concepts as a given reality. If God is given the power to dispose of these values, then man will be torn apart, because he cannot follow his own nature and an overpowering will of others at the same time.
This is where Shaftesbury's criticism of the historical manifestations of Christianity begins. According to his findings, it was and is a fatal basic mistake to withdraw ethical decisions from the competence of the responsible individual and to leave them to an external authority, the "believed God", whose alleged instructions must be carried out regardless of their moral dubiousness. This corrupts and gradually paralyzes the natural moral sense of man. Instead of the inner motivation, there is a “second nature” that is not tied to any objective norm and arbitrarily sets the standard for right and wrong action. Getting used to this state of affairs and the waning of one's own judgment ultimately lead to the fact that even the most cruel and inhumane acts, if they are religiously legitimized, are considered just and commanded by the divine example. In this way malice prevails and then also dominates the community and legislation, and an injustice order is established. First the evil is justified and legalized, then it is made a duty in a further step. With that, "second nature" has taken power. This explains the behavior of those subject to it, but does not relieve the individual of his responsibility. Illustrative material is the millennia-long history of religious tutelage, oppression, hypocrisy, and contentiousness, which Shaftesbury elaborates on. He particularly denounces the priesthood's greed for power and possessions, which already played a parasitic role in ancient Egypt , the “motherland of superstition”. With a long historical argument he tries to show the priesthood as a consistently harmful force. Nevertheless, he accepts the continued existence of the Anglican state church ; the demand to abolish them is for him also an expression of an intolerant, fanatical attitude.
From the point of view of the Enlightenment, the way out of religious foreign determination is offered by the demand to reverse the fateful self-empowerment of humans. In addition to the containment of priestly power and the establishment of religious tolerance, this includes the principle that everything that is presented as God's will must be subjected to the judgment of the moral sense. Shaftesbury allows the possibility of a historical revelation from God, but with the proviso that it can only be authentic if it appeals to the power of judgment and if its statements stand before the judgment of reason. With regard to the Christian belief in revelation, he points to the text-critical problems and difficulties of interpretation in the biblical tradition and cites the unclear, controversial status of the Apocrypha . He recommends the historical-critical method . Their application gives him cause for great skepticism regarding the credibility of the traditional biblical statements; some of them he even decidedly reject. He rejects the biblical miracles as disturbances of the world order which God cannot be trusted.
Shaftesbury particularly strongly condemns the conditioning of man through religious teachings that promise rewards for desirable actions and punishment for undesirable ones. This is unacceptable for him, because it means that an external drive takes the place of moral self-determination as a motive for action. From a pragmatic point of view, reward and punishment have desirable effects - for example, only fear of the gallows can deter a villain from wrongdoing - but from an ethical point of view they are worthless. They do not contribute to character formation, rather they even damage the character and narrow the horizon. Instead of cultivating the virtuous impulse in human nature, they suppress it and replace it with a purely selfish and inferior drive. Such motivated behavior is by no means meritorious. Accordingly, Shaftesbury rejects belief in reward and punishment in the Last Judgment .
The concept of natural religion
For Shaftesbury, neither the biblical belief in revelation nor naturalistic atheism offers a satisfactory interpretation of the world. His alternative is a model that tries to derive a “natural” religion exclusively from philosophical insights. In doing so, he ties in with the ideas of ancient philosophical schools. He is committed to the tradition of the ancient Socratics, the thinkers linked to Socrates , in whom he sees like-minded people. From his point of view, they found themselves in a similar situation to himself: They only wanted to accept as religious truth that which is evident to reason and satisfies the moral sense, but also had to take care to spare the established religion and not unnecessarily the superstitious public to provoke. Shaftesbury considers the approach of Socrates to be exemplary, who is careful and didactically exemplary in conveying explosive and demanding content.
The English thinker owes important stimuli to the Stoics of the Roman Empire . He shares with them the emphatic affirmation of the divine and sensible cosmic order, the concept of the intimate togetherness of all natural things and the consistent practical orientation of philosophy. The stoic authors Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus became his leading figures. He also received an important impetus from the advanced training of ancient Platonism by the modern Cambridge Platonists .
A proof of God Shaftesbury tries not to lead, but he considers it plausible to attribute the existence and nature of the world to the work of a deity. In this he follows the line of thought that traditionally serves to justify the Neoplatonic ontology , the doctrine of being. This consideration is: The world is a being unity and wholeness. As such it can only exist and be experienced and thought if it is based on a real metaphysical unit, the “ only one ”, as the cause of its existence and order. This one is the deity from which everything emerged. Chance cannot come into question as a primal principle, since it is not an independent entity, but only appears within an already existing coherent system as an impairment of its order. With this justification, Shaftesbury rejects materialistic atheism, which only denies religious worldviews without being able to offer a plausible alternative, and abandons morality to arbitrariness.
The philosophically founded religion advocated by the English thinker equates God with good. The principle applies that good is not good because it comes from God, but conversely that God is only divine because he is exclusively good. In this context, too, the good is to be understood as being as beneficial as possible for the entire system of the world and each individual subsystem. This means that people who have access to the good through their moral sense can and must judge for themselves on the basis of their moral criteria whether something that is presented to them as divine is actually divine.
Obtaining and imparting knowledge
The practice of ethical discourse
A central concern of Shaftesburys is the promotion of public discourse on fundamental questions of ethics. He is particularly interested in the effects of moral reflection on political action. The philosophically justified cultivation of moral attitudes should make a fundamental contribution to the health of political life.
In Shaftesbury's assessment, how effective such a contribution can be depends largely on practical considerations, on the type of presentation. The prevailing zeitgeist is averse to dry discussion, abstract speculation and dogmatic instruction. Only a pleasant presentation of the material can attract attention. There are traditionally three ways of presenting moral issues: first, the sermon or sermon-like admonition, second, the systematic philosophical treatise, and third, the conversational essay. Shaftesbury rejects the first two forms of presentation because, in his opinion, they are hardly suitable for impressing a broader public. Above all, they cannot reach an important part of his target audience: the educated, liberal, ideologically skeptical intellectuals of the early days of the Enlightenment. They are critical, smiling observers who maintain ironic distance, distrust seriousness and value humor and entertainment. The obtrusiveness of moral preachers resists them, as does the dryness of systematically structured tracts, which they find pedantic. Shaftesbury, who himself belongs to these circles, understands their attitude, although he takes his concerns very seriously. He prefers the neat and artistic essay, which often imitates or reproduces casual conversations, includes narratives and sometimes takes the form of a letter.
With these considerations, the English writer, as a Socratics, takes up the tradition of the Socratic conversation . He explains the advantages of the Socratic method of searching for truth together and illustrates them with examples. In such a framework, representatives of opposing world views can have their say; Their thoughts are put up for discussion, representatives of different temperaments bring their peculiarities to bear. While the author takes a back seat, the reader is encouraged to reflect and judge for himself rather than instructed. He is encouraged to venture to use his common sense; he should maintain a critical distance and, as Shaftesbury puts it, measure himself against the author.
For these reasons, the Socratic-style philosophical dialogue, as handed down by classical ancient works, is exemplary and always remains instructive. However, as Shaftesbury regrets, this ideal form does not translate well into contemporary literature, for modern people cannot act like ancient Greek philosophers. The attempt to imitate the ancient literary dialogue in an updated way would be out of date and would fail due to a lack of authenticity. Despite this fundamental skepticism, Shaftesbury, as an author, does not want to forego the advantages of presenting philosophical content in conversation. In The Moralists he retells a fictional dialogue in which contemporary conversational culture mixes with elements from the ancient world.
Self-knowledge in self-talk
Shaftesbury wants to encourage its readers to reflect more deeply in self-talk so that they gain an independent attitude and live accordingly. One of the main subjects of such an internal dialogue is one's own moods, inclinations, ideas and opinions, which usually guide a person without obtaining his consent or giving himself an account. This immediacy should be interrupted in self-reflection. The ideas are identified and confronted. If they are articulated, their power can be broken. Then they can be brought under control. The viewer makes his affects speak and then lets them enter into a dialogue with reason, which questions them, answers them and judges them. A new, cultivated self should emerge over time from the dialogue in which voice and opposing voices provoke each other and thereby transform and enrich. This is how character is built. Those who persistently practice self-criticism in this way work on themselves and have the prospect of gaining an authentic attitude, “in harmony with themselves and one within”. This work has an intimate character; In principle, self-talk is not suitable for publication, it would only serve vanity.
The function of humor
For Shaftesbury, humor can make a helpful contribution to opinion-forming. With this consideration, too, the starting point is an optimistic assessment of the natural and consciously cultivated judgment of humans. If your own or someone else's truth claims are to be clarified, the first thing that matters is to gain the necessary impartiality. Questionable convictions that have become firmly established are often championed passionately and with deep seriousness, to the point of fanaticism and the will to coercion. This is always associated with a melancholy state of mind. This rigid frame of mind must first be broken so that the openness can be achieved, which is a prerequisite for finding the truth. To this end, Shaftesbury recommends examining habits and opinions by exposing them to irony and jest in order to shed new light on them. In this way, the question of truth is not answered, but you gain the self-distance that you need to be able to face a foreign point of view without prejudice and to weigh arguments objectively. Then natural judgment can come into action, there is room for tolerance, and free conversation becomes possible.
It is by no means about making everything ridiculous in the sense of a fundamental skepticism and thus discrediting the search for truth. Rather, in Shaftesbury's view, only what is untrue, bad, and ugly can be ridiculous. Pointing out ridicule does not provide evidence of inaccuracy, but it is a tool to help when in doubt, to find out whether or not something can be true, natural, and valuable. What is in harmony with reason and truth can, according to Shaftesbury's thesis, tolerate any light, including that of irony. As an example of such invulnerability of the rational, he cites Socrates, who was mocked without this being able to harm him. The humorous way of looking at things should create a cheerful state of mind that frees and expands the mind from bias and thus promotes the exercise of judgment. In addition to personal opinions and habits, this also enables collective assumptions and established customs to be put to the test. These include ecclesiastical dogmas, the teachings of recognized authorities, traditions, public opinion, social conditions and political institutions.
Shaftesbury values the principle that humor should always serve constructive ends, never insult, hurt, degradation, or vulgar amusement. From this point of view he praises the comedy writers Menander and Terenz , but not Aristophanes and Plautus . He strongly condemns biting satire in the style of his contemporary Jonathan Swift .
The beautiful in nature and in the fine arts
The objectivity of aesthetics
In Shaftesbury's understanding, beauty is a real quality that is objectively attributed to beautiful things. The concept of the beautiful does not denote the impressions and assessments of human judges who are based on social conventions or their personal taste. Since beauty is in the nature of things, aesthetic judgments are objectively right or wrong.
An important concern for Shaftesbury is the establishment of an art and literary criticism that claims to be able to make and justify objectively valid quality judgments. He sharply criticizes the widespread view that aesthetic value is a subjective idea that everyone arbitrarily creates for himself without being able to explain it. Expressing admiration for a work without realizing the reason for it is, according to him, a habit of idiots and ignoramuses. They believe in an enchanting effect of works of art that the artist allegedly does not understand himself. They want, where it depends on a well-founded judgment, to trace everything back to a mysterious “ I don't know what ”. Shaftesbury counters this attitude by calling for a conscious, reflective training of competence. He assigns the trained, incorruptible art and literary critic to show the audience how to recognize quality. The critic is said to be a popular educator. Shaftesbury mistrusts the preferences of the untrained public, because he believes that good taste is not innate but the fruit of a learning process.
A fundamental prerequisite for achieving aesthetic competence is the observer's “disinterested” pleasure in the beautiful object. By " disinterestedness " Shaftesbury understands the complete freedom of the mind from all impulses which aim to own or instrumentalize the beautiful in order to gain a personal advantage. Aesthetic perception must not be impaired by any intentions that go beyond it. All craving must be turned off. Only then can beauty be grasped as objective reality.
Harmony in nature and art
According to a theory elaborated in ancient Platonism, the "fine arts" - both visual and poetic and rhetorical - are based on the imitation of nature and are therefore fundamentally inadequate because they only imitate what is sensually perceptible. In this tradition, art is devalued as a mere illustration. Shaftesbury takes up the idea of imitation, but turns it into a positive one. According to his understanding, it is not the individual things of nature that are to be imitated, but the principles that determine the workings of nature. This involves the generation of a whole, whose elements are ordered by numbers and proportions so that from the manifold a unit (union) is perceived by the viewer as harmonic and thus beautiful. Just as ordered nature emerged from chaos , the artist gradually peeled the harmonious form out of its chaotic material. In this sense, the harmony in a work of art should be a reflection of the world harmony, the laws of which it follows. The formative power is hierarchically above the realized form: the real beauty does not lie in the work, but in the organizing power that has given it this quality and whose effects can be felt in it. The whole value of forms is based on their function as carriers of spiritual content. Shaftesbury sums this up in the often quoted formula: " What gives beauty (beautifying) , not what is endowed with it (beautified) is what is really beautiful."
In contrast to this ideal of order and proportion is the “ Gothic ” phantasy that Shaftesbury rejects, that is, everything fantastic, accidental, isolated and formless, every combination of elements that does not follow any regularity. In his judgment, none of this has a place in the world of art. The better something expresses world harmony, the more worthy it is as an object of artistic reproduction. For example, in the hierarchy of nature and thus also of art, an organic structure is higher than, say, clouds. Accordingly, everything monstrous and grotesque as well as the ugly, cruel, bloody and perverse is contrary to nature and therefore not a legitimate motif for artists. These include, for example, the crucifixion of Christ and the sufferings of the martyrs. Likewise, theatrics in any form is unnatural and therefore reprehensible. But not only products of the imagination and deformities that have detached themselves from the natural order are unsuitable for artistic representation; Exaggerating in the other direction, too, being too dependent on natural objects, means failing to fulfill the artist's task. A good painter does not concentrate on insignificant details, he avoids the tiny details that bring the particular and unique of the individual thing into the foreground instead of the general form.
The ideal of harmony requires subtle coloring. The color must be subordinate to the topic and serve it, it must not distract from it. Strong, surprising color effects should therefore be discarded. Avoid anything glaring and exaggeratedly colorful.
The aspect of time in the visual arts
From the point of view of the unit to be represented, the visual arts are faced with a particular challenge: they can only single out a moment in an event, but should as far as possible express the entire quality of the process that takes place in time. Therefore, the moment of transition is to be chosen, the tense moment of the decision: a moment that contains traces of the past in the present and anticipates the future. How this can be done in detail, Shaftesbury explains in detail using the painting he commissioned, which shows the decision of Hercules between the personifications of virtue and pleasure. He describes in detail the artistic means that can be used so that the viewer can see both the uniformity and uniqueness of the moment and the temporal quality of everything dramatic.
The successful and the unsuccessful work
Whether the elements of a work of art have been successfully combined into a real unit can be seen from the criterion of “clarity”. This is to be understood as a design that enables the viewer to see the parts of the work with ease and always keep an eye on the main thing. In the case of a painting, it must be possible to keep your gaze immobile in the center, as it were, and to grasp everything that matters at once. The parts of the picture should be joined together and related to one another like the limbs of a body. Clarity is the motto. The composition should contain only a few figures, the landscape background should be reduced to a minimum. The picture is, as it were, a silent drama; the painter should not regard himself as an epic poet but as a playwright . Only then his work is a tableau (tablature) , "a single, pooled in a single viewpoint and framed by a single notion of meaning or basic idea piece by mutual and necessary relationship of parts constitutes a real whole". This principle of order should apply to all art genres. The desired unity of the work of art requires a high concentration, intensity and abundance in the presentation of the subject.
The observance of all laws and maxims of artistic representation is required, which Shaftesbury illustrates using examples from painting. As a classicist, he emphasized the exemplary nature of the ancient masters, whose works every artist had to study carefully, and praised the artists of the Renaissance in Italy. He disapproves of the orientation of baroque painting to passions; nothing can be exaggerated. He cites the frescoes Justitia by Raphael and Triumph der Judith by Luca Giordano as examples of outstanding success , as an extreme counterexample Jusepe de Ribera's altarpiece San Gennaro goes unharmed from the fire . Shaftesbury's attacks on painters such as Ribera and Pietro da Cortona are directed against typical baroque phenomena, which he describes with the derogatory term Gothic .
Shaftesbury's judgments in the literary field are analogous: There he makes the quality criterion of the unit of action from Aristotle's poetics his own, advocates simple naturalness and condemns the tendency towards the exotic and the fantastic as a phenomenon of decadence . Accordingly, he praises ancient classics like Horace and regards authors like Ludovico Ariosto and Torquato Tasso as the spoilers of real education. To value Ariosto higher than Virgil or a novel higher than Homer's Iliad is, in his view, a sign of vulgar taste. A prime example of the "Gothic" despised by Shaftesbury is the genre of the chivalric novels , which represent the medieval ideal of knights . He therefore expresses his appreciation for Cervantes , who with his Don Quixote successfully ridiculed chivalry and thus put an end to this aberration of taste.
In poetry and writing, Shaftesbury cites the author's resignation as the basic condition for success. The creator of the work is said to be almost completely absent, and his absence shows that he is a master. A good author “does not describe characteristics or virtues, does not judge morals, does not give eulogies and does not specify the particularities himself, and yet he makes his characters visible. They show themselves. It is they who speak in such a way that they differ from everyone else in everything and always resemble themselves. ”According to Shaftesbury's judgment, the unsurpassed master of such representation is Homer. He was able to bring his heroes to life so that after the tragedy there was nothing left to do but translate his dialogues and characters into scenes.
Another important factor of success in literary works and in the visual arts is the omission, the "ellipse". This means what the author of the work does not express, but only suggests and leaves to the imagination of his audience. What is not explicitly given must be supplemented, and this process of filling in blanks creates joy in the reader or viewer. A prerequisite for this is an appropriate ratio between the specified and omitted proportions.
Beauty and enthusiasm
Shaftesbury makes a sharp distinction between the fanatics' enthusiasm, which he condemns, and the enthusiastic devotion to the beautiful, which he glorifies. According to his understanding, aesthetic enthusiasm is a sublime state that occurs when a person mentally goes beyond his own finitude. This experience is fundamentally different from normal experience. The impetus for this is the contemplation of beauty in the works of nature and the reflection that follows, which makes it possible to recognize the infinity of divine power and to appreciate the power of the human spirit derived from it, although the purpose of the world order remains hidden. Such insight is not abstract and theoretical. It is always accompanied by the passionate affect of enthusiasm and inevitably leads to appropriate action.
Natural beauty and garden art
The order, which for Shaftesbury is the characteristic of the beautiful and valuable in nature as in art, lies in the interplay of the elements, it is not based on a visible regular structure. Beauty is not to be understood in an external sense, such as the appearance of geometric patterns in individual natural forms. On the contrary: A rough rock, a cave or a waterfall are phenomena of natural beauty that are far superior to the geometrical-figurative pruning of trees and bushes in the large gardens at the courts of the rulers. The human undertaking to impose regular forms on nature does not improve what has grown. Shaftesbury finds the idea that a lawn or a trimmed bush can be more beautiful than an old oak or cedar is absurd. In keeping with this ideal of naturalness, he also disapproves of the stiff clothing of the Baroque period, which inhibits the natural movement of the human body. He also finds visual material for the superiority of the unadulterated natural in the contrast between wild and tame animals. Unlike Aristotle, he sees no improvement in taming, but degeneration.
The difference between the common concept of beauty and that represented by Shaftesbury is particularly evident in his assessment of wild nature. The usual assessment of some plants or insects as hideous is based, in his opinion, on a superficial perception that does not go beyond the external. This inadequacy of observation is to be overcome by penetrating from the ugly-appearing bodies to the inner design principle. But even with those who look beautiful, one should not be satisfied with the superficial impression. Although the proportions of the “living architecture” presented to the eye are marvelous, they cannot satisfy a more demanding observer in the long run. This can only be done by the forces that have shaped what has been shaped, and these always prove to the knower to be uniform, harmonious and beautiful.
Despite the preference for wild nature, Shaftesbury affirms the art of gardening , which imposes structures on the plant world, and gives rules for it. Garden art should not imitate wild nature; rather, it should orient itself within the framework appropriate to the principles on which natural beauty is based.
Synopsis
The unity of ethics and aesthetics
With Shaftesbury's concept of the moral sense, the good becomes, as it were, the object of a sense perception. This shows the close relationship between ethics and aesthetics, because the good, like the beautiful, is characterized by the fact that it is grasped intuitively and moves emotionally by touching and enticing the viewer. According to this analogy, one can speak of "moral beauty and ugliness".
The characteristic that connects ethics, art and nature is what is admired in all three areas and what constitutes perfection: the order of the parts, their harmony and their coherent connection to a whole. What the interaction of the individual systems - from the private system of an individual to the cosmos - from the point of view of what is beneficial for all is in the ethical field, that in art and nature is the appropriate and therefore beautiful relationship of the elements of an object to one another and the species their assembly, which causes them to become a unity.
The commonality of nature, art and morality results from the fact that they have the same origin: the divine source of all excellence. However, it does not follow from their relationship that they can be traced back to one another. They are similar to one another, but each have their own characteristics. For Shaftesbury, moral judgment is not - as a widespread interpretation that misjudges his thought claims - a special case of the aesthetic, and ethics is not a natural product. Rather, the three areas are independent, matching components of the uniformly ordered universe. They each have their own particular unity and at the same time are harmoniously combined elements of the all-encompassing unity of the world. Art and morality produce out of freedom that which is already given in nature.
The unity of moral education and artistic creativity goes even deeper. It is not limited to the similarity of the consciously creative handling of what is to be generated in each case. Rather, art and ethics are related to one another with regard to the goal. Ultimately, this is only one thing for people: the success of their life as a free individual and as a contributing part of the higher-level communities in which they are embedded. That is why art, including fiction , basically aims at nothing other than the natural order and cultivation of the emotions and thus the realization of the correct posture. Seen in this way, it is inextricably linked with ethics. It should "represent the beauties peculiar to the human soul by means of appropriate scenarios and contrasts".
However, it cannot be the task of a literary work or a work of art to teach the reader directly about ethical demands. The fine arts are not allowed to give rules and regulations; rather, they have to limit themselves to a pure, faithful representation of the real. But especially if they do this job well, they make a significant contribution to the fact that the viewer learns to understand the world and his role in it correctly. In this way they complement the instructive effect of observing nature. For Shaftesbury, this is how it works: By enabling the visual arts and poetry to experience the beautiful, they stimulate the sense of aesthetics. If this sense is stimulated by looking at art and nature, it has consequences for the thinking person: Anyone who turns to the beauty of individual things and structures is called to reflect on them. The aesthetic experience of the individual stimulates occupation with the universal beauty of the world. One arrives at the mental contemplation of the beautiful in the totality of nature, in which nothing is worthless, empty or superfluous. Individual things cannot be good and beautiful by themselves, but only as components of a good and beautiful world; the whole cannot be less perfect than its parts. With such insight one gains access to an understanding of the universal system and can appreciate it. Then the viewer also sees the presence of the general principle of the good and the beautiful in the human world and in his own soul. In this way he is enabled to recognize himself as a moral being in a moral world and to adopt an appropriate attitude.
In addition, ethics and aesthetics have in common that artistic taste, like moral taste, is only developed through the exercise of the individual's autonomous, unswerving power of judgment. One has to emancipate oneself from collective prejudices, which is associated with considerable effort. It is important that the practitioner develop his or her authentic inclinations against the constant resistance of seductive forces such as habit and fashion. One must not be swayed by questionable majority opinions. The development of moral as well as aesthetic taste requires a consistent rejection of the willingness of people to adapt. Harmful constructs such as public taste ( public taste ) and universal judgment (public judgment ) should be discarded. Aesthetic taste, like moral taste, is thus an achievement of the free individual who distinguishes himself from the collective. It is not, however, an expression of personal preferences, but a recording of the objective value that an object has due to its beauty.
The unity of ethics and aesthetics - of outer and inner beauty - only becomes apparent to those who explore both areas. The pure technical philosopher, who speculatively strives to understand the context of the world, is opposed to the pure esthete, who is highly educated but only knows the enjoyment of beautiful sensory objects. A cultivated lover of the beautiful - a virtuoso , as Shaftesbury calls him - misses the goal of life through his one-sidedness if he does not become a philosopher. The higher beauty that lies in virtue remains hidden from him. Likewise, the philosopher who neglects his aesthetic taste formation gets lost in sterile speculation. The inner coherence of his theory is more important to him than the matter itself. Only by combining aesthetic taste and philosophical reflection can both one-sidednesses be avoided.
Freedom as an overarching principle of creation and prosperity
An overarching element that links the various strands of Shaftesbury's thinking is the principle of freedom, the linchpin of his oeuvre. It is about a basic idea that includes both external, political freedom in the sense of the rule of law , freedom of opinion and thought, and internal freedom in the sense of the enlightened ideal of reason and autonomy. These two aspects are mutually dependent. Shaftesbury describes man as the being that, in contrast to animals, has been “released” by nature, as it were, and left at his own disposal to shape himself.
The freedom that man has as a rational being makes his creations possible. It enables him to create a unity of harmonious elements in art and morality, which corresponds to the union of the many into a harmonious whole in the beautiful products of nature. This applies both to high-quality literary and artistic works as well as to the fruits of ethical efforts: the noble formation of one's own character, the successful life, the community that thrives thanks to good order. Humans can therefore consciously produce products on their own that are comparable in terms of their success to the admirable achievements of nature. As a result, when he is creatively active in freedom, he attains a god-like position in the structure of the world. Shaftesbury illustrates this high rank of the self-creating human being based on the ancient myth of Prometheus . According to a mythical tradition, the Titan Prometheus, as a fire bringer and teacher, was the originator of human civilization. In shaping the human world, he developed an activity with which he emulated the rule of the supreme deity, Jupiter , the father of gods . Such, according to Shaftesbury, is the poet who, like a god, brings forth his creations. He is “a second Creator indeed, a true Prometheus under Jupiter. Like that absolute, supreme artist or that universal, creative nature, he creates a coherent, well-balanced whole, in which he subordinates and subordinates the constituent parts to the whole in the right way. "
For the enlightener, the fundamental importance of freedom is also evident at the collective level. It arises from the basic statements of his anthropology : As a community being, humans can only realize the autonomy to which they are predisposed undisturbed if the higher-level systems to which they belong are free and thus free public discourse is possible. According to Shaftesbury's cultural and historical record, political lack of freedom not only corrupts individual morality, but also hinders the development of great art. This double effect demonstrates the interweaving of moral attitude and aesthetic creativity, which is visible here from the point of view of the principle of freedom. The moral quality of a historical epoch is reflected in its art. The freedom of the Greek city-states enabled ancient Greek art to flourish , and the achievements of Renaissance art are also causally related to the freedom of the Italian republics, which were centers of culture.
Unfreedom not only prevents good art, it also creates bad art. Like Giorgio Vasari , Shaftesbury considers the art of the Middle Ages, which is generally pejorative as "Gothic", and its aftermath in the early modern period to be barbaric. Going beyond Vasari's criticism, he sees “Gothic” as the product of a superstitious and oppressive mentality, an instrument controlled by the papacy and serving Catholic propaganda. He believes he can discern such a basic attitude in modern artists, especially Gian Lorenzo Bernini , whose works he denounces as prime examples of an aesthetically and morally inferior and harmful art.
The thrust of Shaftesbury's political engagement also belongs in this context. His basic attitude is expressed in sharp opposition to the Catholic demand for religious obedience, which he denounces as tyranny, and to monarchical absolutism , which among his contemporaries primarily embodied King Louis XIV. The British Enlightenment's political struggle against this ruler is primarily motivated by his need for freedom, not by a nationalist front against France. In his own country, too, he opposes the overwhelming power of the monarchy. Just like the French expansionist drive, he criticizes the belief in a historical mission of England as the dominant world power. The very idea of party discipline in parliamentary votes is incompatible with his understanding of freedom. He is also reluctant to play the standard-setting role of the royal court in society. The idea of autonomy thus proves to be a leitmotif on all levels of his theory and practice.
In the spirit of his unity, Shaftesbury sees himself as a citizen of the world and advocates a cosmopolitan attitude. Politically, however, he does not want the creation of overarching, centrally controlled units, but a multipolar world of sovereign nation states . This is where his awareness of freedom comes into play, which leads him to criticize imperialism . Shaftesbury considers large imperial states to be unnatural in many ways. According to his analysis, the main danger is that in countries that are too extensive and heterogeneous, internal cohesion will be lost and public spirit will dwindle. Centralization is inevitable in empires, the distance between the capital and the individual parts of the empire has a fatal effect. The concentration of power over a very extensive territory in a few hands destroys the natural basis of the connection between government and people. This in turn encourages the tendency towards absolutism and tyranny. The inhabitants no longer show the loyalty to the shapeless power structure that a healthy state can expect from its citizens. Such oversized states are weak internally and aggressive externally. This results in civil wars and wars of conquest. Internally, coercion takes the place of voluntary participation by citizens in the community.
The Enlightenment's concept of freedom and autonomy is also decisive for the national discourse. He criticizes a “patriotism of the soil”, a national consciousness related to one's own country, and drastically compares the patriot on his soil with a mushroom that thrives on a dung heap. Living together in a territory does not create a community. Nor does Shaftesbury view the nation as a community of descent. Rather, it determines a voluntary agreement based on common values as the basis of the unity of a people. In doing so, he anticipates the basic idea of what will later be called constitutional patriotism.
Cultural policy implications
According to its general principles, Shaftesbury is optimistic about the social, political and cultural situation in Great Britain after the Glorious Revolution and the future of the country. The political freedom that has been achieved will result in a cultural heyday, especially in music and painting. An upswing can also be expected for the sciences. The Enlightenment thinker considers the symbolic power of the urban planning to be particularly important . According to his understanding of urbanism, architecture is an important expression of social conditions, and art policy in the field of public construction has to take into account the requirements of the time. Therefore, the construction of fifty new churches planned by the Tories in the London area is to be rejected. The emergence of church spiers in the city panorama is a demonstration of the power of the Anglican State Church and shows the subservience of Londoners to this institution. This is not up to date in an epoch of liberation from the compulsion to believe. Shaftesbury also criticizes the court's art policy and specifically the court architect Christopher Wren and his urban development plan. In his opinion, the design of important public buildings should not be left to the will of individual decision-makers. The urban space is a public space, which must therefore be included in its entirety in the decision-making processes. This is an important aspect of freedom in the cultural field.
Shaftesbury complains that courtly culture spoils taste in art through pomp, pomp and debauchery and, especially in an absolutist state, leads to the decline of art and aesthetic judgment. He underpins this thesis with detailed criticism of the cultural conditions in France of Louis XIV. The influence of the decadent royal court has an impact in the field of painting in the tendency towards pompous coloring with affected gestures of the characters and theatrical action. This is how Charles Le Brun's painting was ruined. Nicolas Poussin , however, deserves praise for resisting pressure from the court. In general, Shaftesbury opposes the influence of powerful state and church patrons who place art at the service of existing power relations and thus demean it. This can be seen in the example of Raphael , who is indeed a great master, but in some cases has bowed to the ideas of his church patrons; the quality of the resulting paintings suffered greatly as a result. In this area, too, Shaftesbury combines morality and aesthetics: He describes Poussin and Salvator Rosa as “moral artists” who knew how to maintain their independence.
Shaftesbury's distrust of state arts policy is so deep that he even finds the idea of establishing a state academy of the arts in England problematic. Since he fears paternalism and instrumentalization of art, he does not consider it desirable that the promotion of the arts should come from the court; rather, this task is to be taken over by the Whig aristocracy.
reception
the Age of Enlightenment
In the 18th century, Shaftesbury's ideas were widely received in both Britain and the continent. Aesthetics and art theory as well as the concept of autonomy, which found concrete expression in criticism of religion and the church and in polemics against unlimited monarchical power, met with a strong response. With the philosophical foundation of aesthetic enthusiasm and the theory of taste, Shaftesbury set impulses that were groundbreaking for the aesthetics of the Enlightenment era. Public tastes in painting, architecture and gardening showed the lasting influence of his principles. His realistic, conversation-oriented portrayal of philosophical ideas was considered exemplary.
Shaftesbury's thesis that the enlightened person could create his religious view of God and the world by means of his own perception of the world and reason and was thus not dependent on divine revelation was highly controversial. The assertion that the belief in revelation is unnecessary for religion was regarded as a characteristic of a current that was used to call deism in the controversial religious and philosophical debates of the Enlightenment period . Therefore, Shaftesbury was counted among the Deists by his opponents. However, this classification was already controversial in the 18th century. It is problematic because there are different definitions for the term deism and the so-called deists held strongly divergent opinions.
Great Britain
In Great Britain the ideas of the early Enlightenment met with “ free thinkers ” like Anthony Collins and with liberal theologians a strong echo and broad approval, while circles close to the court rejected them or ignored them. His works appeared in numerous editions, and by the second half of the 18th century the main features of his thinking were already part of the general educational stock. Despite the anti-church statements, the reception in the Christian milieu was partly benevolent; some Christians, who disliked the criticism of revelation and the church, valued a part of moral philosophical ideas. The Characteristicks of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times were extremely popular; according to the assessment of the poet Alexander Pope (1688–1744), they caused greater damage to the revelation faith in England than all other works critical of religion put together. The ideal of politeness had a particular effect on the social ideas of the Scottish Enlightenment . Oliver Goldsmith noted in 1759 that Shaftesbury had more imitators in Britain than any other writer.
Alexander Pope, the Scottish enlighteners Francis Hutcheson (1694–1746), George Turnbull (1698–1748) and David Fordyce (1711–1751) as well as the politician and scholar James Harris (1709–1780) seized Shaftesbury's ideas and contributed to their dissemination at. In his didactic poem An Essay on Man , published anonymously from 1732–1734, Pope designed a picture of human nature and the position of man in the cosmos, influenced by The Moralists . Hutcheson took over the concept of moral sense , which he as well as the sense of beauty ascribed to the unchangeable nature of man, but as a Christian rejected the criticism of religion, which he attributed to the Lord's personal prejudices against Christianity. The poets James Thomson (1700–1748), Mark Akenside (1721–1770) and William Shenstone (1714–1763) also exploited Shaftesbury's thoughts, and the statesman and military commander James Stanhope (1673–1721) embraced his principles of virtue and taste with enthusiasm on. The Anglican theologian and philosopher Joseph Butler (1692–1752) was also heavily influenced by the anthropology of the Early Enlightenment, from whose reflections on natural systems and the structure of the mind he was inspired. However, he rarely mentioned him and only to criticize his position.
Shaftesbury's view of the world caused offense to some freethinkers. A distinguished opponent of his moral philosophy in this camp was his contemporary Bernard Mandeville , who caused a sensation with his provocative satire Die Bienenfabel . Mandeville found the Lord's thoughts, while a great compliment to humanity, were unfortunately wrong. Moral judgments are nothing but time-related habits. Virtue is by no means based on an innate disposition for good, but is acquired. It contradicts the animal disposition of humans, is a modified form of self-interest and, moreover, is not at all in the interest of the community, whose prosperity it rather inhibits. Mandeville's attack was directed against both Christianity and natural religion and the notion of objective morality. With his consistent naturalism and his fundamental criticism of the optimistic view of man and the philosophical doctrines of virtue, he aroused violent opposition. An ongoing debate about the opposing models of Mandeville and Shaftesbury has raged in Britain, as well as on the continent and in the American colonies. Francis Hutcheson emerged as the defender of Shaftesbury's moral philosophy.
The free-thinking philosopher David Hume was also critical . Although he took inspiration from Shaftesbury's ethics and aesthetics, he rejected his religious ideas. He considered the hypothesis of a cosmic system appropriately structured by divine activity and the classification of man in such a context to be unfounded. He saw this worldview as the fruit of an inappropriate enthusiasm.
The importance of reason and feeling in ethics has been discussed controversially. Hutcheson took up the idea of the moral sense, but modified it considerably. He said that for virtue the decisive role was played by moral sense and emotions and not reason. With his devaluation of reason, he changed the original concept and gave the following debates a new direction. As a result, Shaftesbury's doctrine of virtues was later often understood in the light of Hutcheson's ethical interpretation and thus distorted.
A lot of attention was paid to the idea of critically illuminating dubious claims using humor in the 18th century. The lord's suggestion to expose presumptuousness by showing their ridiculousness was coarsened and his concerns falsified: the joking test of whether something is ridiculous and therefore questionable was turned into a "truth test" and Shaftesbury assumed that it was in this way let the truthfulness of a statement be determined. It was argued about, but in reality the thesis in this form did not come from Shaftesbury.
In the ongoing violent religious controversy of the 18th century, Shaftesbury, along with other freethinkers, was the target of attacks. The Anglican philosopher George Berkeley published the Alciphron Dialogues in 1732 , in which he defended the Christian faith against both Mandeville and Shaftesbury. He attacked Shaftesbury with the weapon of irony, sometimes incorrectly reproducing the opposing position. The Calvinist John Witherspoon was also ironic .
The Christian publicists who opposed the concept of natural religion largely judged from the perspective of the Anglican Church. Political opposition to the Whigs was connected with the ecclesiastical position. In these circles, Shaftesbury was particularly resentful of his letter's recommendation about enthusiasm for treating questions of faith with humor. Three replies were already published in the year the letter was published. The Anglican writer Mary Astell , who responded to the letter about enthusiasm with a pamphlet , vehemently opposed the humorous handling of religious statements. She saw this as an attack on religion which she tried to ward off with irony. Fundamentalist Christian writers opposed the efforts of Shaftesbury's followers to portray natural religion as compatible with Christian belief. Most of all, they disliked the penetration of his ideas into education. Critical comments on the Characteristicks were published by John Balguy, William Warburton , John Brown and John Leland, among others .
In the second half of the 18th century, the British reading public was much less interested in the long admired and imitated author than before, and fewer new editions of his works were brought out. His style no longer corresponded to the taste of the public and was judged unfavorably by literary criticism.
France
The letter on enthusiasm and sensus communis were translated into French during the author's lifetime. His advocacy of religious tolerance met with approval on the Huguenot side. On the other hand, his unsystematic approach, which contradicted French customs, met with incomprehension in France. Shaftesbury's style was held in high regard by the enlightened Montesquieu , who counted him among the four outstanding authors of world literature. Montesquieu used Shaftesbury's ideas for his Lettres persanes , which appeared in 1721.
In 1745 Denis Diderot published the Essai sur le mérite et la vertu anonymously , a free translation of the Inquiry concerning Virtue with commentary. He said Shaftesbury had created works of sublime truth and that his style was brilliant. However, there is no satisfactory justification for his theses.
Voltaire praised Shaftesbury as a bold thinker. He valued the Englishman's criticism of Christianity, but contradicted his optimistic view of the world, which he thought was completely wrong. The rigorous atheist Helvétius judged from a different perspective . He sharply criticized Shaftesbury's argument for a natural religion. For Helvétius, the attempt to derive a religious interpretation of the world from reasoning was the culmination of absurdity.
German language area
In the German-speaking area, the ideas of the English found a particularly strong and lasting response from the 1740s. Up to 1800 almost all of the important German-speaking writers, philosophers and theologians were familiar with his work, and most of them counted him among the great thinkers and inspirers.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was Shaftesbury's first prominent German reader. It was with great pleasure that he discovered a like-minded person in the English Enlightenment. Leibniz read the Characteristicks soon after their publication and noted in 1712 that he had found almost the entire content of his theodicy in them . Leibniz spoke enthusiastically about the style and content of the dialogue The Moralists , whose optimistic idealism corresponded to his own basic convictions. However, he objected to the suggestion to ridicule outlandish ideas.
In the literary field, Shaftesbury was applauded by Johann Christoph Gottsched . This very influential theorist shared the Englishman's conviction of the objectivity of the beautiful and agreed with his demand that the fantastic should be avoided in poetry and that the poet should orient himself to the pure example of nature. In order to underpin the position of the critic as a literary, moral and philosophical arbitration body, Gottsched made use of relevant statements in the Soliloquy . When justifying his conviction that poetry must be subject to rules and should not be left to arbitrary taste judgments according to personal preferences, Gottsched referred to the "profound Count of Schaftesbury".
Around the middle of the century there was a circle of writers in Berlin who admired Shaftesbury. Their activities formed a high point of the German Shaftesbury reception. The theologian Johann Joachim Spalding accomplished a pioneering achievement , who translated two writings of the English thinker into German and published them in the Berlin publishing house of the Enlightenment expert Ambrosius Haude : In 1745 there appeared Die Sitten-Lehrer , the German version of The Moralists , followed two years later study of virtue , the transfer of inquiry Concerning virtue, or Merit . Georg Venzky had already published his translation of the Soliloquy in 1738 . In this way, the language barrier was overcome in the German-speaking area and a broad reception made possible. In the introductions to his translations, Spalding defended the concept of natural religion. In addition, in 1748 he published his reflection on the destiny of man , a self-talk based on the Soliloquy .
Shaftesbury's ideas were also imbued with the talks about the beauty of nature , a work that the Berlin-based Swiss enlightener Johann Georg Sulzer , a friend of Spalding, had published in 1750 by the publisher of the now deceased Haude. The magazine Critische Nachrichten also appeared there , in which Sulzer, who was a co-founder of the paper, advertised the English philosopher. The Berlin enthusiasm also radiated into Switzerland: the Zurich scholar Johann Jakob Bodmer , who was friends with Sulzer, and the theologian Johann Georg Schulthess , who also worked in Zurich , began to grapple with Shaftesbury's ideas.
The moral philosopher and writer Christian Fürchtegott Gellert used the moral-scythe theory for his concept of an educated elite whose task it was to promote the development of general aesthetic and moral taste as the avant-garde of moral progress. Extraordinary greatness of mind and soul is the fruit of the cultivation of moral feeling, which Gellert equated with the aesthetic.
The image of Shaftesbury's world of thought popularized by the Critical News also shaped the reception in the second generation of his Berlin readers, who emerged after the middle of the century. It included the young Gotthold Ephraim Lessing , who worked on the Critical News , Moses Mendelssohn and Friedrich Nicolai . These authors moved the art theoretical and aesthetic aspects more into focus than the previously dominant moral ones. Together the three enlighteners edited the journal Library of Fine Sciences and Freyen Künste . There they published in 1757 a translation of Shaftesbury's art-philosophical treatise on the judgment of Hercules, probably by Nicolai. In his introduction to this publication, Nicolai made a polemic against an older translation of the work that was created in Gottsched's environment and published by him and that was distorted by errors. At the same time he turned against the art concept of the Leipzig circle around Gottsched, which degraded painting and distorted Shaftesbury's concerns.
Mendelssohn's admiration for Shaftesbury is evident throughout his early work. His relationship to the role model was determined by admiration and playful competition, an attitude that he expressed with the remark that he liked The Moralists quite well, "but I can do something like that too". With his Letters on Sensations , published in 1755 and formally linked to the Moralists , Mendelssohn wanted to test the extent to which the wrapping of philosophical thoughts in an appealing literary form was suitable for his purposes.
Christoph Martin Wieland came into contact with Shaftesbury's world of thought through Bodmer and then dealt with the early reconnaissance man for his entire life. He counted him, along with Xenophon, Plutarch and Horace, among the select writers. Wieland took up the idea of the moral sense and shared Shaftesbury's conviction that moral and aesthetic contents of consciousness cannot be separated from one another. Based on this point of view, he found that an underdeveloped sense of beauty was a sign of poorly developed moral judgment. For Wieland, Shaftesbury's theory of moral sense was the basis of his demand that writers, as an educated and virtuous elite, should assume a special responsibility. It falls to you as a people's educator to shape general taste and thus to improve the moral condition of society as a whole. Later, however, Wieland distanced himself from this position in his youth and assessed the moral sense theory much more skeptically. In his obituary for Wieland, Goethe emphasized his particular closeness to Shaftesbury: "In such a man our Wieland [...] found a truly older twin brother in spirit, whom he resembled completely without being formed after him."
However, Goethe's own judgment of the British performance was more reserved. He praised him as an excellent thinker who, however, was unable to translate what was recognized as correct into creative action. Goethe said that as a writer and poet, Wieland had achieved what his “twin brother” had asked for.
Shaftesbury's educational idea made a deep impression on Johann Gottfried Herder . He admired him as the embodiment of a noble ideal of life and often quoted him. In 1800 he published his poetic translation of a passage from The Moralists , in which creation is glorified, under the title Naturhymnus . In two issues of his Adrastea magazine , he recommended some of the Lord's basic ideas to the audience. In dealing with the doctrine of virtue, he emphasized the unity of moral feeling with reason. He also went into wit and humor - in his translation Geist und Frohsinn. He found these qualities to be understood in the sense intended by Shaftesbury; then they are "the spice and bloom of life" and indispensable for education.
Immanuel Kant's interest was mainly in moral philosophical work. According to his understanding, the moral sense comes close to virtue by valuing it for its own sake, not for an advantage. From this point of view, Kant judged that, among the previous philosophers, Shaftesbury, Hutcheson and Hume had come furthest “in the search for the first reasons of all morality”, although their attempts were “incomplete and inadequate”. Shaftesbury is to be blamed, however, because he has assigned pleasure and displeasure relevance to morality. In this he followed the highly reprehensible teaching of Epicurus , albeit at a great distance and only up to a certain point .
Friedrich Schleiermacher also expressed himself in line with the thrust of this criticism . Although he was religiously influenced by Shaftesbury's ideas, he rejected his ethics, the "English morality". He classified these among the unacceptable "systems of pleasure" in which action is not an end in itself but a means to gain pleasure and virtue is only seen as a means to happiness. Not the act itself, but the relation to acting in feeling is made the standard of the moral. The moral judgment is decoupled from the action instead of being inherent in it as a determining factor.
The Christian critics, who condemned Shaftesbury's whole approach as unbelievable, took a sharply negative position. That his view of the world endangered conventional belief was also noted in the Enlightenment milieu; so Lessing ironically called him the most dangerous enemy of religion because he was the finest. Fundamentalist theologians such as Johann Lorenz Mosheim and Christoph Matthäus Pfaff were vehemently criticized . They rejected the concept of natural religion as a deistic attack on the truth of belief. In biblically oriented circles the Enlightenment was perceived as the enemy of revelation and was fought against. The Christian Enlightenment critic Johann Georg Hamann found that Shaftesbury had woven a veil for his disbelief and disbelief, which he, Hamann, was now borrowing. By the veil he meant the irony Shaftesbury had recommended as a suitable means of exposing religious infatuation. Hamann appropriated this approach to the skeptical examination of alleged certainties in order to use it in the fight against their author.
Modern
In the modern age, Shaftesbury's ideas have found little echo in philosophical circles. Because of his unsystematic approach and his conscious distance from the academic world, he is not viewed as a specialist philosopher in the strict sense, but rather as a philosophizing writer. In contrast, he is very interested in cultural-historical research. He is recognized as one of the most important and effective moralists of the 18th century.
Philosophical opinions
In his discussion of utilitarianism, the British philosopher William Whewell (1794–1866) pleaded for a morality based on principles, taking up the concept of moral sense with reference to its originator.
Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911) described and praised Shaftesbury's way of thinking. He characterized the standpoint of the early Enlightenment as " panentheistic monism ". With his affirmation of life, nature and the world, the Lord continued the metaphysical thinking of the Renaissance and turned it into a world formula. Like Giordano Bruno and Baruch de Spinoza , Shaftesbury has led this thinking to a climax. He connected the deepening in oneself with the contemplation of the universe and thus achieved a progress beyond the already existing objective idealism in that he “found the relationship between the process of formation in which perfect character arises and the formative power of nature itself “Captured. The philosophy of his time seemed pointless to him because it “could not contribute anything to his life's work, the formation of his soul”.
Ernst Cassirer (1874–1945) held Shaftesbury in high esteem and examined its intellectual historical significance in detail. In Cassirer's words, the pure philosophy of ideas of modern Platonism permeates itself in the work of the English philosopher with the content of the modern feeling for nature. The general view of the universe and life that emerged from this emerged in the rhapsodic form of his writings in the most free artistic form and in the splendor of a new philosophical style. Shaftesbury was - according to Cassirer - "the first great esthetician that England produced" and an advocate of humor as "the liberating, life-giving and life-shaping potency of the soul". He saw the conclusion and concrete fulfillment of philosophy in aesthetics as a doctrine of the beautiful. According to his point of view, the truth of the cosmos is, as it were, made to speak in the phenomenon of beauty, and man creates the purest harmony between himself and the world through the medium of beauty. The barrier between the world of the “inside” and that of the “outside” falls. In the perception of the beautiful there is a turn from the world of the created to the world of the creative. Shaftesbury's aesthetic once again expresses the general prerequisite on which his concept of nature and his theory of morality are based: the conviction that the individual can grasp and embrace the whole with pure devotion because he stands in the middle of it as a component and is one with it . Cassirer emphasized the importance of such an act of contemplation and devotion to Shaftesbury's understanding of art, according to which this approach lays the foundation for all artistic creation as well as for all art enjoyment.
Cultural history research
Research into Shaftesbury's work and aftermath, long neglected in the 19th century, intensified in the course of the 20th century. Since the turn of the century before last, an abundance of individual studies - in addition to numerous articles and a large number of monographs - has brought the diverse facets of the oeuvre into focus. A substantial part was contributed by German-language research, with Oskar Walzel playing a pioneering role from 1909. Walzel shaped the strongly lasting image of Shaftesbury as a forerunner and stimulator of the German aesthetic of genius and the associated Prometheus reception. However, this finding is now considered obsolete.
Before 1980, Benjamin Rand, William E. Alderman, Alfred Owen Aldridge and Ernest Tuveson stood out among the specialists in English-speaking countries, later Robert B. Voitle with his pioneering Shaftesbury biography (1984) and Lawrence E. Klein with his analysis of the social and political background (1994). The critical complete edition, the “Standard Edition” (SE), which has been published in Stuttgart since 1981 and which also includes German translations, makes a significant contribution to the development of the material. The importance of the early Enlightenment for moral philosophy, the history of religion, aesthetics and art theory, its role as a political initiator, its theory and practice of dialogue and the various after-effects of its suggestions are thoroughly examined in the more recent specialist literature.
The history of philosophy is of particular interest. Four directions of interpretation have emerged since the beginning of the 20th century. One of these sees Shaftesbury as a modern stoic who received significant impulses from the ancient Stoa. This thesis was advanced by Benjamin Rand, Esther A. Tiffany and Alfred O. Aldridge, but it also met with opposition. Another direction - Oskar Walzel, Ernst Cassirer and others - regards him primarily as a Platonist and emphasizes his role as a mediator of Neoplatonic thought. This classification is also controversial. According to the third interpretation, he was an innovator who aestheticized ethics and, with the emphasis on emotional reactions, pushed back the rational discourse of ethics. The fourth, presented by Erwin Wolff, builds on this interpretation . She puts special emphasis on Shaftesbury's aversion to speculation and systematics and reminds us that he was completely oriented towards the practical goal of an optimal way of life and conveyed his concerns through literature. Therefore, his thinking does not fit into any scheme of the history of ideas.
The moral sense as the power of judgment in the sense coined by Shaftesbury is receiving increased attention in recent research, especially because of the broad impact of this concept on writers, artists, and theologians of the Enlightenment period. The key role of the early Enlightenment in the development of anthropology is recognized, especially from the point of view of an optimistic "rehabilitation of sensuality" that he worked out against the previously dominant ascetic and pessimistic currents.
Text editions and translations
- Gerd Hemmerich, Wolfram Benda , Christine Jackson-Holzberg et al. (Eds.): Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury: Standard Edition. All works, letters and posthumous writings. Frommann-Holzboog, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1981 ff., ISBN 3-7728-0743-7 (critical edition with German translations; 13 volumes published so far)
- Rex A. Barrell (Ed.): Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713) and 'Le Refuge Français'-Correspondence (= Studies in British History . Volume 15). The Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston et al. 1989, ISBN 0-88946-466-9 (edition of Shaftesbury's correspondence with Pierre Bayle, Jacques Basnage, Jean Le Clerc, Pierre Coste and Pierre des Maizeaux)
- Wolfgang H. Schrader (ed.), Max Freshnessisen-Köhler (translator): Shaftesbury: A letter about enthusiasm. The moralists. 2nd Edition. Meiner, Hamburg 1980, ISBN 3-7873-0511-4 (translation only)
- Karl-Heinz Schwabe (Eds.), Ludwig Heinrich Hölty, Johann Lorenz Benzler (Translator): Anthony Earl of Shaftesbury: The Sociable Enthusiast. Philosophical essays. Beck, Munich 1990, ISBN 3-406-34348-1 (only translations; contains: A letter on enthusiasm , The Moralists , Inquiry into Virtue , Sensus Communis )
literature
Overview representations
- Lawrence E. Klein: Cooper, Anthony Ashley. In: Henry CG Matthew, Brian Harrison (Eds.): Oxford Dictionary of National Biography . Volume 13, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2004, ISBN 0-19-861363-6 , pp. 217-223.
- David A. Pailin: Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of (1671-1713). In: Theological Real Encyclopedia . Volume 31, de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 2000, ISBN 3-11-016657-7 , pp. 221-225.
- Jürgen Sprute : Shaftesbury. Philosophy of harmony and beauty in nature. In: Lothar Kreimendahl (Hrsg.): Philosophers of the 18th century (= great philosophers . Volume 4). Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 2010, ISBN 978-3-534-23300-7 , pp. 7-21.
- Friedrich A. Uehlein, Angelica Baum, Vilem Mudroch: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. In: Helmut Holzhey , Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy . The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1: Great Britain and North America. Netherlands. 1st half volume, Schwabe, Basel 2004, ISBN 3-7965-1987-3 , pp. 51–89, 164–168.
biography
- Robert Voitle: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury, 1671-1713. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge / London 1984, ISBN 0-8071-1139-2 .
Collections of articles
- Fabienne Brugère, Michel Malherbe (eds.): Shaftesbury. Philosophy et politesse. Actes du Colloque (Université de Nantes, 1996). Champion, Paris 2000, ISBN 2-7453-0256-6 .
- Giancarlo Carabelli, Paola Zanardi (ed.): Il gentleman filosofo. Nuovi saggi su Shaftesbury. Il Poligrafo, Padua 2003, ISBN 88-7115-337-5 .
- Rainer Godel, Insa Kringler (eds.): Shaftesbury (= Enlightenment. Interdisciplinary yearbook for research into the 18th century and its history of impact . Volume 22). Meiner, Hamburg 2010, ISBN 978-3-7873-1969-5 .
- Patrick Müller (Ed.): New Ages, New Opinions. Shaftesbury in his World and Today. Lang, Frankfurt 2014, ISBN 978-3-631-64343-3 .
- Patrick Müller (Ed.): Shaping Enlightenment Politics. The Social and Political Impact of the First and Third Earls of Shaftesbury. Lang, Berlin 2018, ISBN 978-3-631-67163-4 .
Ethic religion
- Stanley Grean: Shaftesbury's Philosophy of Religion and Ethics. A Study in Enthusiasm. Ohio University Press, Athens (Ohio) 1967.
- Dirk Großklaus: Natural Religion and Enlightened Society. Shaftesbury's relationship with the Cambridge Platonists. Winter, Heidelberg 2000, ISBN 3-8253-1021-3 .
- Fritz-Peter Hager: Enlightenment, Platonism and Education at Shaftesbury. Haupt, Bern et al. 1993, ISBN 3-258-04822-3 .
- Friedrich A. Uehlein: Cosmos and Subjectivity. Lord Shaftesbury's Philosophical Regimen. Alber, Freiburg / Munich 1976, ISBN 3-495-47338-6 .
- Erwin Wolff: Shaftesbury and its importance for the English literature of the 18th Jhs. The moralist and the literary form. Niemeyer, Tübingen 1960 (habilitation thesis)
Connection between ethics and aesthetics
- Angelica Baum: Self-awareness and reflected affection. Aesthetics and Ethics at Shaftesbury. Frommann-Holzboog, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 2001, ISBN 3-7728-2038-7 .
- Barbara Schmidt-Haberkamp: The Art of Criticism. On the connection between ethics and aesthetics at Shaftesbury. Fink, Munich 2000, ISBN 3-7705-3470-0 (online)
Concept of humor, discourse theory, politics
- Lydia B. Amir: Humor and the Good Life in Modern Philosophy. Shaftesbury, Hamann, Kierkegaard. State University of New York Press, Albany 2014, ISBN 978-1-4384-4937-1 , pp. 11-88.
- Lawrence E. Klein: Shaftesbury and the culture of politics. Moral discourse and cultural politics in early eighteenth-century England. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1994, ISBN 0-521-41806-2 .
- Rolf Raming: Skepticism as a critical method. Shaftesbury's concept of dialogical skepticism. Lang, Frankfurt am Main 1996, ISBN 3-631-49756-3 .
Art philosophy, art politics
- Johannes Dobai: The art literature of classicism and romanticism in England. Volume 1: 1700-1750. Benteli, Bern 1974, pp. 47-91.
- Dagmar Mirbach: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. In: Stefan Majetschak (Hrsg.): Classics of the philosophy of art. From Plato to Lyotard. Beck, Munich 2005, ISBN 3-406-52834-1 , pp. 76-94.
- Isabella Woldt: The architecture of forms in Shaftesbury's »Second Characters«. About people's social inclination, art production and art perception. Deutscher Kunstverlag, Munich / Berlin 2004, ISBN 3-422-06442-7 .
reception
- Mark-Georg Dehrmann: The »Oracle of the Deists«. Shaftesbury and the German Enlightenment. Wallstein, Göttingen 2008, ISBN 978-3-8353-0233-4 .
- Rebekka Horlacher: educational theory before educational theory. The Shaftesbury reception in Germany and Switzerland in the 18th century. Königshausen & Neumann, Würzburg 2004, ISBN 3-8260-2798-1 .
Web links
- Literature by and about Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury in the catalog of the German National Library
- Michael B. Gill: Entry in Edward N. Zalta (Ed.): Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy .
- John McAteer: Entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy .
- Bibliography on Shaftesbury (Shaftesbury Project, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg)
- Shaftesbury Bibliography (Laurent Jaffro)
- Characteristicks of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times , Douglas Den Uyl edition, 2001
- Christopher John Cunliffe: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury (1671–1713): His Politics and Ideas , Oxford 1981 (unprinted dissertation)
- Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury on thepeerage.com
Remarks
- ↑ Lawrence E. Klein: Cooper, Anthony Ashley. In: Henry CG Matthew, Brian Harrison (Eds.): Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Volume 13, Oxford 2004, pp. 217-223, here: 217; Christopher John Cunliffe: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713): His Politics and Ideas , Oxford 1981, p. 22; Robert Voitle: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury, 1671-1713 , Baton Rouge / London 1984, pp. 1-7.
- ↑ Lawrence E. Klein: Cooper, Anthony Ashley. In: Henry CG Matthew, Brian Harrison (Eds.): Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Volume 13, Oxford 2004, pp. 217-223, here: 217 f .; Robert Voitle: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury, 1671-1713 , Baton Rouge / London 1984, pp. 7-12; Christopher John Cunliffe: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713): His Politics and Ideas , Oxford 1981, pp. 22-25.
- ↑ Lawrence E. Klein: Cooper, Anthony Ashley. In: Henry CG Matthew, Brian Harrison (Eds.): Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Volume 13, Oxford 2004, pp. 217-223, here: 218; Robert Voitle: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury, 1671-1713 , Baton Rouge / London 1984, pp. 12-16.
- ↑ Lawrence E. Klein: Cooper, Anthony Ashley. In: Henry CG Matthew, Brian Harrison (Eds.): Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Volume 13, Oxford 2004, pp. 217-223, here: 218; Robert Voitle: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury, 1671-1713 , Baton Rouge / London 1984, pp. 18-37.
- ^ Robert Voitle: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury, 1671-1713. Baton Rouge / London 1984, pp. 38-47.
- ↑ Angelica Baum: Self-esteem and reflected affection. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 2001, p. 46 f .; Robert Voitle: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury, 1671-1713 , Baton Rouge / London 1984, pp. 54-60; Christopher John Cunliffe: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713): His Politics and Ideas , Oxford 1981, pp. 38-43.
- ^ Stanley Grean: Self-Interest and Public Interest in Shaftesbury's Philosophy. In: Journal of the History of Philosophy. Volume 2, 1964, pp. 37-45, here: 37 f.
- ^ Robert Voitle: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury, 1671-1713. Baton Rouge / London 1984, pp. 70-78; Lawrence E. Klein: Shaftesbury and the culture of politeness , Cambridge 1994, pp. 136 f.
- ↑ Angelica Baum: Self-esteem and reflected affection. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 2001, p. 48 f .; Robert Voitle: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury, 1671-1713 , Baton Rouge / London 1984, pp. 84-93.
- ^ Christopher John Cunliffe: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713): His Politics and Ideas. Oxford 1981, pp. 98-113; Robert Voitle: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury, 1671-1713 , Baton Rouge / London 1984, pp. 207-212.
- ^ Robert Voitle: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury, 1671-1713 , Baton Rouge / London 1984, pp. 201 f .; Christopher John Cunliffe: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713): His Politics and Ideas , Oxford 1981, pp. 150 f.
- ^ Christopher John Cunliffe: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713): His Politics and Ideas. Oxford 1981, p. 114.
- ↑ See on this stay Robert Voitle: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury, 1671-1713. Baton Rouge / London 1984, pp. 214-225.
- ↑ Lawrence E. Klein: Cooper, Anthony Ashley. In: Henry CG Matthew, Brian Harrison (Eds.): Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Volume 13, Oxford 2004, pp. 217-223, here: 219-221; Robert Voitle: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury, 1671-1713 , Baton Rouge / London 1984, pp. 225-228, 251, 298-300.
- ↑ Lawrence E. Klein: Cooper, Anthony Ashley. In: Henry CG Matthew, Brian Harrison (Eds.): Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Volume 13, Oxford 2004, pp. 217-223, here: 221. Cf. Lori Branch: Between Suspicion and Enchantment: Reading Shaftesbury's Private Writings. In: Patrick Müller (Ed.): New Ages, New Opinions. Frankfurt 2014, pp. 261–276, here: 268 f.
- ^ Robert Voitle: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury, 1671-1713. Baton Rouge / London 1984, pp. 368-386; Lawrence E. Klein: Cooper, Anthony Ashley. In: Henry CG Matthew, Brian Harrison (Eds.): Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Volume 13, Oxford 2004, pp. 217-223, here: 221.
- ↑ See Isabella Woldt: Architectural Forms in Shaftesbury's »Second Characters«. Munich 2004, pp. 79-81; Lawrence E. Klein: Cooper, Anthony Ashley. In: Henry CG Matthew, Brian Harrison (Eds.): Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Volume 13, Oxford 2004, pp. 217-223, here: 221.
- ^ Robert Voitle: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury, 1671-1713. Baton Rouge / London 1984, pp. 401 f .; Andrea Gatti: Per l'estetica dell'emblema nel Settecento inglese. In: Bollettino del Museo Bodoniano di Parma. No. 7, 1993, pp. 201-237, here: 210.
- ^ Christopher John Cunliffe: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713): His Politics and Ideas. Oxford 1981, pp. 334-336.
- ↑ See the overview in Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Primary literature. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 51–62.
- ↑ Angelica Baum: Self-esteem and reflected affection. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 2001, p. 127, note 75.
- ↑ See the editor's introduction to this publication in Shaftesbury: Standard Edition , Volume 2/4, ed. by Wolfram Benda et al., Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 2006, pp. 13–34 and David A. Pailin: Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of (1671–1713). In: Theological Real Encyclopedia. Volume 31, Berlin / New York 2000, pp. 221–225, here: 221.
- ↑ See on the dating Christine Jackson-Holzberg et al. (Ed.): Shaftesbury: Standard Edition. Volume 3/1, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 2018, p. 372, note 53.
- ↑ See on the inquiry by Lawrence E. Klein: Shaftesbury and the culture of politeness , Cambridge 1994, pp. 48-59.
- ↑ For symbolism see Felix Paknadel: Shaftesbury's Illustrations of Characteristics. In: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes. Volume 37, 1974, pp. 290-312, here: 305 f.
- ↑ See Alfred O. Aldridge: Shaftesbury and the Deist Manifesto. In: Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. Volume 41, 1951, pp. 297-385, here: 314-316.
- ↑ See on this work Erwin Wolff: Shaftesbury and its importance for the English literature of the 18th Jhs. Tübingen 1960, pp. 51-60; Rebekka Horlacher: educational theory before educational theory , Würzburg 2004, p. 29 f.
- ↑ See the meaning of the subtitle Pat Rogers: Shaftesbury and the Aesthetics of Rhapsody. In: The British Journal of Aesthetics. Volume 12, 1972, pp. 244-257.
- ↑ See Erwin Wolff: Shaftesbury and its importance for the English literature of the 18th Jhs. Tübingen 1960, pp. 87-90, 93-98.
- ↑ Erwin Wolff: Shaftesbury and its importance for English literature of the 18th century. Tübingen 1960, pp. 87-90, 95-100, 108-110, 112-121; Wolfgang H. Schrader (ed.): Shaftesbury: A letter about enthusiasm. The moralists. Introduction. 2nd Edition. Hamburg 1980, pp. VII-XXXIII, here: XVII, XIX-XXV; Isabella Woldt: Architecture of Forms in Shaftesbury's “Second Characters” , Munich 2004, pp. 36–50; Mark-Georg Dehrmann: Deistic knowledge of God, poetics and enthusiasm. In: Peter-André Alt , Volkhard Wels (ed.): Religiöses Wissen in der Lyrik der Early Modernzeit , Wiesbaden 2015, pp. 203–221, here: 214–219. For the narrative structure see Alexandra Kleihues: Figures of Evidence in Shaftesburys Moralists. In: Enlightenment. Volume 22, 2010, pp. 41-57.
- ^ Michael Prince: Philosophical dialogue in the British Enlightenment. Cambridge 1996, p. 67.
- ↑ Horst Bohling: A humanistic version of the consensus idea at Shaftesbury. Munich 1973, pp. 154–157.
- ^ See on the concept of the sensus communis Jochen Barkhausen: Die Vernunft des Sentimentalismus , Tübingen 1983, p. 194 f .; Erwin Wolff: Shaftesbury and its importance for the English literature of the 18th Jhs. Tübingen 1960, pp. 61-69; Isabella Woldt: Architecture of Forms in Shaftesbury's "Second Characters" , Munich 2004, pp. 51–63.
- ↑ See Barbara Schmidt-Haberkamp: 'Go to the poets': the art of self-talk at Shaftesbury. In: Enlightenment. Volume 22, 2010, pp. 17–40, here: 24–26.
- ↑ See on Soliloquy Laurent Jaffro: Ethique de la communication et art d'écrire , Paris 1998, pp. 110–123; Günter Butzer: Soliloquium , Munich 2008, pp. 329–349.
- ↑ For symbolism see Felix Paknadel: Shaftesbury's Illustrations of Characteristics. In: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes. Volume 37, 1974, pp. 290-312, here: 297 f .; Isabella Woldt: Architecture of Forms in Shaftesbury's “Second Characters” , Munich 2004, pp. 15–17.
- ↑ Isabel Rivers: Reason, Grace, and Sentiment. Volume 2, Cambridge 2000, pp. 99-102; Christopher John Cunliffe: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713): His Politics and Ideas , Oxford 1981, pp. 300-302. See for the Miscellaneous Reflections Erwin Wolff: Shaftesbury and its meaning for the English literature of the 18th Jhs. Tübingen 1960, p. 122, 124-132.
- ^ Marcus Brainard: Minding One's Manners. In: Bochum Philosophical Yearbook for Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Volume 6, 2001, pp. 217-238, here: 219 f., 223-225; Isabel Rivers: Reason, Grace, and Sentiment , Volume 2, Cambridge 2000, p. 102. See Felix Paknadel: Shaftesbury's Illustrations of Characteristics. In: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes. Volume 37, 1974, pp. 290-312, here: 290-296.
- ↑ Patrick Müller: Secular millenarianism as a radical utopian project in Shaftesbury. In: Laurent Curelly, Nigel Smith (Eds.): Radical voices, radical ways. Manchester 2016, pp. 103–124, here: 109 f .; Lawrence E. Klein: Shaftesbury and the culture of politeness , Cambridge 1994, pp. 140 f.
- ↑ Martin Kirves: The Judgment of Hercules - Shaftesbury's painted art theory. In: Enlightenment. Volume 22, 2010, pp. 173-200, here: 174-177; Johannes Dobai: The art literature of classicism and romanticism in England , Volume 1, Bern 1974, p. 73 f.
- ↑ See on these works Johannes Dobai: The art literature of classicism and romanticism in England. Volume 1, Bern 1974, pp. 56-69.
- ↑ See on these notes Lawrence E. Klein: Shaftesbury and the culture of politeness. Cambridge 1994, pp. 70-90.
- ↑ Félix Paknadel: "Sad Virtuosos" ou l'erreur de Locke selon Shaftesbury. In: Nadia J. Rigaud (ed.): L'erreur dans la littérature et la pensée anglaises. Paris 1980, pp. 95-106; Daniel Carey: Locke, Shaftesbury, and Hutcheson , Cambridge 2006, pp. 98 f., 129-135, 138; Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 62 f., 72 f., 75–79.
- ↑ Shaftesbury: Soliloquy 3.1 ( Standard Edition , Volume 1/1, p. 210). Cf. Barbara Schmidt-Haberkamp: The Art of Criticism. Munich 2000, p. 240.
- ↑ Gisela Miller: Studies on the origin and function of pedagogically committed philosophy using the example of Shaftesbury. Bremen 1975, pp. 60-70; Lawrence E. Klein: Shaftesbury and the culture of politeness , Cambridge 1994, pp. 36-41.
- ↑ Angelica Baum: Self-esteem and reflected affection. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 2001, pp. 54-58; Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 72.
- ↑ See Lydia B. Amir: Humor and the Good Life in Modern Philosophy. Albany 2014, pp. 29-34.
- ↑ Friedrich A. Uehlein: Cosmos and Subjectivity. Freiburg / Munich 1976, pp. 53-70; Isabella Woldt: Architecture of Forms in Shaftesbury's "Second Characters" , Munich 2004, pp. 38–46.
- ^ Fritz-Peter Hager: Enlightenment, Platonism and Education at Shaftesbury. Bern 1993, p. 32 f .; Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 75–77.
- ↑ For symbolism see Felix Paknadel: Shaftesbury's Illustrations of Characteristics. In: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes. Volume 37, 1974, pp. 290-312, here: 306.
- ↑ Tobias Menely: The Animal Claim. Chicago 2015, p. 57.
- ^ Siegfried George: The concept of nature at Shaftesbury. Frankfurt 1962, p. 86; Isabella Woldt: Architecture of Forms in Shaftesbury's "Second Characters" , Munich 2004, pp. 43 f., 55 f.
- ↑ Rebekka Horlacher: Education theory before education theory. Würzburg 2004, p. 25 f .; Marie-Theres Federhofer : "Moi simple amateur" , Hanover 2001, p. 125 f.
- ↑ Angelica Baum: Self-esteem and reflected affection. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 2001, pp. 167-181; Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 63; Stanley Grean: Self-Interest and Public Interest in Shaftesbury's Philosophy. In: Journal of the History of Philosophy. Volume 2, 1964, pp. 37-45, here: 41 f.
- ↑ To turn to abstract higher-level systems such as humanity or nature see Manuel Mühlbacher: Die Kraft der Figures. Paderborn 2019, pp. 64–66.
- ↑ Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 63 f .; Isabel Rivers: Reason, Grace, and Sentiment , Volume 2, Cambridge 2000, pp. 134, 140; Stanley Grean: Self-Interest and Public Interest in Shaftesbury's Philosophy. In: Journal of the History of Philosophy. Volume 2, 1964, pp. 37-45, here: 42-44.
- ↑ See Terence H. Irwin: Shaftesbury's place in the history of moral realism. In: Philosophical Studies. Volume 172, 2015, pp. 865-882, here: 880 f.
- ↑ Angelica Baum: Self-esteem and reflected affection. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 2001, pp. 164-181; Mark-Georg Dehrmann: Deistic knowledge of God, poetics and enthusiasm. In: Peter-André Alt, Volkhard Wels (ed.): Religious knowledge in the poetry of the early modern period. Wiesbaden 2015, pp. 203–221, here: 210–213.
- ↑ See however on the inadequacy of the translation of sense with sense Sigmund Bonk : Abschied von der Anima mundi , Freiburg / Munich 1999, p. 117.
- ↑ Martin Kirves: The Judgment of Hercules - Shaftesbury's painted art theory. In: Enlightenment. Volume 22, 2010, pp. 173-200, here: 184-187; Jürgen Sprute: The concept of the moral scythe at Shaftesbury and Hutcheson. In: Kant studies , year 71, 1980, pp. 221–237, here: 224–226; Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 63, 65 f .; Astrid von der Lühe: Aisthesis - synaisthesis - sensus communis. In: Hans Adler (Ed.): Synästhesie , Würzburg 2002, pp. 192–194.
- ↑ Friedrich A. Uehlein: Cosmos and Subjectivity. Freiburg / Munich 1976, pp. 244–246 and note 15.
- ↑ Jochen Barkhausen: The reason of sentimentalism. Tübingen 1983, p. 223; Heike Panknin-Schappert: Innerer Sense and Moral Feeling , Hildesheim 2007, p. 63 f., 67. Cf. Michael Biziou: Shaftesbury. Read morality. Paris 2005, pp. 52-56, 84-88.
- ^ David McNaughton: Shaftesbury, 3rd Earl of. In: Anthony Grayling et al. (Ed.): The Continuum Encyclopedia of British Philosophy , Volume 4, London 2006, pp. 2887–2892, here: 2889.
- ↑ Michael B. Gill: Shaftesbury's Two Accounts of the Reason to be Virtuous. In: Journal of the History of Philosophy. Volume 38, 2000, pp. 529-548, here: 530-534; Friedrich A. Uehlein: Kosmos and Subjectivity , Freiburg / Munich 1976, pp. 201–203.
- ↑ Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 63 f .; Levno von Plato: The Aesthetic Expression of Moral Character , Münster 2018, pp. 52–54; Ernest Tuveson: Shaftesbury and the Age of Sensibility. In: Howard Anderson, John S. Shea (Eds.): Studies in Criticism and Aesthetics, 1660-1800. Minneapolis 1967, pp. 84 f.
- ↑ Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 64; Angelica Baum: Self-awareness and reflected inclination , Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 2001, p. 178 f.
- ^ Fritz H. Heinemann : The Philosopher of Enthusiasm. In: Revue Internationale de Philosophy. Volume 6, 1952, pp. 294-322, here: 301.
- ↑ Barbara Schmidt-Haberkamp: The art of criticism. Munich 2000, p. 202.
- ↑ Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 79 f .; Monika Bothe-Scharf: Morals and Gentleman-Ideal , Göttingen 2012, p. 45 f.
- ↑ Angelica Baum: Self-esteem and reflected affection. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 2001, pp. 179-181; Fritz-Peter Hager: Enlightenment, Platonism and Education in Shaftesbury , Bern et al. 1993, pp. 34–36, 53–55.
- ↑ Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 79 f .; Michael Biziou: Shaftesbury. Reading moral , Paris 2005, pp. 29-36; Angelica Baum: Enlightened mothers - virtuous friends. In: Claudia Opitz et al. (Ed.): Tugend, Vernunft und Feeling , Münster 2000, pp. 63–83, here: 69–71.
- ↑ Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 75 f.
- ↑ Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 75 f. See John Andrew Bernstein: Shaftesbury, Rousseau, and Kant. Rutherford et al. 1980, pp. 48-50.
- ↑ For symbolism see Felix Paknadel: Shaftesbury's Illustrations of Characteristics. In: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes. Volume 37, 1974, pp. 290-312, here: 302-305.
- ↑ Henning Count Reventlow : Bible authority and spirit of modernity , Göttingen 1980, p 509 f .; Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 76.
- ↑ Shaftesbury: Miscellaneous Reflections 2.1 ( Standard Edition , Volume 1/2, p. 68). See Lawrence E. Klein: Shaftesbury and the culture of politeness. Cambridge 1994, pp. 169-171.
- ↑ Dirk Großklaus: Natural religion and enlightened society. Heidelberg 2000, pp. 88-93; Justin AI Champion: The pillars of priestcraft shaken , Cambridge 1992, p. 216; Henning Graf Reventlow: Biblical Authority and Spirit of Modernity , Göttingen 1980, pp. 521-524.
- ↑ François Badelon: Enthousiasme, fanatisme et selon mélancolie Shaftesbury. In: Fabienne Brugère, Michel Malherbe (eds.): Shaftesbury. Philosophy et politesse. Paris 2000, pp. 13-30, here: 17; Stanley Grean: Shaftesbury's Philosophy of Religion and Ethics , Athens (Ohio) 1967, pp. 116-119.
- ↑ Heike Panknin-Schappert: Inner sense and moral feeling. Hildesheim 2007, pp. 77-84; Henning Graf Reventlow: Biblical Authority and Spirit of Modernity , Göttingen 1980, pp. 507, 509 f., 515-520.
- ↑ Shaftesbury: Sensus Communis 2,3 and 3,4 ( Standard Edition , Volume 1/3, pp. 64-68, 96-100). See Henning Graf Reventlow: Biblical Authority and Spirit of Modernity. Göttingen 1980, p. 510 f.
- ↑ Mark-Georg Dehrmann: Shaftesburys stoic Socratism. In: Enlightenment. Volume 22, 2010, pp. 77-103, here: 95-99.
- ↑ See also Friedrich A. Uehlein: "Stoic, truly Socratic". Epictetus and Marc Aurel in the philosophy of Shaftesbury. In: Barbara Neymeyr et al. (Ed.): Stoicism in European Philosophy, Literature, Art and Politics , Volume 2, Berlin 2008, pp. 1047-1062, here: 1048-1052.
- ↑ Mark-Georg Dehrmann: Shaftesburys stoic Socratism. In: Enlightenment. Volume 22, 2010, pp. 77-103, here: 77 f., 81 f., 86-91; Insa Kringler: Shaftesbury's understanding of nature and morals with regard to the reception of 'Cambridge Platonism'. In: Enlightenment. Volume 22, 2010, pp. 105-134, here: 105, 108, 133; Angelica Baum, Ursula Renz : Shaftesbury: Emotions in the mirror of reflexive inclination. In: Hilge Landweer, Ursula Renz (Hrsg.): Handbook of Classical Emotion Theories. Berlin 2012, pp. 353–369, here: 357–359.
- ^ Rolf Raming: Skepticism as a critical method. Frankfurt 1996, p. 192 f., 216.
- ↑ Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 68 f., 78 f.
- ↑ Henning Count Reventlow: Bible authority and spirit of modernity. Göttingen 1980, pp. 510-513.
- ↑ Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 80 f.
- ^ Lydia B. Amir: Humor and the Good Life in Modern Philosophy. Albany 2014, p. 19 f .; Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 80 f.
- ↑ Mark-Georg Dehrmann: Shaftesburys stoic Socratism. In: Enlightenment. Volume 22, 2010, pp. 77-103, here: 97-99.
- ↑ Alexandra Kleihues: The dialogue as form. Würzburg 2002, p. 55; Erwin Wolff: Shaftesbury and its importance for the English literature of the 18th Jhs. Tübingen 1960, pp. 76 f., 89 f .; Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 81 f.
- ↑ Laurent Jaffro: Ethique de la communication et art d'écrire. Paris 1998, pp. 241-244; Thomas Fries: Dialogue of the Enlightenment , Tübingen / Basel 1993, pp. 80–91; Alexandra Kleihues: Der Dialog als Form , Würzburg 2002, pp. 56–63, 90. Cf. on this problem Michael Prince: Philosophical dialogue in the British Enlightenment. Cambridge 1996, pp. 64-66.
- ↑ For symbolism see Felix Paknadel: Shaftesbury's Illustrations of Characteristics. In: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes. Volume 37, 1974, pp. 290-312, here: 307 f. Compare Manuel Mühlbacher: The power of the figures. Paderborn 2019, p. 116 f.
- ↑ Shaftesbury: Soliloquy 1,2 ( Standard Edition , Volume 1/1, pp. 60-66, 80-86). See Hans Carl Finsen: Functional change in self-talk. In: Orbis Litterarum. Volume 59, 2004, pp. 366-389, here: 368 f .; Thomas Fries: Dialogue of the Enlightenment , Tübingen / Basel 1993, pp. 65–76; Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 82 f.
- ^ Günter Butzer: Soliloquium. Munich 2008, pp. 329, 331.
- ^ Claire Crignon-De Oliveira: De la mélancolie à l'enthousiasme. Paris 2006, pp. 473-480; Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 83.
- ↑ Wolfgang H. Schrader (ed.): Shaftesbury: A letter about enthusiasm. The moralists. Introduction. 2nd Edition. Hamburg 1980, pp. VII – XXXIII, here: X – XIII, XV f .; Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 83.
- ^ Claire Crignon-De Oliveira: De la mélancolie à l'enthousiasme. Paris 2006, pp. 482-484; Barbara Schmidt-Haberkamp: The Art of Criticism , Munich 2000, p. 67 f .; Lydia B. Amir: Humor and the Good Life in Modern Philosophy , Albany 2014, pp. 35–37.
- ^ Richard Glauser: Aesthetic Experience in Shaftesbury. In: The Aristotelian Society. Supplementary volume 76, 2002, pp. 25–54, here: 26–29; John A. Bernstein: Shaftesbury's Identification of the Good with the Beautiful. In: Eighteenth-Century Studies. Volume 10, 1976-1977, pp. 304-325, here: 306 f.
- ↑ Barbara Schmidt-Haberkamp: The art of criticism. Munich 2000, p. 145 f.
- ^ David Marshall: Shaftesbury and Addison: criticism and the public taste. In: Hugh Barr Nisbet , Claude Rawson (eds.): The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism , Volume 4, Cambridge 1997, pp. 633-657, here: 635-641; Johannes Dobai: The art literature of classicism and romanticism in England , Volume 1, Bern 1974, p. 86.
- ↑ Danielle Lories: Désintéressement et hiérarchie des beautés. In: Luc Langlois, Jean-Marc Narbonne (ed.): Actes du XXVII e Congrès de l'Association des Sociétés de Philosophy de Langue Française , Paris / Québec 2000, pp. 69–78, here: 73–78.
- ↑ Johannes Dobai: The art literature of classicism and romanticism in England. Volume 1, Bern 1974, pp. 48, 51 f .; Robert W. Uphaus: Shaftesbury on Art: The Rhapsodic Aesthetic. In: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. Volume 27, 1968, pp. 341-348, here: 343 f.
- ↑ Jean-Paul Larthomas: . De Shaftesbury à Kant Paris 1985, p 594 f.
- ↑ Harry Mount: Morality, microscopy and the moderns: the meaning of minuteness in Shaftesbury's theory of painting. In: British Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies. Volume 21, 1998, pp. 125-141, here: 125-129, 131 f .; Johannes Dobai: The art literature of classicism and romanticism in England , Volume 1, Bern 1974, pp. 49 f., 55, 76 f., 79 f., 84; Anna Wessely: The knowledge of an early eighteenth-century connoisseur: Shaftesbury and the fine arts. In: Acta Historiae Artium. 41, 2000, pp. 279-309, here: 282 f .; Richard Woodfield: The Freedom of Shaftesbury's Classicism. In: The British Journal of Aesthetics. Volume 15, 1975, pp. 254-266, here: 257 f.
- ↑ Johannes Dobai: The art literature of classicism and romanticism in England. Volume 1, Bern 1974, p. 82 f.
- ↑ For this example, see John Barrell: The political theory of painting from Reynolds to Hazlitt. New Haven / London 1986, pp. 30-32.
- ↑ Dagmar Mirbach: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. In: Stefan Majetschak (Hrsg.): Classics of the philosophy of art. Munich 2005, pp. 76-94, here: 87-89; Johannes Dobai: The art literature of classicism and romanticism in England , Volume 1, Bern 1974, p. 61 f .; Martin Kirves: The Judgment of Hercules - Shaftesbury's painted art theory. In: Enlightenment. Volume 22, 2010, pp. 173-200, here: 196-199; Isabella Woldt: Architecture of Forms in Shaftesbury's "Second Characters" , Munich 2004, pp. 177–183. See also Erwin Wolff: Shaftesbury and its importance for English literature of the 18th century. Tübingen 1960, pp. 137-144.
- ↑ Shaftesbury: Judgment of Hercules Introduction 2 ( Standard Edition , Volume 1/5, p. 74). Cf. Martin Kirves: The Judgment of Hercules - Shaftesbury's painted art theory. In: Enlightenment. Volume 22, 2010, pp. 173-200, here: 190-192; Johannes Dobai: The art literature of classicism and romanticism in England , Volume 1, Bern 1974, pp. 63–66.
- ↑ Rebekka Horlacher: Education theory before education theory. Würzburg 2004, p. 57 f .; Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 67.
- ↑ Isabella Woldt: Architectural Forms in Shaftesbury's "Second Characters". Munich 2004, pp. 120 f., 125; Johannes Dobai: The art literature of classicism and romanticism in England , Volume 1, Bern 1974, p. 59.
- ^ Alfred O. Aldridge: Shaftesbury and the Classics. In: Karl Bosl (ed.): Society, Culture, Literature , Stuttgart 1975, pp. 241–258, here: 244–246, 255–257; Ritchie Robertson: Mock-Epic Poetry from Pope to Heine , Oxford 2009, p. 47.
- ↑ Thomas Fries: Dialogue of the Enlightenment. Tübingen / Basel 1993, p. 57 f. and note 12.
- ↑ Shaftesbury: Soliloquy 1,3 ( Standard Edition , Volume 1/1, p. 96). See Siegmund von Lempicki: Shaftesbury and irrationalism. In: Studia philosophica. Volume 2, 1937, pp. 19-110, here: 80 f .; Erwin Wolff: Shaftesbury and its importance for the English literature of the 18th Jhs. Tübingen 1960, p. 77.
- ↑ Manuel Mühlbacher: The power of the figures. Paderborn 2019, pp. 86-91; Isabella Woldt: Architecture of Forms in Shaftesbury's "Second Characters" , Munich 2004, pp. 115–117.
- ↑ Isabella Woldt: Architectural Forms in Shaftesbury's "Second Characters". Munich 2004, pp. 44-46.
- ↑ Johannes Dobai: The art literature of classicism and romanticism in England. Volume 1, Bern 1974, pp. 78, 87-89, 552 f .; Douglas Chambers: The Planters of the English Landscape Garden: Botany, Trees, and the Georgics , New Haven / London 1993, pp. 50-53.
- ^ Fabienne Brugère: Théorie de l'art et philosophie de la sociabilité selon Shaftesbury. Paris 1999, p. 383; Angelica Baum: Self-awareness and reflected tendency , Stuttgart – Bad Cannstatt 2001, p. 229.
- ↑ Isabella Woldt: Architectural Forms in Shaftesbury's "Second Characters". Munich 2004, p. 46 f.
- ^ David Leatherbarrow: Character, Geometry and Perspective: the Third Earl of Shaftesbury's Principles of Garden Design. In: Journal of Garden History. Volume 4, 1984, pp. 332-358, here: 352 f .; Ana-Stanca Tabarasi: The landscape garden as a model of life , Würzburg 2007, p. 85. Cf. Yu Liu: Seeds of a Different Eden. Columbia (South Carolina) 2008, pp. 113, 115-117, 131-136; Suzannah Fleming: The 'Convenience of Husbandry' in the Adaptation of the 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury's Garden and Park in Dorset. In: Garden History. Volume 43, 2015, pp. 3–32, here: 3–7.
- ↑ Michael B. Gill: The British Moralists on Human Nature and the Birth of Secular Ethics. Cambridge 2006, pp. 109-112; Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 65.
- ↑ Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 66; Daniel Carey: Locke, Shaftesbury, and Hutcheson , Cambridge 2005, p. 107 f. Compare Fritz-Peter Hager: Enlightenment, Platonism and Education at Shaftesbury. Bern et al. 1993, pp. 75-77.
- ↑ Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 65 f .; Jürgen Sprute: The concept of the moral scythe at Shaftesbury and Hutcheson. In: Kant studies. Year 71, 1980, pp. 221–237, here: 226 f. Cf. Jerome Stolnitz: On the Significance of Lord Shaftesbury in Modern Aesthetic Theory. In: The Philosophical Quarterly. Volume 11, 1961, pp. 97-113, here: 103 f.
- ↑ Shaftesbury: Sensus Communis 4.2 ( Standard Edition , Volume 1/3, p. 112). See Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 67; Ernest Tuveson: Shaftesbury and the Age of Sensibility. In: Howard Anderson, John S. Shea (Eds.): Studies in Criticism and Aesthetics, 1660-1800. Minneapolis 1967, pp. 84 f., 88.
- ↑ Friedrich A. Uehlein: Cosmos and Subjectivity. Freiburg / Munich 1976, pp. 162-179; Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 67 f .; Dagmar Mirbach: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. In: Stefan Majetschak (Hrsg.): Classics of the philosophy of art. Munich 2005, pp. 76-94, here: 82 f.
- ↑ Barbara Schmidt-Haberkamp: The art of criticism. Munich 2000, p. 39 f .; Michael Biziou: Shaftesbury. Le sens moral , Paris 2005, p. 125 f.
- ^ Richard L. Brett: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury. London 1951, pp. 130-132, 143.
- ↑ Isabel Rivers: Reason, Grace, and Sentiment. Volume 2, Cambridge 2000, pp. 143-147; Wolfgang H. Schrader: Ethics and Anthropology in the English Enlightenment , Hamburg 1984, pp. 32–35.
- ↑ For symbolism see Felix Paknadel: Shaftesbury's Illustrations of Characteristics. In: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes. Volume 37, 1974, pp. 290-312, here: 300-302; Isabella Woldt: Architecture of Forms in Shaftesbury's “Second Characters” , Munich 2004, pp. 164–168, 171 f.
- ↑ Shaftesbury: Askemata section Self. Economical ( Standard Edition , Volume 2/6, p. 225). On the concept of freedom, see Friedrich A. Uehlein: Kosmos and Subjectivity. Freiburg / Munich 1976, pp. 182-186, 193-196; Barbara Schmidt-Haberkamp: The Art of Criticism , Munich 2000, pp. 23–36.
- ↑ Shaftesbury: Soliloquy 1,3 ( Standard Edition , Volume 1/1, p. 110). See Mark-Georg Dehrmann: Das "Orakel der Deisten" , Göttingen 2008, pp. 345–359; Richard L. Brett: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury , London 1951, pp. 105-108; Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 66; Thomas Fries: Dialogue of the Enlightenment , Tübingen / Basel 1993, p. 59 f.
- ↑ Felix Paknadel: Shaftesbury's Illustrations of Characteristics. In: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes. Volume 37, 1974, pp. 290-312, here: 298 f.
- ↑ Johannes Dobai: The art literature of classicism and romanticism in England. Volume 1, Bern 1974, p. 84.
- ^ Richard Woodfield: The Freedom of Shaftesbury's Classicism. In: The British Journal of Aesthetics. Volume 15, 1975, pp. 254-266, here: 256-259.
- ↑ See Lawrence E. Klein: Shaftesbury and the culture of politeness. Cambridge 1994, pp. 133-143; Christopher John Cunliffe: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713): His Politics and Ideas , Oxford 1981, pp. 240-250; Robert Voitle: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury, 1671-1713 , Baton Rouge / London 1984, pp. 70-78; Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 76.
- ↑ Angela Taraborrelli: The Cosmopolitanism of Lord Shaftesbury. In: Patrick Müller (Ed.): New Ages, New Opinions. Frankfurt 2014, pp. 185–200, here: 192–195; Ita Osske: Wholeness, Infinity and Form , Berlin 1939, pp. 100–102; Christian Friedrich Weiser: Shaftesbury and the German intellectual life. 2nd Edition. Darmstadt 1969, pp. 452-454.
- ^ Lothar Jordan: Key words on the German Shaftesbury reception. In: Bodo Plachta, Winfried Woesler (Ed.): Sturm und Drang. Tübingen 1997, pp. 57-66, here: 63 f .; David Alvarez: Shaftesbury's Non-Secular Cosmopolitanism. In: Patrick Müller (Ed.): Shaping Enlightenment Politics. Berlin 2018, pp. 177–195, here: 190 f.
- ↑ Isabella Woldt: Architectural Forms in Shaftesbury's "Second Characters". Munich 2004, pp. 67-71; Joseph Rykwert: The First Moderns , Cambridge (Massachusetts) 1980, p. 154 f .; Johannes Dobai: The art literature of classicism and romanticism in England , Volume 1, Bern 1974, p. 60.
- ↑ Isabella Woldt: Architectural Forms in Shaftesbury's "Second Characters". Munich 2004, pp. 69, 103 f., 125-133; Lawrence E. Klein: Shaftesbury and the culture of politeness , Cambridge 1994, pp. 189 f.
- ↑ Johannes Dobai: The art literature of classicism and romanticism in England. Volume 1, Bern 1974, p. 57.
- ↑ Overviews are offered by Lawrence E. Klein: Cooper, Anthony Ashley. In: Henry CG Matthew, Brian Harrison (Eds.): Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Volume 13, Oxford 2004, pp. 217-223, here: 222 f. and Friedrich A. Uehlein, Angelica Baum: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Effect. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 84-89. For the reception of art theory, see Johannes Dobai: The art literature of classicism and romanticism in England , Volume 1, Bern 1974, pp. 69, 86.
- ↑ Laurent Jaffro: Ethique de la communication et art d'écrire. Paris 1998, pp. 286-288; Henning Graf Reventlow: Biblical Authority and Spirit of Modernity , Göttingen 1980, p. 504 and note 198; Mark-Georg Dehrmann: The "Oracle of the Deists" , Göttingen 2008, p. 96 and note 32; Friedrich A. Uehlein: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Teaching. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 62–84, here: 77 f .; Friedrich A. Uehlein: Kosmos and Subjectivity , Freiburg / Munich 1976, pp. 91–98.
- ↑ Mark-Georg Dehrmann: The "Oracle of the Deists". Göttingen 2008, p. 95.
- ^ Patrick Müller: Introduction. Reading Shaftesbury in the Twenty-First Century. In: Patrick Müller (Ed.): New Ages, New Opinions. Frankfurt 2014, pp. 17–23, here: p. 18 and note 9.
- ^ Lydia B. Amir: Humor and the Good Life in Modern Philosophy. Albany 2014, pp. 12, 69.
- ↑ Lawrence E. Klein: Reading Shaftesbury in the Eighteenth Century. In: Patrick Müller (Ed.): New Ages, New Opinions. Frankfurt 2014, pp. 303–321, here: 312 f .; Isabel Rivers: Reason, Grace, and Sentiment , Volume 2, Cambridge 2000, pp. 179-184.
- ^ William E. Alderman: Pope's Essay on Man and Shaftesbury's The Moralists. In: The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America. Volume 67, 1973, pp. 131-140.
- ↑ Isabel Rivers: Reason, Grace, and Sentiment. Volume 2, Cambridge 2000, pp. 159 f .; Henning Jensen: Motivation and the Moral Sense in Francis Hutcheson's Ethical Theory , Den Haag 1971, pp. 35-39; Daniel Carey: Locke, Shaftesbury, and Hutcheson , Cambridge 2005, p. 155 and note 11.
- ^ Jon Mee: Romanticism, Enthusiasm, and Regulation. Oxford 2003, p. 17; Herbert Grudzinski: Shaftesbury's influence on Chr. M. Wieland , Stuttgart 1913, pp. 7 f., 10 f .; Richard L. Brett: The Third Earl of Shaftesbury , London 1951, pp. 188-190.
- ↑ On Stanhope see Lawrence E. Klein: Reading Shaftesbury in the Eighteenth Century. In: Patrick Müller (Ed.): New Ages, New Opinions. Frankfurt 2014, pp. 303–321, here: 309–311.
- ↑ Isabel Rivers: Reason, Grace, and Sentiment. Volume 2, Cambridge 2000, pp. 166-168.
- ↑ An overview is provided by Vilem Mudroch: The disputes about Shaftesbury and Mandeville. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 108-124. See the studies by Irwin Primer: Mandeville and Shaftesbury: Some Facts and Problems. In: Irwin Primer (Ed.): Mandeville Studies. Den Haag 1975, pp. 126-141 and Thomas A. Horne: The Social Thought of Bernard Mandeville , London 1978, pp. 33, 36-42.
- ↑ Friedrich A. Uehlein, Angelica Tree: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Effect. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, p. 86. See the study by Paola Zanardi: Elegance and Sublimity: The Influence of Shaftesbury on Hume's Essays. In: Patrick Müller (Ed.): New Ages, New Opinions. Frankfurt 2014, pp. 291-302.
- ↑ Mark-Georg Dehrmann: The "Oracle of the Deists". Göttingen 2008, p. 124; Friedrich A. Uehlein, Angelica Baum: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Effect. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, p. 85 f.
- ^ Alfred O. Aldridge: Shaftesbury and the Test of Truth. In: Publications of the Modern Language Association of America. Volume 60, 1945, pp. 129–156, here: 129–135, 155 f .; Lydia B. Amir: Humor and the Good Life in Modern Philosophy , Albany 2014, pp. 40–49, 71–76.
- ↑ See Isabel Rivers: Reason, Grace, and Sentiment. Volume 2, Cambridge 2000, pp. 119 f., 147 f .; Friedrich A. Uehlein: Kosmos and Subjectivity , Freiburg / Munich 1976, pp. 261–264.
- ↑ Isabel Rivers: Reason, Grace, and Sentiment. Volume 2, Cambridge 2000, pp. 188 f.
- ^ Ernst Cassirer: Essays and Small Writings (1932-1935) (= Cassirer: Collected Works . Volume 18). Hamburg 2004, p. 154.
- ↑ See Vilem Mudroch, Angelica Baum: Women's rights and love ethics. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 304-315, here: 309-311.
- ↑ Mark-Georg Dehrmann: The "Oracle of the Deists". Göttingen 2008, pp. 94-97, 123; Isabel Rivers: Reason, Grace, and Sentiment , Volume 2, Cambridge 2000, pp. 154-156; Rebekka Horlacher: Bildungsstheorie vor der Bildungstheorie , Würzburg 2004, pp. 84–87.
- ^ Lothar Jordan: Shaftesbury and the German literature and aesthetics of the 18th century. In: Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 44, 1994, pp. 410–424, here: 410; Ernest Boyer: Schleiermacher, Shaftesbury, and the German Enlightenment. In: Harvard Theological Review. Volume 96, 2003, pp. 181-204, here: 183.
- ↑ Horst Meyer: Limae labor. Volume 1, Frankfurt 1978, pp. 25-27.
- ↑ Ursula Haskins Gonthier: Persians, Politics and Politeness: Montesquieu Reads Shaftesbury. In: Nottingham French Studies. Volume 48, 2009, pp. 8-19; Ennemond Casati: Hérauts et commentateurs de Shaftesbury en France. In: Revue de littérature comparée. Year 14, 1934, pp. 615–645, here: 621, 625 f.
- ↑ See on Diderot's Shaftesbury reception Daniel Brewer: The Discourse of Enlightenment in Eighteenth-Century France. Cambridge 1993, pp. 60-74; Friedrich A. Uehlein, Angelica Baum: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Effect. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 84–89, here: 87.
- ↑ Friedrich A. Uehlein, Angelica Tree: Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. Effect. In: Helmut Holzhey, Vilem Mudroch (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of the 18th century. Volume 1, Basel 2004, pp. 84–89, here: 86 f.
- ↑ Rebekka Horlacher: Education theory before education theory. Würzburg 2004, p. 22 f .; Lothar Jordan: Shaftesbury and German Literature and Aesthetics of the 18th Century. In: Germanic-Romanic monthly. Volume 44, 1994, pp. 410-424, here: 410.
- ↑ Jean-Paul Larthomas: De Shaftesbury à Kant. Paris 1985, pp. 129-132; Mark-Georg Dehrmann: The "Oracle of the Deists" , Göttingen 2008, pp. 46 f., 52–58; Rebekka Horlacher: Education theory before education theory , Würzburg 2004, pp. 30–34.
- ↑ Albert Meier : enthusiasts on the test bench. In: Dietrich Jöns, Dieter Lohmeier (ed.): Festschrift for Erich Trunz on his 90th birthday , Neumünster 1998, pp. 55–74, here: 59.
- ↑ Rebekka Horlacher: Education theory before education theory. Würzburg 2004, pp. 53-55; Mark-Georg Dehrmann: The "Oracle of the Deists" , Göttingen 2008, pp. 177–181, 187; Lothar Jordan: Shaftesbury and German Literature and Aesthetics of the 18th Century. In: Germanic-Romanic monthly. Volume 44, 1994, pp. 410-424, here: 414 f.
- ^ Mark-Georg Dehrmann: Shaftesbury in Berlin. In: Berlin Enlightenment. Volume 3, 2007, pp. 33-63, here: 33-36; Rebekka Horlacher: Education Theory Before Education Theory, Würzburg 2004, pp. 64–76.
- ^ Mark-Georg Dehrmann: Shaftesbury in Berlin. In: Berlin Enlightenment. Volume 3, 2007, pp. 33-63, here: 36-39; Rebekka Horlacher: Bildungstheorie vor der Bildungstheorie , Würzburg 2004, pp. 60–63, 133–136, 138.
- ↑ Jan Engbers: The "Moral Sense" in Gellert, Lessing and Wieland. Heidelberg 2001, p. 59 f.
- ^ Mark-Georg Dehrmann: Shaftesbury in Berlin. In: Berlin Enlightenment. Volume 3, 2007, pp. 33-63, here: 40-47.
- ^ Mark-Georg Dehrmann: Shaftesbury in Berlin. In: Berlin Enlightenment. Volume 3, 2007, pp. 33-63, here: 47-52.
- ↑ Jan Engbers: The "Moral Sense" in Gellert, Lessing and Wieland. Heidelberg 2001, pp. 63-66, 103 f. See Herbert Grudzinski: Shaftesbury's influence on Chr. M. Wieland. Stuttgart 1913, pp. 71-97.
- ^ Goethe: In fraternal memory of Wieland. In: Goethe's works (Weimar edition), Volume I 36, Weimar 1893, pp. 311–346, here: 323.
- ^ Lothar Jordan: Shaftesbury and the German literature and aesthetics of the 18th century. In: Germanic-Romanic monthly. Volume 44, 1994, pp. 410-424, here: 410 f .; Herbert Mainusch: The many faces of the terms: Shaftesbury and its early German readers. In: Rüdiger Ahrens , Fritz-Wilhelm Neumann (Ed.): Fiction and History in Anglo-American Literature , Heidelberg 1998, pp. 109–115, here: 112.
- ↑ Rebekka Horlacher: Education theory before education theory. Würzburg 2004, pp. 152-159; Heinrich Küntzel: Essay and Enlightenment , Munich 1969, p. 129 f .; Lawrence M. Price: The absorption of English literature in Germany 1500–1960 , Bern / Munich 1961, pp. 70–72.
- ↑ Immanuel Kant: Vorkritische Schriften II (= Kant's works [Academy edition], Volume 2), Berlin 1912, p. 311. Cf. Jean-Paul Larthomas: De Shaftesbury à Kant. Paris 1985, p. 423 f.
- ↑ Freiin Carola von Villiez: Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley Cooper Third Earl of. In: Marcus Willaschek et al. (Ed.): Kant-Lexikon , Volume 3, Berlin / Boston 2015, pp. 2092 f .; Jean-Paul Larthomas: De Shaftesbury à Kant , Paris 1985, pp. 426-428.
- ↑ Ernest Boyer: Schleiermacher, Shaftesbury, and the German Enlightenment. In: Harvard Theological Review. Volume 96, 2003, pp. 181-204, here: 181 f., 192 f., 204.
- ↑ Andreas Arndt : Schleiermacher and the English Enlightenment. In: Ulrich Barth , Claus-Dieter Osthövener (Hrsg.): 200 years “Talking about religion” , Berlin 2000, pp. 181–193, here: 183 f.
- ↑ Ernst Müller: Aesthetic Religiosity and Art Religion. Berlin 2004, pp. 71, 94.
- ↑ Mark-Georg Dehrmann: The "Oracle of the Deists". Göttingen 2008, pp. 100-102, 110-119, 124-127.
- ↑ Ernst Müller: Aesthetic Religiosity and Art Religion. Berlin 2004, pp. 92-94; Christoph Deupmann: comedy and method. To Johann Georg Hamann's Shaftesbury reception. In: Bernhard Gajek (Ed.): Johann Georg Hamann and England. Frankfurt 1999, pp. 205-228, here: 209-214.
- ↑ Rainer Godel, Insa Kringler: Introduction. The figure of 'moral sense' at Shaftesbury. In: Enlightenment. Volume 22, 2010, pp. 5–16, here: 5–7.
- ↑ Isabel Rivers: Reason, Grace, and Sentiment. Volume 2, Cambridge 2000, pp. 354-356.
- ^ Wilhelm Dilthey: Weltanschauung and analysis of man since the Renaissance and Reformation (= Dilthey: Collected writings . Volume 2). 7th edition, Stuttgart / Göttingen 1964, p. 284 and note 1.
- ^ Wilhelm Dilthey: Weltanschauung and analysis of man since the Renaissance and Reformation (= Dilthey: Collected writings . Volume 2). 7th edition, Stuttgart / Göttingen 1964, p. 399.
- ^ Ernst Cassirer: Freedom and Form (= Cassirer: Collected Works . Volume 7). Hamburg 2001, p. 88.
- ^ Ernst Cassirer: Individual and Cosmos in the Philosophy of the Renaissance (= Cassirer: Collected Works . Volume 14). Hamburg 2002, pp. 351, 364 f., 375 f .; Ernst Cassirer: The philosophy of the Enlightenment (= Cassirer: Collected works . Volume 15). Hamburg 2003, pp. 327-331.
- ^ Marcus Brainard: Minding One's Manners. In: Bochum Philosophical Yearbook for Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Volume 6, 2001, pp. 217-238, here: 217; Mark-Georg Dehrmann: The "Oracle of the Deists" , Göttingen 2008, p. 360; Mark-Georg Dehrmann: Shaftesbury instead of Spinoza. In: History of German Studies. Doppelheft 29/30, 2006, pp. 43–51, here: 48–51; Lothar Jordan: Shaftesbury and German Literature and Aesthetics of the 18th Century. In: Germanic-Romanic monthly. Volume 44, 1994, pp. 410-424, here: 411 f.
- ↑ See the overview in: Christine Jackson-Holzberg et al. (Ed.): Shaftesbury: Standard Edition. Volume 3/2, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 2019, pp. 333-335.
- ↑ See also Patrick Müller: Introduction. Reading Shaftesbury in the Twenty-First Century. In: Patrick Müller (Ed.): New Ages, New Opinions. Frankfurt 2014, pp. 17–23, here: 17–20; Mark-Georg Dehrmann: The "Oracle of the Deists" , Göttingen 2008, p. 22 f.
- ↑ Henning Count Reventlow: Bible authority and spirit of modernity. Göttingen 1980, p. 504 f .; Heinrich Küntzel: Essay and Enlightenment , Munich 1969, pp. 119–126.
- ↑ Friedrich A. Uehlein: Cosmos and Subjectivity. Freiburg / Munich 1976, pp. 9-16; Erwin Wolff: Shaftesbury and its importance for the English literature of the 18th Jhs. Tübingen 1960, pp. 12 f., 68, 75 f., 93, 163 f., 215.
- ^ Panajotis Kondylis : The Enlightenment in the Framework of Modern Rationalism , Munich 1986, pp. 394–397; Rainer Godel, Insa Kringler: Introduction. The figure of 'moral sense' at Shaftesbury. In: Enlightenment. Volume 22, 2010, pp. 5–16, here: 8 f.
| predecessor | Office | successor |
|---|---|---|
| Anthony Ashley Cooper |
Earl of Shaftesbury 1699-1713 |
Anthony Ashley Cooper |
| personal data | |
|---|---|
| SURNAME | Cooper, Anthony Ashley, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury |
| ALTERNATIVE NAMES | Cooper, Anthony Ashley; Ashley-Cooper, Anthony, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury; Shaftesbury |
| BRIEF DESCRIPTION | English philosopher, writer, politician, art critic and literary theorist |
| DATE OF BIRTH | February 26, 1671 |
| PLACE OF BIRTH | London |
| DATE OF DEATH | February 15, 1713 |
| Place of death | Chiaia (Naples) |
