Criticism and crisis

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Critique and Crisis is the title of the doctoral thesis by the historian Reinhart Koselleck (1923–2006) from 1954 at Heidelberg University . In the 1959 edition of the book it was initially subtitled "A Contribution to the Pathogenesis of the Bourgeois World", and later "A Study on the Pathogenesis of the Bourgeois World". In the script, Koselleck subjects the Enlightenment and its philosophy of history to a critical inventory, influenced by the authoritarian idea of ​​the state of his early mentor Carl Schmitt . With this he intends to expose the (apparently) humanistic-universal theorems of the Enlightenment as “hypocritical” battle concepts. In misunderstanding the peace function of the absolutist state in the religious wars of the 17th and 18th centuries, they would have undermined its foundation. The elites of the bourgeoisie , who rose under the protection of absolutism, triggered a state crisis with their enlightening criticism, which ultimately led to the French Revolution . - The widespread attention that the book received can be seen in the multiple reprints (first edition 1959; paperback edition 1973, 11th edition 2010) and the numerous translations.

Emergence

Koselleck had studied history , political science , sociology and philosophy in Heidelberg from 1947 and had been working on a historical dissertation for a long time . In order to be able to accept a lectureship at the University of Bristol , he realized in January 1953 that he had to complete the doctoral process by October 1953. He submitted the work without any comments, which the faculty accepted (the comments typed by a friend were only submitted later). His doctoral supervisor was Johannes Kühn , a friend of his father's and at the same time the godfather of Reinhart Koselleck, who is occasionally still listed as a maternal uncle in literature. While the dissertation was being written, Koselleck was in a written exchange with Carl Schmitt. He found personal contact with Schmitt when he visited the informal Schmittian Circle of Friends of Heidelberg students around Nicolaus Sombart , who knew Schmitt from his youth in Berlin, Hanno Kesting and others. Many details of these relationships are often inaccurately, speculatively, one-sided, ambiguous or demonstrably incorrectly presented in the meanwhile numerous representations, complains the more recent research literature; further information can be expected from the early publication of the correspondence between Schmitt and Koselleck. There is (at least) a personal visit by Koselleck to Plettenberg in the Sauerland, Schmitt's last residence. In the foreword to the 1st and continuously since the 3rd edition, Koselleck thanked Schmitt, who "helped him to ask questions in conversations and look for answers".

theme

The subject of the book is the presentation of a historical epoch in the 18th century - which Koselleck understood as coherent in terms of intellectual history: absolutism , the Enlightenment and the French Revolution . The birth of modern bourgeois society from the bosom of European absolutism is traced in three chapters . The introduction outlines the subject with two sentences: “Absolutism determines the genesis of the Enlightenment; the Enlightenment determined the genesis of the French Revolution ”. According to Jürgen Habermas, this enlightenment, which is “based on a dialectic of politics and morality”, unfolds under the premise that the absolutist state fulfills a pacification function for “the area devastated by religious civil wars”. As a morally neutral institution, it granted its subjects freedom of conscience in the private sphere, as long as it did not go against the sovereignty of the state. The absolutist state thus created the conditions for the rise of the bourgeoisie . In a “secularization of criticism” of church and state, the self-confidence of the bourgeoisie, in alliance with the anti-absolutist nobility, burst the limits set by the state. The Enlightenment's criticism of the absolutist state led to a political crisis, to a bourgeois revolution. Koselleck resorts to a medical metaphor for the bourgeois world and the crisis it has triggered: he regards it as a “destructive disease”. According to the reviewer Helmut Kuhn, the “ axiomatics of the political , which is always affirmed in advance ”, owes its existence to his mentor Carl Schmitt, who was “present in every chapter of this study”. Koselleck also adopted Schmitt's concept of civil war in order to grasp the structure of European history, as well as the understanding of the absolutist state purpose as the ongoing prevention of civil war, owed to Schmitt's Hobbes reading.

content

First chapter

The first chapter asks about the genesis and structure of the absolutist state as a prerequisite for the Enlightenment. Overcoming religious civil wars is the raison d'être ( raison d'être ) of absolutism. The state becomes a neutralizer of religious contradictions. Hobbes' doctrine of the state is based on the fact that man becomes a subject; his actions are completely subject to state law, while in his private interior he remains free in his convictions. The state offers protection against obedience. Koselleck concludes that the “moral qualification of the sovereign” consists of “establishing and maintaining order in his political function.” It is the “cruel experiences of denominational civil wars” from which the European state order unfolds.

second chapter

The second chapter deals with the development of the bourgeoisie as a new class of merchants, bankers, tax hunters and businessmen with a specific self-image. Taking into account the dualism of politics and morality that is constitutive for absolutism, the separation of man and subject, the area of ​​private morality first becomes the domain of their self-organization and criticism for the bourgeois Enlightenment. Koselleck describes the Freemason's lodges and the “ learned republic ” as their two most important forms of organization . The moral criticism they exert in this private sphere first encroaches on the texts of the scriptures and then on the state, with the result that its authority is undermined. When their elite "negated the absolutist state and the church", the bourgeoisie gained self-confidence and saw itself "increasingly as the potential bearer of political power". Koselleck traces the stages of the increasingly political criticism in the writings of the biblical exegete Richard Simon and the enlighteners Bayle , Voltaire , Diderot and Kant .

third chapter

The third chapter describes the worsening crisis in the relationship between bourgeois society and the absolutist state as reflected in the writings of Rousseau , Raynal and Thomas Paine . The sovereign bourgeois criticism breaks the moral interior and brings about the "sovereignty of society" over the state. The crisis affects the state and society and, according to Rousseau, coincides with the revolution. Koselleck states a blinded "rule of utopia", which, since it fails to recognize the essence of power (the prevention of civil war), "takes refuge in sheer violence" and seeks its justification in the philosophy of history .

Reference to the present

In the preface to the paperback edition of 1973 and in its introduction there are a few references to the current world historical situation. Koselleck suggests that the dynamism set in motion by Enlightenment criticism with its utopian exuberance, which culminated in revolution and terror, still determined the situation after the Second World War in a changed constellation. The 18th century is referred to as the “anteroom of the present period”, the tension of which has increased increasingly since the French Revolution and has gripped the whole world. The “present world crisis”, which is already addressed in the first sentence of the introduction, stands for him “on the horizon of a historical-philosophical, predominantly utopian self-understanding”. The “legacy of the Enlightenment”, he formulates in the final chapter, is “still omnipresent”. In the foreword to the English edition in 1988 he writes: "My starting-point was therefore to explain the Utopian ideas of the twentieth century by looking at their origins in the eighteenth" (My starting point was to look back on the utopian ideas of the 20th century explain their origin in the 18th century). In the context of the Cold War , the exclusive claim to moral and philosophical legitimation of both liberal-democratic America and socialist Russia can be traced back to the ideas of the Enlightenment. According to Jan-Friedrich Missfelder, Critique and Crisis definitely circumscribe, even if never explicitly, what Schmitt brings to the term: " World civil war is the category that analytically links the early modern age and the present". Even in his later conceptual history , Koselleck sticks to the view that utopias and secularized philosophy of history should be understood as causes of (world) civil wars. His goal remains to "reverse the dialectic of the criticism-crisis" (Imbriano): to counter-criticize the utopia of progress in order to "prevent the crisis and" doom "(Koselleck).

Reformulation of the concept of crisis

In later publications Koselleck continues to use the term crisis to diagnose the conditions of the modern age . The emergence of the bourgeois world is no longer negotiated solely on the political level, but is also explained in terms of social, technical and economic changes. He redefines the concept of crisis as a historical category of knowledge. While in Critique and Crisis he diagnosed the crisis as a disease and modernity as the decay of an originally healthy organism, he later used a historical term that describes the temporal dimension of acceleration. The metaphor of illness is abandoned. The development of the modern world is no longer understood as a pathogenesis, but merely as a historical change in social time structures. He regards the concepts of movement as an unmistakable criterion of the modern age, such as "revolution, progress, development, crisis, zeitgeist, all expressions that contain temporal indications". He now understands the acceleration of the modern world as a crisis and speaks of "increasing time pressure", even of "apocalyptic time shortening", from which humanity does not seem to be able to escape. His concern now is to formulate a criticism of the dangers of technical progress and, in the development of technology , to conjure up ever new possibilities of decay and crisis ( nuclear power and atomic bomb are mentioned ), even catastrophes, which people themselves with their technical control over themselves have become able to bring about. Nevertheless, he sees the concrete possibility of doom or crisis not only in the acceleration of the technical world, but also as a political crisis on the horizon of the world civil war.

Dialectics of the Enlightenment and Criticism and Crisis

The historian Ute Daniel suspects, presumably in allusion to corresponding statements by Koselleck : "If a book by Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer had not been published in 1947 with the title Dialectic of Enlightenment , Koselleck's dissertation would have been entitled". The comparison of the two books is based on the fact that enlightenment criticism in the historical process turns into its opposite, into despotism and extensive manipulation. The contexts of justification differ considerably: While Horkheimer and Adorno start this dialectic much deeper in human history, on the self-assertion of the subject, and do not suppress the progressive side of the Enlightenment, Koselleck's "illiberal Enlightenment criticism" refers to political processes of the 17th and 18th centuries, whose enlightening criticism, according to him, would lead to political crises and ultimately revolutions with a destructive character. In the preface to the 1973 paperback edition, Koselleck speaks expressis verbis of a “dialectic of the Enlightenment”, but without referring to the work of Horkheimer and Adorno.

The historian Michael Schwartz also states that Koselleck owes a lot to the Enlightenment-critical writing by Horkheimer and Adorno: both approaches meet in the finding: "Enlightenment is totalitarian". But Koselleck's criticism of the Enlightenment is "not an enlightening 'self' criticism as with Horkheimer / Adorno, but a (further) neo-conservative frontal attack from outside". Koselleck's thesis does not aim at the self-reflection of the Enlightenment, but at “ exposing it as politically incapable and thus highly dangerous hypocrisy ”. Schwartz points out another difference between the two publications: Horkheimer's / Adorno's current interest in knowledge was aimed at a deeper understanding of National Socialism and World War II, while Koselleck's analysis pretended to provide historical information about the “Cold War” and the totalitarian threat from the East .

reception

Years after its publication, Criticism and Crisis has been described as the "most successful literary dissertation by a German humanities scholar in the 20th century". In his brief history of reception, the Swiss science researcher Mario Wimmer summed up that the script “was perceived, translated and introduced as a 'classic' in all cases”. The book has been translated into Spanish (1965), Italian (1972), French (1979), English (1988), Serbian (1997), Japanese (1999), Portuguese (1999) and Chinese (2006).

Carl Schmitt, who had already accompanied the work on the study with questions and answers, was asked by Koselleck to write a review after the print version was published. A short discussion appeared in the yearbook Das Historisch-Politische Buch (an incorrect excerpt from it was later used as a blurb for the Suhrkamp edition without citing the source). Schmitt categorized the study as a contribution to the " history of ideas in the style of Friedrich Meinecke ". According to Mario Wimmer, with this comparison, Schmitt awarded Koselleck the “rank of world recognition”. The philosopher Helmut Kuhn , the historian Christian Meier and the social philosopher Jürgen Habermas published other early reviews . This broad spectrum of subject-specific reviewers already shows that the dissertation was "neither historically, nor only sociologically, nor only philosophically clearly identified," as emphasized in the speeches at the festive event on the occasion of the 50th anniversary (an unusual honor for a dissertation) .

In the critical reception Koselleck's writing was often received as a frontal attack on the secular religion of the Enlightenment. Modernism is described as a time of decline within his conservative crisis theory. Using the metaphor of pathogenesis, he describes the beginning of the bourgeois world as the emergence of a disease within an originally healthy organism.

Jürgen Habermas took up many historical references of Koselleck in his study on the formation of the bourgeois public - structural change of the public (1962) - but already in 1960 (in an essay in Merkur ) questioned the central thesis of the book: political violence established criticism necessarily triggers the crisis, ”he did not consider convincing. By discrediting the “principle of public discussion as one of the civil war”, Koselleck misunderstood the objective intention of the public, which amounts not to a moralization, but to a rationalization of politics and later in the form of the bourgeois constitutional state, through the institutionalization of the public Parliament as a state body has found its fulfillment. There is a rationality inherent in the developed market traffic between citizens, which aims to convert political power into public authority. The philosophy of history articulates “the idea of ​​feasible history”, namely that people take the historical process into their own hands.

The Swiss historian Caspar Hirschi sees the script as a “prime example of the dialectic of the philosophy of history”. Absolutism appears as the antithesis of the wars of religion, the Enlightenment as the antithesis of absolutism. Koselleck wanted to convict the enlighteners of delusion. His book is an attack with the enemy's weapons; because he makes himself “the enlightener of the enlightenment, the critic of the critics”. "In the best enlightening manner, he combines epistemic criticism with a moral verdict": criticism is "dumbfounded" into hypocrisy. Koselleck stylized criticism as a "monster of the modern exercise of power", for him it was incompatible with realpolitik.

In another reading, Michael Schwartz subjected the font to extensive criticism. His most important points of criticism are, in addition to historiographical misjudgments, the partisanship for the absolutist understanding of politics.

One of the misjudgments is Schwartz Koselleck's definition of the absolutist state; they ignore that there was often no causal relationship between denominational civil war and growing absolutism in European reality (p. 38). His equation - Enlightenment versus absolutism = revolution and totalitarianism - is not justified by anything, since in Europe the path to modernity was taken both through revolution and reform (p. 54).

A apologetics of the Political run Koselleck when he accuses the Enlightenment that she had taken it upon him to negate the autonomy of the political means utopian constructions and have thus laid the foundation for the modern utopian ideological totalitarianism (page 35). In doing so, he would make a historico-philosophical normative verdict about an unpleasant historical process (p. 53). In addition, in his moral disqualification and schematic distortion of the Enlightenment, he uses the same hypercritical means that he subordinates to the totalitarian philosophy of history (p. 47).

Schwartz sums up his final judgment by saying that Koselleck's “vacillation between anti-enlightenment moralism and historical-philosophical fatalism [...] cumulates in the attitude of the moralizing-criticizing apologist of a 'politics'” “which should act free from all morality and criticism "(P. 57).

Text output

  • Reinhart Koselleck: Criticism and Crisis. A study of the pathogenesis of the bourgeois world.
    • First edition: Verlag Karl Alber, Freiburg, Munich 1959.
    • Paperback edition: Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 1973, ISBN 3-518-27636-0 ; 11th edition 2010.
  • English editions: Reinhart Koselleck: Critique and Crisis. Enlightenment and the Pathogenesis of Modern Society.
    • Berg Publishers, Oxford 1988, ISBN 0-262-61157-0 .
    • MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts 1988.

literature

  • Jürgen Habermas : On the criticism of the philosophy of history . In: ders .: culture and criticism . 2nd edition, Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1977, pp. 355-364.
  • Sisko Haikala: Criticism in the Enlightenment. Perspectives on Koselleck's Critique and Crisis Study . In: Finnish Yearbook of Political Thought . Vol. 1 (1997), pp. 70-86. (Weblink) (PDF; 49 kB)
  • Sebastian Huhnholz: From Carl Schmitt to Hannah Arendt? Traces of origin in Heidelberg and layers of liberalization in Germany from Reinhart Koselleck's "Critique and Crisis" (Scientific Treatises and Speeches on Philosophy, Politics and Intellectual History, Volume 95), Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2019.
  • Gennaro Imbriano: “Crisis” and “Pathogenesis” in Reinhart Koselleck's diagnosis of the modern world. In: Ernst Müller (Hrsg.): Forum Interdisciplinary Concept History. In: E-Journal. Volume 2 (2013), No. 1, pp. 33–48. (Weblink) (PDF; 286 kB)
  • Jan-Friedrich Missfelder: World Civil War and Repetition Structure. On the connection between critique of utopia and history in Reinhart Koselleck. In: Carsten Dutt, Reinhard Laube (Ed.): Between Language and History. On Reinhart Koselleck's work. Wallstein, Göttingen 2003, pp. 268–286.
  • Michael Schwartz: Leviathan or Lucifer. Reinhart Koselleck's 'Crisis and Criticism' revisited. In: Journal of Religious and Intellectual History. 45th year (1993), No. 1, pp. 33-57.
  • Mario Wimmer: About the effect of historical texts. In: Swiss History Journal (SZG). 62nd volume (2012), No. 2, pp. 217-238.

Remarks

  1. ↑ Mario Wimmer: About the effect of historical texts. In: Swiss History Journal (SZG). 62nd year (2012), No. 2, pp. 217–238, here: p. 228.
  2. ↑ Gennaro Imbriano: "Crisis" and "Pathogenesis" in Reinhart Koselleck's diagnosis of the modern world. In: Ernst Müller (Hrsg.): Forum Interdisciplinary Concept History. E-journal. 2nd year (2013), No. 1, pp. 33-48, here: p. 40 footnote 19. Accessed on June 29, 2015.
  3. ^ Nicolaus Sombart: Walks with Carl Schmitt. In: Mercury. German magazine for European thinking. Volume 38 (1984), pp. 191-201.
  4. ↑ Jan-Friedrich Missfelder: The counterforce and its history: Carl Schmitt, Reinhart Koselleck and the civil war. In: Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, 58th year (2006), issue 4, pp. 310–336, here: p. 312.
  5. ↑ Sebastian Huhnholz: From Carl Schmitt to Hannah Arendt? Traces of origin in Heidelberg and layers of liberalization in the Federal Republic of Reinhart Koselleck's "Critique and Crisis". Berlin, Duncker & Humblot 2019, ISBN 978-3-428-85570-4 , pp. 36 .
  6. ^ Niklas Olsen: Carl Schmitt, Reinhart Konselleck and the Foundations of History and Politics. In: History of European Ideas. 37th year (2011), issue 2, pp. 197–208, here: p. 200.
  7. ↑ Reinhart Koselleck: Criticism and Crisis. A study of the pathogenesis of the bourgeois world . Paperback edition Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1973, p. XII.
  8. ↑ Reinhart Koselleck: Criticism and Crisis. A study of the pathogenesis of the bourgeois world . Paperback edition Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1973, p. 5.
  9. ↑ Jürgen Habermas: On the criticism of the philosophy of history . In: ders .: culture and criticism . 2nd edition, Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1977, pp. 355-364, here: p. 355.
  10. ↑ Reinhart Koselleck: Criticism and Crisis. A study of the pathogenesis of the bourgeois world . Paperback edition Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1973, p. 8.
  11. ↑ Gennaro Imbriano: "Crisis" and "Pathogenesis" in Reinhart Koselleck's diagnosis of the modern world. In: Ernst Müller (Hrsg.): Forum Interdisciplinary Concept History. E-journal. Volume 2 (2013), No. 1, pp. 33-48, here: p. 47. Retrieved on June 16, 2015.
  12. ↑ Helmut Kuhn: Review of Koselleck 'Critique and Crisis'. In: Historical magazine . 192nd year (1961), pp. 666–668, here: 668.
  13. ↑ Carl Schmitt: The Leviathan in the theory of the state of Thomas Hobbes. The sense and failure of a political symbol. Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt, Hamburg 1938.
  14. ↑ Jan-Friedrich Missfelder: The counterforce and its history: Carl Schmitt, Reinhart Koselleck and the civil war. In: Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, 58th year (2006), issue 4, pp. 310–336, here: pp. 320–324.
  15. ↑ Reinhart Koselleck: Criticism and Crisis. A study of the pathogenesis of the bourgeois world. Paperback edition Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1973, p. 26.
  16. ↑ Reinhart Koselleck: Criticism and Crisis. A study of the pathogenesis of the bourgeois world. Paperback edition Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1973, p. 37.
  17. ↑ Reinhart Koselleck: Criticism and Crisis. A study of the pathogenesis of the bourgeois world . Paperback edition Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1973, p. 102f.
  18. ↑ Reinhart Koselleck: Criticism and Crisis. A study of the pathogenesis of the bourgeois world . Paperback edition Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1973, p. 155.
  19. ↑ Koselleck quotes from Rousseau's Emile : “Nous approchons de l'état de crise et du siècle des révolutions.” (We are approaching the state of crisis and the century of revolutions.)
  20. ↑ Reinhart Koselleck: Criticism and Crisis. A study of the pathogenesis of the bourgeois world . Paperback edition Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1973, p. 156f.
  21. ↑ Reinhart Koselleck: Criticism and Crisis. A study of the pathogenesis of the bourgeois world. Paperback edition Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1973, pp. IX-XI.
  22. ↑ Reinhart Koselleck: Criticism and Crisis. A study of the pathogenesis of the bourgeois world. Paperback edition Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1973, p. 2.
  23. ↑ Reinhart Koselleck: Criticism and Crisis. A study of the pathogenesis of the bourgeois world. Paperback edition Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1973, p. 1.
  24. ↑ Reinhart Koselleck: Criticism and Crisis. A study of the pathogenesis of the bourgeois world. Paperback edition Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1973, p. 156.
  25. ↑ Preface to the English Edition . Berg Publishers, Oxford 1988, p. 1.
  26. ^ Jan-Friedrich Missfelder: World civil war and repetition structure. On the connection between critique of utopia and history in Reinhart Koselleck. In: Carsten Dutt, Reinhard Laube (Ed.): Between Language and History. On Reinhart Koselleck's work. Wallstein, Göttingen 2003, pp. 268–286, here: 273.
  27. ↑ Gennaro Imbriano: "Crisis" and "Pathogenesis" in Reinhart Koselleck's diagnosis of the modern world. In: Ernst Müller (Hrsg.): Forum Interdisciplinary Concept History. E-journal. 2nd year (2013), No. 1, pp. 33-48, here: p. 46 f. Retrieved June 29, 2015.
  28. ↑ Reinhart Koselleck: A few questions about the conceptual history of 'crisis'. In: Krysztof Michalski (ed.): About the crisis. Castelgandolfo Talks 1985. Stuttgart 1986, pp. 64–76. (Reprinted in: Reinhart Koselleck: Term stories . Studies on the semantics and pragmatics of political and social language. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 2006, pp. 203–217).
  29. ↑ Gennaro Imbriano: "Crisis" and "Pathogenesis" in Reinhart Koselleck's diagnosis of the modern world. In: Ernst Müller (Hrsg.): Forum Interdisciplinary Concept History. E-journal. Volume 2 (2013), No. 1, pp. 33-48, here: p. 46. Retrieved on July 12, 2015.
  30. ↑ Reinhart Koselleck: Modern times. On the semantics of modern concepts of movement. In: ders. (Ed.): Studies on the beginning of the modern world. Stuttgart 1977, pp. 264-299; quoted here from Gennaro Imbriano: “Crisis” and “Pathogenesis” in Reinhart Koselleck's diagnosis of the modern world. In: Ernst Müller (Hrsg.): Forum Interdisciplinary Concept History. E-journal. Volume 2 (2013), No. 1, pp. 33-48, here: p. 46. Retrieved on June 30, 2015.
  31. ↑ Reinhart Koselleck: Conceptual stories. Studies on the semantics and pragmatics of political and social language. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 2006, p. 215.
  32. ↑ Gennaro Imbriano: "Crisis" and "Pathogenesis" in Reinhart Koselleck's diagnosis of the modern world. In: Ernst Müller (Hrsg.): Forum Interdisciplinary Concept History. E-journal. 2nd year (2013), No. 1, pp. 33-48, here: p. 47 f. Retrieved June 9, 2015.
  33. ↑ Sebastian Huhnholz: From Carl Schmitt to Hannah Arendt? Traces of origin in Heidelberg and layers of liberalization in the Federal Republic of Reinhart Koselleck's "Critique and Crisis". Duncker & Humblot, ISBN 978-3-428-85570-4 , pp. 29 .
  34. ↑ Ute Daniel: Reinhart Koselleck. In: Lutz Raphael (Hrsg.): Classics of the science of history. Volume 2. Beck, Munich 2006, p. 170.
  35. ^ Franz Leander Fillafer: Review by Karl Palonen: The Entzauberung der Terms. In: H-Soz-Kult . September 14, 2004. Retrieved June 8, 2015.
  36. ↑ Reinhart Koselleck: Criticism and Crisis. A study of the pathogenesis of the bourgeois world. Paperback edition Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1973, SX
  37. ↑ Michael Schwartz: Leviathan or Lucifer. Reinhart Koselleck's 'Crisis and Criticism' revisited. In: Journal of Religious and Intellectual History. 45th year (1993), No. 1, pp. 33-57, here: pp. 33 f.
  38. ↑ Christian Meier quotes the statement without citing the source in his memorial address for Reinhart Koselleck . In: university talks. Bielefeld University Talks and Lectures 9 , p. 8. ( Memento of March 4, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Retrieved on June 13, 2015.
  39. ↑ Mario Wimmer: About the effect of historical texts. In: Swiss History Journal (SZG). 62nd year (2012), No. 2, pp. 217–238, here: p. 234.
  40. ↑ Mario Wimmer: About the effect of historical texts. In: Swiss History Journal (SZG). 62nd year (2012), No. 2, pp. 217–238, here: p. 234.
  41. ↑ Volume VII (1959), pp. 302–303.
  42. ↑ Sebastian Huhnholz: From Carl Schmitt to Hannah Arendt? Traces of origin in Heidelberg and layers of liberalization in the Federal Republic of Reinhart Koselleck's "Critique and Crisis". Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2019, ISBN 978-3-428-85570-4 , pp. 36 .
  43. ↑ Mario Wimmer: About the effect of historical texts. In: Swiss History Journal (SZG). 62nd year (2012), No. 2, pp. 217–238, here: p. 232.
  44. ↑ In: Historical magazine. 192th year (1961), pp. 666–668.
  45. ^ In: Ruperto Carola. 29th year (1961), pp. 258–264.
  46. ↑ Jürgen Habermas: Notorious Progress - Unrecognized Century. In: Mercury. German magazine for European thinking. 14th year (1960), pp. 468-477.
  47. ↑ Mario Wimmer: About the effect of historical texts. In: Swiss History Journal (SZG). 62nd year (2012), No. 2, pp. 217–238, here: p. 229.
  48. ↑ Gennaro Imbriano: "Crisis" and "Pathogenesis" in Reinhart Koselleck's diagnosis of the modern world. In: Ernst Müller (Hrsg.): Forum Interdisciplinary Concept History. E-journal. Volume 2 (2013), No. 1, pp. 33-48, here: p. 47. Retrieved on June 9, 2015.
  49. ^ Jürgen Habermas: Structural change of the public . Luchterhand, Neuwied 1962, p. 104.
  50. ↑ Jürgen Habermas: On the criticism of the philosophy of history . first in: Merkur 1960, reprinted in: Ders .: Culture and Criticism . 2nd edition, Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1977, pp. 355-364, here: pp. 357f.
  51. ↑ Jürgen Habermas: On the criticism of the philosophy of history . In: ders .: culture and criticism . 2nd edition, Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1977, pp. 355-364, here: p. 359.
  52. ↑ Caspar Hirschi : Who still fears criticism? In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung . June 5, 2015, p. 9.
  53. ↑ Michael Schwartz: Leviathan or Lucifer. Reinhart Koselleck's 'Crisis and Criticism' revisited. In: Journal of Religious and Intellectual History. 45th year (1993), No. 1, pp. 33-57. The individual arguments are shown in brackets in the running text.
This article was added to the list of excellent articles on July 18, 2015 in this version .