Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 6

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
This article presents a summary of the main views in Dambeck’s lectures on aesthetics on the basis of all known sources and compares the views thus obtained with views developed in German aesthetics in the late eighteenth and the early nineteenth century, with the aim of finding their chief source and reintegrating them both into German aesthetics and, more narrowly, into the aesthetics taught at Prague University. Johann Heinrich Dambeck constructed his lecture series on the plan of Zschokke’s textbook Ideen zur psychologischen Aesthetik (1793) which has never been taken into account in any other research on his lectures. The close link between Dambeck’s lectures and this textbook compels us to revise the current understanding of the nature of their ideas. Dambeck has so far been most often unproblematically presented as an adherent and disseminator of Kant’s and Schiller’s ideas about aesthetics in the Bohemian Lands. The key textbook on which he bases his university lecture series is, however, intentionally un-Kantian. Zschokke’s Ideen is part of the psychological-anthropological stream of Late-Enlightenment German aesthetics.
EN
Carl Heinrich Seibt (1735–1806) was the founder of modern Bohemian aesthetics, that is, thinking about taste, beauty, and fine art, which he developed in a living language. Yet little is known about the content of his lectures on the Schöne Wissenschaften or his views on aesthetics. The following article aims to fill this gap in four respects. It explains why the topic has so far been neglected; it gives a summary of the now known sources from which we may draw our knowledge of the topics of art theory, the individual kinds of art, and general aesthetics, with which Seibt was concerned in his lectures. It presents the standpoints which he held in them, and it puts them into the European context of the period, particularly German aesthetics. It aims primarily to determine whether the accessible sources contain traces of influences other than those of his teachers at Leipzig, who are mentioned in the secondary literature: Johann Christoph Gottsched (1700–1766) and Christian Fürchtegott Gellert (1715–1769), including the important authorities recognized by them, in particular Charles Batteux (1713–1780). The article shows that Seibt’s views were also influenced by Moses Mendelssohn and Johann Joachim Winckelmann, representatives of a generation of German aestheticians younger than his teachers.
EN
The study examines possible sources of late-revival philosophy of Czech common sense. It points to the similarity between its aims and the aims of German anti-scholastic and anti-Kantian (generally anti-idealist) englightenment philosophy of the end of the 17th and 18th centuries. All these lines of thought emphasised the need to cultivate philosophy in the national language in a broadly intelligible way, and they called for the practical usefulness of philosophy and the eschewal of metaphysics as an end in itself. By way of conclusion the question is posed as to whether, in these circumstances, it is possible to find a deeper connection. Karel Havlíček and Vilém Gábler, the most important representatives of the philosophy of Czech common sense, did not express an affiliation with any German ideas. The Bohemian late-enlightenment controversies about the nature of local science, as it reflects the clash between advocates of the university professor of fine sciences, Carl Heinrich Seibt, and the natural scientist, Ignatius von Born, on the question of whether Bohemian science should be orientated towards fine sciences or to the mastership of nature by natural science, did however directly appeal to the German enlightenment. In a parallel way one finds, in the Czech context, anti-Kantian attacks taking the form of parodying his critical means of expression. These examples show that German enlightenment themes and ideals were studied and nurtured, in the Czech Lands, long before the appearance of the philosophers of Czech common sense.
CS
Studie zkoumá možná východiska pozdněobrozenské filosofie zdravého českého rozumu. Poukazuje na podobnost mezi jejími cíli a cíli německé protischolastické a protikantovské (obecně protiidealistické) osvícenské filosofie konce 17. a 18. století. Všechny uvedené směry zdůrazňovaly potřebu pěstovat filosofii v národním jazyce široce srozumitelným způsobem a volaly po praktické užitečnosti filosofie a vyhýbání se samoúčelné metafyzice. Závěrem je nastolena otázka, zda lze za těmito podobnostmi nalézt i hlubší souvislost. Karel Havlíček a Vilém Gábler, nejvýznamnější představitelé filosofie zdravého českého rozumu, se k žádným německým idejím nehlásili. České pozdněosvícenské spory (myšleno zemsky) o ráz zdejší vědy, jak je odráží střet mezi stoupenci univerzitního profesora krásných věd Carla Heinricha Seibta a přírodovědce Ignaze von Borna o to, zda má česká věda směřovat ke krasodušství, nebo k přírodovědnému ovládnutí přírody, však přímo navazovaly na německé osvícenství. Obdobně lze v českém prostředí nalézt i ohlasy protikantovských výpadů v podobě parodování jeho kriticistního způsobu vyjadřování. Tyto příklady ukazují, že německá osvícenská témata a ideály byly v českých zemích rozebírány a prosazovány dlouho před vystoupením filosofů zdravého českého rozumu.
EN
This article examines contemporaneous reports about two versions of lectures in aesthetics, which were given at Prague University by Johann Heinrich Dambeck (1774–1820). They were recorded by the publisher Joseph Adolf Hanslik (1785–1859) in a manuscript summary in 1819 and a two-volume book published in 1822 and 1823. The article presents a comparison of the two sources in order to determine which parts of the commentary originate with Dambeck and which with Hanslik. Considering the large scope and the bibliographical nature of the chief part of the appendices to the book, the author of the article concludes that they originated not with Dambeck, but with Hanslik.
EN
This essay refutes the widely held view that the aesthetics lectures given by Johann Heinrich Dambeck (1774–1820), a professor ordinarius at Prague, were essentially Kantian. The first part discusses the errors that have led to this view. The second part, the core of the essay, considers examples of the Kantian viewpoints that Petr Vít, in his works in the 1980s, selected from a published version of Dambeck’s lectures and compares them with ideas expressed in Kant’s Critique of Judgement (1790). The essay then expands the comparison to include all places where Kant’s name and works appear in the Dambeck publication. The last part of the essay compares these places with the MS version of Dambeck’s lectures. The comparison seeks to demonstrate that neither of these versions can rightly be called purely Kantian, because although they are repeatedly mentioned in Dambeck’s works, Kant’s views are not generally shared or even developed in them.
EN
The terms Rührung, rühren, rührend, and gerührt occur with extraordinary frequency in the lectures on aesthetics and poetics which were given at Prague University by August Gottlieb Meißner (1753–1807), as recorded by his students Josef Jungmann and Josef Liboslav Ziegler. The article aims to explain how Meißner, the ordinarius of aesthetics and classical literature at Prague, worked with these terms in his lectures and it seeks to demonstrate how their use was connected with the Enlightenment aesthetics of the eighteenth century, particularly in the German-speaking lands. The ennoblement of this set of terms in aesthetics at Prague University in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was probably not based on any specific work. Instead, it was connected with the general aesthetic trends of the times, particularly the influential German ‘aesthetics of effect’ (Wirkungsästhetik) of the second half of the eighteenth century. This current, which constituted an alternative to the contemplatively conceived transcendental aesthetics of Immanuel Kant, made the emotions the basis of taste and art, adding a psychological-anthropological aspect to aesthetic thinking, without losing sight of the importance, even paramouncy, of the moral contribution of art. Meißner’s lectures constitute a hitherto unknown, hard to overlook part of this current of German aesthetics, which was developed at a university in the Austrian Monarchy, that is to say, beyond the frontiers of the traditional central German and north German centres of aesthetic thought. Though the concentrated interest in Rührung places Meißner’s lectures into this current, the absolutization of the term, resulting in a deliberate weakening of the moral aspect, shifts the lectures to the margins. The double role of Rührung, the most typical, most distinctive feature of the lectures, shows that Meißner was familiar not only with contemporaneous German views but also with the strikingly more pointed French and English viewpoints, which he had absorbed probably during his years at Leipzig.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.