Journal articles on the topic '1770-1831'

O artigo pretende mostrar a articulação apresentada por Hegel (1770-1831) entre as noções de práxis material e trabalho na sua obra Fenomenologia do espírito e as noções de ideia prática e a ideia de Bem na sua obra Ciência da lógica. Inicialmente, será traçado um percurso histórico que a ideia de práxis cumpriu desde os pensadores da Antiguidade grega, passando pela Idade Média, quando no Renascimento, relativizam o privilégio da reflexão e da contemplação sobre a práxis material produtiva. Finalmente, chegaremos ao pensamento de Hegel que dará dignidade plena à práxis material, igualando-a as atividades do espírito.

Teodoros Kolokotronis (1770–1843) je ena najvidnejših vojaških osebnosti iz časa grške revolucije (1821–1830). Rojen je bil v Meseniji na Peloponezu, živel pa je na Zakintosu, Peloponezu in v Atenah. Deloval je kot kleft in armatol in bil član Prijateljskega društva (Φιλική Εταιρεία), katerega cilj je bila organizacija in izvedba grške vstaje. Bil je eden izmed podpornikov vlade prvega grškega predsednika Joannisa Kapodistriasa, ki je vladal od leta 1828 pa do atentata leta 1831. Po prihodu bavarskega princa Otona I. v Grčijo (1833) je bil Kolokotronis leta 1834 obsojen na smrt, češ da je nasprotnik bavarskega dvora, a slednjič je bil pomiloščen. Kolokotronis je bil nepismen. Njegovo biografijo, Pripoved o dogajanju med grškim ljudstvom 1770–1836 (Διήγησις συμβάντων τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς φυλῆς ἀπὸ τὰ 1770 ἕως τὰ 1836), je zato po nareku napisal Georgios Tertsetis (1800–1874), eden izmed dveh sodnikov, ki sta v prepričanju, da je Kolokotronis nedolžen, zavrnila podpis pod prej omenjeno smrtno obsodbo. Delo je izšlo v Atenah leta 1846 in je napisano v prvi osebi, pripovedovalec je Kolokotronis. V besedilu se spominja dogodkov, ki jih je doživel v mladosti in med svojim udejstvovanjem v grški vstaji. V slovenskem prevodu je zbranih nekaj odlomkov, ki se osredotočajo na Kolokotronisovo pripoved o dogodkih pred nastopom prvega grškega predsednika, Joannisa Kapodistriasa, predsednikovo delovanje, njegovo smrt ter prihod bavarskega princa Otona I. v Grčijo.

Este artigo visa apresentar e analisar a concepção de progresso histórico elaborada pelo filósofo alemão Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) em sua obra Lições sobre a Filosofia da História, publicada postumamente em 1837. Para isso, a exposição do artigo seguirá, principalmente, o terceiro capítulo da obra mencionada – denominado “O Curso da História Universal” –, acompanhando, detalhadamente, a argumentação do filósofo. A conclusão do artigo destaca o progresso histórico hegeliano compreendido enquanto um fim infinito, baseando-se, principalmente, na obra Does History Make Sense? (2017), de Terry Pinkard. Além disso, compara-se a compreensão hegeliana do progresso histórico com as compreensões linear e cíclica da história.

In the report is analyzed the idea of the famous German philosopher G.W.F.Hegel (1770 – 1831) concerning the specificities of the abstract thinking, emphasized in his paper “Who thinks abstractly?” Contemporary phenomena are outlined, related to that type of thinking as partial, narrow-mind, undifferentiated, labeling, ignoring of the process and the reasons, etc. The relation of this type of thinking, viewed in a global context, to the ecological crisis, to aggression, stigmatization, to the contemporary conflict fields is analyzed. A special attention is paid to and the relevant problems are discussed regarding the subject of the abstract thinking, the “uneducated” person in a global context, as far as regarding the social and the cultural conditions generating him.

O presente artigo investigará a concepção de Estado do filósofo alemão Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (Stuttgart, 27 de agosto de 1770 – Berlim, 14 de novembro de 1831) a partir da obra “Filosofia do Direito” (1821), em especial, a sua terceira seção, que será a base para a análise da temática, por ser nela que Hegel discute, a miúde, os elementos constitutivos do Estado. A análise feita a partir desta discussão definirá a ideia de Estado hegeliano respeitando três estruturas básicas adotadas pelo filósofo naquela seção, que comporta: 1º) a natureza do Estado; 2º) a fundamentação da organização interna do Estado e 3º) o poder do príncipe. O objetivo da investigação proposta neste artigo é apresentar os elementos centrais e constitutivos do Estado à estrutura do direito interno que fundamenta sua política.

Германы агуу их гүн ухаантан, улс төрийн сэтгэгч Георг Вильгельм Фридрих Гегель (1770-1831) Штутгарт хотод санхүүгийн томоохон албан тушаалтны гэр бүлд төржээ. Тюбингений их сургуульд шашны онолын факультетийг төгссөн ба хожим нь Берлиний их сургуульд философийн тэнхимийг толгойлох болсон байна. Түүний үзэл санаа Францын хөрөнгөтний агуу их хувьсгалын нөлөөгөөр төлөвшжээ. Гегель улс төр, эрх зүйн асуудлыг амьдралынхаа бүтээн туурвих бүхий л шатанд чухалчлан авч үзжээ. Түүний улс төрийн ба эрх зүйн сургаал нь “Оюун санааны феноменологи” (1807), “Философийн шинжлэх ухааны нэвтэрхий толь” (1821), “Түүхийн философийн лекцүүд”, ялангуяа “Эрх зүйн философи”(1821) хэмээх томоохон зохиолуудад тусчээ. Гегелийн эрх зүйн философи ба улс төрийн сургаал бол дэлхий нийтийн хэмжээний улс төрийн ба эрх зүйн сэтгэлгээний түүхэнд том, онцгой байр суурь эзэлдэг, утга агуулгаараа нэн баялаг, нарийн нийлмэл сургаал мөн болно.

Straipsnyje pristatomi vokiečių klasikinės filosofijos atstovo Georgo Hegelio (1770–1831) gyvenimo ir kūrybos svarbiausi bruožai. Teigiama, kad reikia skirti G. Hegelio idealistinę sistemą ir dialektinį metodą. Jo filosofijos išeities taškas yra sąvoka, mintis, protas. Ta sąvoka vadinama absoliutine idėja. Tai sudievinta sąvoka, kuri, reikšdama visos žmonijos protą, žinojimą, yra šalia žmogaus. Egzistuodama objektyviai, idėja yra visos esamybės, gamtos ir dvasios pradžia bei kūrėjas, visų daiktų esmė. Absoliutinę idėją, pažinimą ir protą G. Hegelis supranta dialektiškai. Jų kova lemia tai, kad absoliutinė idėja nuolatos vystosi ir, pereidama daugybę pakopų, palaipsniui artėja prie savo tikslo – absoliučios tiesos arba visiško savęs pažinimo. Pažinimas yra absoliutinės idėjos, proto vystymosi tyrimas. Pažinimas vystosi dialektinėmis triadomis (tezė, antitezė, sintezė). Savo filosofijos sistemą mąstytojas triadų principu suskirstė į logiką, gamtos ir dvasios filosofiją. Valstybė yra dorovės idėjų įsikūnijimas, proto, dieviškosios kūrybos rezultatas. Tautos dvasia yra apibrėžta pasaulio dvasios pakopa.

Este artigo analisa o papel da História na vida humana segundo dois dos mais importantes filósofos alemães do século XIX: Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) e Karl Heinrich Marx (1818-1883). A Filosofia Hegeliana dá muita importância à Razão: a História seria apenas mais uma forma de manifestação dela. A Dialética seria a estrutura da História e tudo estaria integrado para contribuir para a consumação do ser, tendendo ao Absoluto. Por outro lado, Marx deu outro sentido à dialética e até mesmo à História, enfatizando o papel do homem na construção de seu futuro e sua chance de mudar seu próprio destino. Segundo Marx, a luta de classes é responsável por fazer a estrutura social mudar ao longo do tempo. Os conflitos sociais equivalem, para a filosofia de Marx, ao papel que a Razão tem nas obras hegelianas.

The paper addresses the journal Jahrbücher für speculative Philosophie, published between 1846 and 1848 in Darmstadt. The paper focuses on the forewords of the journal written by the sole editor Ludwig Noack (1819–1885). In these forewords, Noack elaborates the current situation of philosophy. He outlines his vision for the future philosophy. It would be meaningful not only for professional philosophers but also for the general audience. Moreover, it would be closely associated with other sciences. Noack’s vision was inspired by August Cieszkowski’s (1814–1894) so-called “Philosophie der Tat” (the philosophy of action), which resonated with the entire generation of German Hegelians from the late 1830s. Noack realized his journal in co-operation with the “Philosophische Gesellschaft zu Berlin”, founded by Cieszkowski and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s (1770–1831) former student Carl Ludwig Michelet (1801–1893) in 1843.

O presente artigo tem por objetivo discutir a possibilidade de o conceito de propriedade hegeliano inserir a teoria política de Hegel (1770-1831) na tradição liberal moderna. O artigo divide-se em quatro partes. A primeira parte busca apresentar o problema ao leitor e lançar luz sobre as categorias chaves para a compreensão do debate em curso. A segunda parte do artigo apresenta a concepção de propriedade em John Locke (1632-1704), considerado o pai do liberalismo moderno. Na terceira seção do trabalho é analisada a concepção de propriedade em Hegel. Na seção denominada a propriedade como base do liberalismo em Locke e Hegel, as doutrinas são comparadas. Nesta parte do trabalho analisam-se as semelhanças entre as duas teorias. Após a análise das semelhanças entre as duas concepções, pode-se concluir que há similaridades suficientes entre as teorias para afirmar pelo menos no que se refere à categoria da propriedade, que a filosofia hegeliana está inserida na tradição liberal moderna.

O presente texto tem por objetivo considerar uma possível solução da pobreza segundo o filósofo G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831). Hegel se detém sobre o tema que, para ele, é muito mais um problema a ser seriamente considerado, em sua obra Linhas Fundamentais da Filosofia do Direito de 1821, na seção dedicada à eticidade e aí na subseção sobre a sociedade civil burguesa. Hegel elenca, ao longo da seção mencionada, inúmeros procedimentos adotados ao longo da história e em diferentes sociedades para se tentar resolver o problema da pobreza. Aqui se procura analisar uma delas que seria através dos órgãos de vigilância denominados por Hegel de “Polizei”, ou seja, polícia. O termo guarda poucas relações com a compreensão atual de polícia sendo muito mais um órgão de fiscalização dos serviços públicos. Para Hegel a “Polizei” não se apresenta como uma solução definitiva, mas corretiva e momentânea, pois não atua sobre a causa da pobreza que é o modo de organização da sociedade civil burguesa.

Na Ciência da lógica, especificamente na Doutrina do Ser, Hegel (1770-1831) expõe a dialética ser-nada-devir. Também, na Doutrina do Ser, Hegel separa uma parte intitulada “Observação” para tratar brevemente do termo Aufhebung e seu conceito. É nesse contexto que Hegel mais reflete sobre a expressão. Na Ciência da lógica, ser, nada e devir são apresentados como categorias sistemáticas da lógica especulativa. É a partir dessa tríade que a lógica se desdobra progressivamente em momentos mais concretos. Já o conceito de Aufhebung aparece como condição necessária para tal desdobramento. É o que faz cada categoria avançar para outra. Desse movimento, emerge o devir como unidade conciliadora do ser e do nada. Diante disso, no devir, Aufhebung encontra-se como movimento que suspende ou eleva todas as demais categorias lógicas, proporcionando a passagem de um estado a outro. Isto posto, o presente artigo tem como objetivo demonstrar a inerente conexão entre os conceitos de Aufhebung e devir.

Historically, our theme is situated within the triangle of three of Kant's students: Hegel (1770-1831), Bolzano (1781-1848) and Peirce (1839-1914). All three wanted to change Kant's strict separation of philosophy and science by developing a new conception of logic. Bolzano inaugurated the so-called linguistic turn of philosophy which became the guiding principle of all analytical philosophy (Dummett, 2014) and he opposed Hegel’s unity of concept and object of knowledge. Charles Peirce took a middle position, a position that is expressed in his so-called Pragmatic Maxim (Peirce, CP 5.3). Taken together we might say that a universal principle of complementarity of meaning and reference, or of meaning and information (in the sense of Shannon) finds its origin in Post-Kantian philosophy. We encounter here the very same approach of principled thinking endorsed by Einstein in physics (special theory of relativity) or by the formal axiomatic approach in mathematics (Hilbert)! Key Words: Bolzano, Hegel, Peirce; Complementarity of sense and reference; Geometry from Euclid to Einstein; Hilbert.

É possível ensinar filosofia? O filósofo alemão G. W. F. Hegel (1770-1831) não somente responde afirmativamente à questão posta, como também indica o que deve ser ensinado e como em filosofia. A resposta hegeliana tem como fonte sua atividade como diretor do ginásio de Nürnberg, onde ele procura estabelecer diretrizes e procedimentos para que a filosofia seja ensinada aos jovens. Segundo Hegel, a filosofia sempre é pertinente na medida em que se manifesta sobre o que é fundamental para o homem, isto é, sobre sua vida com as questões que lhe dizem respeito. Para tanto, a filosofia deve assumir o homem como seu objeto de consideração. Isto deve resultar na apreciação da realidade humana para que a partir dela sejam levados e elevados à sua maior e melhor compreensão pela reflexão e pela especulação. Tais habilidades não são adquiridas senão pelo contato direto com a filosofia em sua especificidade na sua produção histórica, ou seja, nos textos. Conhecer a história da filosofia já é aprender filosofia, mas tal aprendizagem necessita da mediação do professor. A mediação se faz necessária, pois a aprendizagem não é natural e, portanto, não se dá espontaneamente. Aprender é sempre aprender com alguém.

Abstract Since the early 2000s, in a development since mirrored throughout much of the Anglophone world, social work across UK jurisdictions has been subject to external regulation. Whilst a key justification for regulation was to enhance professional identity, there is little evidence that it has done so. Indeed, a growing literature points out conflictual and unproductive relationships between the social work profession and its regulators, within which a marked power imbalance in favour of the regulator is apparent. In this article, we illustrate the nature of this imbalance theoretically by drawing upon the classic philosophical narrative, developed by Georg Willhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831), of the ‘lord and bondsman’. We seek to demonstrate the utility of the Hegelian narrative using data from a study into the views of social workers on how they understand their professional identities, focusing specifically on those aspects of the study that address the place of regulation in this process. Whilst exposing some fundamental problems in the regulatory relationship, the lord and bondsman narrative may also offer some possibility of a way forward through identifying these dialectics as a step towards a more self-conscious professional maturity.

El objetivo principal del presente ensayo es mostrar las contribuciones teóricas de la noción hegeliana de reconocimiento (Anerkennung) en el ámbito de la enfermería, refiriéndonos particularmente a la temática del cuidado. Para ello, realizaremos un abordaje del concepto de reconocimiento desde la obra del filósofo alemán G. W. F. Hegel (1770-1831) titulada Fenomenología del Espíritu. El ensayo se dividirá en dos partes. En primer lugar, expondremos la noción hegeliana de reconocimiento desde el Capítulo IV de la Fenomenología del Espíritu, dedicado a la Autoconciencia. Y luego, en segundo lugar, mostraremos la importancia que la teoría hegeliana sobre reconocimiento tiene para algunas problemáticas y desafíos propios del ámbito de la enfermería. En el curso del presente ensayo pretendemos mostrar y justificar que el planteo de Hegel sobre el reconocimiento permite fundamentar filosófica, ética y políticamente el proceso de atención sanitaria en el ámbito de la enfermería, permitiendo de esta manera alcanzar una significación del cuidado más integral, esto es, no reducida estrictamente a la esfera de lo biológico, sino que involucre también las dimensiones éticas, psicológicas, económicas e histórico-políticas, tanto de quienes brindan cuidados como de quienes los reciben.

Suele considerarse a Hegel (1770-1831) el filósofo europeo más importante desde Kant. Su influencia se extendió por todo el mundo hasta la Segunda Guerra Mundial, sobre todo a través de su discípulo díscolo, Karl Marx. Desde entonces, su importancia ha tendido a verse eclipsada por una marea creciente de polémica antimodernista, que ha ido de Heidegger al postmodernismo (aunque de forma ocasional e intermitente haya vuelto a prestársele atención). La visión que Hegel tenía de la Revolución Francesa fue fundamental en la forja de su pensamiento político. Sin embargo, a pesar del papel decisivo que desempeñó en el desarrollo de sus ideas, su reacción ante este acontecimiento ha sido sistemáticamente malinterpretada. Mediante la presentación de un relato más fiel de la interpretación que Hegel hizo de su propia época, el argumento que aquí se expone sitúa su respuesta a los acontecimientos contemporáneos en el contexto de una serie de Revoluciones Mundiales que determinaron el significado de su época. Esta manera de aproximarse al problema sirve para ilustrar la singular combinación de razonamiento histórico y filosófico de la que dependía el pensamiento de Hegel. Cuando procedemos de ese modo, la reconstrucción de sus argumentos nos lleva a poner en cuestión la aplicabilidad de las ideas políticas del pasado a los periodos históricos posteriores.

Este artigo lida com o diálogo construído com base em um conjunto de três textos: 1) A Fenomenologia do espírito (1807) de Hegel (1770-1831), mais especificamente, os subcapítulos VI. C. a. A visão moral do mundo (Die moralische Weltanschauung), e VI. C. b. A dissimulação (Die Verstellung) do capítulo VI. O espírito certo de si mesmo. A moralidade (Der seiner selber gewisse Geist. Die Moralität); 2) o comentário (1972) a estes subcapítulos feitos por Lima Vaz (1921- 2002) e 3) o conto de Guimarães Rosa (1908-1967) O recado do Morro (1956). Este conjunto aborda três temas: i) moralidade e natureza, ii) percepção da realidade tal como ilustrada pelas figuras da consciência e iii) a totalidade, racionalmente organizada, dessas figuras da consciência. Eles serão investigados pelos conceitos de a) moralidade e felicidade, b) figuras da consciência e c) silogismo dialético. O resultado desse entrelaçamento conceitual é a interpretação de O recado do morro de Rosa como uma leitura da cultura brasileira em suas diferentes figuras da consciência, desde sua manifestação mais baixa até sua forma mais avançada: um esboço da fenomenologia da consciência brasileira. Segundo esta leitura, a mensagem comunicada pelo morro, inicialmente captada por Gorgulho, obtém sua correta interpretação por seu destinatário, Pedro Orósio, com a ajuda da arte. Além disso, como uma obra de arte, o próprio texto de Rosa O recado do morro, no amplo contexto da cultura brasileira, é uma espécie de metateoria de o que experiencia o destinatário da mensagem em seu processo de educação: acesso à verdade pela mediação da arte.

Diversos estudos ligados à sociologia e às ciências políticas percebem o Estado como um importante mecanismo de coerção social. Analisando o desenvolvimento social da humanidade, depreende-se que o Estado tem se adaptado às diferentes demandas da elite burguesa, a qual detém o poder nos mais diversos contextos sociais e políticos. Com essa transformação capitalista da sociedade, ocorre, também, a subordinação da organização social às exigências do capital. Esse é o momento onde ocorre a construção de um Estado e das instituições políticas, ambos adequados ao domínio da burguesia. Diante desse contexto, o presente artigo tem como objetivo realizar uma discussão sobre a linha conceitual que considera o empreendedorismo como uma alternativa para a saída de uma crise social e econômica. Trata-se de uma pesquisa qualitativa e bibliográfica. Para a coleta dos dados foi realizado um levantamento teórico em estudos de Max Weber (1864-1920), Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) e Thomas Hobbes (1588-1651) em relação à teoria geral do Estado; de Karl Marx (1818-1883) em relação à intervenção do Estado nos aspectos econômicos e sociais; e de Schumpeter (1997), por se tratar de uma importante referência no estudo do empreendedorismo. Os resultados contribuem para a discussão sobre os conceitos de empreendedorismo e as características dos empreendedores e empreendedoras, além de abordar sobre o processo de empreender em um Estado marcado pela sua subordinação histórica ao capital. Dessa forma, espera-se que o presente estudo colabore com a construção do referencial teórico sobre empreendedorismo e inovação, em uma vertente mais crítica e contextualizada.

This contribution addresses the anthropocenic challenge from a dialectical perspective, combining a diagnostics of the present with a prognostic of the emerging future. It builds on the oeuvres of two prominent dialectical thinkers, namely Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955). Hegel himself was a pre-anthropocenic thinker who did not yet thematise the anthropocenic challenge as such, but whose work allows us to emphasise the unprecedented newness of the current crisis. I will especially focus on his views on Earth as a planetary process, emphasising that (in the current situation) the “spirit” of technoscience is basically monitoring the impacts of its own activities on geochemistry and evolution. Subsequently, I will turn attention to Teilhard de Chardin, a palaeontologist and philosopher rightfully acknowledged as one of the first thinkers of the Anthropocene whose oeuvre provides a mediating middle term between Hegel’s conceptual groundwork and the anthropocenic present. Notably, I will discuss his views on self-directed evolution, on the on-going absorption of the biosphere by the noosphere, and on emerging options for “sublating” the current crisis into a synthetic convergence towards (what Teilhard refers to as) the Omega point. I will conclude that (a), after disclosing the biomolecular essence of life, biotechnology must now take a radical biomimetic turn (a shift from domesticating nature to the domestication of domestication, i.e., of technology); that (b) reflection itself must become distributed and collective; and (c), that the anthropocenic crisis must be sublated into the noocene.

The debate herein exposed is aimed towards a confrontation between the autonomy of human will and its heteronomy, or between liberty and law. This crucial problem is also the most discussed within contemporary moral reflection. Is it possible to behave freely and morally by obeying law and to remain in full exercise of liberty? For his reflection, Hegel strongly criticizes Jewish religion and further concentrates on the passage of the New Testament that takes place at the home of Simon the Pharisee, analyzing the behavior of four characters: Mary Magdalene: love and need; Simon: the power to judge; the disciples: moral interest and Jesus: the voice of beauty and love. Hegel’s approach is summed up in seeking what man must do (morality) as a condition to access religion considered to be man’s happiness. How to open, therefore, the path of morality towards a religion that restores life and beauty, a religion as a living union between God and man? In conclusion, some arguments will be presented to demonstrate the insufficiency of Hegel’s criticism to religion in the Old Testament. Obedience appears as a human response to God’s nomination rather than as a response to law.

Sébastien Erard (1752–1831) is widely considered the father of the modern harp, in part because of his invention (c. 1786) of the forked discs that shorten the vibrating length of the strings by a semitone, but above all for his 1810 invention of the double action, a mechanical system that allows the harpist to play in all keys and which has been used on virtually all concert pedal harps for the past two centuries. However, Erard’s double-action harp model was similar to that of the Warsaw-born artist and inventor Charles Gröll (1770–1857), who had submitted his patent in 1807, almost three years before Erard. Moreover, Erard bought the rights to Gröll’s patent prior to finalising his own. For these reasons, some critics since the nineteenth century have called into question Erard’s claim to authorship of the double-action harp, suggesting that Gröll was its true inventor. The purpose of the present article is to clarify Gröll’s role by placing it in the context of the evolution of Erard’s ideas, established by a number of sources that have recently come to light.
 Gröll’s patent is more heavily indebted to Erard’s inventions than Erard’s patent is to Gröll’s. Indeed, the only elements from Gröll’s patent that remained in Erard’s 1810 patent were elements that had in fact been invented by Erard: the double-notched pedal box and the forked discs. The linkage between the pedals and the forked discs was the weakest part of Gröll’s patent, one that was conspicuously not adopted by Erard, undoubtedly due to the excessive friction inherent in its construction.
 Erard’s 1810 patent has endured because it proved itself to be the first satisfyingly functional double-action system. However, Gröll’s doubling of the forked discs can be seen as a crucial step in the evolution of the double action, as long as one keeps in mind that Gröll’s is a composite invention whose individual parts had all been invented by others: the double mechanism by Cousineau, and the double-notched pedal box and forked disc by Erard. In conclusion, if we continue to consider Erard the father of the double-action harp, we might at least allow for Georges Cousineau to be its spiritual godfather, and for Charles Gröll to be its Polish uncle.

The phrase Idealism is not new for the students and readers of Philosophy, however, when the prefix German is added before it, it acquires a different meaning, mood, taste and inclination. German Idealism is distinguished from all other forms of European Idealisms. It concentrated on mind as an active and self-conscious entity. German Idealists suppressed the traditional ontologies based on substances and their accidents. The most prominent German Idealists include I - Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), II- Johann Gottelib Fichte (1762-1814), III-Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Von Schelling (1775-1854) and IV- George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831).
 Kant, though an empirical rationalist, could not deny the supremacy of mind over matter and of human beings over the external world. For him space, time and causality were the categories of mind, which it imposed on the outer world. However, he did believe in the dichotomy of mind and matter though he combined rationalism and empiricism in his Transcendental Idealism, which is an unconscious move towards unity despite the belief in noumena and phenomena. Later thinkers, however, gradually moved closer and closer to the Idealism and especially Monism.
 Some salient features of German Idealism which give it a distinct identity separate from the rest of Western Philosophy include: i- Idea of the Absolute, ii- Beginning of the world in the Absolute, iii- Stages and phases of Self- consciousness, iv- Unity of the Subject and Object, v-First traces of Philosophical Anthropology (What man is in itself beyond all physical things and the universe?), vi- Intellectual intuition as a source of knowledge and a tendency towards esotericism, vii – Enthusiastic interest in Dialectics, viii- Freedom and Determinism, ix- Self as an entity free of external and causal determinants , x- Ideas of Ego and Spirit, xi- World Spirit and xii- Existence as a whole or a Unity.
 
 These eternal, perennial, deep, highbrow, captivating, serious, scholarly, cherished, enthralling and fascinating ideas were presented and discussed at length by Muhammad Iqbal too in his Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam. Only one glance at the salient features of German Idealism brings into mind the familiar philosophical topics on which Muhammad Iqbal has written extensively. Besides his Urdu and Persian poetry, his political ideas bear profound stamps of these ideas. Therefore, this comparative study is academically justified, intellectually stimulating and scholastically enriching.

Dermoid cyst (also called as ‘mature teratoma’) is a type of germ cell tumour. The word ‘teratoma’ is derived from Greek work ‘teraton’ meaning monster. It was initially used by Virchow in 1863. The term ‘dermoid cyst’ was coined by Leblanc in 1831. The majority of dermoid cysts are unilateral with equal frequency in both ovaries; moreover, bilateral tumours are found approximately in 10-12% of cases and we presented two such cases of bilateral dermoid cysts of ovary.

Á uppdrætti Guðbrands Þorlákssonar biskups á Hólum af Íslandi 1590 sáust engin merki um Vatnajökul en aðrir stærstu jöklar landsins eru þar nafngreindir. Staðbundin þekking fólks í Skaftafellssýslu og Þingeyjarsýslu á þessum langstærsta jökli Íslands hafði þá ekki náð til kortagerðarmanna, en úr þessu var bætt smám saman á 18. og 19. öld. Fram á 16. öld fóru Norðlendingar og líklega einnig Austfirðingar fram og aftur yfir Vatnajökul til sjóróðra frá suðurströnd Íslands og voru vitni að framgangi skriðjökla, jökulhlaupum og eldsumbrotum, m.a. í Grímsvötnum. Fóru bæði Skaftfellingar og Þingeyingar nærri um staðsetningu þessarar miklu megineldstöðvar í jöklinum. Elstu rituðu heimildir um nafnið Grímsvötn eru frá því um 1600, en síðan kemur það oft fyrir í annálum og ritum á 17. og 18. öld. Vakin er athygli á nafninu Grímsvatnajökull sem er að finna í Íslandslýsingu danska fræðimannsins P. H. Resens frá árunum 1684–1687. Þetta heiti gæti verið undanfari nafnsins Vatnajökull, sem fyrst fer að sjást í ritum um öld síðar og er þá líklega stytting úr Grímsvatnajökull. Á 18. öld var nafnið Klofajökull ríkjandi, en heitið Vatnajökull ryður því smám saman burt á 19. öld. Á 17. og 18. öld fór loftslag á Íslandi kólnandi, skriðjöklar gengu fram, gróðurskilyrði á miðhálendinu versnuðu og lífskjör almennings. Ferðalög á hestum um miðhálendið strjáluðust og lögðust að mestu af um Sprengisand á 18. öld. Árið 1770 settu dönsk stjórnvöld á fót svonefnda landsnefnd til að leita úrbóta í atvinnumálum á Íslandi og á ýmsum öðrum sviðum, m.a. með því að bæta samgöngur í byggðum og leita uppi og merkja týnda fjallvegi yfir hálendið milli landshluta. Ein af þessum leiðum fékk nafnið Vatnajökulsvegur og átti að geta stytt ferðalög milli Austurlands og Suðurlands um nokkra daga. Amtmaðurinn fyrir Norður- og Austurland bauð fram styrki til að finna og merkja slíkar leiðir, m.a. frá Jökuldal eystra norðan Vatnajökuls yfir á Sprengisandsveg (Kiðagil). Árið 1831 var svo stofnað svonefnt Fjallvegafélag með sama markmiði og starfaði það í nokkur ár. Lýst er þremur tilraunum manna af Austurlandi á árunum 1794, 1797 og 1833 til að finna æskilega leið norðan Vatnajökuls og eru birtar heimildir sem snerta ferðir þeirra, m.a. merkilegur uppdráttur frá árinu 1833 þar sem teiknaðar eru inn leiðir úr tveimur síðustu ferðunum. „Vatnajökulsvegur“ var síðan farinn af Birni Gunnlaugssyni mælingameistara [kortagerðarmanni] ásamt fylgdarmönnum, að hluta til á árinu 1838 og um Vonarskarð 1839. Er leið þessi sýnd á uppdráttum Björns sem komu út á árunum 1844 og 1849. Ári seinna, í júlíbyrjun 1840, lenti leiðangur Danans J. C. Schythe í vetrarveðri á Vatnajökulsvegi og lögðust þá frekari ferðir um hann af í marga áratugi. Það er síðan á seinnihluta 19. aldar og á 20. öld sem rannsóknarferðum fjölgar á þessum slóðum, bæði af erlendum og innlendum vísindamönnum og landkönnuðum. Tengdust rannsóknaferðir þessar stundum eldsumbrotum í Ódáðahrauni (Askja 1875) og víðar, en um og eftir 1970 athugunum og undirbúningi að vatnsaflsvirkjunum í jökulsánum norðan Vatnajökuls. Urðu þá til jarðfræðikort og gróðurkort af þessum svæðum og reynt var að spá í einstaka atburði, svo sem eldgos og tilkomu eldhrauna eftir ísöld. Eitt slíkra er Holuhraun við norðurjaðar Dyngjujökuls milli upptakakvísla Jökulsár á Fjöllum. Talið hefur verið að það kunni að hafa runnið veturinn 1796–1797, en heimildir sem vísað er hér til benda til að það hafi gerst síðar. Nú er þetta gamla hraun horfið undir nýtt og stærra eldhraun runnið frá sömu gosstöðvum á gangarein Bárðarbungu til norðurs, í atburðarás sem hófst í ágúst 2014.

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.當代西方面臨多重挑戰，有些是理論層面的，有些是實踐層面的。目前佔主導地位的西方世俗文化的普世主義的道德和生命倫理學工程認為道德基礎可以從道德哲學系統中的有效論證來獲得。這種思維方式源於西元前5 世紀希臘的世俗化，並在13 世紀的西方獲得新生。其後的體系基於對理性的信仰，喪失了維繫西方基督教信仰的承諾，導致康德的理性主義道德工程。1970 和80 年代出現的西方生命倫理學對個體自主性的強調試圖得到這一道德工程的印證，但這種努力已經擱淺：期望依賴普世主義的術語，通過有效理性論證來確保具體內容的所有嘗試，到頭來都不過是乞題論證、循壞論證、或無窮後退，因為人們沒有可能通過對基本前提和證據規則的理性反思來必然地達成共識。人們總是需要進一步的背景前提和規則。從歷史的脈絡來看，一旦西方世俗道德反思拋棄其上帝之眼的視角，標杆化的世俗道德體系就會陷入麻煩。一切強調無名氏的道德視角，無論是以沒有境遇的道德主體身份出現，還是以大多數人的最大利益原則出現，都無法提出標杆化的規範內容。文章認為，西方現代社會-民主制福利國家醫療資源的配置方式所引發的財政上的不可持續的危機帶來三個基本難題：(1) 醫療權利一旦確立，它們所帶來的道德風險；(2) 依靠後人為今人交付醫療服務的做法所帶來的人口風險；(3) 社會保險計劃誘發政治家玩弄空頭支票所帶來的政治風險。西方社會所面臨的危機，無論是經濟上的，還是文化上的，都為我們提供了很好的理由說明我們需要重新考量構建在中國文化視域下的、更有能力迎接21 世紀倫理學挑戰的生命倫理學。Unnoticed by many bioethicists, the very foundations of the dominant Western secular morality, and by extension the foundations of the dominant secular bioethics of the West, have been brought into question. After Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and in the light of arguments by philosophers from G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) to Richard Rorty (1931-2007) and Gianni Vattimo (1936-), it has become ever clearer that neither the content of the dominant Western secular morality nor the content of the dominant Western bioethics can be secured as canonical through sound rational argument. Western secular morality and Western secular bioethics have become foundationless. They are not secured by a canonical moral rationality or by being anchored in being as it is in itself. Theimplications are wide-ranging. This paper sketches both what it means to do bioethics after foundations, and what opportunities exist for rethinking the possibilities for a Chinese bioethics.Among the difficulties of the Enlightenment moral project is that it attempted to understand individuals in anonymously universalist terms. To do this, individuals had to be considered outside of their social and historical contexts. They were as a consequence portrayed as bare moral agents. This is most saliently the case with Immanuel Kant, who understands his morality in terms of the kingdom of ends, within which all members, save God, are fully interchangeable. The members of the kingdom of ends are persons without sex, sexual orientation, species-membership, history, or family. This state of affairs is tied to a universalist, egalitarian vision of persons and society, which in the West has been understood in terms of a social-democratic morality and political agenda. The difficulty is that it is now clear that there is a challenge to the financial sustainability of healthcare allocation within social-democratic welfare states. The difficulties stem from at least three challenges to its sustainability: (1) the moral hazard due to the inclination to overuse entitlements once they are established, (2) the demographic hazard due to relying on future generations to pay for the health care of current recipients (i.e., when there are fewer children, financing becomes difficult), and (3) the political hazard due to social insurance schemes that reward politicians for promising benefits even when sufficient funds may not be available.For scholars doing bioethics in China, this state of affairs means that Chinese bioethicists are freed from having to meet secular Western bioethicists on the terms established by secular Western bioethicists. Instead, they can fashion an authentically Chinese bioethics, which nests its own moral commitments within the traditional Confucian moral narrative of China. A Chinese bioethics need not, and should not, in content or form be like the bioethics of the dominant secular morality and bioethics of the West. Given the character of secular morality and bioethics, given its inability to establish a universal, canonical morality through sound rational argument, as well as given the particularity of all morality and bioethics that possesses content, and given the promising moral content salient in Chinese culture, a move by Chinese to establish a Chinese bioethics becomes quite plausible.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 46 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.

More than 4700 nominal family-group names (including names for fossils and ichnotaxa) are nomenclaturally available in the order Coleoptera. Since each family-group name is based on the concept of its type genus, we argue that the stability of names used for the classification of beetles depends on accurate nomenclatural data for each type genus. Following a review of taxonomic literature, with a focus on works that potentially contain type species designations, we provide a synthesis of nomenclatural data associated with the type genus of each nomenclaturally available family-group name in Coleoptera. For each type genus the author(s), year of publication, and page number are given as well as its current status (i.e., whether treated as valid or not) and current classification. Information about the type species of each type genus and the type species fixation (i.e., fixed originally or subsequently, and if subsequently, by whom) is also given. The original spelling of the family-group name that is based on each type genus is included, with its author(s), year, and stem. We append a list of nomenclaturally available family-group names presented in a classification scheme. Because of the importance of the Principle of Priority in zoological nomenclature, we provide information on the date of publication of the references cited in this work, when known. Several nomenclatural issues emerged during the course of this work. We therefore appeal to the community of coleopterists to submit applications to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (henceforth “Commission”) in order to permanently resolve some of the problems outlined here. The following changes of authorship for type genera are implemented here (these changes do not affect the concept of each type genus): CHRYSOMELIDAE: Fulcidax Crotch, 1870 (previously credited to “Clavareau, 1913”); CICINDELIDAE: Euprosopus W.S. MacLeay, 1825 (previously credited to “Dejean, 1825”); COCCINELLIDAE: Alesia Reiche, 1848 (previously credited to “Mulsant, 1850”); CURCULIONIDAE: Arachnopus Boisduval, 1835 (previously credited to “Guérin-Méneville, 1838”); ELATERIDAE: Thylacosternus Gemminger, 1869 (previously credited to “Bonvouloir, 1871”); EUCNEMIDAE: Arrhipis Gemminger, 1869 (previously credited to “Bonvouloir, 1871”), Mesogenus Gemminger, 1869 (previously credited to “Bonvouloir, 1871”); LUCANIDAE: Sinodendron Hellwig, 1791 (previously credited to “Hellwig, 1792”); PASSALIDAE: Neleides Harold, 1868 (previously credited to “Kaup, 1869”), Neleus Harold, 1868 (previously credited to “Kaup, 1869”), Pertinax Harold, 1868 (previously credited to “Kaup, 1869”), Petrejus Harold, 1868 (previously credited to “Kaup, 1869”), Undulifer Harold, 1868 (previously credited to “Kaup, 1869”), Vatinius Harold, 1868 (previously credited to “Kaup, 1869”); PTINIDAE: Mezium Leach, 1819 (previously credited to “Curtis, 1828”); PYROCHROIDAE: Agnathus Germar, 1818 (previously credited to “Germar, 1825”); SCARABAEIDAE: Eucranium Dejean, 1833 (previously “Brullé, 1838”). The following changes of type species were implemented following the discovery of older type species fixations (these changes do not pose a threat to nomenclatural stability): BOLBOCERATIDAE: Bolbocerus bocchus Erichson, 1841 for Bolbelasmus Boucomont, 1911 (previously Bolboceras gallicum Mulsant, 1842); BUPRESTIDAE: Stigmodera guerinii Hope, 1843 for Neocuris Saunders, 1868 (previously Anthaxia fortnumi Hope, 1846), Stigmodera peroni Laporte & Gory, 1837 for Curis Laporte & Gory, 1837 (previously Buprestis caloptera Boisduval, 1835); CARABIDAE: Carabus elatus Fabricius, 1801 for Molops Bonelli, 1810 (previously Carabus terricola Herbst, 1784 sensu Fabricius, 1792); CERAMBYCIDAE: Prionus palmatus Fabricius, 1792 for Macrotoma Audinet-Serville, 1832 (previously Prionus serripes Fabricius, 1781); CHRYSOMELIDAE: Donacia equiseti Fabricius, 1798 for Haemonia Dejean, 1821 (previously Donacia zosterae Fabricius, 1801), Eumolpus ruber Latreille, 1807 for Euryope Dalman, 1824 (previously Cryptocephalus rubrifrons Fabricius, 1787), Galeruca affinis Paykull, 1799 for Psylliodes Latreille, 1829 (previously Chrysomela chrysocephala Linnaeus, 1758); COCCINELLIDAE: Dermestes rufus Herbst, 1783 for Coccidula Kugelann, 1798 (previously Chrysomela scutellata Herbst, 1783); CRYPTOPHAGIDAE: Ips caricis G.-A. Olivier, 1790 for Telmatophilus Heer, 1841 (previously Cryptophagus typhae Fallén, 1802), Silpha evanescens Marsham, 1802 for Atomaria Stephens, 1829 (previously Dermestes nigripennis Paykull, 1798); CURCULIONIDAE: Bostrichus cinereus Herbst, 1794 for Crypturgus Erichson, 1836 (previously Bostrichus pusillus Gyllenhal, 1813); DERMESTIDAE: Dermestes trifasciatus Fabricius, 1787 for Attagenus Latreille, 1802 (previously Dermestes pellio Linnaeus, 1758); ELATERIDAE: Elater sulcatus Fabricius, 1777 for Chalcolepidius Eschscholtz, 1829 (previously Chalcolepidius zonatus Eschscholtz, 1829); ENDOMYCHIDAE: Endomychus rufitarsis Chevrolat, 1835 for Epipocus Chevrolat, 1836 (previously Endomychus tibialis Guérin-Méneville, 1834); EROTYLIDAE: Ips humeralis Fabricius, 1787 for Dacne Latreille, 1797 (previously Dermestes bipustulatus Thunberg, 1781); EUCNEMIDAE: Fornax austrocaledonicus Perroud & Montrouzier, 1865 for Mesogenus Gemminger, 1869 (previously Mesogenus mellyi Bonvouloir, 1871); GLAPHYRIDAE: Melolontha serratulae Fabricius, 1792 for Glaphyrus Latreille, 1802 (previously Scarabaeus maurus Linnaeus, 1758); HISTERIDAE: Hister striatus Forster, 1771 for Onthophilus Leach, 1817 (previously Hister sulcatus Moll, 1784); LAMPYRIDAE: Ototreta fornicata E. Olivier, 1900 for Ototreta E. Olivier, 1900 (previously Ototreta weyersi E. Olivier, 1900); LUCANIDAE: Lucanus cancroides Fabricius, 1787 for Lissotes Westwood, 1855 (previously Lissotes menalcas Westwood, 1855); MELANDRYIDAE: Nothus clavipes G.-A. Olivier, 1812 for Nothus G.-A. Olivier, 1812 (previously Nothus praeustus G.-A. Olivier, 1812); MELYRIDAE: Lagria ater Fabricius, 1787 for Enicopus Stephens, 1830 (previously Dermestes hirtus Linnaeus, 1767); NITIDULIDAE: Sphaeridium luteum Fabricius, 1787 for Cychramus Kugelann, 1794 (previously Strongylus quadripunctatus Herbst, 1792); OEDEMERIDAE: Helops laevis Fabricius, 1787 for Ditylus Fischer, 1817 (previously Ditylus helopioides Fischer, 1817 [sic]); PHALACRIDAE: Sphaeridium aeneum Fabricius, 1792 for Olibrus Erichson, 1845 (previously Sphaeridium bicolor Fabricius, 1792); RHIPICERIDAE: Sandalus niger Knoch, 1801 for Sandalus Knoch, 1801 (previously Sandalus petrophya Knoch, 1801); SCARABAEIDAE: Cetonia clathrata G.-A. Olivier, 1792 for Inca Lepeletier & Audinet-Serville, 1828 (previously Cetonia ynca Weber, 1801); Gnathocera vitticollis W. Kirby, 1825 for Gnathocera W. Kirby, 1825 (previously Gnathocera immaculata W. Kirby, 1825); Melolontha villosula Illiger, 1803 for Chasmatopterus Dejean, 1821 (previously Melolontha hirtula Illiger, 1803); STAPHYLINIDAE: Staphylinus politus Linnaeus, 1758 for Philonthus Stephens, 1829 (previously Staphylinus splendens Fabricius, 1792); ZOPHERIDAE: Hispa mutica Linnaeus, 1767 for Orthocerus Latreille, 1797 (previously Tenebrio hirticornis DeGeer, 1775). The discovery of type species fixations that are older than those currently accepted pose a threat to nomenclatural stability (an application to the Commission is necessary to address each problem): CANTHARIDAE: Malthinus Latreille, 1805, Malthodes Kiesenwetter, 1852; CARABIDAE: Bradycellus Erichson, 1837, Chlaenius Bonelli, 1810, Harpalus Latreille, 1802, Lebia Latreille, 1802, Pheropsophus Solier, 1834, Trechus Clairville, 1806; CERAMBYCIDAE: Callichroma Latreille, 1816, Callidium Fabricius, 1775, Cerasphorus Audinet-Serville, 1834, Dorcadion Dalman, 1817, Leptura Linnaeus, 1758, Mesosa Latreille, 1829, Plectromerus Haldeman, 1847; CHRYSOMELIDAE: Amblycerus Thunberg, 1815, Chaetocnema Stephens, 1831, Chlamys Knoch, 1801, Monomacra Chevrolat, 1836, Phratora Chevrolat, 1836, Stylosomus Suffrian, 1847; COLONIDAE: Colon Herbst, 1797; CURCULIONIDAE: Cryphalus Erichson, 1836, Lepyrus Germar, 1817; ELATERIDAE: Adelocera Latreille, 1829, Beliophorus Eschscholtz, 1829; ENDOMYCHIDAE: Amphisternus Germar, 1843, Dapsa Latreille, 1829; GLAPHYRIDAE: Anthypna Eschscholtz, 1818; HISTERIDAE: Hololepta Paykull, 1811, Trypanaeus Eschscholtz, 1829; LEIODIDAE: Anisotoma Panzer, 1796, Camiarus Sharp, 1878, Choleva Latreille, 1797; LYCIDAE: Calopteron Laporte, 1838, Dictyoptera Latreille, 1829; MELOIDAE: Epicauta Dejean, 1834; NITIDULIDAE: Strongylus Herbst, 1792; SCARABAEIDAE: Anisoplia Schönherr, 1817, Anticheira Eschscholtz, 1818, Cyclocephala Dejean, 1821, Glycyphana Burmeister, 1842, Omaloplia Schönherr, 1817, Oniticellus Dejean, 1821, Parachilia Burmeister, 1842, Xylotrupes Hope, 1837; STAPHYLINIDAE: Batrisus Aubé, 1833, Phloeonomus Heer, 1840, Silpha Linnaeus, 1758; TENEBRIONIDAE: Bolitophagus Illiger, 1798, Mycetochara Guérin-Méneville, 1827. Type species are fixed for the following nominal genera: ANTHRIBIDAE: Decataphanes gracilis Labram & Imhoff, 1840 for Decataphanes Labram & Imhoff, 1840; CARABIDAE: Feronia erratica Dejean, 1828 for Loxandrus J.L. LeConte, 1853; CERAMBYCIDAE: Tmesisternus oblongus Boisduval, 1835 for Icthyosoma Boisduval, 1835; CHRYSOMELIDAE: Brachydactyla annulipes Pic, 1913 for Pseudocrioceris Pic, 1916, Cassida viridis Linnaeus, 1758 for Evaspistes Gistel, 1856, Ocnoscelis cyanoptera Erichson, 1847 for Ocnoscelis Erichson, 1847, Promecotheca petelii Guérin-Méneville, 1840 for Promecotheca Guérin- Méneville, 1840; CLERIDAE: Attelabus mollis Linnaeus, 1758 for Dendroplanetes Gistel, 1856; CORYLOPHIDAE: Corylophus marginicollis J.L. LeConte, 1852 for Corylophodes A. Matthews, 1885; CURCULIONIDAE: Hoplorhinus melanocephalus Chevrolat, 1878 for Hoplorhinus Chevrolat, 1878; Sonnetius binarius Casey, 1922 for Sonnetius Casey, 1922; ELATERIDAE: Pyrophorus melanoxanthus Candèze, 1865 for Alampes Champion, 1896; PHYCOSECIDAE: Phycosecis litoralis Pascoe, 1875 for Phycosecis Pascoe, 1875; PTILODACTYLIDAE: Aploglossa sallei Guérin-Méneville, 1849 for Aploglossa Guérin-Méneville, 1849, Colobodera ovata Klug, 1837 for Colobodera Klug, 1837; PTINIDAE: Dryophilus anobioides Chevrolat, 1832 for Dryobia Gistel, 1856; SCARABAEIDAE: Achloa helvola Erichson, 1840 for Achloa Erichson, 1840, Camenta obesa Burmeister, 1855 for Camenta Erichson, 1847, Pinotus talaus Erichson, 1847 for Pinotus Erichson, 1847, Psilonychus ecklonii Burmeister, 1855 for Psilonychus Burmeister, 1855. New replacement name: CERAMBYCIDAE: Basorus Bouchard & Bousquet, nom. nov. for Sobarus Harold, 1879. New status: CARABIDAE: KRYZHANOVSKIANINI Deuve, 2020, stat. nov. is given the rank of tribe instead of subfamily since our classification uses the rank of subfamily for PAUSSINAE rather than family rank; CERAMBYCIDAE: Amymoma Pascoe, 1866, stat. nov. is used as valid over Neoamymoma Marinoni, 1977, Holopterus Blanchard, 1851, stat. nov. is used as valid over Proholopterus Monné, 2012; CURCULIONIDAE: Phytophilus Schönherr, 1835, stat. nov. is used as valid over the unnecessary new replacement name Synophthalmus Lacordaire, 1863; EUCNEMIDAE: Nematodinus Lea, 1919, stat. nov. is used as valid instead of Arrhipis Gemminger, 1869, which is a junior homonym. Details regarding additional nomenclatural issues that still need to be resolved are included in the entry for each of these type genera: BOSTRICHIDAE: Lyctus Fabricius, 1792; BRENTIDAE: Trachelizus Dejean, 1834; BUPRESTIDAE: Pristiptera Dejean, 1833; CANTHARIDAE: Chauliognathus Hentz, 1830, Telephorus Schäffer, 1766; CARABIDAE: Calathus Bonelli, 1810, Cosnania Dejean, 1821, Dicrochile Guérin-Méneville, 1847, Epactius D.H. Schneider, 1791, Merismoderus Westwood, 1847, Polyhirma Chaudoir, 1850, Solenogenys Westwood, 1860, Zabrus Clairville, 1806; CERAMBYCIDAE: Ancita J. Thomson, 1864, Compsocerus Audinet-Serville, 1834, Dorcadodium Gistel, 1856, Glenea Newman, 1842; Hesperophanes Dejean, 1835, Neoclytus J. Thomson, 1860, Phymasterna Laporte, 1840, Tetrops Stephens, 1829, Zygocera Erichson, 1842; CHRYSOMELIDAE: Acanthoscelides Schilsky, 1905, Corynodes Hope, 1841, Edusella Chapuis, 1874; Hemisphaerota Chevrolat, 1836; Physonota Boheman, 1854, Porphyraspis Hope, 1841; CLERIDAE: Dermestoides Schäffer, 1777; COCCINELLIDAE: Hippodamia Chevrolat, 1836, Myzia Mulsant, 1846, Platynaspis L. Redtenbacher, 1843; CURCULIONIDAE: Coeliodes Schönherr, 1837, Cryptoderma Ritsema, 1885, Deporaus Leach, 1819, Epistrophus Kirsch, 1869, Geonemus Schönherr, 1833, Hylastes Erichson, 1836; DYTISCIDAE: Deronectes Sharp, 1882, Platynectes Régimbart, 1879; EUCNEMIDAE: Dirhagus Latreille, 1834; HYBOSORIDAE: Ceratocanthus A. White, 1842; HYDROPHILIDAE: Cyclonotum Erichson, 1837; LAMPYRIDAE: Luciola Laporte, 1833; LEIODIDAE: Ptomaphagus Hellwig, 1795; LUCANIDAE: Leptinopterus Hope, 1838; LYCIDAE: Cladophorus Guérin-Méneville, 1830, Mimolibnetis Kazantsev, 2000; MELOIDAE: Mylabris Fabricius, 1775; NITIDULIDAE: Meligethes Stephens, 1829; PTILODACTYLIDAE: Daemon Laporte, 1838; SCARABAEIDAE: Allidiostoma Arrow, 1940, Heterochelus Burmeister, 1844, Liatongus Reitter, 1892, Lomaptera Gory & Percheron, 1833, Megaceras Hope, 1837, Stenotarsia Burmeister, 1842; STAPHYLINIDAE: Actocharis Fauvel, 1871, Aleochara Gravenhorst, 1802; STENOTRACHELIDAE: Stenotrachelus Berthold, 1827; TENEBRIONIDAE: Cryptochile Latreille, 1828, Heliopates Dejean, 1834, Helops Fabricius, 1775. First Reviser actions deciding the correct original spelling: CARABIDAE: Aristochroodes Marcilhac, 1993 (not Aritochroodes); CERAMBYCIDAE: Dorcadodium Gistel, 1856 (not Dorcadodion), EVODININI Zamoroka, 2022 (not EVODINIINI); CHRYSOMELIDAE: Caryopemon Jekel, 1855 (not Carpopemon), Decarthrocera Laboissière, 1937 (not Decarthrocerina); CICINDELIDAE: Odontocheila Laporte, 1834 (not Odontacheila); CLERIDAE: CORMODINA Bartlett, 2021 (not CORMODIINA), Orthopleura Spinola, 1845 (not Orthoplevra, not Orthopleuva); CURCULIONIDAE: Arachnobas Boisduval, 1835 (not Arachnopus), Palaeocryptorhynchus Poinar, 2009 (not Palaeocryptorhynus); DYTISCIDAE: Ambarticus Yang et al., 2019 and AMBARTICINI Yang et al., 2019 (not Ambraticus, not AMBRATICINI); LAMPYRIDAE: Megalophthalmus G.R. Gray, 1831 (not Megolophthalmus, not Megalopthalmus); SCARABAEIDAE: Mentophilus Laporte, 1840 (not Mintophilus, not Minthophilus), Pseudadoretus dilutellus Semenov, 1889 (not P. ditutellus). While the correct identification of the type species is assumed, in some cases evidence suggests that species were misidentified when they were fixed as the type of a particular nominal genus. Following the requirements of Article 70.3.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature we hereby fix the following type species (which in each case is the taxonomic species actually involved in the misidentification): ATTELABIDAE: Rhynchites cavifrons Gyllenhal, 1833 for Lasiorhynchites Jekel, 1860; BOSTRICHIDAE: Ligniperda terebrans Pallas, 1772 for Apate Fabricius, 1775; BRENTIDAE: Ceocephalus appendiculatus Boheman, 1833 for Uroptera Berthold, 1827; BUPRESTIDAE: Buprestis undecimmaculata Herbst, 1784 for Ptosima Dejean, 1833; CARABIDAE: Amara lunicollis Schiødte, 1837 for Amara Bonelli, 1810, Buprestis connexus Geoffroy, 1785 for Polistichus Bonelli, 1810, Carabus atrorufus Strøm, 1768 for Patrobus Dejean, 1821, Carabus gigas Creutzer, 1799 for Procerus Dejean, 1821, Carabus teutonus Schrank, 1781 for Stenolophus Dejean, 1821, Carenum bonellii Westwood, 1842 for Carenum Bonelli, 1813, Scarites picipes G.-A. Olivier, 1795 for Acinopus Dejean, 1821, Trigonotoma indica Brullé, 1834 for Trigonotoma Dejean, 1828; CERAMBYCIDAE: Cerambyx lusitanus Linnaeus, 1767 for Exocentrus Dejean, 1835, Clytus supernotatus Say, 1824 for Psenocerus J.L. LeConte, 1852; CICINDELIDAE: Ctenostoma jekelii Chevrolat, 1858 for Ctenostoma Klug, 1821; CURCULIONIDAE: Cnemogonus lecontei Dietz, 1896 for Cnemogonus J.L. LeConte, 1876; Phloeophagus turbatus Schönherr, 1845 for Phloeophagus Schönherr, 1838; GEOTRUPIDAE: Lucanus apterus Laxmann, 1770 for Lethrus Scopoli, 1777; HISTERIDAE: Hister rugiceps Duftschmid, 1805 for Hypocaccus C.G. Thomson, 1867; HYBOSORIDAE: Hybosorus illigeri Reiche, 1853 for Hybosorus W.S. MacLeay, 1819; HYDROPHILIDAE: Hydrophilus melanocephalus G.-A. Olivier, 1793 for Enochrus C.G. Thomson, 1859; MYCETAEIDAE: Dermestes subterraneus Fabricius, 1801 for Mycetaea Stephens, 1829; SCARABAEIDAE: Aulacium carinatum Reiche, 1841 for Mentophilus Laporte, 1840, Phanaeus vindex W.S. MacLeay, 1819 for Phanaeus W.S. MacLeay, 1819, Ptinus germanus Linnaeus, 1767 for Rhyssemus Mulsant, 1842, Scarabaeus latipes Guérin-Méneville, 1838 for Cheiroplatys Hope, 1837; STAPHYLINIDAE: Scydmaenus tarsatus P.W.J. Müller & Kunze, 1822 for Scydmaenus Latreille, 1802. New synonyms: CERAMBYCIDAE: CARILIINI Zamoroka, 2022, syn. nov. of ACMAEOPINI Della Beffa, 1915, DOLOCERINI Özdikmen, 2016, syn. nov. of BRACHYPTEROMINI Sama, 2008, PELOSSINI Tavakilian, 2013, syn. nov. of LYGRINI Sama, 2008, PROHOLOPTERINI Monné, 2012, syn. nov. of HOLOPTERINI Lacordaire, 1868.

Ungkapan Hegel “yang benar itu yang menyeluruh (absolut)” berlaku juga dalam seni. Seni mengungkapkan seluruh realitas yang fenomena, suatu kesatuan rasional dan realitas, kesatuan bentuk dan materi. Persepsi Hegel tentang seni tidak lepas dari konsep historisitas. Hegel memperlihatkan realitas sejarah seni dalam suatu tiga garis besar historis: Seni Timur (yang memperlihatakan kesan simbolis); Seni Klasik (seni Yunani dan Romawi, yang menampilkan suatu harmoni dan keseimbangan antara bentuk dan materi); Seni Romantik (kondisi seni ketika zaman Hegel, di sini Hegel mengatakan bahwa apa yang tersembunyi [batin] mempunyai kekuatan lebih daripada yang tampak [lahir]). Hegel memberikan contoh: Seni Timur yang simbolis diperlihatkan dalam bentuk arsitektur; Seni Klasik menampilkan keseimbangan bentuk dan materi yang tertuang dalam karya lukis; dan puncak dari itu semua adalah Seni Romantik, yang diperlihatkan dalam musik.

Segue abaixo a tradução do alemão da seção dedicada ao cinismo presente nas Lições Sobre a História da Filosofia de Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). Na seção em questão, o filósofo alemão aborda não somente a história da escola cínica, mas também seus princípios, suas influências e a importância que esse movimento teve para o pensamento filosófico posterior – sobretudo para o estoicismo.

Acompanharemos o homem ridículo, protagonista do conto O sonho de um homem ridículo (1877), de Fiódor Dostoiévski (1821-1881), do (anti) clímax de seu niilismo à beira do suicídio até a retomada de sua vinculação histórico-espiritual com a vida. A trajetória redentora do homem ridículo será analisadaem diálogo com o filósofo alemão Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), a partir de sua Filosofia da História (1837), e com o educador francês Hippolyte Léon Denizard Rivail, mais conhecido como Allan Kardec (1804-1869), o codificador da doutrina espírita. Assim, a reconciliação utópica em Dostoiévski – a redenção do choro e do ranger de dentes dos humilhados e ofendidos que permeiam a obra do escritor russo – será iluminada pela noção de eternidade como caminho para a cicatrização do espírito.We will follow the ridiculous man, protagonist of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s (1821-1881) short story The Dream of a Ridiculous Man (1877), from the (anti)climax of his nihilism towards suicide to his historical and spiritual reconnection with life. The ridiculous man’s redeeming trajectory will be analyzed in dialogue with German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), from his Philosophy of History (1837), and with French educator Hippolyte Léon Denizard Rivail, better known as Allan Kardec (1804-1869), the encoder of Spiritism. Thus, utopian reconciliation in Dostoevsky – the redemption of the weeping and gnashing of teeth which permeates the Russian author’s works – will be illuminated by the notion of eternity as the path towards the healing of the spirit.

AbstractThis study argues that the early philosophy of Semyon Liudvigovich Frank (1877–1950) exhibits significant intellectual correlations with nineteenth century German Idealist philosophy. The idealists in question are Immanuel Hermann Fichte (1796–1879), G.W.F. Hegel (1770–1831) and F.W.J. Schelling (1775–1854). It will be suggested that the critical tension of Frank’s early philosophy is precisely a tension between his Hegelian and Schellingian tendencies. The paper will first introduce Frank’s theory of a “personal absolute”, exploring its surprising parallels with the religious philosophy of I. H. Fichte. The analysis then addresses the self-dispersal of Hegel’s absolute, before finally turning to Schelling’s immediate intuition of subject-object identity.

Bu çalışma, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’in (1770-1831) siyasal düşüncesine yönelik devletçilik-totaliterlik gibi eleştirilerin Hegel felsefesinin genel mantığını takip etmediğini iddia etmektedir. Bu nedenle ilk bölümde, Hegel’in bütün felsefesinde ya da sisteminin her alanında aynı hareket biçimini siyaset konusunda da sürdürdüğünü göstermek için bazı temel kavramların nasıl ele alındığı aktarılmıştır. İkinci bölümde, bu zemin üzerinde siyasal temaların nasıl işlendiğine liberal düşünüş biçiminin (sivil toplumun – ekonominin mutlak özerkliği) eleştirileri üzerinden değerlendirilmiştir. Hegel’in devlet (sivil toplum – devlet ilişkisi) kavrayışına yönelik liberal eleştirinin göz ardı ettiği noktaları belirtik kılmak adına Carl Schmitt’in Hegel okumasındaki bazı pasajlar öne çıkarılmıştır. Schmitt’in Hegel okumasına başvurulması stratejik açıdan bize şu çifte imkânı vermektedir: Hegel’in felsefi sisteminin siyasallaşmasının (Hegel’in siyasal düşüncelerinin değil) sonuçlarını göstermek ve liberal bakış açısından Hegel’de zemin bulan iki “totaliter rejim” düşüncesinin neyi hedef aldığını açığa çıkarmak.

Este estudio está consagrado a puntualizar las líneas generales de la traslación, recepción y asimilación de la filosofía del derecho de K. Ch. F. Krause (1781 -1832) y de G. W. F. Hegel (1770-1831) en la España del siglo XIX. Nuestro objetivo es hacer un examen crítico de algunas de las razones –históricas, sociológicas, religiosas, filosóficas y materiales– que explican por qué fue acogida con preferencia la filosofía de Krause en lugar de la filosofía hegeliana. Asimismo, se pasa lista a las críticas y censuras que se dieron en el choque del hegelismo/krausismo con la realidad ideológica y sociocultural hispánica decimonónica. Por último, se analizan algunos testimonios de krausistas acerca de los motivos que se suelen argüir para justificar la superioridad de la doctrina de Krause por su afinidad filosófica y espiritual con la sensibilidad religiosa tradicional de la cultura española y sus méritos como filosofía práctica.

Karl Christian Friedrich Krause (1781-1832) and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) are two representatives of German Idealism, both of whom developed impressing category systems. At the core of both systems is the question of the relation of the Absolute to its determinations and the determinations of finite beings. Both idealists try to deduce their respective category systems from the immediacy of the Absolute. Both use combinatorial methods to get from known to new categories or constellations in the system, which then unfold in the world (in creation, in world history etc.). Krause is thereby considered the eponym of so-called panentheism, the doctrine that “Everything is in God.” Hegel is also often referred to as a panentheist. Through a (necessarily superficial) comparison of the two systems of categories, in this essay the thesis will be advocated that Hegel was in no sense a panentheist. Krause is and remains the gold standard of panentheism.

É amplamente reconhecida a magnitude que ganhou a música como objeto do pensamento filosófico no século XIX. Mesmo compositores, antes considerados na condição de artesãos, tornaram-se pensadores influentes, na esteira da importância da música no pensamento de grandes filósofos. Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827) se destaca como pioneiro de uma tendência que culminará na relevância adquirida por Richard Wagner para a história da filosofia: no século XIX os mais importantes filósofos darão certa primazia à estética – incluindo a musical – há pouco organizada como disciplina. É o caso de G. W. F. Hegel (1770-1831), o mais influente filósofo contemporâneo de Beethoven. A hipótese deste estudo parte da não relação entre esses dois importantes protagonistas, o que, na conjuntura histórica indicada, é estranhamente notável. Hegel, em suas muitas preleções dedicadas à arte e à música, jamais cita Beethoven entre os muitos compositores dos quais lança mão como seus exemplos; além disso, é possível que haja determinadas censuras veladas de caráter poético-estilístico desenvolvidas em seus escritos, aplicáveis à música do compositor alemão. Por outro lado, embora não haja registro de comentários de Beethoven acerca de sua ausência na filosofia de Hegel, a hipótese deste estudo sugere que a resposta ao programa hegeliano possa ter se dado no campo artístico, especificamente através de sua Nona Sinfonia. Ainda pouco explorada, a conjunção arte-filosofia, tomada no âmbito da relação entre compositores e filósofos, pode encontrar aqui uma prévia menos ruidosa do consagrado embate Nietzsche-Wagner. Assim sendo, devido aos muitos pontos movediços que são base da hipótese proposta, curiosamente, este ensaio visa especular justamente sobre aquilo que surge do silêncio de ambos os atores em questão: aquilo que Hegel não disse, e o que este silêncio quer dizer; aquilo que Beethoven não expôs em forma de registro escrito, respondendo ao silêncio hegeliano sobre si com uma obra musical, e a efetividade desta resposta.

Recenserade verk
 
 Sartorial Practices and Social Order in Eighteenth-Century Sweden. Fashioning Difference
 I apokalypsens skugga. Miljörörelser och industrikapitalism 1870–2020
 Svensk idéhistoria. Forntid, medeltid, renässans
 Kartans makt i krig och fred. Fältmätarna, det nya kriget och samhällelig utveckling 1805–1831
 Sjömakt och sjöfolk. Den svenska flottan under 500 år
 Fostran i purpur. De karolinska kronprinsarnas lärare och undervisning
 Rase. En vitenskapshistorie
 Elisabeth Beskow. Liv och berättelser 1870–1928
 The World’s First Full Press Freedom. The Radical Experiment of Denmark-Norway 1770–1773
 Tapetmakerskor. Självständiga yrkeskvinnor i 1700-talets Stockholm
 Några ögonblicks förundran. Marknaden för ambulerande underhållning i Sverige 1760–1880
 Från Kingston till Göinge. Autenticitet, identitet och representationer av det förflutna i svensk reggaekultur
 Mode och hushåll. Om formandet av kön och media i frihetstidens svenska små- och veckoskrifter
 Sentiments of Segregation: The Emotional Politics of Apartheid in South Africa, c. 1948–1990
 The Cold War Through the Lens of Music-Making in the GDR. Political Goals, Aesthetic Paradoxes, and the Case of Neutral Sweden
 Samvete i Sverige. Om frihet och lydnad från medeltiden till idag
 
 Mindre uppmärksammade historiska jubileer.Tecknad av Fredrik Tersmeden

OPSOMMING Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), een van die belangrikste figure in die ontwikkeling van Duitse idealisme, se filosofie staan as "absolute idealisme" bekend, aangesien hy die idee, of gees (verstand) as die eintlike werklikheid beskou - in teenstelling met 'n materialistiese denker soos Karl Marx, wat materie (stof) as primêre werklikheid aanwys. Hegel was die eerste Westerse denker wat die geskiedenis ernstig opgeneem het; volgens hom is alles, spesifiek menslike kulturele aktiwiteite, onderworpe aan historiese ontwikkeling, en beskryf hy hierdie ontwikkeling op verskeie vlakke, insluitende dié wat hy "absolute gees" noem. Op hierdie vlak word wêreldgeskiedenis aan die hand van 'n "dialektiese" ontwikkeling vanaf "subjektiewe" gees (individuele menslike passies en bedoelinge) via "objektiewe" gees (staatstrukture en wette) tot "absolute gees" voorgestel. In hierdie artikel word daar aandag gegee aan wat volgens Hegel op laasgenoemde vlak gebeur, spesifiek met betrekking tot sy raaiselagtige stelling, dat die kuns as "hoogste uitdrukking" van die gees "moet sterf", om plek te maak vir religie en filosofie as manifestasies daarvan op meer gevorderde vlakke. 'n Mens kan tereg wonder wat Hegel daarmee bedoel het in die lig van die voortdurende beoefening van kuns tot vandag toe. Die antwoord is geleë in die frase, "hoogste uitdrukking", wat daarop dui dat hy aan kuns in historiese ontwikkelingsterme dink - met ander woorde, kuns is die draer van die absolute gees tot op 'n bepaalde tydstip, waarna dit plek moet maak vir ander sodanige uitdrukkingsvorme, te wete godsdiens en filosofie. Bowendien is kuns self ook onderworpe aan interne ontwikkeling; vir Hegel is die vroegste kuns simbolies van aard, (met Egiptiese kuns as voorbeeld), gevolg deur klassieke kuns (onder die antieke Grieke) en laastens romantiese kuns (in sy eie tyd). Die verskille tussen hierdie drie kunsvorms word bepaal deur die verhouding tussen idee en materie; in simboliese kuns domineer materie oor die idee in kunswerke, sodat die betekenis daarvan slegs vaagweg gepeil kan word (dink maar aan die Sfinks, as die "simbool van die simboliese"), terwyl daar 'n volmaakte balans tussen idee en materie bestaan in klassieke Griekse kuns, sodat geeneen van die twee dominant is nie (soos in die geval van beeldhouwerke wat die god Apollo voorstel). In romantiese kuns (byvoorbeeld die romantiese skilderkuns van Gericault) vind 'n mens die teenoorgestelde van simboliese kuns, met die idee wat dermate oor die materie heers dat dit byna daarin slaag om in denkbeeldige vorm daarvan los te breek. Hierdie is volgens Hegel die "hoogste" ontwikkelingspunt wat kuns as draer van die gees kan bereik, voordat dit plek maak vir religie as "beelddenke" en uiteindelik filosofie, waar die gees as idee suiwer, sonder enige stoflike oorblyfsel, tot uitdrukking kom. Hier voltooi die absolute gees die ontwikkelingstrajek daarvan, wat by die objektiewe vergestalting daarvan begin en via subjektiewe beliggaming uiteindelik in absolute "selfkennis" kulmineer. Vir die doeleindes van hierdie artikel is dit egter tematies betekenisvol dat Hegel ook melding maak van die voortbestaan van kuns ná die punt waar dit afstand doen van die titel van "hoogste" manifestasie van die gees of idee, naamlik in die gewaad van "kritiese", polemiese kuns, wat vry geword het van spesifieke wêreldbeskouings. 'n Mens kan in die moderne kunsbewegings van die vroeë 20ste eeu - insluitende kubisme, abstrakte ekspressionisme, konseptualisme en futurisme - die beliggaming van hierdie verwagting by Hegel bespeur, waar hierdie soort kuns telkens die ontologiese aanspraak maak dat dit die ware werklikheid blootlê. As besonder treffende tydgenootlike uitdrukking van sodanige (radikale) kritiese kuns word Andy Goldsworthy se ekologiese kuns ten slotte onder die loep geplaas. Trefwoorde: dood van kuns, kritiese kuns, ekologiese kuns, dialekties, Hegel, geskiedenis, kapitalisme, Goldsworthy ABSTRACT Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), one of the major figures in the history of philosophy, played a significant role in the development of German idealism from Immanuel Kant in the 18th century via figures such as Schelling and Fichte, with the movement culminating in Hegel's "absolute idealism". In ontological terms idealism means that "the idea" is regarded as the true reality, instead of material things. Karl Marx, who learned a lot from Hegel as far as his dialectical method goes, famously remarked that Hegel had turned the world on its head, and he, Marx (a materialist thinker), would put it back on its feet again. Hegel made a substantial contribution to the philosophy of art - his multi-volume work, Lectures on Aesthetics, is justly famous - but instead of discussing it here in general terms, I shall focus on Hegel's puzzling statement that art had reached the highest point of its development as bearer of "the idea" in his own time (the first half of the 19th century), and would have to make way for religion and philosophy as expressions of the idea, or spirit/mind. This is known as Hegel's thesis of "the death of art". One might wonder what this means, because anyone can see that, if he meant the end of art as a cultural practice, he was simply wrong, given the ubiquitous signs of ongoing artistic activities. This may be the case, but recall that Hegel saw art as having reached the highest point of its development as bearer of "the idea" at that time, suggesting that there would still be a role for art after this point. This is precisely what is the case. For Hegel, the idea, or spirit (mind) as ultimate reality, unfolds itself in the history of the world at various levels. At the niveau of social and political development, which Hegel writes about in his Philosophy of History, he understands history from the ancient Chinese, Indians and Persians, through the Greeks and Romans until his own time as the history of the increasing "consciousness of freedom", with every new era displaying a step forward, approximating the ideal of political freedom. In this, his most accessible work, as well as in his magnum opus, The Phenomenology of spirit/mind, Hegel displays what is probably his most lasting philosophical legacy - a keen awareness, more than any philosopher before him, of history, and the fact that everything human is subject to historical development, which he believed to have meaning and direction. Moreover, instead of a simple-minded, linear conception of history, he thinks of historical change dialectically - that is, developing from one state of affairs through its negation by its dialectical opposite, or antithesis, to another, higher state, which comprises a synthesis of the two preceding stages. This new stage is again negated by its opposite, and so on. Importantly, however, Hegel claims that, with every dialectical movement from one historical condition to another, the previous, negated stage is preserved, uplifted, and cancelled simultaneously (a tripartite process called sublation in English, and Aufhebung in German). This means that every earlier stage of development is still present in every later stage, but in a transformed fashion. Hegel also calls this "the negation of the negation" - incorporating something of the other into oneself. To reach the level of what he calls absolute spirit, it develops through subjective spirit (sense perception, consciousness, self-consciousness) and objective spirit (the family, the state, law) to the point where it manifests itself in art, followed by religion, and eventually the highest level, namely, philosophy, where absolute spirit or mind "knows itself" in clear conceptual terms. In the development of art he distinguishes three stages, namely symbolic art, classical art and the art of his own time, namely romantic art. Certain kinds of art correspond to these stages, with architecture being the exemplary symbolic art, sculpture the epitome of classical art, and painting, music and dramatic poetry the clearest expressions of romantic art. Moreover, in every stage, and kind of art there is a typical relationship between the idea and the material within which it is enveloped (for that is what art is, for Hegel: the sensuous, or material, embodiment of the idea). In the case of symbolic art the idea does not appear clearly, but is only dimly suggested because the sensuous envelope predominates over it. The art of the ancient Egyptians serves as an example of symbolic art, with the Sphinx as "the symbol of the symbolic". Classical art is exemplified by ancient Greek sculpture, which is in a sense the "highest" that art is capable of as far as the relationship between idea and matter goes: in the sculptures depicting the Greek gods, such as Apollo, we see the perfect equilibrium, Hegel claims, between idea and matter, with neither dominating the other. However, when romantic art replaces classical art we find a preponderance that is the opposite of that found in symbolic art, insofar as the idea becomes too strong for the material to contain, so that it threatens to break its material bonds. Hegel sees this happening in the painting, music and poetry or drama of his time. Think of romantic paintings such as those of Eugene Delacroix or Theodore Gericault, for example, the latter's painting of The Raft of the Medusa, which commemorates the sinking of a ship by that name and shows survivors on a raft, in various stages of exhaustion and desperation. It is as if the painting is striving to surpass itself as artistic medium in an attempt to express the suffering of these people. The same is true of some of the music of Hegel's time. He would probably have been familiar with Beethoven's opera, Fidelio - with its valorisation of love, courage, sacrifice and freedom - although he does not refer to it. But it is particularly poetry and drama, where the poetic expressions of joy and suffering come close to philosophy (except that here they are instances of imaginative, instead of conceptual articulations), that testify to romantic art signalling the finale of art's capacity to embody the idea. Art passes the baton to religion, which Hegel thinks of as "pictorial thinking", and which expresses the subjectivity of humans and of God better than art could. Eventually religion has to make way for philosophy, though, because it is there that spirit or mind knows itself self-reflectively and clearly. As far as art is concerned there is an important corollary, however. Hegel writes about a "free art" that continues to exist after art has relinquished its "highest vocation", and attributes to this art a critical, polemical function, given that the artist has become free from the constraints of a specific worldview. In this respect Hegel seems to have been prescient; even in his own time he noticed that people had become less interested in merely looking at art, for instance, and more interested in what art meant - hence Hegel's anticipation of a "science of art". Beyond Hegel's lifetime art developed in a manner that bears out his expectations. Particularly in the early 20th century one notices a plethora of new art movements - abstract expressionism, cubism, fauvism, conceptualism, suprematism, futurism, metaphysical art - all of which bear overtly theoretical names, claiming to reflect the true nature of reality. In contemporary ecological art, such as that of Andy Goldsworthy, one may perceive a particularly powerful instance of the "critical" role of art that Hegel anticipated. It is here discussed to demonstrate what is meant by claiming that it embodies a "radically critical" art in the face of the ecological crisis facing humanity. Keywords: death of art, critical art, ecological art, dialectical, Hegel, history, capitalism, Goldsworthy