Academic literature on the topic 'Georg Ludwig Friedrich Laves'

The work analyses the historical roof of Derneburg Castle, in the municipality of Holle, Hildesheim’s district, Lower Saxony, Germany. The roof is assembled according to <i>Laves Balken</i>’s system (Laves beam’s system), developed by the architect Georg Ludwig Friedrich Laves (1788&amp;ndash;1864). The system has the peculiarity to consist of beams that are split along the half of the cross section, and maintained diverged by wooden wedges, distributed along the length of the beam. The system increases the height of the beam, and elevates the bending capacity of it (Weber, 1964). The work has been developed in the frame of an interdisciplinary project in the fields of architecture, engineering and photogrammetry. Main aim of the project is the developing of a structural model to understand the load-carrying capacity of <i>Laves Balken</i>’s system from the laser-scanning model. For this reason, extensive surveys and photo documentation were collected on three areas of the roof construction, characterized by three peculiar usage of <i>Laves Balken</i>’s system. The work presents the survey of the pagoda-roof that covers the tower of the castle, and problems that can be encountered during the survey of very complex timber constructions.

La formación profesional en filosofía debe poner la misma atención al contenido de los filósofos estudiados que al método del que dichos filósofos se valen, pues unas ideas se dejan expresar de unos modos mejor que de otros, y unos problemas filosóficos reclaman ser tratados más con un género literario que con otro. De manera que el método en filosofía no es un asunto menor en la formación del profesional de la filosofía. El presente estudio profundiza en el método utilizado por algunos pensadores consagrados en la historia de la filosofía, tomando como ejemplo algún fragmento significativo de su producción. Se trata de autores de la talla de Platón, Santo Tomás de Aquino y Søren Kierkegaard, David Hume, Friedrich Nietzsche y Ludwig Wittgenstein, Karl Marx y el trabajo conjunto de Max Horkheimer y Theodor W. Adorno, Martin Heidegger y Hans-Georg Gadamer.

Das Heinrich-Schütz-Bild des 19. Jahrhunderts, geprägt durch Carl von Winterfeld, war im Wesentlichen das eines Komponisten, der die Grundlagen des Oratoriums gelegt hatte. Noch Philipp Spitta war am Jahrhundertende der Meinung, Johann Sebastian Bach wie Georg Friedrich Händel hätten ihre oratorischen Werke sozusagen auf schützischer Grundlage geschrieben. Auch wenn gelegentlich Schütz'sche Motetten als Beispiele für die alte A-cappella-Kirchenmusik erklangen: Als Hauptwerke des Meisters galten seine Passionen sowie die Vertonung der Sieben Worte. Popularisiert wurden die Stücke in einer Bearbeitung durch Carl Riedel, der sie dem Zeitgeschmack kommensurabel zu machen suchte. Weil aber Riedel zugleich langjähriger Vorsitzender des durch Franz Liszt gegründeten Allgemeinen Deutschen Musik-Vereins war, erweiterte sich das Schütz-Bild um einige neudeutsche Farben: Man spannte Schütz nun ebenso mit Ludwig van Beethoven wie mit Richard Wagner zusammen. So problematisch und verzerrt dieses Bild war, so hat es doch die Beschäftigung mit Schütz erstmals auf eine breitere Basis gestellt. Die erste Gesamtausgabe durch Spitta wäre ohne Riedel wohl nicht möglich geworden. (Autor) Quelle: Bibliographie des Musikschrifttums online

Abstract Ludwig von Mühlenfels as Advocatus Schleiermacheri. An addendum. The editorial copy of the “Allgemeine Zeitung” has survived in the Cotta-Archive with the names of the contributors. This has made it possible to identify belatedly the author of the apologia “Another word about Schleiermacher” in the “Außerordentliche Beilage der Allgemeinen Zeitung” (Augsburg) of April 2, 1834. It was Ludwig Friedrich von Mühlenfels (1793–1861). Mühlenfels, who led a rather varied life, was related to Schleiermacher’s wife Henriette, and thus belonged to Schleiermacher’s extended family. (1) Member of Lützow’s Freicorps. On Schleiermacher’s suggestion, Mühlenfels participated in the war of liberation against Napoleon as a volunteer with the “Black Hunters”, in the end in the so-called Battle of the Nations at Leipzig. He finished the study of law in 1816 and, on probation, joined the prosecutor’s office in Cologne where the French legal code was still in force. (2) Incarcerated as a demagogue under the investigating judge E. T. A. Hoffmann. Mühlenfels became one of the formative figures in the early history of German fraternities and participated in the Wartburg Festival in October 1817. He was arrested in July 1819 by the authorities in Berlin, charged with activities as a demagogue and incarcerated in Berlin on September 17. Mühlenfels contested the jurisdiction of the authorities in Berlin and refused to testify. The investigative judge was the writer and composer E. T. A. Hoffmann who wanted to have Mühlenfels released, and who later used him as a literary figure in a satirical novel. (3) Flight from Berlin – Exile in Sweden. On May 5, 1821, Mühlenfels succeeded in fleeing to Sweden where he made a meagerly living as a private tutor. (4) Professor for German and Scandinavian Literature in London – Return to Prussia. In October 1827, Mühlenfels reached London. Supported by some German scholars, he obtained the Chair for German and Scandinavian at the newly founded University College. He taught there until 1831 and publishedseveral textbooks. When he was acquitted by a court ruling in 1830, he returned to the Prussian public service in August 1831 and gradually built a solid career. (5) The defender of Schleiermacher. His apologia of Schleiermacher written in opposition to the obituary by Gutzkow is a masterpiece of literary and legal writing. – First publication: Six letters between Mühlenfels, Henriette and Friedrich Schleiermacher, and Georg Andreas Reimer.

Dimitrije Matic (1821-1884) was a philosopher, jurist, professor of public law at the Belgrade Lyceum and politician. He served as Serbia?s Minister of Education and Church Affairs, acting Foreign Minister, Speaker of the Parliament, and member of the State Council. He was president of the Serbian Society of Letters and member of the Serbian Learned Society. Matic belonged to Serbian liberal-minded intellectual circles. He believed that the rule of force was unacceptable and that governments should promote and support popular education. Matic studied philosophy and law in Serbia (Kragujevac, Belgrade), Germany (Berlin, Heidelberg) and France (Paris), and received his doctorial degree in philosophy in Leipzig. In Berlin Matic embraced Hegel?s speculative philosophy and theory of state (philosophy of law). Among his professors were Georg Andreas Gabler (Hegel`s immediate successor), Otto Friedrich Gruppe, Wilhelm Vatke etc. In Halle he listened to another Hegelian, Johann Eduard Erdmann. He had the opportunity to attend Friedrich Schelling?s lectures on the philosophy of mythology. If the Right Hegelians developed Hegel?s philosophy along the lines they considered to be in accordance with Christian theology, and the Left Hegelians laid the emphasis on the anti-Christian tendencies of Hegel?s system and pushed it in the direction of materialism and socialism, Matic would be closer to the first. Actually, he was mostly influenced by his professor Karl Ludwig Michelet, with whom he established a lifelong friendship. Matic?s doctorial thesis (Dissertatio de via qua Fichtii, Schellingii, Hegeliique philosophia e speculativa investigatione Kantiana exculta sit) addressed the question of how the philosophy of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel developed from Kantian speculative thought. The paper deals with the question whether Matic took a shift from Hegelianism to Positivism (Naturalism) in the 1860s, which is a claim that was taken for granted in the Yugoslav (Serbian) Marxist histories of Serbian philosophy after the Second World War and Communist revolution. In fact, it is rooted in Milan Kujundzic-Aberdar?s (1842-1893) periodization of the Serbian philosophical literature. Kujundzic, professor of Philosophy at the Belgrade Great School, classified Matic?s Science of Education into the latest period of natural philosophy. In order to answer the question, the paper looks into the evolution of Matic?s philosophical, legal and political views. Matic followed Hegelian philosophy in his: Short Review (according to Hegel?s ? Psychology in Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences); Principles of Rational [Vernunftrecht] State Law [Staatslehre] according to Heinrich Zepfel?s book on the philosophy of law (Grunds?tze des allgemeinen und des konstitutionell-monarchischen Staatsrechts and Hegel?s Philosophy of Law) and History of Philosophy (according to Albert Schwegler?s History of Philosophy). There is nothing in Matic?s Science of Education that would corroborate the claim that he shifted from Hegelianism to Positivism. Though he had to attune his views to the changed, anti- Hegelian, intellectual climate and influences on academic life, he remained a Hegelian. The paper deals with the reasons why the Marxist histories of Serbian philosophy insisted on his alleged conversion.

T he second edition of J ohann B ehrendt ’ s hymn book ISZ naujo pérweizd ėtos ir pagérintos Giesm û-Knygos AND PRAYER BOOK Maldû-Knygélos (1735): an unknown copy in Prague The article presents a 1735 Lithuanian publication from Königsberg (Lith. Karaliaučius) which was believed to not have survived—the hymn book for Prussian Lithuania’s Evangelical Lutherans Iß naujo pérweizdėtos ir pagérintos Giesmû-Knygos (Reviewed and Improved Hymn-book) and the prayer book Maldû-Knygélos (Prayer-book). The only known copy of the second edition of the hymn book and the prayer book was discovered in the National Library of the Czech Republic (Czech Národní knihovna České republiky; NK ČR: 33 K 139) in Prague. It has not been registered in Lithuanian bibliographies. Just as the first 1732 edition, the second edition appeared thanks to the initiative of the theology professor of the University of Königsberg and the chief court preacher, Johann Jacob Quandt (Lith. Jonas Jokūbas Kvantas, 1686–1772), while the archpresbyter of Insterburg (Lith. Įsrutis), Johann Behrendt (Lith. Jonas Berentas, 1667–1737), led the editing team. Aiming to reveal the differences of the second edition from the first, and to highlight the editing tendencies of the hymn and prayer books, this article not only discusses the main features of the copy, but also analyzes the structure of the 1735 edition including the repertoire of new hymns and linguistic particularities of the texts of hymns and prayers written in Lithuanian. Provenance research revealed that the copy belonged to the Lithuanian Dovydas Blindinaitis or Bl(i)undinaitis before reaching this library, and this is supported by handwritten inscriptions on the front and back flyleaves. He acquired the book in 1736 for 33 groschen and must have been its first owner. The imprint “REGIÆ BIBLIOTH: ACAD: PRAGEN:” (“Royal Library of the Academy of Prague”) which is seen on the title page of the hymn book could only appear after 1777 when the Public Imperial-Royal University Library (Czech Veřejná císařsko-královská univerzitní knihovna) in Prague had been established. From the perspective of structure, the 1735 Lithuanian publication is a convolute which consists of two alligates: (1) hymn book and (2) prayer book. The hymn book comprises: (a) two introductions—one written by Quandt in German and one written by Behrendt in Lithuanian, (b) the main section of the hymn book and its appendix “Kittos naujos Gieſmes ßwėey pridėtos” (“Other new recently added hymns”), (c) two indexes—the index for the Lithuanian hymns “Prirodijimas Wiſſû Gieſmû, ant kurro Laißko jos ßoſa Knygoſa randamos yra” (“A listing of all hymns which page they are found on in this book”) and the index of German original hymns called a “Regiſter” (“Register”). The prayer book comprises prayers, collects, the story of Christ’s suffering, and a list of thematic groups of these texts marked “Prirodijimas Wiſſû Maldû” (“A listing of all prayers”). The second (1735) edition of the hymn book differs remarkably from the first (1732) in its structure and scope: (1) All of the hymns that had been previously included in the 1732 edition’s “Appendix arba Kittos naujos Gieſmes ßwėey pridėtos” (“Appendix or other new recently added hymns”) (a total of 34) were integrated into the main section of the hymn book of the 1735 edition comprising 334 hymns; their thematic groupings and subgroupings remained the same; (2) The 1735 edition does not include one of the hymns published in 1732: Peter Gottlieb Mielcke’s (Lith. Petras Gotlybas Milkus, 1695–1753) translation “MIeli Krikßćionis dʒaukimės” (“Dear Christians let us rejoice”) (← Martin Luther, “Nun freut euch lieben Chriſten”); (3) The 1735 edition was supplemented with 26 hymns, that is to say, the second edition comprises 360 hymns. The new hymns are published in the appendix “Kittos naujos Gieſmes ßwėey pridėtos” (“Other new recently added hymns”). Cryptonyms attached to these hymns attest to the fact that their translators were two priests of Prussian Lithuania. For the first time, 18 hymns of the priest of Didlacken (Lith. Didlaukiai), Fabian Ulrich Glaser (Lith. Fabijonas Ulrichas Glazeris, 1688–1747), were included in this hymn book. The priest of Popelken (Lith. Papelkiai), Adam Friedrich Schimmelpfennig (Lith. Adomas Frydrichas Šimelpenigis, 1699–1763), translated 8 new hymns (while 15 of his hymns that had been already published in the 1732 edition were presented in the main section of the hymn book of the 1735 edition). The new repertoire of the Lithuanian hymn book was compiled from the translations of the following German hymn creators of the 16th–18th centuries: Johann Georg Albinus (1624–1679), Martin Behm (1557–1622), Kaspar Bienemann (Melissander, 1540–1591), Simon Dach (1605–1659), Johann Burchard Freystein (1671–1718), Paul Gerhardt (1607–1676), Johannes Gigas (Heune, 1514–1581), Ludwig Andreas Gotter (1661–1735), Johann Heermann (1585–1647), Heinrich Held (1620–1659), Martin Moller (1547–1606), Johann Rist (1607–1667), Samuel Rodigast (1649–1708), Johann Röling (1634–1679), Gottfried Wilhelm Sacer (1635–1699), Arnold Heinrich Sahme (1676–1734), Benjamin Schmolck (1672–1737). In contrast to the hymn book, the structure of the 1735 prayer book published concurrently were not changed; the thematic groups of prayers remained essentially the same as they were in the first edition of 1732. Texts of both the hymn book and the prayer book were edited. The editing tendencies in both are similar and encompass all linguistic levels (phonetics, morphology, lexicon, syntax), as well as orthography and punctuation, but the intensity of editing was different. The orthographic corrections prevail and the most consistent of them are: [i·] <ij> → <y> (characteristic only of the hymn book), [č’] <ć> → <cʒ> (together with refusing the marker indicating consonant palatalization <i>), [·] <e> → <ė>, [ž] ir [ž’] <Ʒ> → <>, marking accent placement with an acute accent < ’ >. The second edition reflects an important stage in the quantitative and qualitative development of Behrendt’s hymn book. In the second edition that appeared just three years later, we see the further consistent efforts of the editors to expand the repertoire of hymns and improve the texts in terms of language (i.e. they first of all sought to standardize the orthography of texts written in different centuries by many different translators). In contrast to the hymn book, the prayer book was improved along only one vector: the language of the texts was edited according to the same principles, while the number of prayers was not increased. The fact that the editors of the second edition devoted more attention to the hymn book than the prayer book probably stems from the important place that hymns hold in the Evangelical Lutheran liturgy.

Perceber a relevância de estudar o Desenho e suas práticas, enquanto área doconhecimento passível de diálogos com outras áreas do saber científico é defundamental importância para a compreensão dos aspectos de constituição dahumanidade. Desse modo, essa pesquisa objetiva estudar a relação Desenho-Ciência,investigando o papel do desenho enquanto meio, isto é, um suporte à comunicaçãovisual aliado a outros campos de saber, como na engenharia, geologia, biologia,antropologia, dentre outras. Percebendo de que forma o desenho e a pintura podem atuarcomo instrumento de investigação para explorar e registrar a natureza inserindo estaunião ao campo das ciências, projetando e registrando imagens variadas da terra e dohomem, visando o aprofundamento de suas contribuições para o desenvolvimentocientífico, resultando em si numa forma específica de conhecimento, tendo como base,nesse caso, as transformações sociais registradas nas viagens científicas ocorridas noBrasil no século XIX, especificamente na Missão Austríaca e a expedição organizadapelo médico alemão Georg Heinrich von Langsdorff.Deste modo, a investigação no estudo das contribuições das viagens científicaspara o desenvolvimento do desenho enquanto ciência, foi feita a pesquisa bibliográficatendo como base inicialmente a Missão Austríaca de 1817. Organizada devido aocasamento de dona Leopoldina, que aos 20 anos atravessou o Atlântico para se casarcom o imperador D. Pedro I (1798-1834), composta por notáveis cientistas com amissão de coletar material botânico, zoológico e mineralógico e fazer ilustrações depessoas e paisagens, entre eles estavam: Carl Friedrich Phillip Von Martius, médico ebotânico, e Johann Baptist von Spix, zoólogo; Johann Christof Mikan, botânico eentomólogo; Johann Emanuel Pohl, médico, mineralogista e botânico; JohannBuchberger, pintor de flora; Johann Natterer, zoólogo; Thomas Ender, pintor; HeinrichSchott, jardineiro; e o naturalista italiano Guiseppe Raddi.Dando continuidade ao aprofundamento de contribuições das viagens científicas.Outra expedição importante é a organizada pelo barão e médico Georg Heinrich VonLangsdorff (1774-1852), que aconteceu entre 1824 e 1829. Composta por trinta e novepessoas, como objetivo além de estudar a flora e a fauna do país, dedicaram-se apesquisar etnografia e idiomas das tribos brasileiras. Foram percorridos 17 milquilômetros do território nacional. A expedição foi constituída por um grupo comrespeitados artistas como os pintores Johann Moritz Rugendas, Hércules Florence eAimé-Adrien Taunay, o astrônomo Nestor Rubtsoz, o botânico Ludwig Riedel, e onaturalista Wilhelm Freyreiss.

L'objet de la thèse est une genèse explicative de la conceptualisation marxienne du conflit. Il s'agit, plus précisément, de retracer le mouvement intellectuel au terme duquel Marx met à jour l'existence d'une logique conflictuelle au coeur du mode de production capitaliste et de sa dynamique. La thèse défendue est que ce mouvement peut être conçu comme un procès dialectique où le savoir progresse en réfléchissant sur les insuffisances des résultats qu'il a précédemment acquis et en déduit les corrections nécessaires. Un procès qui n'est pas interne au savoir mais engage l'antithèse empirique, l'existant, c'est-à-dire la réalité politique, sociale et économique, telle que Marx l'expérimente et veut en rendre compte. La thèse évoque ainsi le cheminement critique de Marx, dans son rapport avec Hegel et Feuerbach, jusqu'à ses premiers écrits économiques. Elle montre la complexité et la singularité qui président au questionnement marxien de la sphère économique.

Orientador: Oswaldo Giacoia Junior
Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciencias Humanas
Made available in DSpace on 2018-07-31T15:21:56Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Paula_MarcioGimenesde_M.pdf: 13709328 bytes, checksum: 77e62ee337bf0a1e6f086448ced5ea44 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2002
Resumo: Em que consiste o pensamento objetivo? Qual é a base do pensamento subjetivo? Há uma cisão irrecuperável entre essas duas formas de pensar? Poderiam ambas ajudar-se mutuamente? A objetividade não foi, ao longo dos anos, confundida com objetivismo? Subjetividade não foi confundida com subjetivismo, arbitrariedade ou mera vontade individual? Pensando nessas questões- e no conflito entre subjetividade e objetividade desenvolvo nessa dissertação um estudo de tal temática baseando-me na obra de Kierkegaard (1813-1855). Para a realização de tal tarefa, analiso especialmente o Post-Scriptum, relacionando-o com algumas outras obras suas e pseudônimos do pensador dinamarquês. A relação entre subjetividade e objetividade em Kierkegaard se esclarece através da sua concepção das figuras de Sócrates e Cristo. O pensador grego e Cristo- a suma imagem do mistério- são tomados como exemplos de subjetividade, a despeito de suas diferenças. Nessa pesquisa, três outros autores são de importância capital para Kierkegaard: Hegel, Lessing e Feuerbach. Hegel não figura apenas como oponente de Kierkegaard. Tal oposição kierkegaardiana foi tratada como uma estratégia no contexto geral de suas obras. O pensador dinamarquês também não defende uma subjetividade que pode ser confundida com qualquer espécie de subjetivismo, desprezando a objetividade. A leitura kierkegaardiana da figura de Lessing é bastante relacionada ao fato desse pensador ter trabalhado exaustivamente o confronto entre fé e razão. O Post-Scriptum de Kierkegaard será muito influenciado por uma carta de Lessing intitulada Sobre a demonstração em espírito e força. Feuerbach representa, no pensamento kierkegaardiano, uma espécie de adversário declarado e aliado involuntário. Este estudo mostra como Kierkegaard concorda com muitas das teses materialistas de Feuerbach acerca do cristianismo e afirma que este tem uma compreensão verdadeira do cristianismo, coisa que nem os pastores da cristandade luterana da Dinamarca, nem os filósofos sistemáticos conhecem. O Post-Scriptum também é fortemente influenciado por algumas das teses da Essência do Cristianismo de Feuerbach. Com essas delimitações e especificidade- a dissertação se propõe a estudar o debate entre subjetividade e objetividade no pensamento de Kierkegaard, contribuindo para um debate importantíssimo da história do pensamento filosófico ocidental
Abstract: What does objective thinking consist or? What is the foundation of subjective thinking? Is there a irreconcilable schism between these two ways of thinking? Could they complement each other? Wasn't objectivity for many years confused with objectivism? Wasn't subjectivity merely confused with arbitrary decisions or individual willingness; that is, the so-called subjectivism? Based on the work of Kierkegaard's (1813-1855) this dissertation explores the subjectivity/objectivity conflict. In order to achieve this goal, Kierkegaard's Post-Scriptum is analyzed in connection with other works of the Danish thinker. The subjectivity/objectivity relationship becomes clear in Kierkegaard's work through his analysis of Socrates and Christ, whereby, in spite of their differences, the Greek thinker and Christ are shown as examples of subjectivity. In this piece of research three other authors are of crucial importance for Kierkegaard: Regel, Lessing and Feuerbach. Regel is not only Kierkegaard's opponent. Such kierkegaardian position should be better analyzed and seen as a strategic stance in general context of his work. The Danish thinker does not support a kind of subjectivity which could be confused with any kind of subjectivism either. He does not despise objectivity. Kierkegaard's position with respect to Lessing is strongly related to the fact that the German thinker thoroughly explores the confTontation between faith and reason. Kierkegaard's Post-Scriptum will be greatly influenced by a letter of Lessing's entitled: Demonstration spirit and strength. Feuerbach is, in kierkegaardian's thinking, at the same time a kind of declared adversary and involuntary allied. This piece of research shows how the kierkegaardian position agrees with many of Feuerbach's materialistic theses conceming Christianity and also agreewith his true analysis of the Christianity. Kierkegaard considerers these theses better than the position of the Danish Luther ministers and the sistematic philosophers. The Post-Scriptum is also strongly influenced by some of Feuerbach's theses on the Essence of Christianity. This dissertation studies- within carefully described constraints and levels of specificity- the debate between subjectivity and objectivity in Kierkegaard's thinking. It is hoped that this work will be a small contribution to the crucial debate in the history of westem philosophical thinking
Mestrado
Mestre em Filosofia

Ce travail propose une analyse de l’idéalisme absolu, de l’humanisme et de du matérialisme dialectique à travers les pensées respectives de Hegel, Feuerbach et Marx. Il s’agit pour nous d’étudier ici trois doctrines philosophiques qui se suivent chro- logiquement en montrant notamment comment s’est opéré le passage de l’idéalisme absolu de Hegel à l’humanisme philosophique de Feuerbach qui fera l’objet d’une critique assez sévère de la part de Marx qui par la même occasion le rejette après l’avoir intégré comme un moment dans l’élaboration de sa conception matérialiste du monde.Souvent présenté comme un penseur de second plan, dont le seul mérite est d’avoir amorcé les principes d’une critique de la pensée de Hegel dont il n’est jamais parvenu à se départir en tant qu’ancien disciple, Feuerbach occupe dans l’histoire de la philosophie une place pour le moins inconfortable. En effet, face à l’impérialisme marxien et hégélien (deux monuments de la philosophie), la pensée de Feuerbach est souvent présentée comme secondaire par les marxistes. C’est pourquoi l’un des objectifs de ce présent travail est d’étudier la pensée de Feuerbach pour ce qu’elle est et non à travers les grilles d’une lecture marxiste
This work proposes an analysis of the absolute idealism, the humanism and the dialectical materialism through the respective thoughts of Hegel, Feuerbach and Marx. It is a question for us of studying here three philosophic doctrines which follow each other chro - logically by showing in particular how took place the passage of the idealism absolved from Hegel in the philosophic humanism of Feuerbach which will be the object of a rather severe criticism on behalf of Marx who at the same time rejects him(it) having integrated(joined) him(it) as moment into the elaboration of its materialistic conception(design) of the word

The "Diabelli" Variations, Op. 120, have long fascinated and repelled musicians and audiences alike. They refuse listeners the chief pastime afforded by the genre, offering little opportunity to track pleasant musical ideas through different guises. The delights of bourgeois spectatorship are confounded by non-parallelisms and motivic complexities that embarrass our customary framework for understanding variation form. Arnold Schoenberg's dictum that "in classical music every variation shows a unity which surpasses that of the theme" has never been more patently contradicted. Most of the variations are rhythmically and harmonically warped, few follow the theme in their sequential disposition of motifs, and almost all of them exhibit a granularity of design without precedent in Beethoven's oeuvre. Diabelli's threadbare waltz is not the sole progenitor of its strange children. I propose that the Variations represent an experimental application to music of an intellectual method used by German philosophers and writers of the time for deconstructing dualities and unities. In form and function the "Diabelli Principle" most closely approaches the Dialectic of Beethoven's exact contemporary G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831), and is construed here in a Hegelian framework. Most variations juxtapose a pair of contrasting Antitheses whose differences are overcome in a summary conclusion amounting to a Sublation. In many cases, Antitheses emerge directly from formerly undivided Theses. As in Hegel's philosophy where the Dialectic is manifested through a wide-ranging variety of forms, the "Diabelli" Variations similarly realize a diverse range of dialectical structures. Moreover, by destabilizing musical objects through pervasive shifts of meter, melodic groupings, and motivic identities, the Variations undertake a Hegelian critique of musical perception and its underlying categories. I contend that their dialectical meaning is not intended to be decoded hermeneutically through score analysis, but directly apprehended through listening. As scholarship on the Kantian and Burkean Sublime implies, early nineteenth-century listeners understood peak musical experiences as unmediated, intellectual revelation. I suggest that music's engagement with spatial and gestalt reasoning introduced into music perception standards of physical logic and bestowed musical events with ontological significance. A reassessment of works by Beethoven reveals manipulations of implied topographies and objects that bring about "impossible" transformations. These acts of transcendent rationality may underlie the triumphant glory and intellectual significance of musical climaxes for Beethoven's audiences. In becoming sensitized to these phenomena, we may perhaps recuperate a nineteenth-century Idealist mode of listening that apprehended music as a primary ontological experience taking place in the higher reality of mental forms. Approached in this manner, the morphological games of the "Diabelli" Variations emerge vividly in perception and consequence.

This chapter examines Karl Marx's work prior to 1846, with particular emphasis on his concept of alienation. Although Marx borrows heavily from Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and from Ludwig Feuerbach, his background in the philosophy and culture of ancient Greece is an important factor in his early essentialism. The early Marx rejects Hegel's theory that the state represents an ethical community. For Marx, communism is the movement of the exploited workers struggling to free themselves, and, in the process, liberate the whole of humanity so that they can freely develop their human essence of social creativity. After providing a short biography of Marx, this chapter considers his arguments about human essence and its alienation as well as his critique of the modern state. It concludes with an analysis of Marx's communist alternative.