search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Kant rejects the possibility that the human sense is able to perceive something in the realm of ideas. Rather, the figure used by Novalis dates back to Renaissance concepts of a “visio intellectualis”, the intellectual perception of totality. One of Novalis’s contemporaries was the exiled Swedish philosopher Thomas Thorild (1761-1808) who developed a perception theory based on the so-called “all- blick” enabling man to see everything on a scale from the most invisible to the most visible. Thorild rejected the Platonian and Kantian concept of a realm of ideas unperceivable by man– it is possible to measure everything and hence Thorild’s major work was called Archimetria (1800), popularized in a German version as Die Gelehrtenwelt. Thorild spent some of his time in exile in England where according to a letter written in 1800 addressing the German philosopher Herder he had tried to “arrange humanity as an invisible universal state” (“die Menschheit als einen unsichtbaren Universalstaat einzurichten“). English


Novalis – psued. di Georg Friedrich Philipp Freiherr von Hardenberg


writings of Thorild are preserved, but have to the best of my knowledge never been analysed in the context of their origin during his time in London. An examination of Thorild’s British encounters and the way he attempted to realise the invisible universal state would be most fascinating. In his talk, Novalis communicates a broad picture of European historical


development and also delivers outlines of theoretical approaches towards it that in many senses tangent the emergingtrans-national history (orshouldwerather say post-national historiography?) of our times. From Novalis’s point of view it is impossible to separate a part from the whole when it comes to (European) history: “partial historiesare impossible –each history has to be universal history and only when related to the whole of history is it possible to treat one single element historically.”25 This leads him (and subsequently also Hegel) to the conclusion that European historical development is a result of a dialectical opposition between the “holy sense” and its counterparts such as reason and utility. However, there are three given phases in historical development: a “golden age”, a phase of real, contemporary history, characterised by struggle, resistance and alienation, and a future phase when a new realm of peace, faith and love will come into power. This utopian picture of historical development is projected by Novalis on the European history of state, church, religion and intellect in its development from the strongly idealised middle ages to thestrongly criticised contemporary times. The first part of Novalis’ talk contains a bright description of a Christian realm of belief, the second


25 Quoted by Carl Paschek in Novalis Fragmente und Studien, Die Christenheit oder Europa, Stuttgart 2006, p.


148. 25 Pauline Kleingeld: “Six Varieties of Cosmopolitanism in Late Eighteenth-Century Germany” in Journal of the History of Ideas, 1999, p. 521-524.


80


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130