Martin Mulsow. Martin Mulsow, geboren in Buchholz in der Nordheide, ist Ideenhistoriker und Direktor des Forschungszentrums Gotha für kultur- und. Martin Mulsow, Prof. Dr. phil. habil. Professor für Wissenskulturen der europäischen Neuzeit an der Universität Erfurt und; Direktor des Forschungszentrums. Prof. Dr. Martin Mulsow ist Assoziierter Fellow am Max-Weber-Kolleg der Universität Erfurt.
Wohl älteste Münzgeschichte Sachsens von Akademie-Mitglied Martin Mulsow entdecktAusführliche Profilseite von Prof. Dr. Martin Mulsow, Direktor des Forschungszentrums Gotha - Adresse, Kontaktdaten, Lebenslauf. Martin Mulsow forscht auf dem Gebiet der Geistes- und Philosophiegeschichte der Frühen Neuzeit. Nach Studien zum Deutschen Idealismus und zur. Martin Mulsow. Martin Mulsow, geboren in Buchholz in der Nordheide, ist Ideenhistoriker und Direktor des Forschungszentrums Gotha für kultur- und.
Martin Mulsow Utility menu VideoForschungszentrum Gotha: Topographie der Gelehrtenrepublik Prof. Dr. Martin Mulsow ist Assoziierter Fellow am Max-Weber-Kolleg der Universität Erfurt. Martin Mulsow ist ein deutscher Philosoph und Historiker mit Arbeitsschwerpunkt in der Erforschung der frühneuzeitlichen Ideengeschichte. Er ist Direktor des Forschungszentrums Gotha der Universität Erfurt und hat dort den Lehrstuhl für. Ausführliche Profilseite von Prof. Dr. Martin Mulsow, Direktor des Forschungszentrums Gotha - Adresse, Kontaktdaten, Lebenslauf. Martin Mulsow (* Oktober in Buchholz in der Nordheide) ist ein deutscher Philosoph und Historiker mit Arbeitsschwerpunkt in der Erforschung der.
The time has come to shine a light also on the precarious side: the uncertainty and jeopardising of some existing knowledge and theories, the tricky status of their carrier medium, the reaction to threat and loss, and the risk of heretical transfer.
Martin Mulsow follows the trail of this precarious knowledge with the aim of re-establishing its significance for the process of the European history of knowledge.
In case studies that are rich in material and encompass the period from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, he presents the tactics devised by intellectuals to be able to live with these perils, their gestures of retreat, their fears, but also what encouraged them, and their attempts to reclaim lost knowledge.
Precarious knowledge does not deal with the major themes of metaphysics and epistemology, but rather with those marginal zones such as magic and numismatics, interpretations of the Bible, and Orientalism.
It is not only about theories, but also about fear and fascination, not about the major figures in research, but rather about those forgotten, or half-forgotten, scholars.
He shows networks; he creates a mosaic out of small pieces; he displays the "personal and intellectual interconnections of the radical early Enlightenment in Germany".
They serve him to apply some "theories of medium scope". In his new book, he draws an overall picture of early radicalisation.
In doing so, he provides a history of critique of religion during the early enlightenment. Admiringly, he connects single disciplines and demonstrates unexpected mutual impact between oriental studies and science, Bible exegesis and history, and above all between jurisprudence and philosophy.
With close conceptual differentiation he opens up a wealth of new material. He is aware of the pragmatic status of utterances; he takes irony and mocking in old texts into account.
He knows about writing under the circumstances of censorship. The process Mulsow describes occurred in Protestant Germany, but freedom of thought was by no means better among Lutherans than it was the case in Rome.
The main protagonists in Germany maintained a lively international intellectual exchange, mainly with England and the Netherlands. Mulsow follows these connections and takes international research into account.
The impact of innovation in late seventeenth century has already been recognized by Paul Hazard, in his famous book on the crisis of the European Mind.
Italian scholars like Tullio Gregory followed him, and today there are a good number of English and American studies. But the significance of Mulsow's monumental work lies in the fact that he connects several hitherto unconnected currents of research: the history of ideas of Enlightenment philosophy, the archival registration of clandestine texts, and the analysis of communication structures in the European Republic of Letters.
Mulsow does not overemphasize his results: there was a radical Enlightenment in Germany, but it occurred "only as a marginal phenomenon of persecuted thinkers and probably a greater number of extremist students.
A special appeal gets this book through its deciphering of deputizing debates. The period around discussed historical and philological questions, when people in fact wanted to clarify contemporary problems.
Another advantage of this book is its being conscious of the methods that it uses. Methodological reflection always follows the historical information.
Mulsow has written a fresh and learned book. It has all chances to be this year's best German book in intellectual history. This is a marvelous, detailed, textured study of a large number of minor works and minor figures that developed and transmitted many of the elements of modern philosophy in early modern Germany.
Many of the texts were written in Latin, and only some were published. One should not teach the philosophy of the Enlightenment from Hazard or Cassirer without attention to these figures, whom they did not know.
Now we know where our heroes like Lessing, Hume, and Kant got many of their fundamental ideas. Martin Mulsow ends this book with ten theses.
The first holds that most of the authors discussed were radicalized in a multi-layered process, not simply from the reading of Hobbes, Spinoza, Bayle, or Toland.
For example, one could take the role of an opponent in an academic disputation, and bit by bit begin to believe one's unorthodox role.
Or one could be provoked by ultra-orthodox opponents to explore the opposite of what they believed. Some authors evolved into and out of radical positions over the course of their lives.
Further theses contend that small, trusted circles of friends were often the enabling condition in which unorthodox views were first expressed and then hammered out.
Irony, satire, paradox, and ambivalence played key roles. It is often difficult to tell whether some of these texts were serious or intended as jokes, and perhaps the authors did not always know themselves.
Some radical ideas were spread simply by curious erudites who assembled collections and bibliographies of radical manuscripts and texts without believing them.
Mulsow shows how people wrote on controversial topics in coded scholarly language. Spinozism was discussed under the rubrics of Platonism and Stoicism; the sovereignty of the people was considered in terms of the lex regia; and Biblical criticism became code for the physicians' rejection of the materiality of the soul.
Thus philosophical discourse can be found where one might least expect it in legal, philological, historical, and scientific debates.
The numerous case studies that the author assembles amount to philosophical microhistory. Substantial chapters deal with various aspects of the intellectual stew that emerged from the bubbling pot of Jews and Socinians and other Christian sects that were semi-tolerated in the Netherlands.
Unlike any construction of moderate and radical positions as opposed and at odds, Mulsow shows how they were often intertwined. The destruction of Christian Platonism, the paradoxical development of Enlightenment ideas out of anti-humanism, and the uses of so-called eclecticism in philosophy made possible the assembly of modern philosophical positions.
In yet another paradox, many of these writers belong to what has been called the "conservative Enlightenment", intending only to temporize and draw the teeth of the political and philosophical radicals, and yet their writings systematized and transmitted the ideas of the radicals, opening the way to further radicality.