Max Scheler. Wesen und Formen der Sympathie (1913/1923)Final support Editionproject

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

The edition of Max Schelers Wesen und Formen der Sympathie aspires to a critical publication of this text. On the basis of such an edition it will be possible to connect this text in an adequate way to the history of philosophy as well to systematic of philosophical investigation. Furthermore the current discussion about the philosophy of feelings, to which just this work is important, will get a reliable foundation. Therefore the research discussions about Max Scheler as well as the interdisciplinary field of research in actual debates fall back on an edition, which is philological and scientific assured, but missed thus far. Focussing on Schelers Wesen und Formen der Sympathie this is a desideratum, because of the considerable differences between the first edition in 1913 and the second one in 1923. Obviously this is shown in the enlargement of the scope: the first edition contains 153 pages, the second one contains 307 pages. Most interesting in a systematic way Schelers phenomenological work about manifestations of the feelings of sympathy and their relevance for moral and therefore successfull self-manifestation in the background of divergent forms of sociality takes part in actual discussions in philosophy (e.g. debates about collective intentionality, about shared feelings etc.) and illuminates debates in the further arts and natural sciences as well. For example: Schelers effective critique of an ethic of pure empathy and the historico-critical connection to theories of emotion in philosophy, psychology, and sociology; the developing of a concept of person containing not only reason but also love; the connection between anthropology, metaphysics, and ethics, providing the perspective of phenomenological method. Beside Formalismus in der Ethik und die materiale Wertethik of Scheler, which was written in the same period, Wesen und Formen der Sympathie can be seen as a further main work, being fundamental for 20th century philosophy and the interdisciplinary debates. The editons available so far are unreliable and do not mention the differences between the first and the second edition in 1913 and 1926. There also is a lack about the verification of bibliographical references in the actual editions being incomplete or false thus way. To correct these errors and to mark interventions by others it will be a further task of the edition.