Die Leiden des jungen Werther Reclams UniversalBibliothek German Edition eBook Johann Wolfgang Goethe
Download As PDF : Die Leiden des jungen Werther Reclams UniversalBibliothek German Edition eBook Johann Wolfgang Goethe 
"Die Leiden des jungen Werther" lösten bei ihrem Erscheinen eine Epidemie von Selbstmorden aus. Der Roman wurde Goethes größter Publikumserfolg und erregte ebenso enthusiastische Resonanz wie schärfste Ablehnung.
Text aus Reclams Universal-Bibliothek mit Seitenzählung der gedruckten Ausgabe.
Die Leiden des jungen Werther Reclams UniversalBibliothek German Edition eBook Johann Wolfgang Goethe
In the Enlightenment attempt to justify the institutions of bourgeois liberalism, one of the most glaring failures is the case of punishment. The Enlightenment can prove that a certain kind of peace is possible among those who accept its peculiar form of bourgeois reason. But the cruel treatment of dissenters who are either unable or unwilling to accept this sort of rationality—for this the Enlightenment has no justification. In a conversation with his bourgeois rival Albert, Werther brings up this unpaid debt of the Enlightenment. What should we say about a thief who steals to feed his starving children? Who would cast the first stone at him?A man overcome with passion, says Albert, loses his senses, as if he were drunk or insane. Rational, reasonable bourgeois people like Albert designate the dissenter who refuses to accept their form of rationality as an outsider, who, because of his so-called irrationality is unworthy of sympathy. The cold-blooded cruelty of the bourgeois regime is rationalized by precisely such dehumanization of its victims.
The fundamental principle of the Enlightenment, as Kant would articulate it, is that each individual mind must overcome its self-imposed immaturity and learn to think without guidance from another. While the middle class of the eighteenth century were proud that the philosophical representatives of their age had overcome the superstitions of earlier ages and emerged from their state of self-imposed immaturity, individual bourgeois minds were by no means prepared to make this emergence themselves.
Werther is frustrated because he speaks “from his whole heart,” while Albert only replies with “meaningless platitudes.” Albert can’t be forced to think about who will cast the first stone at the poor thief, because public institutions, which feel no mercy, are perfectly willing to cast the stone on his behalf. Albert isn’t forced to think. Therefore, he doesn’t want to think. To this end, he has at his disposal many rough and ready phrases that can defuse such uncomfortable questions without demanding even the slightest glimmer of sincere thought. The bourgeois mind remains in its own peculiar state of self-imposed immaturity, in which phrases prepared in advance under the guidance of others can be assembled without guidance from others, but individual words cannot.
We might draw an analogy between Werther’s frustrated attempts to draw Albert into a sincere debate about bourgeois morality and Socrates’ frustrated attempts to embroil his conversation partners in serious philosophical debates. Under no circumstance does Albert want to think for himself. All Werther’s attempts are therefore useless.
The foremost reasons the majority of minds insist on remaining immature, according to Kant, are indolence and cowardice. Middle class functionaries like Albert call themselves “reasonable people,” but the reason they use isn’t Kant’s reason, which can think without direction from another, but a fraudulent bourgeois form of reason that consists of no more than meaningless platitudes—platitudes that seek to legitimize and rationalize precisely the indolence and cowardice Kant so detests.
Werther draws an analogy between the coldhearted reason of the middle class and the coldhearted legalism of the Pharisees. The indolence and cowardice of the middle class, just like that of the Pharisees, consists in this—they aren’t ruled by themselves, but rather by a faceless, cold-blooded and formalistic legalism. Werther explains the mistake of the middle class with a parable. A horse is impatient to do something. So he lets himself be saddled. Later, as his owner rides him to death, he regrets his decision. As I interpret the parable, the horse represents the conscience of the bourgeois. The owner represents things the bourgeois respects like money, reputation and law. In exchange for a comfortable salary, a bourgeois functionary like Albert sacrifices the authority to think for himself. From now on he must accept arguments, no matter how illogical, when they come from his superiors. The bourgeois can therefore no longer be a philosopher. It’s useless to try to change his mind, because his mind no longer belongs to him—and, as Werther explains, “When we lack ourselves, we lack everything.”
Werther elucidates the mistake of the middle class not only parabolically, but also explicitly. “A man who works at another’s will, not for his own passion or his own need, but for money or honor, is always a fool.” The bourgeois is so eager to obtain the money and honor that allow him to rule his subordinates, in exchange he makes himself into a servile subordinate. Werther, on the other hand, loves his freedom and independence. Under no circumstance will he submit to the will of a superior whom he doesn’t recognize as a better, more virtuous man.
In a 1992 essay, J. M. Coetzee describes Erasmus’s technique for offering philosophical critiques of contemporary society in fiction. According to Coetzee, Erasmus deliberately puts his cutting critiques in the mouth of a character intended to be perceived as a fool. He does this in order to present contentious ideas as uncontentiously as possible, taking them, as Coetzee says, “off the stage of political rivalry.” This is a way of presenting a statement that, politically speaking, must be false, because it is utterly incompatible with the way society is organized, and yet at the same time, in other important senses, is very true.
We know, for example, that the nominally adult bourgeois chases money, and the sensory pleasures it procures, with the same eager avidity of a boy awaiting cookies and cakes. But we would really prefer not to be reminded of this. Goethe wants to remind his bourgeois readers that we’re all servile cowards, without prompting us to slam the book shut in indignation, and thus lose the opportunity to hear all Goethe’s other biting criticisms of bourgeois life. He therefore puts his criticisms in the mouth of a character prone to hyperemotionality, sentimentality and exaggeration.
By putting his criticisms in the mouth of the emotionally fragile Werther, Goethe gives his readers what we might call a "time-release capsule of thought." Because Werther is so emotional and sentimental, we dismiss his criticisms as absurd when we first hear them. But, at the same time, they’re expressed so eloquently that we’re unlikely to forget them. We recall them later when we ourselves are exasperated with bourgeois life, and in the mood to listen to criticisms.
Product details
|
Tags : Buy Die Leiden des jungen Werther: Reclams Universal-Bibliothek (German Edition): Read 2 Kindle Store Reviews - Amazon.com,ebook,Johann Wolfgang Goethe,Die Leiden des jungen Werther: Reclams Universal-Bibliothek (German Edition),Reclam Verlag
People also read other books :
- Sea and Sardinia eBook D H Lawrence
- Dictator Handbook edition by Randall Wood Carmine DeLuca Politics Social Sciences eBooks
- The Cuckoo Clock A Madeleine Porter Mystery edition by John Nixon Mystery Thriller Suspense eBooks
- The Swiss Family Robinson Johann R Wyss 9781775420354 Books
- Big City Dreams Finding Logan Hunter Logan Hunter Romance Series Book 1 edition by TS Krupa Literature Fiction eBooks
Die Leiden des jungen Werther Reclams UniversalBibliothek German Edition eBook Johann Wolfgang Goethe Reviews
I read this book for my course in "Lives Ruined By Literature", and indeed, they were. This book is certainly a classic, and it certainly reveals the Romantic mindset, but it is DEPRESSING! If you're the type to turn off the radio or television when a murder news story comes on, don't read this book.
In the Enlightenment attempt to justify the institutions of bourgeois liberalism, one of the most glaring failures is the case of punishment. The Enlightenment can prove that a certain kind of peace is possible among those who accept its peculiar form of bourgeois reason. But the cruel treatment of dissenters who are either unable or unwilling to accept this sort of rationality—for this the Enlightenment has no justification. In a conversation with his bourgeois rival Albert, Werther brings up this unpaid debt of the Enlightenment. What should we say about a thief who steals to feed his starving children? Who would cast the first stone at him?
A man overcome with passion, says Albert, loses his senses, as if he were drunk or insane. Rational, reasonable bourgeois people like Albert designate the dissenter who refuses to accept their form of rationality as an outsider, who, because of his so-called irrationality is unworthy of sympathy. The cold-blooded cruelty of the bourgeois regime is rationalized by precisely such dehumanization of its victims.
The fundamental principle of the Enlightenment, as Kant would articulate it, is that each individual mind must overcome its self-imposed immaturity and learn to think without guidance from another. While the middle class of the eighteenth century were proud that the philosophical representatives of their age had overcome the superstitions of earlier ages and emerged from their state of self-imposed immaturity, individual bourgeois minds were by no means prepared to make this emergence themselves.
Werther is frustrated because he speaks “from his whole heart,” while Albert only replies with “meaningless platitudes.” Albert can’t be forced to think about who will cast the first stone at the poor thief, because public institutions, which feel no mercy, are perfectly willing to cast the stone on his behalf. Albert isn’t forced to think. Therefore, he doesn’t want to think. To this end, he has at his disposal many rough and ready phrases that can defuse such uncomfortable questions without demanding even the slightest glimmer of sincere thought. The bourgeois mind remains in its own peculiar state of self-imposed immaturity, in which phrases prepared in advance under the guidance of others can be assembled without guidance from others, but individual words cannot.
We might draw an analogy between Werther’s frustrated attempts to draw Albert into a sincere debate about bourgeois morality and Socrates’ frustrated attempts to embroil his conversation partners in serious philosophical debates. Under no circumstance does Albert want to think for himself. All Werther’s attempts are therefore useless.
The foremost reasons the majority of minds insist on remaining immature, according to Kant, are indolence and cowardice. Middle class functionaries like Albert call themselves “reasonable people,” but the reason they use isn’t Kant’s reason, which can think without direction from another, but a fraudulent bourgeois form of reason that consists of no more than meaningless platitudes—platitudes that seek to legitimize and rationalize precisely the indolence and cowardice Kant so detests.
Werther draws an analogy between the coldhearted reason of the middle class and the coldhearted legalism of the Pharisees. The indolence and cowardice of the middle class, just like that of the Pharisees, consists in this—they aren’t ruled by themselves, but rather by a faceless, cold-blooded and formalistic legalism. Werther explains the mistake of the middle class with a parable. A horse is impatient to do something. So he lets himself be saddled. Later, as his owner rides him to death, he regrets his decision. As I interpret the parable, the horse represents the conscience of the bourgeois. The owner represents things the bourgeois respects like money, reputation and law. In exchange for a comfortable salary, a bourgeois functionary like Albert sacrifices the authority to think for himself. From now on he must accept arguments, no matter how illogical, when they come from his superiors. The bourgeois can therefore no longer be a philosopher. It’s useless to try to change his mind, because his mind no longer belongs to him—and, as Werther explains, “When we lack ourselves, we lack everything.”
Werther elucidates the mistake of the middle class not only parabolically, but also explicitly. “A man who works at another’s will, not for his own passion or his own need, but for money or honor, is always a fool.” The bourgeois is so eager to obtain the money and honor that allow him to rule his subordinates, in exchange he makes himself into a servile subordinate. Werther, on the other hand, loves his freedom and independence. Under no circumstance will he submit to the will of a superior whom he doesn’t recognize as a better, more virtuous man.
In a 1992 essay, J. M. Coetzee describes Erasmus’s technique for offering philosophical critiques of contemporary society in fiction. According to Coetzee, Erasmus deliberately puts his cutting critiques in the mouth of a character intended to be perceived as a fool. He does this in order to present contentious ideas as uncontentiously as possible, taking them, as Coetzee says, “off the stage of political rivalry.” This is a way of presenting a statement that, politically speaking, must be false, because it is utterly incompatible with the way society is organized, and yet at the same time, in other important senses, is very true.
We know, for example, that the nominally adult bourgeois chases money, and the sensory pleasures it procures, with the same eager avidity of a boy awaiting cookies and cakes. But we would really prefer not to be reminded of this. Goethe wants to remind his bourgeois readers that we’re all servile cowards, without prompting us to slam the book shut in indignation, and thus lose the opportunity to hear all Goethe’s other biting criticisms of bourgeois life. He therefore puts his criticisms in the mouth of a character prone to hyperemotionality, sentimentality and exaggeration.
By putting his criticisms in the mouth of the emotionally fragile Werther, Goethe gives his readers what we might call a "time-release capsule of thought." Because Werther is so emotional and sentimental, we dismiss his criticisms as absurd when we first hear them. But, at the same time, they’re expressed so eloquently that we’re unlikely to forget them. We recall them later when we ourselves are exasperated with bourgeois life, and in the mood to listen to criticisms.
0 Response to "[Z1Z]≡ Read Die Leiden des jungen Werther Reclams UniversalBibliothek German Edition eBook Johann Wolfgang Goethe"
Post a Comment