Suchergebnisse

The article is devoted to the problem of the interaction between the ethical views of the past and axiological concepts at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, which sheds light on the general problem of modernity associated with its general principle – the interrelationship of epochs. The study aims to show how the ethical concepts of the past years receive an axiological interpretation; to reveal the poetic peculiarity of the global synthesis of ethics and axiology through the example of the drama The Selicke Family by A. Holtz. The analysis has revealed that, under the influence of the philosophy of life, known as everyday life, and the understanding of contemporary philosophies, emphasizing the teaching on values as the basis of all activities, a new ethic is emerging among naturalists, which is what axiology becomes for them. Naturalists, seeking to cognize life while rejecting the former principle of normativity, consider life as being value-centered. The innovative role of the moral conclusions of a thinking subject leads to the ethical feeling taking major place in the soul. When subjected to axiological analysis, this feeling appears to be peculiar and subjective. It was found that the axiological criterion was also applied by naturalists to reinterpret the ethical notion of good. It is inseparable from evil, which naturalists see in the laws of environment and heredity. In The Selicke Family, the relationship between evil (immersion in environment) and good (victory over hatred and the triumph of love) is poetically realized through the change of representations of the beautiful (schön) and the ugly (schrecklich). The heroes of the drama derive from existence personal axiological judgment based on the transformation of ethical criteria: good is latently present in the environment, suffering leads to moral regeneration, the mysteries of good occur at the most tragic moment of life.

The article considers the genre of tragedy in the works of L. Tieck, one of the key figures of German Romanticism. It is known that the tragedy genre among the German romantics is represented mainly by two varieties: the "tragedy of fate" (Schicksalsdrama) and the drama on a religious-historical theme (in literature most often referred to as Universaldrama, "universal drama"). L. Tieck stands at the origins of both genres, while the tragedy "The Life and Death of Saint Genoveva" (1801), to which other religious and historical dramas of German romanticism go back, turned out to be especially influential. Having created examples of those two genres, Tieck rethinks tragic structures, relativizing them in different ways – firstly, by transforming the tragic genre itself, and, secondly, by including tragic elements into the complex genre constructs, mainly into fairy-tale dramas. That rethinking, however, takes place mostly in the mainstream of the parody typical of Tieck's work – whether it is a parody of the "main" tragedy with a comedy counterpart or the inclusion of parodies of the tragedy, including his own tragedies, in comedy texts. At the same time, however, Tieck's last dramatic work, "Fortunat", which has much in common with his fairy-tale dramas and, like them, is a complex genre construct, ends in tragedy in its purest form, the triumph of the tragic substance. In our opinion that testifies to the impossibility of complete relativization of tragedy and to the crisis of romantic drama

This is the first comprehensive study of the dramas of Nicodemus Frischlin (1547–1590), one of the most versatile and complex playwrights of early modern Germany. Frischlin's broad range encompassed biblical, confessional, and historical drama, all of which expressed bold social and political criticism. His plays were influential, frequently printed and translated, and often controversial. He ended his short life trying to escape prison, where he was being held for threatening further political publications. Price analyzes Frischlin's dramatic output, as well as humanist literary theory, in particular Renaissance approaches to rhetoric and imitation, to explain how humanists modified or even subverted classical forms to accommodate political and theological activism.

The ruling by the German Constitutional Court in the famous "Ludin" headscarf case permits the federal states (Bundesländer) to rearrange the treatment of religious symbols in public space (i.e. schools) and to adjust the complex relationship between state and religion in Germany. Based on a qualitative content analysis, the study at hand examines the arguments presented by different political and legal actors and displays the results of the legislative and judicial processes regarding the headscarf issue in Germany. Three major results are worthwhile to be highlighted: First of all, parties make a difference. Whether the headscarf for schoolteachers is forbidden or not depends on which party is in government. Because of the huge differences in the parties' programmatic views regarding religion policies, it makes a difference whether the Christian (CDU) or the Social Democrats (SPD) are in power. Secondly, an unequal treatment of religions is non-enforceable under the settings of a liberal democracy. German courts prevented the CDU's attempts to implement such unequal treatment. As an unintended consequence, the state-religion-paradigm in Germany has shifted from "open neutrality" to a more laicist model – at least in those federal states where an unequal treatment was attempted. Thirdly, this dealing with the headscarf issue by some political actors reveals that, in modern (heterogeneous) democratic societies, an efficient system of rule of law and judicial review is essential if citizens (and their religions) shall be truly treated as equals. ; Die Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts über das Tragen eines Kopftuchs im öffentlichen Dienst vom 24.09.2003 hat den Bundesländern die Möglichkeit eröffnet, den Umgang mit religiösen Symbolen im öffentlichen Dienst neu zu regeln und das komplexe Verhältnis von Staat und Religion in Deutschland neu zu bestimmen. Auf der Basis umfangreicher Textanalysen der Plenardebatten und der sich anschließenden Gerichtsurteile wird in der vorliegenden Analyse untersucht, welche Argumente für oder gegen ein Kopftuchverbot die politischen und juristischen Akteure vorbrachten und welche Resultate das Zusammenspiel von Politik und Recht in der Kopftuchfrage zeitigte. Drei Ergebnisse der Analyse sind hervorzuheben: Erstens wird deutlich, dass vor allem die Parteiendifferenzhypothese für die hier untersuchte Frage erklärungskräftig ist; die Mehrheitsverhältnisse in den Ländern und die jeweiligen Leitbilder und religionspolitischen Paradigmen der Parteien sind für die inhaltliche Differenz der beschlossenen Gesetze verantwortlich. Zweitens zeigt sich, dass sich unter den Bedingungen einer rechtsstaatlich-liberalen Demokratie eine Ungleichbehandlung religiöser Symbole – wie sie insbesondere von den Unionsparteien gewollt war – nicht durchsetzen lässt. Vielmehr führt die intendierte Ungleichbehandlung der Religionen unintendiert zu einem Schritt in Richtung Laizismus und verändert damit ungewollt das in Deutschland vorherrschende religionspolitische Paradigma. Drittens schließlich kann festgehalten werden, dass demokratische Systeme auf die Einhegung der Politik durch den Rechtsstaat angewiesen sind, wenn sichergestellt sein soll, dass ihre Bürgerinnen und Bürger (und ihre Religionen) tatsächlich als Gleiche behandelt werden.