Giulia Valpione

Jean-Baptiste Fressoz è tra gli storici più influenti che si occupano della storia del cambiamento climatico. In questa intervista, Fressoz ripercorre il proprio percorso intellettuale – dal Centre Koyré (Parigi) al CNRS (Parigi), passando per l’Imperial College (Londra) – arricchito da confronti e discussioni su (e con) Ulrich Beck, André Gorz e Bruno Latour, tra gli altri. In questa conversazione, Fressoz si sofferma sul ruolo che la storia (e le e gli studiosi di storia) dovrebbero svolgere oggi nell’ambito di una riflessione critica sul cambiamento climatico. Il testo è la trascrizione, rielaborata e rivista da Fressoz, di un dialogo avuto il 19 aprile 2026.

The thesis presented in this chapter is that the presence of the question of money within a philosophy can change the way philosophy itself is conceived. I take into consideration the women philosophers of German Romanticism to show how the role of money within their philosophy changed, transforming also the conception of philosophy previously formulated by the male philosophers of German Romanticism. I concentrate on Caroline Schlegel-Schelling, who put forth the materiality of the conditions that allow a subject to philosophize. For her, money is a necessary instrument for women to build a space and time where they can dedicate themselves to philosophical studies. The final section of the chapter shifts focus to Bettina von Arnim. In her political-philosophical works, she explained the crucial role played by money in the capitalist world: money was the condition of possibility of freedom, morality, and philosophy itself. She showed not only that a wealthy economic status is a condition for being able to devote time to philosophy but also that philosophy has the task of critically questioning the injustices that pervade those conditions, thus transforming philosophy into a social critique.

Issue number 4 of "SYMPHILOSOPHIE: International Journal of Philosophical Romanticism" is devoted to the Dutch philosopher François Hemsterhuis and 250th anniversary of the birth of the German romantics Novalis and Friedrich Schlegel. This fourth issue of the journal contains nearly 600 pages of new research articles, translations, review-essays, and book reviews. The main section on Hemsterhuis among the German Romantics was guest edited by Daniel Whistler (Royal Holloway, University of London).

This article focuses on Novalis’ understanding of the ‘I-nature’ relationship demonstrating that he anticipates some aspects developed by later environmental and ecological philosophies. After an introductory part on Novalis’ criticism against Fichte’s conception of the Self, the article investigates the crucial role played by Spinoza for the reassessment of natural sciences (physiology in particular) in Novalis’ philosophy and, as a consequence, for the conception of a “metaphysics of Having”. This particular metaphysics implies that subjects and objects interpenetrate each other, and that this relationship precedes their respective identities. In the last part, the article sketches a parallel with the current philosophical debate on ecology.

This article highlights the importance of new research on women philosophers and addresses some methodological issues to be taken in consideration. The thesis presented here is that through this new line of research it is possible to analyse the close connection between philosophy, politics and institutions. The paper opens with a critique of the assumption that philosophy has until recently been the exclusive property of men, giving the example of some forgotten women philosophers who lived in Hegel's time. After considering the risk of ghettoization inherent in Women's Studies, the author closes by showing how the reconsideration of women philosophers can help to question the methodology and the status of philosophy in general, and in particular to question the philosophical canon. The text serves as an introduction to a special issue of theHegel Bulletindedicated to women philosophers in Hegel's time.

This article examines the role played by ‘feeling’ (Gefühl) and ‘love’ within the philosophy of German Romanticism. After an introduction (I) to the actual debate on German Romanticism, paragraph II sketches an analysis of the concept of Gefühl at the end of the eighteenth century and highlights the differences with its actual meaning. The successive three sections are dedicated to three pivotal figures of German Romanticism: F. Schlegel (III), Novalis (IV), and Baader (V). Similarities and differences between these authors will be emphasized. It will be demonstrated that they deny the reason˗feeling opposition, and that ‘feeling’ and ‘love’ are at the heart of their ontology, epistemology, and conception of subjectivity, conditioning the Romantic human-nature relationship and Romantic political philosophy. In the concluding remarks (VI), this paper explains how German Romanticism can still help to better understand the role of feelings in politics.

Selon le romantisme allemand, l'être humain entre de plein droit parmi les processus naturels, mais en même temps, les particularités de l'humain demeurent. Le romantisme allemand offre une alternative à l'opposition homme / nature, de même qu'il prend ses distances à l'égard de l'idée selon laquelle les sciences humaines pourraient reléguer l'homme au rang de simple phénomène naturel. Mais comment se décline concrètement une telle position dans les différents domaines du savoir ? Telle est la question à laquelle cet ouvrage cherche à répondre. Der deutschen Romantik zufolge ist der Mensch ein Teil der Natur, zugleich aber bleiben die Besonderheiten des Menschen bestehen. Die deutsche Romantik bietet eine Alternative zum Gegensatz Mensch - Natur, ebenso distanziert sie sich von der Vorstellung, die Geisteswissenschaften könnten den Menschen als bloßes Naturphänomen behandeln. Wie aber konkretisiert sich eine solche Position in den verschiedenen Wissensbereichen? Dies ist die Frage, die das vorliegende Buch zu beantworten versucht.

In this paper the author focuses on the reflections of Friedrich Schlegel on the concept of history. The works considered here range from 1798 to 1805 and include Schlegel’s essays, lessons, personal notes and fragments. In those years the reflections on the plurality of stories and genealogies against the singularity of History are central. “History” will emerge as a regulatory ideal of the narrative, but also of praxis. This paper will also show the limits of Koselleck’s analysis of Schlegel’s thought.