Karl Axelsson

Den tredje earlen av Shaftesbury (1671–1713) var en av 1700-talets mest inflytelserika filosofer. Dialogen Moralisterna är Shaftesburys viktigaste verk, i vilket han undersöker den godhet, kärlek och skönhet som utmärker naturen och samhället. Med sin säregna blandning av moralfilosofi, estetisk teori och poesi intar Moralisterna en unik plats inom den europeiska upplysningen. Karl Axelsson är lektor i estetik vid Södertörns högskola. Utöver själva översättningen bidrar han med en omfattande inledning om Shaftesburys filosofi, förklarande noter och hänvisningar till Shaftesburys övriga verk.

Providing a gateway to a new history of modern aesthetics, this book challenges conventional views of how art's significance developed in society. The 18th century is often said to have involved a radical transformation in the concept of art: from the understanding that it has a practical purpose to the modern belief that it is intrinsically valuable. By exploring the ground between these notions of art's function, Karl Axelsson reveals how scholars of culture made taste, morals and a politically stable society integral to their claims about the experience of nature and art. Focusing on writings by two of the most prolific men of letters in the 18th century, Joseph Addison (1672–1719) and the third Earl of Shaftesbury (1671–1713), Axelsson contests the conviction that modern aesthetic autonomy reoriented the criticism and philosophy originally prompted by these two key figures in the history of aesthetics. By re-examining the political relevance of Addison and Shaftesbury's theories of taste, Axelsson shows that first and foremost they sought to fortify a natural link between aesthetic experience and modern political society.

This volume re-examines traditional interpretations of the rise of modern aesthetics in eighteenth-century Britain and Germany. It provides a new account that connects aesthetic experience with morality, science, and political society. In doing so, the book challenges longstanding teleological narratives that emphasize disinterestedness and the separation of aesthetics from moral, cognitive, and political interests. The chapters are divided into three thematic parts. The chapters in Part I demonstrate the heteronomy of eighteenth-century British aesthetics. They chart the evolution of aesthetic concepts and discuss the ethical and political significance of the aesthetic theories of several key figures, namely the third Earl of Shaftesbury, David Hume, and Adam Smith. Part II explores the ways in which eighteenth-century German thinkers examine aesthetic experience and moral concerns and relate to the work of their British counterparts. The chapters here cover the work of Kant, Moses Mendelssohn, Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten, and Madame de Staël. Finally, Part III explores the interrelation of science, aesthetics, and a new model of society in the work of Goethe, Johann Wilhelm Ritter, Friedrich Hölderlin, and William Hazlitt, among others. This volume develops unique discussions of the rise of aesthetic autonomy in the eighteenth century. In bringing together well-known scholars working on British and German eighteenth-century aesthetics, philosophy, and literature, it will appeal to scholars and advanced students in a range of disciplines who are interested in this topic.

Joseph Addison’s (1672--1719) essays in The Spectator occupy contradictory positions in the history of aesthetics. While they are generally considered central to the institution of aesthetics as a scholarly discipline, their reception has throughout history entailed a strong questioning of their philosophical and scholarly importance. In the following paper, I consider this dual feature as regards reception, and set out to clarify how this has come about. A re-examination of the arguments advanced by Addison makes clear that his role is not that of a philosopher, but that of a public educator. As such he aims to raise the standard of general education of the British ‘middling orders’ in the early eighteenth century, and by using art for didactic purposes he seeks to contribute to the shaping of morally accomplished individuals.

At the heart of Michael B. Gill's impressive study of the third Earl of Shaftesbury's theory of beauty is the notion of nature and its moral, aesthetic, and religious ramifications. In this article, I elaborate on one of Gill's primary claims up to a point where I think a weak spot occurs. The claim concerns nature, and the weak spot is the interpretation of Shaftesbury's references to science (natural philosophy). On the whole, Gill holds that Shaftesbury is “no enemy of a rational understanding of nature, no enemy of science” (44). While I agree with the first clause, I find the second problematic. I argue that, for Shaftesbury, a central problem with science is that it disrupts the moral and aesthetic unity of nature, a flaw shared by society's general exploitation of nature and animals.

Joseph Addison’s (1672–1719) essays in The Spectator occupy contradictory positions in the history of aesthetics. While they are generally considered central to the institution of aesthetics as a scholarly discipline, their reception has throughout history entailed a strong questioning of their philosophical and scholarly importance. In the following paper, I consider this dual feature as regards reception, and set out to clarify how this has come about. A re-examination of the arguments advanced by Addison makes clear that his role is not that of a philosopher, but that of a public educator. As such he aims to raise the standard of general education of the British ‘middling orders’ in the early eighteenth century, and by using art for didactic purposes he seeks to contribute to the shaping of morally accomplished individuals. AbstraktJoseph Addisons (1672–1719) Essays in der Wochenschrift The Spectator nehmen in der Geschichte der Ästhetik einen widersprüchlichen Platz ein. Während ihnen für die Konstitution von Ästhetik als Wissenschaft zentrale Bedeutung zugeschrieben wird, wurde ihre philosophische und wissenschaftliche Bedeutung im Laufe ihrer Rezeptionsgeschichte immer wieder nachdrücklich in Frage gestellt. Im Zentrum der folgenden Überlegungen steht dieser Doppelaspekt im Hinblick auf die Rezeption; dabei versuche ich zu erhellen, wie es dazu kommen konnte. Analysiert man Addisons Argumente, so wird klar, dass seine Rolle nicht die eines Philosophen, sondern die eines Erziehers der Öffentlichkeit ist. Als ein solcher ist er bemüht, mittels Kunst als didaktisches Medium das Niveau der Allgemeinbildung der britischen Mittelschicht des frühen 18. Jahrhunderts anzuheben und so einen Beitrag zur Bildung moralisch wohlerzogener Individuen zu leisten.