Under the title "War of Spirits, War of Nations?", an article by historian Peter Hoeres was published in the F.A.Z. of 22 February, in which our publication "Die Philosophiegeschichtsschreibung im Ersten Weltkrieg" (Verlag Karl Alber 2022) is presented as an example of "failing research" of German philosophy during the First World War. The reviewer claims that we understand German philosophy essentialistically, have no view of European entanglements of German-speaking philosophy and unilaterally determine the roles of perpetrators and victims in the ideological struggle around 1914/18.
This perspective of the reviewer is explained by his own study "The War of the Philosophers. Die deutsche und britische Philosophie im Ersten Weltkrieg" (Schöningh Verlag 2004). On the one hand, Hoeres shows the entanglement of philosophy in contemporary politics, and this is remarkable. On the other hand, he narrows the view to the actors when he reads the entire philosophical debate of the time as World War II literature. We do not share this one-sidedness and do not recognize our research work due to the bias of the reviewer in the mentioned article.
Our research object is the historiography of philosophy. We are not concerned with the topic of "war" in the philosophical debates of the decade of the nineteenth century, but with a philosophical-historical narrative that undergoes a radicalization of its meaning due to the outbreak of war. We show in detail that in the nineteenth century within the historiography of philosophy according to Hegel, the idea of an immanent teleology of ideas, concepts and patterns of argumentation developed.
A dialectic of mutual disappointments
Just as the beginning of philosophy is exclusively set in Greece (see the debates in the F.A.Z. on the subject of "Hegel and Colonialism"), the climax and end of the history of philosophy are also located exclusively, namely in the space of Kant's philosophy and German idealism. This narrative of an exclusivity of the target of philosophical practices was developed in the first half of the nineteenth century and, as it were, after the founding of the German Reich in 1871, nationally charged and nationalistically charged during the First World War.
The contributions to our book are about proving the effect that the narrative of the "world standing" (Friedrich Paulsen) of German-language philosophy and science as well as the research and scientific enterprise founded in the Prussian university reform (William Clark) could have and how it was reflected in the European area. It is astonishing that this narrative has experienced a positive reception for a long time, which with the outbreak of the First World War was able to release an astonishing dialectic of mutual disappointments. We see a peculiar entanglement of idealistic motives and ideological distortions, of defensive and offensive movements, of nationalist hubris and intellectual efforts.
The narrative of the historiography of philosophy, which misses the path "from Ionia to Iena" (Alexandre Kojève), is intertwined in a pan-European narrative. The depictions of the recent history of philosophy around 1900 are implicitly supported by national identity formations, nationalist chauvinism and attempts to unilaterally co-opt the "idea of Europe". So far, research on the historiography of philosophy has not examined this network of motivations.
No black and white panorama
In his research, Peter Hoeres pursues a different epistemological interest when he follows the german-British and beyond the intra-European war events in philosophical debates. In his historical view of philosophical texts, he focuses on the literary production that existed during the war to justify it. In our research, on the other hand, we distinguish between philosophical texts that are part of war literature and serve propagandistic purposes, and those that were published during the World War, as well as philosophical-historical representations in textbooks and popular works, which under the conditions of the First World War are placed in a different, henceforth radicalized horizon of meaning.
In contrast to the position ascribed to us, we do not draw lines of continuity, we do not paint a black-and-white panorama and see in a history of intellectualism and entanglement of the twentieth century no starting point for simple perpetrator-victim schemata. The ideological use of philosophy (history) has different facets, some of which are presented in our book.
We explore the emergence and decay of a philosophical-historical narrative whose impact accompanies us to this day. We are aware that further basic research will be needed in this area. If, then, as Peter Hoeres insinuates, one wants to draw a bridge from research to the history of philosophy in our present day of a European war, then probably this: It is worthwhile yesterday as today to examine the contribution of philosophical-historical narratives to national projects of identity formation and nationalist propaganda purposes.