Georg Simmel Between Goethe and Kant on “Life” and “Force”

  • Paola Giacomoni
Part of the Analecta Husserliana book series (ANHU, volume 74)


Georg Simmel, sociologist of the edgy, feverish, metropolitan lifestyle, philosopher of modernity, money, and fragmentation, has a decidedly classical background. Consider him not merely a man of his own times, fruit of late 19th-century culture and sociology, but a man who each day reads Kant’s philosophy and Goethe’s poetic and naturalist works, garnering sustenance for his daily reflection. Apart from the particular style of his learning and the results of his research, the interest in and passion for the “classical” period of late 18th-century German culture plays a decisive role in his philosophy. Simmel dedicated several monographs to Kant and to Goethe, the Berlin lectures on Kant in 1904, the important monograph on Goethe in 1913, as well as comparative studies such as Kant und Goethe in 1906 and numerous articles published in periodicals and newspapers upon various aspects of the culture and social lifestyle of his times, springing from his nonacademic reading of their works.


Naturalist Work Reciprocal Action Animal Form Formative Impulse Living Force 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    On the scant success of his nature studies see J.W. Goethe, Schicksal der Handschrift, in Werke E. Trunz (ed.), (Munich: Beck, Hamburger Ausgabe, 1982), Vol. 13, pp. 102–105.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    On the importance of Kant in Simmel’s philosophy see K.C. Köhnke, Entstehung und Aufstieg des Neukantismus (Frankfurt a.M: Suhrkamp, 1986), and idem, “Il giovane Simmel tra positivismo e neokantismo,” Rassegna Italiana di sociologia 2 (1992), pp. 215-232.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    On Goethe’s morphological method see D. Kuhn, Empirische und ideelle Wirklichkeit (Graz, Vienna, Koln: Böhlaus, 1965); M. Kleinschnieder, Goethes Naturstudien (Bonn: Bouvier, 1971); F. Amrine, F. Zucker, A. Wheeler (eds.), Goethe and the Sciences, A Reappraisal (Dordrecht, Boston, Lancaster, Tokyo Reidel: 1987); P. Giacomoni, Le forme e il vivente. Morfologia e filosofia della natura in J.W. Goethe (Naples: Guida, 1993); and G. Giorello and A. Grieco (eds), Goethe scienziato (Turin: Einaudi, 1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    See V.H. Bräuning-Oktavio, “Vom Zwischenkieferknochen zur Idee des Typus. Goethe als Naturforscher in den Jahren 1780–1786”, Nova Acta Leopoldina 18 (1956); M. Wenzel, “Dergescheiterte Dilettant. Goethe, Sömmerring und das ‘os. intermascillare’ beim Menschen”, in Sömmerring Forschungen,’ Vol. III (Stuttgart, New York: G. Fischer: (1988), F. Moiso, “La scoperta dell’osso intermascellare e la questione del tipo osteologico,” in Goethe scienziato, op. cit. pp. 298-337.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.W. Goethe, “Dem Menschen wie den Tieren ist ein Zwischenknochen der oberen Kinnlade zuzuschreiben”, in Werke, op. cit, Vol. 13, pp. 184–196.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.W. Goethe, Werke, op. cit, Vol. 13, pp. 170–186.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    op. cit Ibidem, Vol. 13, pp. 176–77.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    op. cit Ibidem, Vol. 13, p. 176.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    op. cit Ibidem, Vol. 13, p. 179.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zur Farbenlehre. Didaktischer Teil, Ibidem, Vol. 13, p. 316.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goethe, Werke, op. cit, Vol. 10, p. 314.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    I. Kant, Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft, in Gesammelte Schriften, Akademie Ausgabe (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1910). Vol. IV, pp. 496 ff.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    As regards Romantic Naturphilosophie, see: Romanticism and the Sciences, A. Cunningham and N. Jardine (eds.), (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); Romanticism in Science, S. Poggi and M. Bossi (eds.), (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994); AAVV “Scienza, filosofia della natura e romanticismo tedesco,” Annali:sezione germanica. Studi tedeschi (Naples: 1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Simmel, Das Wesen der Materie (Berlin: Norddeutsche Buchdruckerei, 1881), p. 19.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. Simmel, Gesamtausgabe, O. Rammstedt (ed.), (Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1989), Vol. II, p. 129.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G. Simmel, “The Problem of Sociology,” in Georg Simmel 1858-1918. A Collection of Essays, K. Wolff (ed.), (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1959), p. 314.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ibidem, pp. 319-320.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    As regards the relationship between Simmel and Weber and the sociology of that period, see Georg Simmel und die frühen Soziologen, O. Rammstedt (ed.), (Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1989).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    On this issue, see H.J. Dahme, Soziologie als exakte Wissenschaft. Georg Simmel Ansatz und seine Bedeutung in der gegenwärtigen Soziologie (Stuttgart: Enke 1981), pp. 465 ff. Also see F. Tenbruck, “Georg Simmel”, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 10 (1958), pp. 603 ff; F. Fellmann, Lebensphilosophie. Elemente einer Theorie der Selbsterfahrung (Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rohwolt, 1993); A. Dal Lago, Il conflitto della modernità. Il pensiero di Georg Simmel (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1994); and finally, my work, P. Giacomoni, Classicità e frammento. Georg Simmel goethiano (Naples: Guida, 1995).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    See D. Frisby, Georg Simmel (London: Tavistock, 1984), pp. 64 ff.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    For further information on this issue, see D.N. Levine, E.B. Carter, E.M. Gorman, “Simmel’s Influence on American Sociology,” in H. Böhringer, K. Gründer (eds.), Aesthetik und Soziologie um die Jahrhundertwende: Georg Simmel (Frankurt a.M.: Klostermann, 1976), pp. 175–228.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    See H. Böhringer’s essay on this topic, “Spuren von spekulativem Atomismus in Simmels formaler Soziologie,” in Aesthetik und Soziologie um die Jahrhundertwende: Georg Simmel, op. cit., pp. 105–114; and Dal Lago, Il conflitto della modernità, op. cit., pp. 43-86.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    See Tenbruck, G. Simmel, op. cit. pp. 604 ff.; on this topic also see K.P. Biesenbach, Subjektivität ohne Substanz (Frankfurt a.M., Bern, New York Lang: 1988).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    G. Simmel, Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung, O. Rammstedt (ed.), (Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1992), p. 262.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    G. Simmel, Philosophie des Geldes, in Gesamtausgabe, op. cit., Vol. VI.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    G. Simmel, “Der Fremde,” in Das Individuelle Gesetz, M. Landmann (ed.), (Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1969), pp. 63–70.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    On these topics see B. Nedelmann, “Ambivalence as a Principle of Socialisation,” Rassegna italiana di sociologia 33 (1992), pp. 233–256 and idem., “Georg Simmel. Emotion und Wechselwirkung in intimen Gruppen,” Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, (Sonderheft, 1983), pp. 179-209.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    G. Simmel, Philosophie der Kunst, Gertrud Simmel (ed.), (Potsdam: Kiepenheuer 1992), p. 41.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ibidem, p. 43.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    G. Simmel, “Bruchstücke einer Psychologie der Frau” (1904), in Schriften zur Philosophie und Soziologie der Geschlechter, H.J. Dahme, K.C. Köhnke (eds.) (Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1985), p. 177.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    K.C. Köhnke (eds.) (Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1985) Ibidem, p. 169.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    K.C. Köhnke (eds.) (Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1985) Ibidem, p. 221.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paola Giacomoni

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations