Discover the world's scientific knowledge

Any comparative discussions of Bergson and Simmel on the issue of life?

Can any scholar familiar with the writings of Georg Simmel help me to track down the original wording of a couple of sentences of his, for which I have only my own distant memory (and that based on a translation into English that may already be a distortion to some extent)?

The phrase was, in effect:

"..... that man (sic) has the ability to divide himself "(ie: conceptually) "into different parts; and to see any of these parts as representing his true self. Thus the tension between the individual and society can be experienced as the tension between different parts of his own self...."

My main area of interest here, incidentally, is in the sociology of mental health. I trust the connection will be obvious...

In a previous question, I have asked for literature about Whitehead/Bachelard. But I now realise there would also be scope for studying comparatively Whitehead and Simmel. Are you aware of any publications about that? Thank you!

There appear to be two versions of Georg Simmel's essay "Das Individuelle Gesetz" (The Individual Law, or, The Law of the Individual) – one dating from 1913 (published in the journal "Logos") and another one dating from 1918 (published in Simmel's last book, "Lebensanschauung").

Is there any systematic discussion of the differences between these two versions?

More generally, any interpretations of the genesis and meaning of the notion of "Individual Law" in Simmel?

Is Servicelearning "Empowerment" strategies compareable to art education "Empowerment"?

A basic idea in empowerment is that actors gain self-confidence, the ability to act and freedom. However, this also includes the freedom not to have to follow the expectations of guidelines - even if they are formulated with the best of intentions.

As early as 1909, the sociologist Georg Simmel described in his text "Bridge and Door" the strange difference between a bridge on which an encounter is possible without any problems, in that actors can pass unhindered from two sides, and a door where the phenomenon of a certain intention is always already present. Who opens and closes the door? Who goes in and who goes out? Who is inside and who is outside? Who needs help and who offers it? Overcoming this subtle imbalance could be a major concern of contemporary empowerment.

I think these questions move service learning and empowerment in the same way. So what is true for social strategies is also true for culture or art.

Is this comparison interesting for service learning?

see:

Simmel, Georg (1909): Bridge and Door. In: The Day. Moderne illustrierte Zeitung No. 683, Morgenblatt of 15 September 1909, Illustrated Part No. 216, pp. 1-3 (Berlin).

Cf. Wolfram, Gernot (2018/to be published): Empowerment - Die Kunst für sich selbst sprechen. Essay. Federal Agency for Civic Education Bonn/Berlin

This question is probably not PC, but the truth rarely is. We read and hear every day about how diversity and multiculturalism is so beneficial for the host society, how we really need it to stay competitive and what not. That we need more and more immigration and tolerance of minorities, and so on, Of course, I am aware of classical urban theorist Simmel and Durkheim, but it is not what I mean. I also do not mean the Weberian urbanization economies. And other sensible positions. What I mean is about today's extreme global diversity and multiculturalism brainwash that really goes beyond any kind of realistic scenarios. As far as I know the answer is 'no', but I am open on this point. I am writing a paper on this and need to be 100% sure.

A relação entre o ruido urbano e a forma como os diversos atores sociais com ele se relacionam tem vindo a ser negligenciada dentro do seio académico (em especial dentro de áreas como a sociologia, antropologia e estudos urbanos). Por certo que, dentro do horizonte das ideias, ligada a uma relação bilateral entre as paisagens socialmente construidas e a evolução das cidades, existem algumas produções (como a de Carlos Fortuna; Augoyard e Torgue; Halligan e Hegarty; entre outros), mas ainda existe alguma falta no sentido da normalização (ou naturalização de G. Simmel) entre os sons e o meio urbano.

Assim, gostaria de perguntar se, dentro dos constrangimentos que a globalização permite, conhecem mais produções dentro desta área?

Obrigado pelo tempo.

There are many lists and ranks for how one should rank a university. The criteria of those lists are certainly worth examining because there're a great deal at stake in terms of intellectual property and accumulation.

And yet how it is possible that a university such as Humboldt, the original research university, whose intellectual contribution could be seen, felt and even exploited (tapped) in our everyday (post-)modern lives be ranked as follows?

Consider what kind of world we would have, for better and worst, without the intellectual output of these Humboldtians.

There are 40 Nobel Prize winners affiliated with the Humboldt University:

1901 Jacobus Henricus van 't Hoff (Chemistry)

1901 Emil Adolf von Behring (Physiology or Medicine)

1902 Hermann Emil Fischer (Chemistry)

1902 Theodor Mommsen (Literature)

1905 Adolf von Baeyer (Chemistry)

1905 Robert Koch (Physiology or Medicine)

1907 Albert Abraham Michelson (Physics)

1907 Eduard Buchner (Chemistry)

1908 Paul Ehrlich (Physiology or Medicine)

1909 Karl Ferdinand Braun (Physics)

1910 Otto Wallach (Chemistry)

1910 Albrecht Kossel (Physiology or Medicine)

1910 Paul Heyse (Literature)

1911 Wilhelm Wien (Physics)

1914 Max von Laue (Physics)

1915 Richard Willstätter (Chemistry)

1918 Fritz Haber (Chemistry)

1918 Max Planck (Physics)

1920 Walther Nernst (Chemistry)

1921 Albert Einstein (Physics)

1925 Gustav Ludwig Hertz (Physics)

1925 James Franck (Physics)

1925 Richard Adolf Zsigmondy (Chemistry)

1928 Adolf Otto Reinhold Windaus (Chemistry)

1929 Hans von Euler-Chelpin (Chemistry)

1931 Otto Heinrich Warburg (Physiology or Medicine)

1932 Werner Heisenberg (Physics)

1933 Erwin Schrödinger (Physics)

1935 Hans Spemann (Physiology or Medicine)

1936 Peter Debye (Chemistry)

1939 Adolf Butenandt (Chemistry)

1944 Otto Hahn (Chemistry)

1950 Kurt Alder (Chemistry)

1950 Otto Diels (Chemistry)

1953 Fritz Albert Lipmann (Physiology or Medicine)

1953 Hans Adolf Krebs (Physiology or Medicine)

1954 Max Born (Physics)

1956 Walther Bothe (Physics)

1991 Bert Sakmann (Physiology or Medicine)

2007 Gerhard Ertl (Chemistry)