Friedrich Albert Lange
Friedrich Albert Lange (b. 1828, d. 1875) was a German philosopher, pedagogist, political activist, and journalist. Lange is a significant figure among the mid nineteenth century German intellectuals who were concerned to think through the impact of developments in natural science for philosophy, pedagogy, and politics.
Lange was one of the originators of “physiological neo-Kantianism” and an important figure in the founding of the Marburg school of neo-Kantianism. He played a significant role in the German labour movement and in the development of social democratic thought. He articulated a socialist Darwinism that was an alternative to early social Darwinism. His work The History of Materialism and Critique of its Contemporary Significance was a classic text in materialism and the history of philosophy well into the twentieth century. The “materialism controversy” (see Beiser 2014a, chapter 9, and 2014b, chapter 2) centered on the impact of materialist science and philosophy on religion and metaphysics. Lange’s response to the materialism controversy had an influence on the neo-Kantian movement and on Friedrich Nietzsche, among others. His work in logic, culminating in the Logical Studies, derived the syllogistic from diagrammatic reasoning, and was admired by Ernst Schröder and John Venn.
Lange’s sympathetic critique of materialism, his philosophical naturalism, and his political activism unite his diverse achievements, and distinguish him among nineteenth century philosophers.
- 1. Life and Career
- 2. Pedagogy
- 3. The Labor Question
- 4. Materialism and Neo-Kantianism
- 5. Lange as Intellectual and Activist
- Academic Tools
- Other Internet Resources
- Related Entries
Lange was born on September 28, 1828 in Wald near Solingen, Germany. He was the son of a protestant theologian, pastor and professor. Soon after Lange was born, the family moved to Langenberg near Elberfeld and then in 1832 to Duisburg. Lange went to both elementary school and high school in Duisburg. The family moved in 1841 to Zurich so that his father could take up the position as pastor and Professor of Theology that had been withdrawn from David Friedrich Strauss as a result of Strauss’s controversial book, The Life of Jesus. Lange continued his high school education in Zurich. Lange also attended lectures at the university for two semesters on philology and theology. He was exposed to both Hegel and Herbart in Zurich. This exposure to Herbart influenced his later interests in education theory, but more importantly led him back to Kant. In 1848 he went to study philology at the University of Bonn under Friedrich Ritschl. Here he also took courses in philosophy, the history of classical German literature, and analytic geometry and calculus. He finished a dissertation on Greek poetry, “Quaestiones metricae”, and was awarded his doctorate in 1851.
After doing his military service in Cologne, he became an assistant high school teacher there in 1852 at the Friedrich-Wilhelms-Gymnasium. After failing in three years to be promoted from assistant teacher to teacher, he resigned and received his habilitation (qualification as a university lecturer) at the University of Bonn. In 1855 he became a Privatdozent of Philosophy and Pedagogy at the University of Bonn. His inaugural lecture was on the relation between the education systems and dominant world views of various time periods (Lange 1855). He gave lectures on psychology and pedagogy. He began lecturing on the history of materialism during the summer of 1857. This was the beginning of the research that would eventually yield his book, The History of Materialism, many years later. He also gave lectures on “Moralstatistik”, the view popular in some circles in the nineteenth century that there are statistical correlations between the rates of certain kinds of morally significant behavior such as crimes, marriages, and suicides. Lange’s thoughts about how to reform logic also begin during this period even though his book, Logical Studies, that eventually emerged from his investigations, was only published posthumously. It is presumably significant for his later views that during this time he heard Hermann von Helmholtz lecture on the “Physiology of the Sense Organs”.
After failing to find a university position better than that of Privatdozent, he accepted an offer to teach at his old school, the Duisburg Gymnasium. He taught there from 1858–1862. He gave classes on Greek, Latin, German and philosophy. He was also busy outside the classroom writing reports for the school authorities and participating in politics as an elector. He wrote many articles for Karl Schmid’s encyclopedia of pedagogy during this time (Lange 1869–75). This was the period when Lange really became interested in, and became engaged with, politics. He became a political activist engaged in the then burgeoning German civil society. He participated in the organization of the new consumer cooperatives meant to help the working class avoid exploitation by merchant traders—the traders sold low-quality goods at high prices and encouraged indebtedness. He was involved with the liberal, nationalist society, the Deutsche Nationalverein (whose members were later to form a similarly motivated political party, the Deutsche Fortschrittspartei) attempting to achieve German unification.
The political activism brought him into conflict with various authorities. He had to quit his teaching post because of political problems in 1862. The school authorities had issued a decree in January warning teachers not to engage in “agitation”. Lange attempted to organize the teachers against the decree. He followed this up with a spirited public defense of the view that teachers needed to be fully active citizens in order to lead their students, by example, to the life of a true citizen (Lange 1862). Lange continued to resist attempts by the authorities to bring state employees, including teachers, into line. Another warning followed in June and, despite some failed attempts at reconciliation with the authorities, Lange decided to leave his position at the end of the school year. He became co-editor of the liberal Rhein- und Ruhrzeitung and secretary of the Duisburg Chamber of Commerce. The newspaper was an outspoken critic of the right-wing policies of Bismarck, and already had strained relations with the authorities. Lange also wrote for other papers and magazines, and often resorted to publishing short pamphlets that were widely distributed. He joined the management of a small publishing house with the intention of publishing a series of popular works for the working class.
Despite working on a liberal paper, his own position shifted in the socialist direction. His political positions split the editorial staff of the newspaper, and alienated the members of the Chamber of Commerce. He soon left the newspaper because he thought it was not taking the interests of the working class seriously enough. Similarly, he broke with the Fortschrittspartei and what he took to be its anti-worker platform.
A crucial event in his political development was his participation, a few weeks after Ferdinand Lassalle’s death, in the second Congress of the German Workers’ Association, Vereinstag deutscher Arbeitervereine (VDAV) in Leipzig in October 1864. The VDAV was founded initially as a counterweight to Lassalle’s more radical, more Prussian, Allgemeine Deutsche Arbeiterverein (ADAV) (General German Workers’ Association)—one of the ancestors of the current Social Democratic Party. The VDAV was set up as a loose organization, in contrast again to the ADAV, but acquired more structure later as the Federation of German Workers’ Associations, Verband Deutscher Arbeitervereine (and so kept the same initials in German) (SED 1966, 216; Na’aman 1980). Lange was there at the 1864 Congress as a representative of his Duisburg consumers’ cooperative. He was elected to the Standing Committee and attempted to mediate between various factions, in particular between the Lassalleans of the ADAV and the more liberal participants of the Congress. The politics were quite complicated, since there were voices even further to the left of the leadership of the ADAV, famously Marx and Engels. The disagreements were in essence about which existing social, political, and economic structures and forces should or had to be accepted and worked within, and which could and should be replaced. The disagreements reflected splits between the middle class and the working class. Despite his role as mediator, Lange was clear that the workers must not be co-opted for a middle class, liberal agenda and that the workers’ movement as a whole must remain focused on the class interests of the working class (Bernstein 1892, 139; Mehring 1908, 368). Lange failed to succeed in his mediating efforts, and felt compelled to explain his own position in his Arbeiterfrage (The Labor Question) (Lange 1865a).
These political fights pushed to the background Lange’s plans to publish short works for the working class. He did publish two smaller works (Lange 1863b, 1865c). He was also writing his most famous book, The History of Materialism, during this time. In his Grundlegung der mathematischen Psychologie (1865b), also written during this time, he indicated that he had already finished his History of Materialism. It eventually came out in print in 1866.
With August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht, Lange continued to try to push the VDAV to the left, from the initial liberal position of Hermann Schulze-Delitzsch towards a position that took the interests of the working class itself more seriously (Bebel 1958, 103; Hundt 1965; Na’aman 1980, xxv). He also joined the International Working Men’s Association, the First International, in 1866 (Weikart 1999, 84). As the political repression increased, newspapers were no longer willing to publish Lange’s articles. Lange set up his own newspaper, Der Bote vom Niederrhein, that ran from October 1865 to June 1866. Marx and Engels had turned down his initial request for support for such a newspaper (Lange 1968b, 78–79; Irmer 1975, 14). Lange had intended the newspaper to help maintain unity within the workers’ movement, but he failed in these efforts (Hundt 1965, 694–96; Offermann 2002, 42, 147–148; Lange  1968a, 23 May 1866, 3 June 1866). By the end of this period Lange was politically isolated, having broken with the liberals, and being unwilling to fully join the socialists. He was also losing hope in the working class, and felt that the left was being outmaneuvered by Bismarck, in part because of the international military successes of Bismarckian politics (Ellissen 1905, 7; Nipperdey 1985, 790–803). Discouraged, he left for Switzerland.
He settled in Winterthur, became co-editor of the Winterthurer Landboten, and joined a friend’s publishing house. He became very involved in Swiss politics, particularly in the movement to reform the constitution and make it more democratic—a movement that was particularly strong in his Zurich canton. He was on the boards of many social organizations and on various state committees as an expert on education, banking, and the railways (Weinkauff 1883, 30). During this time, he also taught occasionally at the Winterthur Gymnasium. He continued working on his contributions to Schmid’s education encyclopedia (Lange 1859–75) and he responded to criticisms of the first edition of his History of Materialism in Neue Beiträge zur Geschichte des Materialismus (Lange 1867).
In 1869 he joined the Zurich faculty as a Privatdozent. He finished the heavily revised second edition of the Arbeiterfrage in 1870. In 1870 he also finally received a professorship at Zurich, though, unfortunately, this happened quite soon after he was diagnosed with cancer. Despite the illness he continued working on the second edition of The History of Materialism (Lange 1873–75). After rejecting offers from Königsberg and Würzburg, he accepted an invitation to take up a professorship at Marburg in 1872. He gave lectures right till the end, but cancer eventually led to his death on 21 November 1875 in Marburg.
One of Lange’s earliest intellectual interests was in theoretical questions about the purpose and method of education. Before he had even taken up his first job as a high school teacher in Cologne, he was already thinking and writing about reforming the German Gymnasium system. Like others, he was concerned that the emphasis on the classics in the Gymnasia failed to prepare students for a time in which the natural sciences were increasingly important (Lange 1865a, 401).
Lange returned throughout his career to questions of pedagogy and the history of pedagogy. Knoll concludes that, despite his many publications and lectures on pedagogy, despite his collaboration with K. A. Schmid on the Encyklopädie des gesammten Erziehungs- und Unterrichtwesens, Lange appears not to have made a significant impact, either on his contemporaries or in the history of pedagogy (Knoll 1975a, 8). He attempted to give lectures on pedagogy when he started teaching at the University of Bonn, but failed to generate any interest among the students for his lectures (Knoll 1975b, 112–13). Knoll’s claims are dubious, however. As Beiser (2014a) points out, almost all professors at the time in Jena, for instance, had trouble attracting students to their lectures because “there were not enough students” (p. 41). Moreover, Jacobsen (1999), Köhnke (1991), and others observe that Max Weber counted Lange’s lectures among his favorites (Jacobsen 1999, 7 and passim), and that the pedagogist Friedrich Paulsen, and the philosophers and pedagogists Paul Natorp and Hans Vaihinger, among others, were influenced significantly by Lange’s work (Köhnke 1991, 211–213 and passim). Finally, Lange’s colleague in Bonn, Friedrich Überweg, wrote in his well-known and widely used textbook Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie notes Lange’s influence on the pedagogist and educator Theobald Ziegler (1846–1918) (p. 249).
Lange claimed that the purpose of education should be to produce rational, cultured citizens. Lange tried to show that turning to both the history of education and the history of pedagogy would throw light on the question of how to produce such citizens. The history of education would help us understand the way in which social, cultural and political conditions interact to bring about specific kinds of education in particular historical contexts (Lange 1855).
Creating free citizens and leaders requires that the teachers themselves be actively engaged in their communities as citizens. Teachers should not be prevented from political engagement, as only politically engaged teachers will be able to communicate to their students the love of freedom and fatherland. As he was later to emphasize in his History of Materialism, simply instructing people, including students, to be ethical—to be concerned with the good of humanity in general—does not have much of an impact. In the case of education one can have an impact by presenting a role model and by being a personal inspiration for one’s students. His example is that of Thomas Arnold of Rugby, whom he believed was able to shape his students’ ethical views precisely because he was so impressive as a person. This personality was the result of, and constituted by, his active engagement with the political issues of his time (Lange 1862).
Christian virtues were for Lange an essential part of education; however, the relevant form of Christianity seems to be quite vague, indeed bordering at times on some form of “indeterminate pantheism” (Knoll 1975a, 13). This is no surprise given his later discussions of religion (see below). Education, in the inclusive sense of Bildung, also required instruction in philosophy. Exposure to philosophy is an essential part of learning how to make reasoned decisions. There must also be education in politics. This gives one the requisite knowledge to participate in political affairs and helps prepare one for being a citizen (Knoll 1975b, 123).
The importance of education, and the crucial role of the freedom of thought in education, implied, for Lange, that any social entity should have the right to set up schools and decide what should be taught in them. The state should set up schools only where existing structures of civil society have failed to generate enough schools. The state should restrict the opening of a school only when it poses a genuine threat to a legitimate state or explicitly promotes criminal activity. There should be no requirement that there be any religious instruction, let alone a requirement that any particular religion be taught. In state schools, there should be no religious instruction (Lange 1968b, 125–127).
Lange tries to take a middle position on the relative importance of natural talent and social environment for both the method and results of education. He grants that there probably are given differences in dispositions, but maintains that the environment has a significant influence on how these dispositions express themselves and on how students’ talents develop. He criticizes social Darwinist theories that think there is no need to pay attention to the barriers to development created by the lack of economic or social privileges (Lange 1873–75, 255; Lange 1894a, 48–49). On the other hand, he warns against an idealism that assumes fundamental human equality of ability (Knoll 1975a, 19–20).
Finally, Lange went against contemporary trends to argue that pedagogy should be informed by the emerging science of empirical psychology; though he granted that empirical psychology was a very young discipline that had so far failed to produce many compelling results (Lange 1859–1875, “Seelenlehre”, 142; Knoll 1975a, 16). He emphasized the importance of statistical methods—an emphasis that was also quite prescient for the later development of pedagogy (Knoll 1975a, 19).
Lange developed an interest in, and sympathy for, labor movements in their socialist and communist manifestations from the very early days of his university career. He should probably be regarded as occupying a middle position between left liberalism and socialism.
The first edition of the Arbeiterfrage was created in response to heated debates about political strategy in the developing labor movement. It was followed by a second and third edition that took up more theoretical questions. The Arbeiterfrage was, like the works of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and others of the period, shaped by a direct experience of rapid industrialization. A crucial consequence of this industrialization was the generation of an impoverished urban working class. The heart of this process in Germany was in the Ruhrgebiet and in the Rhineland, where Lange lived. Lange concluded that the solution to the problem of what to do about the working class, the “Arbeiterfrage”—literally the “worker question”—as it was called, must come from the workers themselves. This required politically organizing the workers and their organizations to form a front against the bourgeoisie (Irmer 1975, 2).
Lange’s position is one of socialist Darwinism (as opposed to social Darwinism). Lange accepted a modified version of Thomas Malthus’s concerns about the relation between increases in population and food production: “The truth of the Malthusian theory consists therefore in this, that the growth of the population constantly reaches the limit that the growth of the means of subsistence permits” (Lange 1975b, 31; Weikart 1999, 86). This is an essential part of the explanation of the social conditions of the working class. He quotes Darwin to emphasize that it is population pressure that lies behind the struggle for existence for all organisms. This, he emphasizes, includes humans (Lange 1894, 2). Within capitalism, the struggle for existence for the working class becomes a struggle for wages.
Malthus granted in principle that measures like contraception could prevent the increase in population that reduces standards of living to the subsistence level but he held out little hope. Lange was more sanguine, but the positive note in his book may have come too late to prevent its opening chapters from ensuring its unpopularity. The talk of the struggle for existence, and the rigid-sounding laws that govern it, could hardly have been inspiring to the workers’ movement it was meant for (Mehring 1960, 352). Nonetheless, Lange did not draw the conclusions from Darwin that the social Darwinists did. He did not take Darwinism as supporting capitalism, in part because he took it to be a mistake to straightforwardly infer any normative conclusions from the Darwinian explanatory claims. He seemed to regard the principles appealed to in Darwin and Malthus as natural tendencies that could be mitigated by human reason. These explanatory laws do not determine how we should think, nor do they determine how we must inevitably think:
In our present writing on the labor question Darwin plays a large role, insofar as we have attempted to derive the conditions which produce the labor question from the principles developed by Darwin, without, however, viewing them as absolutely necessary ingredients of human existence. (Lange 1975b, 30–31; Weikart 1999, 89)
Just as human reason can control and mitigate the struggle for existence among the plants we cultivate, it can control and mitigate the struggle for existence among humans.
Once the quality of their living conditions becomes high enough, the working class will become reasonable enough to be susceptible to rational arguments in favor of having a reasonable number of children. Their lack of rationality in this matter is a result of their misery and ignorance. The improvement of living conditions to a sufficient level requires organizing the working class so that they can demand better wages and a decrease in the concentration of capital. This may be possible while maintaining private property in the means of production, but, if not, we should try for communism, or whatever other path promises success, including various forms of mixed economies. We will only learn slowly through experience what the best system is (Lange 1866a, 113–114; Lange 1894a, 212–262).
It is important to note, given the political context in which Lange was writing, that he did not seem to think that some revolutionary act would bring us suddenly closer to such improved conditions of existence. He saw the process of such development as a slow one. Simply changing the legal property relations or the official structure of the state will not be sufficient, he argues. What is required in addition to changes in the structure of the state and the legal system are fundamental changes in the way people think, which will always take time. The reform of the state and laws provides the preconditions for this change in consciousness, but does not bring about this change immediately. Lange is careful not to deny that the kind of revolution some socialists and communists supported could bring us closer to the goal. But any such revolution would be merely one step in a long process that will involve both progress and regress (Lange 1894a, 249–251).
On the other hand “the view that the state has nothing to do with the matter” is just as mistaken (Lange 1894a, 250). Lange criticizes the kind of self-help approach that some of the liberal middle-class, in particular Franz-Hermann Schulze-Delitzsch, famously pushed. Schulze-Delitzsch believed that the goals of the liberal bourgeoisie and the working class did not have to be thought of as in conflict.The problems facing the working class could be dealt with within the existing capitalist mode of production. The working class, to put it crudely, could, thanks to the help of a series of consumer, credit and production cooperatives, educate itself and save enough money to compete with capitalists on their own terms. Lange thought this position was completely unrealistic, and that those who pushed it failed to actually listen to the workers themselves. He criticized the paternalistic attitude of these liberal reformers and mocked their inability to even understand the dialects spoken by many of the workers.
Marx and Engels disagreed strongly with Lange’s position (Weikart 1999, 31; Marx and Engels 1975, 43: 158, 527–528). The view Engels expresses in a letter to Lange seems to be that taking the Malthusian view requires treating what is a historical law, in other words a contingent law that holds during a particular mode of production, as an “eternal” law. The problem of producing enough is a problem generated by the existing mode of production. The technological means available then and in the future are and would be more than enough to deal with any increases in population as long as capitalism is overcome. Theories of eternal laws are part of an ideology that supports the existing mode of production because they present what are contingent laws as necessary, thus creating the impression that the social order cannot be changed. This inhibits the interest in changing society (Lange 1968b, 80–81; Marx and Engels 1975, 42: 136).
They also disagreed about the usefulness of Hegel. Lange suspected that Hegelian dialectic, even in the more empiricist and materialist form that Marx deployed it, was not very useful for purposes of explanation. He expresses his surprise that at a time in which Hegel was no longer taken seriously in philosophy, Hegelian ideas could be so influential in the workers’ movement, in the thought of Lassalle and Marx (Lange 1894a, 247–249, 260–262). Lange had immense respect for Marx, and thought of him as the leading economist of the time. However, he thought that when it came to Marx’s writings, the Hegelian “speculative form … tiresomely intrudes on the content of some parts of the work to the disadvantage of its effectiveness” and undermines the effect of the “astounding” display of detailed empirical evidence (Lange 1894a, 248). Lange also thought that the emphasis on revolution, and the thought that a revolution could somehow suddenly change the conditions of the working class and the mode of production, was also the result of the negative influence of Hegel. Marx and Engels, on the other hand, were committed to some kind of dialectic form of explanation. Marx thought that Lange’s basic attitude towards Hegel and dialectic was fundamentally mistaken—“simply childish”—and, indeed, showed that Lange “understands rien [nothing] about Hegel’s method and therefore, second, still less about my critical manner of applying it” (Marx and Engels 1975, 43: 528). There is evidence that Lange did understand what was at stake, though, as is shown by his clear discussion of idealism in psychology, and in the study of nature in general, in his “Seelenlehre” (Lange 1859–1875, 144–45).
Lange had an indirect impact on what was later known as the revisionist debate within socialism. Eduard Bernstein, the father of revisionism, eventually broke with Marxian orthodoxy, and argued that achieving socialism did not require a revolution, or at least that much could be achieved by working within existing democratic political structures. This was in part a result of Bernstein’s developing neo-Kantianism. He claimed that it was primarily Lange’s work that led him to both Kant and revisionism (Vorländer 1900, 47; Bernstein 1892). He suggests that when it comes to articulating a path forward for socialism, “I would translate ‘back to Kant’ by ‘back to Lange’” (Bernstein 1902, 187–88).
The domination of German philosophy by Hegelian Idealism for the first third of the nineteenth century was followed by a revival of materialism. This was in part brought on by the criticisms of Christian theology and supernaturalism in David Friedrich Strauss’s The Life of Jesus and the criticisms of Christian theology and Hegelian idealism in the works of Ludwig Feuerbach, most famously in The Essence of Christianity. The revival was also given impetus by the recent successes and the increasing prestige of the natural sciences. This new materialism was represented by figures including Karl Vogt, Jacob Moleschott, Eugen Dühring, Ludwig Büchner, and Heinrich Czolbe. These materialists explicitly took the natural sciences as their ideal. Indeed, many of them were practicing natural scientists. See Edgar (2015), sections 6.2, 6.5, and passim, for analysis of Büchner’s and Lange’s accounts of objectivity.
Lange thought that materialism faced serious philosophical problems; however, he also thought that Hegelian idealism was bankrupt. What was needed was a philosophical approach that would be compatible with the recent successes of materialistic explanations as deployed by the natural sciences but not simply be a form of materialism. Lange was one of the first in this period to argue that the appropriate response to the philosophical situation in Germany at the middle of the nineteenth century was to return to Kant. Beiser (2014) contains a careful appreciation of Lange as a central figure in the “Coming of Age” of Neo-Kantianism; see Patton (2015) and Edgar (2015) for reviews of Beiser. As Lange put it in a letter, “I take the Hegelian System to be a step backward towards Scholasticism from which we are really already free. Herbart, to whom I first attached myself, was for me only a bridge to Kant, to whom so many honest researchers return in order to, where possible, complete what Kant had only half done: the annihilation of metaphysics” (Ellissen 1894, 106). Lange was thus one of the founding figures in what was to emerge as the neo-Kantian movement rallied by Otto Liebmann’s slogan “Back to Kant!”
While keeping much of the language of Kant, Hermann von Helmholtz, among others, worked to change the questions being asked in Kant’s name and the methods used to find answers to these questions. It is not easy to assess the degree of continuity between the strands of neo-Kantianism that emerged and Kant’s own interests. Lange is sometimes taken as the founder of the Marburg School of neo-Kantianism. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Lange was a mentor of the first famous member of the Marburg School, Hermann Cohen. The other famous members were Paul Natorp and Ernst Cassirer.
The appendices of the second volume of Holzhey (1986) contains Cohen’s correspondence, including some correspondence between Cohen and Lange. In general, Holzhey (1986) is an excellent source of information on the foundation of the Marburg School. Holzhey and Buée (2011) and Holzhey (2005) explore the relationship between Cohen and Lange. Karl Vorländer published a review of Cohen’s lengthy “Introduction” to Lange’s History of Materialism in 1897, in Kant-Studien. Vorländer’s brief review nonetheless sets out a number of differences of method and conclusion between Cohen and Lange. In many ways Hermann Cohen returned to a conception of the basic questions of epistemology that was closer to Kant’s, one Vorländer calls “critical idealism”. Lange, on the other hand, drew on Helmholtz’s early thought to conclude that the scientific investigation of the physiology of the sense organs provided partial confirmation of Kant’s fundamental claims.
In the 1850s, Helmholtz had argued that contemporary science was confirming on empirical grounds insights that Kant had had but that Kant took as supported by a priori considerations. In his famous address, “On Goethe’s Scientific Researches”, he claimed:
The result of [scientific] examination, as at present understood, is that the organs of sense do indeed give us information about external effects produced on them, but convey those effects to our consciousness in a totally different form, so that the character of a sensuous perception depends not so much on the properties of the object perceived as on those of the organ by which we receive the information. (Helmholtz 1853, 13)
The ground for this conclusion was supposed to be the fact, uncovered by physiology, that nerves are not faithful transmitters of external properties to consciousness:
All the optic nerve conveys to us, it conveys under the form of a sensation of light, whether it be the rays of the sun, or a blow in the eye, or an electric current passing through it. Again, the auditory nerve translates everything into phenomena of sound, the nerves of the skin into sensations of temperature or touch. … The same ray of sunshine, which is called light when it falls on the eye, we call heat when it falls on the skin. (Helmholtz 1853, 13)
He then concluded:
Perhaps the relation between our senses and the external world may be best enunciated as follows: our sensations are for us only symbols of the objects of the external world, and correspond to them only in some such way as written characters or articulate words to the things they denote. They give us, it is true, information respecting the properties of things without us, but no better information than we give a blind man about colour by verbal descriptions. (Helmholtz 1853, 14)
Thus, “what the recent physiology of the senses has shown by the way of experience is what Kant had tried to show for the representations of the human mind in general when he laid out the participation of the particular, built-in rules of the mind, the organization of the mind as it were, in our representations” (Helmholtz 1855, 58).
Helmholtz thinks the confirmation of Kant goes further. The only way to get from the “world of sensations” to the “world of reality”, the “external world”, is through an inference. We infer that there is an external world because there has to be a “cause of our nerve excitations because there can be no effect without cause.” But, Helmholtz asks, “How do we know that there is no effect without a cause?” This is not a principle we could learn from experience since it is the principle we need in place before we can come to any conclusions about the world including the conclusion that cause follows effect. Thus, “the investigation of sensory perception also leads us to what Kant had already recognized, namely that the principle, ‘No effect without cause’, is a law of our thought given before all experience” (Helmholtz 1855, 77).
Thus, as he puts it later, what science shows us does not decide the question between idealism and realism:
It is always good to keep this in mind so as not to conclude more from the facts than is warranted. The different shadings of idealistic and realistic opinions are metaphysical hypothesis which, so long as they are recognized as such, and however injurious they may become when represented as dogma or as supposed necessities of thought, are completely justified scientifically. (Helmholtz 1878, 360).
One should wholeheartedly welcome the successes of natural science and empirical methodology, but the naive realism of the materialists was mistaken. The epistemological questions need to be taken seriously.
Lange’s most famous book, The History of Materialism and Critique of its Contemporary Significance, is in essence a defense of such a return to Kant. It is also a detailed history of materialism (and was read well into the twentieth century for precisely this reason). However, more fundamentally, it was meant to drive home the above mentioned concerns about materialism. Lange accepted materialism as a sensible maxim for the construction of theories within natural science. However, as a comprehensive philosophical system, as both fundamental ontology and epistemology, materialism is self-undermining.
Lange’s History is divided into two parts. The first part covers the history of materialism from the atomism of Democritus till the time of Kant. It includes discussions of what Lange considers to be reactions to materialism: the philosophical positions of Plato and Aristotle and the theological positions taken by both Christian and Muslim scholars. He includes a discussion of the dominance of Aristotelianism in the writings of the Scholastics. Materialism finally returns with the regeneration of science. In this context, after discussions of Gassendi and Hobbes, he turns to Newton and Locke. Finally he treats Leibniz as a German reaction to materialism.
The second part covers the history of materialism from the time of Kant. The opening section of this part is a discussion of Kant’s own position in relation to materialism and sets the stage for Lange’s “back to Kant” arguments. These arguments are directed against the contemporary forms of materialism mentioned above.
Lange claims that “the empirical method has celebrated its highest triumph” in the physiology of the sense organs. But this triumph “at the same time … leads us to the very limits of our knowledge, and betrays to us at least so much of the sphere beyond it as to convince us of its existence” (Lange 1873–75, 3:202; see also 2:158). Such physiological investigation into the sense organs may initially look favourable for the materialists, in that it promises to give us a materialistic account of our knowledge of the world. In fact, it is deadly to materialism as an ontology. Physiology shows us that the sense organs do not show us how the world really is and indeed that our very concept of matter may have nothing to do with what is really there in the world (Lange 1873–75, 3: 205–19).
The arguments Lange deploys are drawn from research into the physiology of perception, by materialist researchers and by Helmholtz himself. For example, Lange claims that the physiology of our eyes shows that the visual sensation of a single three-dimensional object in front of me is in fact a composite generated from the two two-dimensional stimulations of each of my retinas (Lange 1873-75, 3:203). Supposedly we learn that even the simplest of sensations is not the result of a single natural process, but the combination of many different processes (3:203–204). Furthermore, we learn that “colours, sounds, smells, &c., do not belong to things in themselves, … they are peculiar forms of excitation of our sensibility, which are called forth by corresponding but qualitatively very different phenomena in the world” (3:217). Indeed, according to these physiological accounts, only a very specific set of vibrations is picked out and the rest are ignored (3:217). We learn that there is a blind spot on the retina but that the brain fills in the spot when constructing our image of the world (3:220). The conclusion Lange wants us to draw from all of this is that the world we think we see is radically different from the way the world really is by materialism’s own lights.
Lange considers the possibility that many of these then commonplace arguments could perhaps be seen merely as arguments in favour of a subjective account of secondary qualities and that one could respond by insisting that nonetheless the empirical theory we construct gives us a correct account of the primary qualities. Indeed, for all that has been said, someone might argue, we may still be warranted in thinking that reality is composed of bodies in motion in space. However, Lange wants to resist even this move, the “last refuge of Materialism” as he calls it (3:224):
Just as the vibrations of the phenomenal world we have to deal with are related to the colours of the immediately seen, so too an entirely, to us, inconceivable order of things might be related to the order of time and space that rules in our perceptions. (3:224–225)
Physical space, for example, could easily be, Lange claims, of more than three dimensions without that having any effect on our phenomenal world (3:227). Thus materialism, as the belief in “material, self-existent things” is thoroughly undermined: the “consistent Materialistic view thus changes around, therefore, into a consistently idealistic view” (Lange 1873–75, 3:215, 223).
In trying to understand Lange’s position, it is helpful to see the kind of view he thinks would in principle escape these worries. Lange considers one version of materialism in his book that he thinks does not undermine itself. This is the position of Heinrich Czolbe, the author of Neue Darstellung des Sensualismus. Lange credits him for being the only one among the materialists to truly face up to the problems regarding perception generated by materialism for itself (Lange 1873–75, 2: 105).
Czolbe gets credit from Lange for facing up to the self-undermining nature of materialism, precisely because Czolbe takes as central the problem created by the above mentioned empirical arguments about the nature of nerve processes in sense organs. He takes this to be the problem that Feuerbach, Vogt, Moleschott, and others have not dealt with adequately (Czolbe 1855, vi; Lange 1873–75, 3:286). Indeed, Czolbe complains that the physiologists play right into the hands of the speculative, idealistic philosophers, because they do not think through the philosophical consequences of their physiological theories (Czolbe 1856, 27–28). The only way to defeat the speculative philosophers, Czolbe argues, is to insist that sensory qualities are mechanically propagated through the nerves without any change (Czolbe 1855, 14; 1856, 15–16, 27–28). His view appears to be that qualitative properties such as colours or sounds are transmitted directly from the outside to the inside. The suggestion is that colours and sounds exist independently of the subject. They are not generated by the nerves, rather, they are transmitted to the inside of the brain by the nerves. Of course, Czolbe was not ignorant of wave theories of light or sound, but claimed that the wave particle already is the colour or sound, which has only to be transmitted to the right spot in the brain in order for us to be conscious of it. As Lange mockingly emphasizes, the sound waves somehow involve the experience of their sound in themselves already (Lange 1873–75, 2:111). Czolbe appears to bite this bullet, and accepts Hermann Lotze’s description of his view, according to which
the sensible qualities of sensation are already completely present in the external stimuli, that from a red-radiating object a ready-made redness, from a sound source a melody, detaches itself in order to penetrate into us through the portals of the sense organs (Czolbe 1856, 14).
If this were the correct view of how the sense organs work, then, Czolbe claims, we would have an empirical account of knowledge that was not self-undermining.
One immediate problem was how to defend such a view against the empirical evidence then available. Consider, for example, something Czolbe was aware of, namely, the presence of electrical currents in nerves. The worry for Czolbe is that light waves end up being converted to electrical currents in the nerves, which might lead back to the supposedly self-undermining empirical stories of the other materialists. Czolbe’s response is first to point out that it is possible that both electricity and light—not just light waves but the sensations of light—could be transmitted at the same time. He then points to supposed empirical data that at the moment of excitation the electrical current in the nerve weakens. This, he thinks, is decisive evidence that the electrical current is not responsible for transmission since if it were, the electrical current would have to increase at the moment of excitation rather than decrease (Czolbe 1855: 16–17).
Lange concedes that Czolbe’s materialism, were it to actually be supported by empirical evidence, is in principle able to avoid undermining itself. To Lange, though, Czolbe has to twist the empirical evidence, and so Czolbe’s materialism ultimately does undermine itself. Lange accuses Czolbe of being obstinate and treating the results of scientific investigations in an unscientific manner, as mere illusions that would disappear on closer examination (Lange 1873–75, 2:291).
Lange thus thinks he has good grounds for drawing the following conclusions from his discussion of physiology and materialism:
- The sense-world is a product of our organisation.
- Our visible (bodily) organs are, like all other parts of the phenomenal world, only pictures of an unknown object.
- The transcendent basis of our organisation remains therefore just as unknown to us as the things which act upon it. We have always before us only the product of both. (Lange 1873–75, 3: 219)
He sees himself as agreeing with Helmholtz when Helmholtz “resolves the activity of the senses into a kind of inference” (Lange 1873–75, 3:228). It does not follow, he emphasizes, that “the search for a physical mechanism of sensation, as of thought, [is] superfluous or inadmissible. At length, however, we see that such a mechanism, like every other represented mechanism, must be itself only a necessarily occurring picture of an unknown state of things” (Lange 1873–75, 3:229). He concludes:
The senses give us, as Helmholtz says, effects of things, not faithful copies, let alone the things themselves. To these mere effects, however, belong also the senses themselves, together with the brain and the supposed molecular movements in it. We must therefore recognise the existence of a transcendent world order, whether this depends on “things-in-themselves”, or whether—since even the “thing in itself” is but a last application of our intuitive thought—it depends on mere relations, which exhibit themselves in various minds as various kinds and stages of the sensible, without its being at all conceivable what an adequate appearance of the absolute in a cognizing mind would be. (Lange 1873–75, 3:230)
That we do not have knowledge of this transcendent order shows us that all metaphysics is, like art, a creation of the imagination. Nonetheless we should still “in natural science everywhere apply the same conceptions and methods as the Materialist; but what to the latter is definitive truth is to the Idealist only the necessary result of our organisation” (Lange 1873–75, 3:324).
As the nineteenth century came to a close, critics of the Back to Kant movement, including Ernst Mach, began to question Helmholtz’s and Lange’s appeal to the thing in itself. Edgar (2012) identifies a “deep tension”: Helmholtz and Lange “wanted to conceive of things in themselves as the causes of our sensations, while their own accounts of causal inference ruled that claim out” (p. 1). Edgar (2012) goes on to argue that “These Neo-Kantians’ problems with things in themselves were fully solved only by Ernst Mach, in the context of the uncompromisingly austere theory of knowledge he developed in the early 1880s, in his 1882 ‘The Economical Nature of Physical Inquiry’ and his 1884 ‘Contributions to the Analysis of Sensations’” (p. 2). While Mach is critical of Helmholtz and of Lange, Edgar emphasizes nonetheless that:
In a context where German-speaking philosophers were responding in a variety of ways to a rapid accumulation of results in experimental psychology and the physiology of the sense organs, Mach’s views of knowledge from the 1880s are in certain central respects continuous with the psychologistic epistemology that Back to Kant Neo-Kantians sought to articulate over the course of the 1860s and 1870s. Like Lange and others, Mach took Müller’s and Helmholtz’s physiological investigations of sensory processes as a model for how to marshal the methods of natural science in the project of explaining the cognitive processes that give rise to knowledge (p. 19).
In summer 2015, a special issue of Philosophical Readings, edited by Pietro Gori, focused on “Anti-metaphysical Psychology”. Gori (2015b) and Martinelli (2015), especially, focus on Lange’s place within the tradition of “psychology without a soul”, as Lange and Brentano dubbed it. The work of Michael Heidelberger (2015, among other works) investigates Lange’s place in the physiological tradition.
Lange’s History of Materialism is known to have had an influence on Friedrich Nietzsche, who learned about Gustav Fechner and others in the “psychophysics” movement from Lange’s work. Nietzsche went on to re-define philosophy as “psycho-physiology” in Beyond Good and Evil (Nietzsche 2002/1886, 23, see also Gori 2015a). George L. Stack’s Lange and Nietzsche brought the question of Lange’s influence on Nietzsche to the forefront. For critical responses see Breazeale (1989), Seigfried (1989), Wilcox (1989), and Pletsch (1991); also see Salaquarda (1978, 1979, and 1996). Stack responds to critics in Stack (1989 and 1991). More recently, R. Kevin Hill assesses the influence of Lange, Schopenhauer, and Kant on Nietszche’s thought (2003); for a critical perspective see Clark and Dudrick (2005).
The section following details Lange’s criticisms of metaphysics and religion on the basis of materialism and scientific achievement, and his argument that the ethical standpoint, like metaphysics, is a creation of the imagination like Schiller’s poetry. These ideas are perhaps one reason why Nietzsche himself cited Lange as an influence on his thought.
According to Beiser’s account (2014b), Lange’s work in The History of Materialism “succeeded in throwing the materialists back on the defensive” (p. 95). “Lange’s book,” Beiser writes, “appealed to everyone who wanted the materialist critique of religion and its scientific program but who also could not approve of its naive metaphysics and its failure to account for basic human values” (p. 95).
For Lange, the realization that metaphysics is a creation of the imagination, similar to art, opens up a way to respond to the damaging ethical consequences of the materialistic world view. Though he does seem to think that the materialistic world views of many of his contemporaries influence their ethics, it is less clear whether Lange thinks that the kind of materialism discussed above actually entails any ethical positions. At times Lange claims that both a normative principle of ethical egoism and a principle of sympathy for humanity can both be “derived” [abgeleitet] from theoretical materialism (Lange 1873–75, 3:260, 303). It is perhaps most charitable to read Lange as suggesting that there is nothing in materialism that requires one principle or the other, but that one could find oneself attracted to either principle, even if one started from theoretical materialism. His considered view appears to be that materialists have a plausible explanatory account for certain kinds of human behaviour, but that they slide from this plausible explanatory account to problematic normative claims. His label “ethical materialism” seems to be a label for the kind of ethical positions that materialists tend to accept as a matter of sociological or psychological fact rather than some particular ethical position required by materialism.
Lange begins by granting that regarding humans as egoists concerned only with satisfying their desires may well be an abstraction that allows for some degree of predictive success when it comes to explaining human behaviour in the marketplace. The mistake the materialist makes is “in confounding this abstraction with reality” (Lange 1873–75, 3:233–237). The materialist assumes that the abstraction of the rational egoist is an accurate picture of all of human behaviour and, perhaps even more damagingly, an ethical ideal for how we should behave. Part of the problem is that ethical materialism has a mistaken account of the human good. It claims that “a man is all the happier the more wants he has, if he has at the same time sufficient means for their satisfaction” (Lange 1873–75, 3:239). This is mistaken because what matters is the nature of the want and, so Lange, the way the want comes about and is satisfied (Lange 1873–75, 3:241). Finally serious concerns about issues of distributive justice are avoided by what Lange considers to be quite implausible appeals to “invisible hand” arguments (Lange 1873–75, 3:242–259). As in the case of Marx, this does not mean that Lange denies the usefulness of markets in increasing productivity and encouraging technical innovation. The problem with markets is that they generate inequality and hinder human flourishing.
Lange thinks that materialism, or rather science in general, will undermine religion, or at least traditional forms of it. He takes seriously the concern that this might also undermine moral commitment. He points out that it is not obvious how effective religion really is in influencing moral behaviour. The New Testament’s claim that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven seems to have little impact on the acquisitiveness of contemporary Christian capitalists, “while the servants of the Church sit at the tables of the rich and preach submissiveness to the poor” (Lange 1873–75, 3:270–271). Such Christian ideas have encourageduniversalistic concern and have combatted egoism and this, other things equal, is morally beneficial. What prevents these ideas from having more influence, and more of a purely positive influence, is the dogmatic form in which they appear, and the nature of the institution of the Church itself. The power of the Church to force the acceptance of its dogmas not only results in unwarranted beliefs but also in a general debasement of our mental abilities (Lange 1873–75, 3:275).
Religion, like the other creations of our imagination, can have a powerful influence. The mistake is to confuse such creations with the knowledge that science provides (Lange 1873–75, 3:280). Lange thinks that “the classification of religion with art and metaphysics will at no very distant time be generally conceded”. The “great mass of believers of all religions” are “in a state of mind like that in which children listen to fairy-tales” (Lange 1873–75, 3:281). The coming realization though that these are all fairy tales does not mean that “the sense for poesy” is not important even when we are, so to speak, adults (Lange 1873–75, 3:281). When it comes to “the direction of the impulses towards the general good”, then “mere moral teaching will hardly be likely to produce a frame of mind to which trumpet-peals and hymns are appropriate” (Lange 1873–75, 3:299). We need to set up ideals, indeed “[o]ne thing is certain, that man needs to supplement reality by an ideal world of his own creation”. This ideal world, these myths, are meant to inspire us to be moral and help us overcome “spiritual impoverishment” just as the myths, the ideals, of Christianity can, at their best, inspire us (cf. Kant 1787, A569/B597 and Kant 1793, §17). His model is Schiller’s philosophical poetry (Lange 1873–75, 3:342–44; Lange 1897).
But what are these myths supposed to inspire us to? Are there constraints on which myths we should create? This is not always clear in Lange. As we have seen it does seem that at least we are supposed to be inspired to be moral. This suggests that at least morality itself is not a myth. But if it is not a myth, then does this mean that we have some way of knowing moral truths—that morality somehow escapes the problems raised for other areas of purported metaphysical knowledge? Again, Lange’s writings on this point are not clear and there is some evidence that he was not quite sure what position to take. Given the general emphasis on Kant, it comes as no surprise that Lange would take seriously what Kant has to say about this. What variation on Kant’s view he finally accepts though is harder to discern.
The version of Kant’s view that Lange considers is the one presented in the Critique of Practical Reason. Lange’s focus on this version, like his interpretation of Kant’s views on theoretical reason, set him apart from many later Kant scholars. The Critique of Practical Reason shares with Kant’s other writings the claim that there is a fundamental law of practical reason which is also the moral law. It focusses though on one particular formulation of this law: “So act that the maxim of your will could always hold at the same time as a principle in a giving of universal law”. What is distinctive about the Critique of Practical Reason is that Kant then proceeds to give a distinctive account of how we come to know this law or how this law is justified. He writes:
Consciousness of this fundamental law may be called a fact of reason because one cannot reason it out from antecedent data of reason, for example, from consciousness of freedom (since this is not antecedently given to us) and because it instead forces itself upon us of itself as a synthetic a priori proposition that is not based on any intuition, either pure or empirical. (Kant 1788, 5:31)
According to this “fact of reason” version, we seem to have a particular moral law forced on us in our mental lives and we are unable to give any deeper justification of this moral law—it is just a fact that we have to accept. It is a fact that I am bound by the moral law. However, I could not be bound by the moral law unless I could follow it and I cannot follow this moral law unless I am free. Kant thus argues that we can conclude for practical purposes that we are free.
Lange seems to accept the content of the law, and treats it as supporting the kind of universalistic and impartial concern he sees as standing in opposition to egoism. However, he is clearly worried about whether Kant has really succeeded in providing a justification for the moral law.
In the first edition of his History, he claims that any moral philosophy could use this strategy and thus that “if Kant believes that he has absolutely proved his [moral philosophy], then he simply commits the usual mistake of all metaphysicians”. In the first edition, this claim comes near the end of the section on Kant, and is immediately followed by a summary of what he takes to be Kant’s “Copernican Revolution”: (i) “The world of appearances is a consequence of our concepts”. (ii) “The ideas”, in Kant’s sense presumably of concepts of reason whose objects are not such that they could be met in experience (Kant 1787, A311/B368-A320/B377), “give us no knowledge, rather they lead us to an imagined world. It is precisely in this that their usefulness lies. We deceive ourselves when we try to increase our knowledge through them; we enrich ourselves when we make them the foundation of our actions.” (iii) “The one absolute that man has is the moral law and from this fixed point a secure order can be brought to the unstable world of the ideas”. After this summary of what he takes to be Kant’s position, Lange declares his support for (i) and (ii) but seems to reject (iii) for grounds similar to those we have already seen. Kant’s claim that his moral law is a fixed point is somehow “subjective” and shows Kant as being a child of his times. According to Lange, the lasting achievement of (iii) is the more general claim that “the ideal is no longer to be judged by supposed evidence but rather by its relationship to the ethical ends of mankind” (Lange 1866b, 277–78). This is where the discussion of the fundamental moral law in the first edition ends. It leaves open the question of what ethical ends are supposed to be used to judge the ideals we create in our myths, and of how we are supposed to defend these ethical ends without becoming metaphysicians.
In the second edition of his History, the claims quoted in the previous paragaph have been removed. After giving a brief summary of Kant’s appeal to a “fact of reason” and his argument for freedom, Lange does not go on to suggest that Kant may be making the mistake of all metaphysicians. Rather, he writes: “So far Kant’s doctrine of freedom is perfectly clear and—apart from the question of the a priority of the moral law—invulnerable” (Lange 1873–75, 2:229). What follows is a new discussion of Kant’s conception of our freedom and worries about our freedom being apparently restricted only to the noumenal realm. Lange does return to declarations in favour of constructing ideals, but gives no further explanation of how we are supposed to find ethical ends, or a moral law, that guides the construction of these ideals, nor, for that matter, what problem in specific lies behind the above mentioned “question of the a priority of the moral law” (Lange 1873–75).
One possible reason for the changes to the material on Kant between Lange’s first and second editions is the influence of Hermann Cohen, Lange’s protege and the founder of the Marburg School of Neo-Kantianism. As Sieg (1994) details, Cohen published his major work Kant’s Theory of Experience in 1871, in which he criticized “Lange’s understanding of the Kantian a priori as a naturalist misinterpretation” (p. 104). By November 1871, Lange and Cohen were in correspondence, and Lange indicated that he was impressed by Cohen’s criticisms. According to Sieg (1994), Lange’s second edition shows that he is interpreting the Kantian thing in itself as a “limiting concept [Grenzbegriff]” in Cohen’s sense (p. 104). For an account of the development of Lange’s thought on this score, and of the mutual influence of Lange and Cohen, see Adelmann (2012), pp. 83–93.
Beiser (2014b) suggests that some of the changes between the first and the second editions of the History of Materialism were prompted by a sea change in the prevailing view in the natural sciences. The older theories of Czolbe, Büchner, and Vogt had been spectacularly superseded by Darwinism and its interpretations by his German exponents, Ernst Häckel and Carl Gegenbauer (p. 96). Beiser notes that Darwinism’s triumph should not be read as “a vindication of materialism itself” (p. 96). As Hermann Lotze observes, Darwin’s explanations of organisms and species did not require that those organisms or species be viewed as reducible to solely material objects (see Beiser 2014b, p. 96). Nonetheless, the increasing dominance of Darwinism in Germany meant that the materialist program dwindled in influence as a scientific project, and so its broader impact was checked as well. Lange’s death in 1875 coincided with the rise of Darwinism in Germany, and thus his responses to this change in the intellectual context were limited.
When Lange died in 1875, he was working on a revision of the History of Materialism, and on the first part of a work called the Logische Studien (Logical Studies). Hermann Cohen saw the Logische Studien to press and wrote a short introduction. While the argument of the Logische Studien remains incomplete, it makes several contributions, some ahead of their time. Thiel (1994) and Patton (2011) are appreciations of the Logische Studien, Wille (2011) is a review of Patton (2011). Bellucci (2013) examines accounts of diagrammatic reasoning in Lange and in Charles Sanders Peirce.
The first chapter of the Logische Studien situates Lange’s text in the tradition of wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisstheorie, loosely, scientific epistemology. This tradition responds to the successes of materialism and empirical science mentioned above, by focusing on scientific methodology. Johann Herbart, a founder of empirical psychology, and Friedrich Adolf Trendelenburg, a philosopher and classicist, are particularly important for Lange (see Patton 2011, Haaparanta 2009). Herbart had argued that scientific methodology and inference could be based on psychology (Maigné 2002, Hatfield 1990). Trendelenburg responds that the logic of science should establish how the content of scientific theories is proven with certainty, which cannot be accomplished within any particular science, but only in an overall critique of scientific thought and methods (Trendelenburg 1862, 9–10).
Lange responds to Herbart by arguing that, while the synthesis of representations (in Kant’s sense) can be explained psychologically, the reasons why that synthesis are necessary and apply to objects are not reducible to psychology. However, Lange does argue that the natural and the normative explanations of necessity are compatible, and that this explains our access to normative conclusions. As Ernst Schröder points out, “In striving for our goals, we can thus take comfort in the belief that under certain knowable conditions the objective necessity that we are searching for will always also become subjective. Namely, if we are talking about the unification of unmediated contradictions, then both formal necessities will always occur together. In this context, F. A. Lange remarks very aptly, ‘The law of non-contradiction is the point at which the natural law of thought comes into contact with the normative law’” (Schröder (1890), 11–13, citation from Lange (1877), 27–28).
Lange agrees with Trendelenburg that logic, like epistemology of science, ought to concern itself with an analysis of necessity, which informs Lange’s response to Herbart. However, Lange disagrees with Trendelenburg on the status of logic. Trendelenburg was what might be called a neo-Aristotelian logician. He wrote several works on Aristotelian logic, especially the logic of the categories. As such, Trendelenburg works on what Lange refers to as the “traditional logic of content”. Lange considers that this has been superseded by the new, English “logic of extension,” associated with John Venn and others.
One major goal of Lange’s book is thus to show that the formal inferences of Aristotelian logic, the syllogistic, can all be captured within the logic of extension, which might now be called propositional logic. Lange accomplishes this in the next few chapters of the book. He does so by using Euler-Gergonne diagrams, which would now be called Venn diagrams—but Lange died before Venn first published the Venn diagrams in 1880 (in “On the Forms of Logical Proposition”, in the journal Mind). In Symbolic Logic, published the following year, Venn remarks:
When the substance of this chapter was first written out for Mind I was unable to ascertain that any attempt had been made to reconstruct the syllogistic figures upon this propositional scheme. I have since found that almost exactly the same results as are given here had been already obtained by F.A. Lange, in his admirable Logische Studien, though from a somewhat different point of view (Venn (1881), 17n).
Another major goal of the book is to argue for the notion that all certain or “apodictic” (sometimes spelled “apodeictic”) scientific inference is the same in kind. Again, although Lange does not agree with Herbart that a naturalistic description of thought can capture the necessity of scientific proofs, he disagrees with the notion that only derivation from a priori principles yields certain knowledge. The year after Lange’s book appeared, J. A. Stewart reviewed the work in Mind, saying:
The metaphysicians have had it so much their own way since Aristotle’s time that the mere form of deduction has come to be identified with the apodeictic, however disputed in each system the principles may be and the conclusions derived from them. The professor of a systematic metaphysic thus elevates himself above the man of science to whom he denies the apodeictic (Stewart 1878, 112).
As Lange puts it,
According to the metaphysicians’ account, Faraday has no knowledge of magnetism, Meynert no knowledge of the construction of the brain, Helmholtz’s doctrine of the sensations of tone or his physiological optics are not science, because they are not deduced from physei proteron, but are built on experiments; maybe, at most, those elements that can be deduced solely and entirely from mathematical principles can be called “science” (Lange (1877), 6).
Lange tries to steer a middle course, between “the metaphysicians’ account” and the “bare” materialism he rejects in the History of Materialism. This leads him to reject Hegelian idealism (see above), but also to put into question some elements even of the Kantian system. Seventy-four years before the publication of Quine’s “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”, Lange explicitly rejects the analytic-synthetic distinction:
It is known that Kant took mathematical judgments in general to be synthetic, and that to him, mathematics is the primary proof that there are judgments that are synthetic, but at the same time are connected with the consciousness of necessity and thus, as Kant concluded, are not empirical. This theory was new; but since then the view has been prevalent that even mathematical judgments are analytic and rest on the principle of contradiction. This view finds energetic adherents even to this day, to whom Kant himself essentially handed a weapon in the form of his view of the purely analytic nature of formal logic. In fact, it can be proven that the nature of all necessarily valid judgments is essentially one and the same and that it follows from this that they are either all synthetic, or all analytic, or that this distinction in the Kantian, exclusive sense is not correct at all. In fact, the latter is the case (Lange (1877), 9).
A recurring theme in the Logische Studien is Lange’s belief in the essential unity of apodictic, certain and necessary, judgments. It is for this reason that he does not think the methods of science can be reduced to derivation from metaphysical first principles, to the inferences of analytic formal logic, or to a naturalist, purely descriptive psychology.
Lange’s commitment to the unity of valid inferences even leads him to reject another Kantian distinction, that between thought and intuition:
it can be shown, that “intuition” of any object in general cannot arise without the cooperation of spontaneity. Conversely, even in the most abstract objects there is no thought without intuition (Lange 1877, 9).
Lange’s rejection of two distinctions central to Kantian thought are one argument against placing him squarely in any neo-Kantian tradition. However, Lange’s work in the Logische Studien and in the “Standpoint of the Ideal” chapter are difficult to reconcile with a purely empiricist stance either, so he is difficult to place in the philosophical tradition. In addition, Lange concludes the Logische Studien with an intriguing, but somewhat perplexing, appeal to neo-Platonist thought in explaining his theory of space and time. In general, while it is true that Lange proposed rejecting these fundamental Kantian distinctions, there is reason to question whether he conceived of a coherent view that dispenses with them. For instance, Lange suggests that certain logical inferences are based on manipulations of the “formal” aspects of our representations, but, arguably, Lange does not explain how we are to distinguish formal from material in this context (see Patton 2011, 150–151).
The footnotes and first chapter of the Logische Studien reveal the extent to which Lange was engaged in discussions with philosophers in Bonn and in Berlin who were particularly interested in the methodology of science, including Hermann Cohen, Friedrich Adolf Trendelenburg, Friedrich Überweg, and others. These late nineteenth century discussions set the stage for the work of more well-known philosophers of science of the early twentieth century. Lange’s work in this context is a counterpoint to the neo-Kantian and materialist traditions.
Lange’s work was seen as a potent response to the intellectual and practical crises provoked by the materialist positions dominant in Germany in the mid-19th century. Along with the neo-Kantians including Cohen and Windelband, Lange saw the positions of Czolbe, Vogt, Büchner, and other materialists as (justifiably) undermining long-held religious and metaphysical positions. Drawing on his views on practical pedagogy and workers’ rights, Lange developed a form of “socialist Darwinism” (Weikart 1999) and defended a Kantian “ethical standpoint of the ideal” to replace what he saw as religious and metaphysical dogmatism. Beiser (2014a) correctly observes that Lange “never really connected his Neo-Kantianism with his socialism” (p. 357). However, Lange continued work in both traditions until his death.
Throughout his career, Lange was remarkable for the integration of his political and practical positions into his intellectual life. As discussed in section 1 above, his engagement in the workers’ movement led him to participate in the second Congress of the German Workers’ Association. He formulated his political views in Die Arbeiterfrage of 1865, which in turn led him to intellectual engagement with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, among others. See Hirsch 1977, SED 1966, Marx and Engels 1975, Vorländer 1900, Berdiajew 1900, Heid 1983, Hundt 1965, Mehring 1908, Na’aman 1980, and related works in the reference list below for further detail.
Lange’s influence on nineteenth and twentieth century thought included, but was not limited to, his influence on the nascent Marburg school of neo-Kantianism (in this respect, see Sieg 1994, Köhnke 1991, Holzhey 1986). His engagement with Darwinism, materialism, socialism, and Marxism contributed to his “unusually strong” presence in the “intellectual climate of the final quarter of the nineteenth century” in Germany (Jacobsen 1999, 7). Max Weber, the philosopher and pedagogist Friedrich Paulsen, and others were influenced by Lange’s work (Jacobsen 1999, see also Braun 1881, Freimuth 1995). In fact, “Friedrich Paulsen, Paul Natorp, and Hans Vaihinger, all describe their reading of Lange as a conversion experience leading them into philosophy” (Hill 2003, Köhnke 1991, 211–213).
Friedrich Albert Lange is a figure whose influence and thought remains to be judged accurately, especially in the Anglophone tradition. His influence as a teacher and as a mentor was as strong as were his more public intellectual contributions. The positions Lange carved out were not merely a response to nineteenth century intellectual movements including neo-Kantianism, materialism, Marxism, and Darwinism, though they were regarded widely as effective responses. Lange conceived independent and influential positions in logic, in national economy, in pedagogy, and in epistemology. He did so while pursuing a career as an activist and social organizer. His place in the history of philosophy, of politics, and of science remains to be established by future scholarship.
Lange’s Main Works
- 1851, “Quaestiones metricae,” Dissertation, University of Bonn.
- 1855, “Über den Zusammenhang der Erziehungssysteme mit den herrschenden Weltanschauungen verschiedener Zeitalter. Bonner Antrittsvorlessung 1855”, in Lange 1894b and 1928a.
- 1857, “Raumers Geschichte der Pädagogik”, Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Pädagogik, 76: 107–133.
- 1858a, “Desiderius Erasmus. Sein Privatleben und sein persönlicher Charakter”, Westermann’s Jahrbuch, der Illustrirten Deutschen Monatshefte, 20: 127–35.
- 1858b, “Die Prinzipien der gerichtlichen Psychologie, mit Berücksichtigung von Idelers Lehrbuch”, Adolph Henke’s Zeitschrift für die Staatsarzneikunde.
- 1858c, “Das Studium und die Principien der Gymnasialpaedagogik mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Werke von K. Schmidt und G. Thaulow beleuchtet”, Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Pädagogik, 78: 483–519; reprint 1975a.
- 1859, Festrede zu Schillers hundertjährigem Geburtstage. Gehalten von Oberlehrer Dr. F. A. Lange, Duisburg: F. H. Nieten.
- 1859–1875, the following entries appeared in Schmid, K. A., J. D. Wildermuth, and C. D. F. Palmer, (eds.), Enzyklopädie des gesammten Erziehungs- und Unterrichtswesens, Gotha: R. Besser: “Bildungsfähigkeit” (reprint 1975a), “Calvins Einfluß auf die Pädagogik” (reprint 1975a), “Cötus”, “Einflüstern”, “Erasmus” (reprint 1975a), “Errichtung und Erhaltung der Schulen” (reprint 1975a), “Friedrich der Große”, “Furcht”, “Gewerbeschulen” (reprint 1975a), “Hintergehung”, “Komplottieren in der Schule”, “Leibesübungen”, “Mnemotechnik”, “Oppositionsgeist”, “Pennalismus”, “Phrenolgie”, “Physiognomik”, “Rechtspflege in der Schule”, “Schülerzahl” (reprint 1975a), “Schulbücher” (reprint 1975a), “Schule zu Schlettstadt”, “Seelenlehre (Psychologie)” (reprint 1975a), “Statistik”, “Johan Ludwig Vives” (reprint 1975a), “Wunderkinder und Frühreife”, “Zensuren”.
- 1861, Die Turnvereine und das Vereinsgesetz. Eine Erörterung der Tragweite der allerletzten Verordnung vom 11. März 1850, mit besonderer Beziehung auf die Turnvereine Rheinlands und Westfalens, Duisburg: Verlag von J. Ewich.
- 1862, Die Stellung der Schule zum öffentlichen Leben. Festrede, gehalten bei der Schulfeier des Geburtstages Sr. Majestät des Königs den 22. März 1862, Duisburg: F. H. Nieten; reprint in 1975a.
- 1863a, Die Leibesübungen. Eine Darstellung des Werdens und Wesens der Turnkunst in ihrer pädagogischen und kulturhistorischen Bedeutung, Gotha: R. Besser.
- 1863b, Das päpstliche Rundschreiben (8. 12. 1864) und die 80 verdammten Sätze erläutert durch Kernsprüche von Männern der Neuzeit, sowie durch geschichtliche und statistische Notizen, Duisburg.
- 1863c, with W. Schroers, Die Oktroyierungen vom 1. Juni 1863, Duisburg.
- 1863d, with W. Schroers, Der Verfassungskampf, Duisburg.
- 1865a, Die Arbeiterfrage in ihrer Bedeutung für Gegenwart
und Zukunft, Duisburg: W. Falk & Volmer; reprinted in 1910
- 1870, Winterthur, 2nd edition with major revisions.
- 1875, Winterthur, 3rd edition with major revisions.
- 1894a, Winterthur, 5th edition; page references to this edition.
- 1910, Berlin: Buchhandlung Vorwärts; reprint of first edition with an introduction by Franz Mehring.
- 1865b, Die Grundlegung der mathematischen Psychologie. Ein Versuch zur Nachweisung des fundamentalen Fehlers bei Herbart und Drobisch, Duisburg: W. Falk & Volmer.
- 1865c, Jedermann Hauseigentümer. Das bewährteste System englischer Baugenossenschaften für deutsche Verhältnisse bearbeitet und in seiner Verwendbarkeit für Arbeiter-Genossenschaften nachgewiesen, Duisburg; reprinted in 1975a.
- 1866a, J. St. Mill’s Ansichten über die soziale Frage und die angebliche Umwälzung der Sozialwissenschaft durch Carey, Duisburg,: Falk & Lange.
- 1866b, Geschichte des Materialismus und Kritik seiner
Bedeutung in der Gegenwart, Iserlohn: J. Baedeker.
- 1873–75, 2nd edition with major revisions; page references are to the 1950 reprint of the 1925, 3rd edition of the translation listed below.
- 1882, 4th edition, different pagination, forward by Hermann Cohen.
- 1898, 6th edition, with Hermann Cohen’s “Introduction and Critical Supplement”.
- 1902, 7th edition, with the 2nd edition of Hermann Cohen’s “Introduction and Critical Supplement”.
- 1905, Reclam edition, with a foreword by O. A. Ellissen.
- 1914–15, 9th edition, with the 3rd edition of Hermann Cohen’s “Introduction and Critical Supplement”; Cohen’s “Introduction” is reprinted in Cohen
- English translations of the 2nd edition: [Note: The quality of the
English translation leaves much to be desired. If at all possible, the
German editions should be used. I have modified the English
translation when necessary.]
- 1877–1881, The History of Materialism and Criticism of Its Importance, translated by Ernest Chester Thomas, London: Trübner & Company.
- 1879–1881, 2nd edition of translation; reprinted 1974, The History of Materialism, New York: Arno Press.
- 1925, 3rd edition of translation with an introduction by Bertrand Russell; reprinted 1950; references above are to this edition.
- 1866c, “Das Glück und die Arbeit”, Eduard Pfeiffers Stuttgarter Monatsschrift “Die Arbeit”, 7 and 8.
- 1867, Neue Beiträge zur Geschichte des Materialismus, Winterthur: Bleuler-Hausheer.
- 1871, “Friedrich Ueberweg, Nekrolog.” Altpreussische Monatsschrift, 8: 487–522; reprinted Friedrich Ueberweg, Berlin: E. S. Mittler and Son.
- 1877, Logische Studien. Ein Beitrag zur Neubegründung der formalen Logik und der Erkenntnisstheorie, Iserlohn: J. Baedeker; the manuscript was completed for publication before his death.
- 1968a. Der Bote vom Niederrhein, October 1865-June 1866, Nos. 1–77; reprinted as one volume: 1968a, Der Bote vom Niederrhein. Faksimile-Nachdruck der Jahrgänge 1865/1866, G. Eckert (ed.), Duisburg: Walter Braun.
- 1879, “Die griechischen Formen und Maße in der deutschen Dichtung: Eine nachgelassene Studie”, Deutsche Rundschau, 20: 430–450; reprint 1928b.
- 1879–80, “Über philosophische Bildung”, Nord und Süd, 11: 154–170, 270–282, 12: 196–208.
- 1894b, “Über den Zusammenhang der Erziehungssysteme mit den herrschenden Weltanschauungen verschiedener Zeitalter. Bonner Antrittsvorlessung 1855.” Monatshefte der Comenius-Gesellschaft.
- 1897, Einleitung und Kommentar zu Schillers philosophischen Gedichten, Otto Adolf Ellissen (ed.), Bielefeld and Leipzig,: Velhagen & Klasing.
- 1928a, “Über den Zusammenhang der Erziehungssysteme mit den herrschenden Weltanschauungen verschiedener Zeitalter. Bonner Antrittsvorlessung 1855”, in Material zum Arbeitsunterricht an höheren Schulen, Nr. 71, O. A. Ellissen (ed.), Bielefeld: Velhagen & Klasing.
- 1928b, Die griechischen Formen und Maße in der deutschen Dichtung, O. A. Ellissen (ed.), Bielefeld and Leipzig: Velhagen & Klasing.
Collections of Primary Material
- 1968b, Über Politik und Philosophie: Briefe und Leitartikel 1862 bis 1875, G. Eckert (ed.), Duisburg: Walter Braun.
- 1975a, Pädagogik zwischen Politik und Philosophie, J. H. Knoll (ed.), Duisburger Hochschulbeiträge 3, Duisburg: Walter Braun.
- 1975b, Die Arbeiterfrage; Jedermann Hauseigenthümer: Sozialpolitik zwischen Liberalismus und Sozialismus, Julius Hans Schoeps (ed.), Duisburger Hochschulbeiträge 4, Duisburg: Walter Braun.
- Adelmann, Dieter, 2012, Schriften aus dem Nachlass von Dieter Adelmann, Görge Hasselhoff and Beate La Sala (eds.), Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
- Bebel, A., 1958, Aus meinem Leben, Berlin: J.H.W. Dietz.
- Beiser, Frederick C., 2014a, The Genesis of Neo-Kantianism, 1796–1880, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- –––, 2014b, After Hegel: German Philosophy, 1840–1900, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Bellucci, Francesco, 2013, “Diagrammatic Reasoning: Some Notes on Charles S. Peirce and Friedrich A. Lange”, History and Philosophy of Logic, 34 (4): 293–305.
- Berdiajew , N., 1900, “Friedrich Albert Lange und die kritische Philosophie in ihren Beziehungen zum Sozialismus”, Die Neue Zeit, 18: 132–140, 164–174, 196–207.
- Bernstein, E., 1892, “Zur Würdigung Friedrich Albert Langes”, Die Neue Zeit, 10: 68–78, 101–109, 132–141
- –––, 1902, Die Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus und die Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratie, Stuttgart: J. H. W. Dietz.
- Bornemann, L., 1902, Dörpfeld und Albert Lange, Pädagogisches Magazin, 194, Langensalza: H. Beyer.
- Bösch, J., 1890, Friedrich Albert Lange und sein “Standpunkt des Ideals”, Frauenfeld.
- Braun, H., 1881, Friedrich Albert Lange als Sozialökonom nach seinem Leben und seinen Schriften, Ph.D. diss., Universität Halle-Wittenberg.
- Breazeale, Daniel, 1989, “Lange, Nietzsche, and Stack: The Question of Influence”, International Studies in Philosophy, 21: 91–103.
- Clark, Maudemarie and Dudrick, David, 2005, Review of Nietzsche’s Critiques: The Kantian Foundations of His Thought by R. Kevin Hill, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews.
- Cohen, Hermann, 1876, “Friedrich Albert Lange”, Preussische Jahrbücher, 37: 353–81.
- Czolbe, Heinrich, 1855, Neue Darstellung des Sensualismus. Ein Entwurf, Leipzig: H. Costenoble.
- –––, 1856, Entstehung des Selbstbewusstseins. Eine Antwort an Herrn Professor Lotze, Leipzig: H. Constenoble.
- Dambück, 2016, Deutscher Empirismus: Studien zur Philosophie im deutschsprachigen Raum 1830–1930, Dordrecht: Springer.
- Eckert, G., 1965, “Friedrich Albert Lange und die Social-Demokratie in Duisburg”, Duisburger Forschungen, 8: 1–23.
- Edgar, Scott, 2015, “The Physiology of the Sense Organs and Early Neo-Kantian Conceptions of Objectivity: Helmholtz, Lange, Liebmann”, chapter 6 in F. Padovani, A. Richardson, and J. Tsou (eds.), Objectivity in Science, Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science. Springer.
- –––, 2015, “The Genesis of Neo-Kantianism: 1796–1880”, British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 23 (5): 1009–1012.
- –––, 2013, “The Limits of Experience and Explanation: F. A. Lange and Ernst Mach on Things in Themselves”, British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 21 (1): 100–121.
- Ellissen, O. A., 1894, Friedrich Albert Lange: Eine Lebensbeschreibung, Wohlfeile Ausgabe, Leipzig: Julius Baedeker.
- –––, 1905, “Biographisches Vorwort”, in Lange 1905.
- Feuerbach, Ludwig, 1841, Das Wesen des Christentums, Leipzig: O. Wigand; translation by G. Eliot, reprinted 1989, The Essence of Christianity, Amherst: Prometheus Books.
- Freimuth, F., 1995, Friedrich Albert Lange : Denker der Pluralität: Erkenntnistheorie, Pädagogik, Politik (Paideia, Volume 11), Frankfurt am Main and New York: P. Lang.
- Genz, W., 1902, Der Agnostizismus Herbert Spencers mit rücksicht auf Auguste Comte und Friedrich Albert Lange, Ph.D. Dissertation., Universität Greifswald.
- Gori, Pietro, 2015a, “Psychology without a Soul, Philosophy without an I: Nietzsche and 19th Century Psychophysics (Fechner, Lange, Mach)”, in Bartholomew Ryan, Maria Joao Mayer Branco & João Constancio (eds.), Nietzsche and the Problem of Subjectivity, Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 166–195.
- –––, 2015b, “Leaving the Soul Apart: An introductory study,”, special issue (“Anti-Metaphysical Psychology”) of Philosophical Readings, 7 (2): 3–13.
- Haaparanta, Leila (ed.), 2009, The Development of Modern Logic, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Haaparanta, Leila, 2009, “The Relations between Logic and Philosophy 1874–1931,” pp. 222–262 in Haaparanta (ed.).
- Hartmann, Eduard von, 1877, Neukantianismus, Schopenhauerianismus und Hegelianismus in ihrer Stellung zu den philosophischen Aufgaben der Gegenwart, 2nd expanded edition, Berlin: C. Duncker.
- Hatfield, Gary, 1990, The Natural and the Normative. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
- Heid, L., 1983, Von der Zunft zur Arbeiterpartei: die Social-Demokratie in Duisburg 1848-1878, Duisburg: W. Braun.
- Heidelberger, Michael, 2015. “Naturalisierung des Transzendentalen in der Sinnesphysiologie von Hermann von Helmholtz ”, Scientia Poetica 19 (1): 205–233.
- Heinze, M., 1877, “Der Idealismus Friedrich Albert Lange’s”, Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie, 1: 173–201.
- Helmholtz, Hermann von, 1853, “On Goethe’s Scientific Researches”, lecture delivered before the German Society of Königsberg; translation by E. Atkinson, reprint in 1995, Science and Culture: Popular and Philosophical Essays, D. Cahan (ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- –––, 1855, “Über das Sehen des Menschen”, lecture delivered at the Kant Memorial in Königsberg, reprint in 1971, Philosophische Vorträge und Aufsätze, H. Hörz and S. Wollgast (eds.), Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
- –––, 1878, “The Facts in Perception”, speech at the Commemoration-Day of the Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität in Berlin; translation by D. Cahan, 1995, Science and Culture: Popular and Philosophical Essays, D. Cahan (ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Hill, R. Kevin, 2003, Nietzsche’s Critiques: The Kantian Foundations of His Thought, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Hirsch, H., 1977, Freiheitsliebende Rheinländer : neue Beitr. zur dt. Sozialgeschichte : Friedrich Engels, Robert Blum, Carl Heinrich Marx, August Bebel, Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Moses Hess, Friedrich Albert Lange, Karl Ludwig Bernays, Düsseldorf ; Wien: Econ Verlag.
- Holzhey, Helmut, 1986. Cohen und Natorp. Two volumes. Basel: Schwabe und Co.
- –––, 2005, “Cohen and the Marburg School in Context”, pp. 3–37 in Hermann Cohen’s Critical Idealism, edited by Reinier Munk. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Holzhey, Helmut and Buée, Jean-Michel, 2011, “Idéalisme et matérialisme. Hermann Cohen, sur Friedrich Albert Lange”, Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 1 (1): 7–17.
- Hundt, M., 1965, “Ein Versuch zur Linksorientierung des Verbandes Deutscher Arbeitervereine im Frühjahr 1865”, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung, 7: 692–99.
- Hussain, Nadeem J. Z., 2004, “Nietzsche’s Positivism”, European Journal of Philosophy, 12: 326–68.
- Irmer, P., 1975, “Friedrich A. Lange—ein politischer Agitator in der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung”, in Knoll and Schoeps 1975.
- Jacobsen, B., 1999, Max Weber und Friedrich Albert Lange: Rezeption und Innovation, Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag.
- Kant, Immanuel, 1787, Kritik der reinen Vernunft, 2nd ed., Riga: Friedrich Hartknoch; translation by P. Guyer and A. Wood, Critique of Pure Reason, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
- –––, 1788, Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, Riga: Friedrich Hartknoch; translation by M. J. Gregor, in Practical Philosophy, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
- –––, 1793, Kritik der Urtheilskraft, 2nd edition, Berlin: F. T. Lagarde; translation by P. Guyer and E. Matthews, Critique of the Power of Judgment, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
- Knoll, J. H., 1975a, “Foreword”, in Lange 1975a.
- –––, 1975b, “Friedrich Albert Lange—eine ”merkwürdige Randfigur“ in der Pädagogik des 19. Jahrhunderts”, in Knoll and Schoeps 1975.
- Knoll, J. H., and J. H. Schoeps, (eds.), 1975, Friedrich Albert Lange. Leben und Werk (Volume 21), Duisburger Forschungen: Schriftenreihe für Geschichte und Heimatkunde Duisburgs, Duisburg: Walter Braun.
- Köhnke, Klaus Christian, 1986, Entstehung und Aufstieg des Neukantianismus: Die deutsche Universitätsphilosophie zwischen Idealismus und Positivismus, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
- –––, 1991, The Rise of Neo-Kantianism: German Academic Philosophy between Idealism and Positivism, translated by R. J. Hollingdale, Ideas in Context, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press; this translation is unfortunately without the important footnotes and some useful diagrams present in the German original (Köhnke 1991).
- Maigné, Carole, 2002, “Le réalisme de JF Herbart: une ambition critique,” Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 3: 305–323.
- Martinelli, Riccardo, 2015, “Zurück zu Fechner? Il neokantismo e le sfide della psicologia scientifica”, special issue (“Anti-Metaphysical Psychology”) of Philosophical Readings, 7 (2): 31–48.
- Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels, 1975, The Collected Works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, London: Lawrence & Wishart.
- Mehring, F., 1908, “Der Nürnberger Vereinstag”, Die Neue Zeit, 26: 849–852; reprinted in 1960, Gesammelte Schriften, Volume 4, Aufsätze zur Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung, Berlin: Dietz; page reference is to reprint.
- –––, 1960, “Einleitung zu F. A. Lange. Die Arbeiterfrage”, in Gesammelte Schriften, Volume 4, Aufsätze zur Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung, Berlin: Dietz.
- Na’aman, S., 1980, “Arbeitervereine, Arbeitertage und Arbeiterverband--drei Etappen auf dem Weg zur Arbeiterpartei”, in Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Vereinstage Deutscher Arbeitervereine: 1863–1869, D. Dowe (ed.) Berlin and Bonn: Dietz.
- Nietzsche, Friedrich. 2002/1886. Beyond Good and Evil, Rolf-Peter Horstmann and Judith Norman (eds.), Judith Norman (trans.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Nipperdey, T., 1985, Deutsche Geschichte 1800–1866: Bürgerwelt und starker Staat, 3rd ed, München: C.H. Beck.
- Offermann, T., 2002, Die erste deutsche Arbeiterpartei : Materialien zur Organisation, Verbreitung und Sozialstruktur von ADAV und LADAV, 1863–1871, Bonn: J.H.W. Dietz.
- Ollig, Hans Ludwig, 1979, Der Neukantianismus, Stuttgart: Metzler.
- ––– (ed.), 1987, Materialien zur Neukantianismus-Diskussion, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
- Patton, Lydia, 2011, “Anti-psychologism about necessity,” History and Philosophy of Logic, 32 (2): 139–152.
- –––, 2015, “The Genesis of Neo-Kantianism: 1796–1880”, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, 2015.10.27, available online.
- Peckhaus, Volker, 1999, “19th century logic between philosophy and mathematics,” The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 5 (4): 433–450.
- Pletsch, Carl, 1991, Young Nietzsche, New York: Free Press.
- Reichesberg, N., 1892, Friedrich Albert Lange als Nationalökonom, Bern: K. J. Wys.
- Riehl, Alois, 1878, “Rezension der ‘Logischen Studien’”, Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie, 2: 240–250.
- Russell, Bertrand, 1925, “Introduction: Materialism, Past and Present”, in Lange 1925.
- Salaquarda, J., 1978, “Nietzsche und Lange”, Nietzsche-Studien, 7: 236-53.
- –––, 1979, “Der Standpunkt des Ideals bei Lange und Nietzsche”, Studi Tedeschi, 22: 133–60.
- –––, 1996, “Art is More Powerful than Knowledge”, Synthesis Philosophica, 21: 49–63.
- Saß, H.-M., 1975, “Der Standpunkt des Ideals als kritische Überwindung materialistischer und idealistischer Metaphysik”, in Knoll and Schoeps 1975.
- SED (Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim Zentralkomitee der SED), 1966, author collective chaired by W. Ulbricht, Geschichte der Deutschen Arbeiter Bewegung (Volume 1), Berlin: Dietz Verlag.
- Seigfried, H., 1989, “Opposing Science with Art, Again? Nietzsche’s Project According to Stack”, International Studies in Philosophy, 21: 105–11.
- Seydel, R., 1889, Der Schlüssel zum objektiven Erkennen: Gegen Kant und F. A. Lange, Halle a.S.: Pfeffer.
- Sieg, Ulrich, 1994, Aufstieg und Niedergang des Marburger Neukantianismus, Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.
- Stack, G. J., 1983, Lange and Nietzsche, Monographien und Texte zur Nietzsche-Forschung, Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
- –––, 1989, “From Lange to Nietzsche: A Response to a Troika of Critics”, International Studies in Philosophy, 21: 113–24.
- –––, 1991, “Kant, Lange, and Nietzsche: Critique of Knowledge”, in Nietzsche and Modern German Thought, Keith Ansell Pearson (ed.), New York: Routledge.
- Stewart, J. A, 1878, “Review of Lange’s Logische Studien,” Mind, 3 (9): 112–118.
- Strauss, David Friedrich, 1835, Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet, 2 vols., Tübingen: C. F. Osiander; translated by G. Eliot, 1913, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, London: George Allen.
- Teo, T., 2002, “Friedrich Albert Lange on Neo-Kantianism. Socialist Darwinism, and a Psychology without a Soul”, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 38: 285–301.
- Thiel, Christian, 1994, “Friedrich Albert Langes bewundernswerte Logische Studien”, History and Philosophy of Logic, 15: 105–26.
- Trendelenburg, [Friedrich] Adolf, 1862, Logische Untersuchungen, second expanded edition, Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel.
- Überweg, Friedrich, 1906, Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie (Volume 4), tenth edition, Max Heinze (ed.), Berlin: Ernst Siegfried Mittler und Sohn.
- Vaihinger, Hans, 1876, Hartman, Dühring und Lange. Zur Geschichte der deutschen Philosophie im XIX. Jahrhundert; ein kritischer Essay, Iserlohn: J. Baedeker.
- Venn, John, 1880, “On the forms of logical proposition,” Mind, 5: 336–349.
- –––, 1881, Symbolic Logic, London: Macmillan and Co.
- Vorländer, Karl, 1900, “Kant und der Sozialismus”, Kant-Studien, 4: 361–412.
- –––, 1897, review of “H. Cohen, Einleitung zu F. A. Lange’s Geschichte des Materialismus”, Kant-Studien, 1: 268-271.
- Weikart, R., 1999, Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German socialist thought from Marx to Bernstein, San Francisco: International Scholars Publications.
- Weinkauff, F., 1975, “Friedrich Albert Lange”, in Lange 1975a; originally published in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, Leipzig 1883.
- Wilcox, J. T., 1989, “The Birth of Nietzsche out of the Spirit of Lange”, International Studies in Philosophy, 21: 81–89.
- Wille, Matthias, 2011, “L. Patton, Anti-psychologism about necessity: Friedrich Albert Lange on objective inference”, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 17 (4): 537.
- Willey, Thomas, 1978, Back to Kant: The Revival of Kantianism in German Social and Historical Thought, 1860–1914, Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
How to cite this entry. Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society. Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers, with links to its database.
[Please contact the author with suggestions.]
This work is dedicated to the memory of Dieter Adelmann (1936–2008), a journalist who devoted himself to the study of the Marburg School of neo-Kantianism, and who was among the first to revive interest in Hermann Cohen and Friedrich Albert Lange in Germany.
I owe a debt to Frederick Beiser, who sent a box of books on Neo-Kantianism (two of which he had published in the same year) just as I was preparing to revise this entry. Scott Edgar, David Hyder, Kris McDaniel, Trevor Pearce, and Paolo Pecere made suggestions for revision and for texts to include. Some of these suggestions will be incorporated into the next revision. Many thanks.