This theme documents three centuries of German emigration. Letters and diaries bring to life stories of people fleeing religious persecution, hunger, and the pursuit of freedom. The journey takes us from war-torn Europe to America and the Volga River.
Hier ein begleitendes Wort zum neuen Buch โZwischen Sehnsucht und Machtโ โ Wie Romantik und Idealismus die deutsche Geschichte prรคgten von Klaus Kampe. Es geht um eine Warnung vor den Auswรผchsen von Idealismus und Romantik in der heutigen Zeit. Das Buch stรผtzt sich auf historische und philosophische Analysen, die zeigen, wie die Sehnsucht nach einer โhรถheren Ordnungโ oder โWiederverzauberungโ der Welt in gefรคhrliche Irrationalitรคt oder Totalitarismus umschlagen kann.
Hier ist ein Entwurf:
Die Geschichte der deutschen Romantik lehrt uns, dass der Versuch, die Welt durch reine Poesie oder Idealismus zu heilen, oft mit einer gefรคhrlichen Realitรคtsferne einhergeht. Wenn das โromantische Subjektโ die Welt nur noch als Anlass fรผr seine eigene Produktivitรคt und Stimmung nutzt, droht eine politische Handlungsunfรคhigkeit oder eine bloรe Simulation von Wirksamkeit.
Besonders im Kontext moderner Groรprojekte wie dem Green Deal oder radikaler Umweltbewegungen besteht die Gefahr, dass die Vernunft in Unvernunft und Aufklรคrung in einen neuen Mythos umschlรคgt. Adorno und Horkheimer warnten in ihrer โDialektik der Aufklรคrungโ bereits davor, dass eine total verwaltete Welt keine wahre Freiheit schafft, sondern neue Formen der Unterwerfung, in denen der Einzelne zugunsten einer vermeintlich hรถheren kollektiven Notwendigkeit nichts mehr zรคhlt.
Kritische Punkte der Warnung:
โข Der รคsthetische Aristokratismus: Idealisten neigen dazu, ihre Visionen รผber die profanen Bedรผrfnisse der โMasseโ zu stellen, was zu einer Entfremdung von der sozialen Realitรคt fรผhrt.
โข Die โstรคhlerne Romantikโ der Planung: Carl Schmitt warnte vor den Paradiesen einer durchgeplanten Welt, die durch entfesselte Produktivkraft eine โSozialschrankeโ errichtet, die den Menschen nicht mehr erkennt, sondern ihn gewaltsam verรคndern will.
โข Verlust der Dezision (Entscheidungsfรคhigkeit): Romantiker verweilen oft im รคsthetischen โMรผรiggangโ und scheitern an der Notwendigkeit klarer politischer Unterscheidungen, was sie anfรคllig fรผr die Instrumentalisierung durch fremde Mรคchte macht.
โข Der โKrankheitskeimโ im Ideal: Wie Thomas Mann 1945 ausfรผhrte, trรคgt die Romantik oft einen Keim in sich, der die Hingabe an das Irrationale und eine weltfremde Tiefe รผber die demokratische Nรผchternheit stellt.
Man muss daher wachsam gegenรผber Bewegungen sein, die das Politische in โRausch und Mysteriumโ zurรผckverwandeln wollen. Eine Politik, die nur noch auf Gefรผhl, Erweckung und utopischem Schein basiert, verliert den Boden der rechtlichen und rationalen Normen und bereitet so den Weg fรผr eine neue Barbarei.
Es gilt, die Romantik als Korrektiv der Moderne zu nutzen, ohne sie zur Staatsideologie zu erheben, da sie sonst unweigerlich in der Katastrophe endet.
KK
How romanticism and idealism shaped German history โ from early romanticism to the world wars โ the new book by Klaus Kampe
Excerpt:
Foreword:
Intellectual epochs are often either aesthetically idealized or morally simplified. Romanticism is no exception. In popular portrayals, it appears as a poetic counterpoint to the sobriety of modernity; in critical readings, however, it is seen as an irrational precursor to nationalist ideologies. Both perspectives fall short. They underestimate the structural depth of Romantic thinking as well as its long-term social impact.
The central thesis of this book is therefore that German Romanticism was neither politically innocent nor historically deterministic, but rather an ambivalent intellectual resource whose motives could have productive or destructive effects depending on the social and political context.
In this study, Romanticism is understood not primarily as a literary style, but as a form of mentality: as a specific way of interpreting the world, creating meaning, and conceiving the relationship between the individual, the community, and history. In this sense, it transcends its actual epoch and continues to have an impact across generationsโoften in a transformed, politically charged form.
Historically, Romanticism arose from multiple experiences of loss. The Enlightenment had shaken traditional religious certainties, the French Revolution had radically questioned the political order, and the onset of industrialization had changed people’s relationship to work, nature, and time. In Germany, political participation was largely denied. The result was a shift: where political power was lacking, cultural self-interpretation became central. Inner life, emotion, and symbolism took on a significance that was more strongly tied to institutions elsewhere.
This shift is crucial to understanding further developments. Romanticism initially articulated a legitimate critique of rationalism, mechanization, and alienation. It insisted on meaning, wholeness, and individualityโneeds that modern societies systematically generate but do not always satisfy. At the same time, however, Romantic thinking contained a structural openness to exaggeration: from emotion to truth, from community to destiny, from history to myth.
During the 19th century, romantic motifs became increasingly collectivized. The search for individual meaning shifted to national and cultural identity concepts. Poetic longing became cultural self-assertion, aesthetic wholeness became the idea of an organic people. This process was neither uniform nor inevitable, but it created patterns of interpretation that could become politically effective in the 20th century.
The enthusiasm for the First World War, especially in educated middle-class circles, can hardly be explained without these emotional and aesthetic dispositions. For many, the war appeared not only as a political event, but as an existential test, a place of meaning and renewal. Romantic ideals of sacrifice, devotion, and transcendence became intertwined with modern structures of power and technologyโwith devastating consequences.
This ambivalence becomes even more apparent in National Socialism. The Nazi regime was deeply modern and rationalized in its organization, administration, and machinery of destruction. At the same time, it made deliberate use of romantic imagery, myths, and narratives of redemption. Romanticism functioned here not as an origin, but as a symbolic reservoir that could be emotionally mobilized. It is precisely this instrumentality that makes critical examination necessary.
Against this backdrop, this book deliberately avoids establishing a simple causality between Romanticism and political violence. Instead, it inquires into mediations: into modes of thought, emotions, and cultural dispositions that could become politically radicalized under certain conditions. What is decisive here is not so much Romanticism itself as the way it is dealt withโin particular, the lack of self-reflection, irony, and institutional embedding.
This historical analysis raises a further question of social theory: What role does Romantic idealism play in modern societies? Is it a necessary correction to technical rationalityโor a permanent risk of overburdening political reality with moral or aesthetic claims to absoluteness? And finally: What is the relationship between Romantic thinking and social conformity? Does it enable individual freedom within social order, or does it necessarily produce tension, withdrawal, or radicalization?
The following chapters explore these questions historically, analytically, and critically. The aim is not to condemn an era, but to understand a way of thinking that is still effective todayโprecisely because it touches on fundamental human needs.
A warning against the excesses of idealism and romanticism in today’s world can be based on historical and philosophical analyses that show how the longing for a โhigher orderโ or โre-enchantmentโ of the world can turn into dangerous irrationality or totalitarianism.
The history of German Romanticism teaches us that attempts to heal the world through pure poetry or idealism often go hand in hand with a dangerous detachment from reality. When the โromantic subjectโ uses the world solely as a source of inspiration for its own productivity and mood, there is a risk of political paralysis or a mere simulation of effectiveness.
Particularly in the context of modern large-scale projects such as the Green Deal or radical environmental movements, there is a danger that reason will turn into unreason and enlightenment into a new myth. In their โDialectic of Enlightenment,โ Adorno and Horkheimer already warned that a totally administered world does not create true freedom, but rather new forms of subjugation in which the individual no longer counts in favor of a supposedly higher collective necessity.
Critical points of the warning:
One must therefore be vigilant against movements that seek to transform politics back into โintoxication and mystery.โ Politics based solely on emotion, revivalism, and utopian illusions loses its footing in legal and rational norms, paving the way for a new barbarism.
Romanticism should be used as a corrective to modernity, without elevating it to state ideology, as this would inevitably lead to catastrophe.
KK
Weather modification, science, and governance โ In-depth analysis
From cloud seeding in North Africa to privately funded geoengineering: the dream of controlling the weather is an old one. What is new is who is pursuing itโand under what conditions.
In summer, when heat, drought, and water shortages characterize the Mediterranean region, one question arises more and more frequently: Are humans already actively interfering with the weatherโand if so, what are the consequences for others? Between Spain and Morocco, this question has long been more than just a meteorological thought experiment. It touches on geopolitical sensitivities, scientific uncertainties, and a power vacuum that is increasingly being filled by private actors.
Weather modification sounds like science fiction, but it has been a reality for decades. Cloud seeding is considered the most established method. Aircraft or ground stations introduce particles such as silver iodide into suitable clouds to promote precipitation processes.
Morocco has been using this technique since the 1980s. In view of persistent droughts and falling groundwater levels, the programs have recently been expanded. The aim is to โactivateโ rain where natural processes appear too weak.
But the science remains sobering: even under optimal conditions, the measured effects are usually in the range of 5 to 15 percent additional precipitation. Without suitable clouds, the technique has no effect at all. Weather cannot be createdโonly modulated to a limited extent.
Despite these limitations, there is growing concern in Spain that Moroccan measures could influence atmospheric processes across political borders. Media reports, local protests, and political inquiries reflect a diffuse unease.
Scientifically, a direct connection is hardly tenable. The atmosphere is a chaotic system in which clear cause-and-effect chains are rarely verifiable. Nevertheless, it is precisely this uncertainty that has political explosive power: what cannot be refuted remains suspicious.
This is the core of the conflict. Weather manipulation causes less measurable damage than it does loss of trust. States alter local processes to their advantage, while neighbors suspect possible side effects without being able to prove them.
While government weather modification is relatively old, the debate is shifting fundamentally elsewhere. Private companies are pushing into a field that was previously reserved for public research.
A prominent example is the start-up Stardust, which develops technologies in the field of solar geoengineering. The aim is to reflect a small portion of the sun’s rays in order to mitigate global warming โ for example, through aerosols in the stratosphere.
Models show that such an intervention could lower the global average temperature. However, the side effects would be distributed very unevenly across regions. Shifts in precipitation zones, changes in monsoon systems, and political conflicts are considered likely.
The decisive novelty lies less in the technology than in the actor: a privately financed company, equipped with patents, capital, and strategic influence, could offer geoengineering as a service to countries in the future.
International law is struggling to keep pace with this development. The 1977 ENMOD Convention only prohibits the military use of environmental manipulation. Civilian or commercial applications remain permitted. A moratorium on large-scale geoengineering by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity is politically binding, but not legally binding.
This creates a governance gap: technologies with potentially global impacts can be developed without clear rules on transparency, liability, or democratic control.
A particularly sensitive scenario is one in which states do not intervene themselves, but purchase interventions. Who bears responsibility when regional climate impacts occur? Who decides whether to continue or discontinue? And who owns the data?
The debate surrounding Spain and Morocco shows that influencing the weather is less a question of technical feasibility than of political perception. Cloud seeding remains limited, local, and scientifically unspectacular.
The real turning point lies elsewhereโin the privatization of atmospheric interventions. When the sky becomes a market, decision-making power and risk shift equally.
In the end, the question is not whether humans can control the weather. Rather, it is an uncomfortable, as yet unresolved one:
Who decides on the procedureโand who lives with the consequences?
KK
In diesem Podcast geht es um Martin Heideggers Vorlesungsreihe โWas heiรt Denken?โ und dessen fundamentale Kritik am modernen Verstรคndnis von Wissen. Heidegger postuliert die provokante These, dass die Wissenschaft nicht denkt, da sie sich lediglich in einem vorgegebenen Rahmen bewegt, anstatt das Wesen der Dinge selbst zu hinterfragen. Am Beispiel eines blรผhenden Baumes wird verdeutlicht, dass eine rein neurobiologische oder physikalische Erklรคrung die eigentliche menschliche Erfahrung der Welt verfehlt. Wahres Denken erfordert laut Heidegger einen Sprung aus dem wissenschaftlichen Bezirk, um sich der Unmittelbarkeit des Seins zuzuwenden. Der Text warnt vor einer Verwรผstung des Denkens, bei der trotz einer Flut an Informationen der Bezug zum Wesentlichen verloren geht. Letztlich wird das Denken als ein stรคndiges Unterwegssein definiert, das keine fertigen Antworten liefert, sondern zur existenziellen Auseinandersetzung mit der eigenen Identitรคt aufruft.
