Letters Upon The Aesthetic Education of Man (1794)

Schiller is the intellectual history of Germany. His did work in history and philosophy. In the letter he wrote “Esthetic Education” his given the philosophic basic for is doctrine of art and his view of the place of beauty in human life. This letter was inspired by the disenchantment Schiller felt about the France Revolution. He wrote the letter as a philosophical inquiry into what had gone wrong and how to prevent such tragedies in the future.  

In letter 1, it will be about Beauty and Art , his want show his researches about beauty and art. The author explain with regard to the ideas which predominate in the practical part of Kant's system, philosophers only disagree, whilst mankind, his very confident of proving, have never done so. His also has explain about his investigation where on is compelled to appeal as frequently to feeling as to principles. Other than that, his say like the chemist the philosopher finds synthesis only by analysis, or spontaneous works of nature only through the torture of art. Thus in order to detain the fleeting apparition, he must enchain it in the fetters of rule, dissect its fair proportions into abstract notions, and preserve its living spirit in a fleshless skeleton of words.

In letter 2, Art is can be distinguished from utility and science is the second part of the letter   . highlighted by Schiller. But the voice of our age seems by no means favorable to art, at all events to that kind of art to which his inquiry is directed. For art has to leave reality, it has to raise itself bodily above necessity and neediness; for art is the daughter of freedom, and it requires its prescriptions and rules to be furnished by the necessity of spirits and not by that of matter Utility is the great idol of the time, to which all powers do homage and all subjects are subservient. Conclusion in this, his very hope that his shall succeed in convincing to us that this matter of art is less foreign to the needs than to the tastes of our age; nay, that, to arrive at a solution even in the political problem, the road of aesthetics must be pursued. It is because it is through beauty that his arrive at freedom.

In letter 3, he want tell about the realm of nature, within which man lives, does not contain all of man: the work of reason allows man to transcends the bounds of nature by elevating physical necessity into moral necessity, from the state of nature to the moral state–without, however, jeopardizing the realm of nature that nourishes man. Man is not better treated by nature in his first start than her other works are; he can convert the work of necessity into one of free solution, and elevate physical necessity into a moral law. It is to prevent physical society from ceasing for a moment in time, while the moral society is being formed in the idea; in other words, to prevent its existence from being placed in jeopardy, for the sake of the moral dignity of man.

In letter 4, he want explain about the state of nature works by compulsion, while the moral state works through freedom and rational choice. Consequently, when reason brings her moral unity into physical society, she must not injure the manifold in nature. When nature strives to maintain her manifold character in the moral structure of society, this must not create any breach in moral unity; the victorious form is equally remote from uniformity and confusion. Therefore, totality of character must be found in the people which is capable and worthy to exchange the state of necessity for that of freedom.

In letter 5, he explain to us about the  present state is characterized by lower classes governed “animal satisfactions,” while the higher classes exhibit and even more disgusting ”lethargy” in the form of unfettered egotism. Egotism has founded its system in the very bosom of a refined society, and without developing even a sociable character, we feel all the contagions and miseries of society. We subject our free judgment to its despotic opinions, our feelings to its bizarre customs, and our will to its seductions. Thus the spirit of the time is seen to waver between perversions and savagism, between what is unnatural and mere nature, between superstition and moral unbelief, and it is often nothing but the equilibrium of evils that sets bounds to it.

For conclusion, in this all letter what I know this book very hard to understand what his want tell to us because all the letter has a deep meaning to understanding. What I know his want tell to us his want to build this world so that it can be properly arranged in a good ways. His also give the difference about all the thing it look to explain to us. And this is the conclusion I should give. Thank you.