The concept “anthropology” carries a special meaning in the contemporary discussion in the field of the human sciences. Numerous special sciences employ it express their concern for “man”. Prepared by the “turn toward anthropology” during the 19th century, philosophical anthropology, at the beginning of the 20th century, has once again raised the question of the nature and the fundamental anthropological characteristics of man. In doing so, recourse was had for the first time to the results of the special sciences, in particular biology, to interpret man with their aid. Max Scheler, the founder of philosophical anthropology pursued the problem of the position of man in the cosmos (nature), Helmuth Plessner related man to the different levels of the organic world and Arnold Gehlen raised the question of the nature of man and his place in the world. The start, however, from biology turned out to be too one-sided because the possibility of self-reflexion and also the question of a meaningful interpretation of life cannot be solved from a biological viewpoint. Hence the original position of philosophical anthropology searching the essential structure of man, is no longer as important as it was in the beginning. Today, philosophy rather faces problems of inter-human behaviour and finds its task in designing guiding images for action.
Pedagogical anthropology is related to philosophical anthropology in two ways. On the one hand, it evaluates the results of the latter pedagogically, i. e. it asks how the consequences of man's “brokenness” (Gebrochenheit) affect his education. On the other hand, it is encouraged by philosophical anthropology to conduct anthropological research within the confines of its own phenomena. The large variety of special knowledge leads to the question of integrating it and thus to the problem area of the “image of man” and to the questions of norms and aims. This opens up new vistas leading further to a new plane of relations between philosophy and pedagogy.

View full abstract

The attempt is made in this paper to clarify with reference to various theories of Niemeyer, the concept of didactics in 18th century Germany concentrating on its relation to “education.”
During the 18th century didactics as an educational method meant chiefly “transmission of knowledge”; Niemeyer, while folluowig this traditional interpretation, further clarifies the educational meaning of teaching. Teaching is an activity by which the understanding of the child is promoted ; it is an act, furthermore, intended to form thereby moral judgment within the child. In fact, the educational effectiveness of teachings is called into play only and always through the child's power of comprehension, i. e. indirectly. But Niemeyer discovered in this indirect effectiveness the real educational value of teaching.
This interpretation of teaching forms one of the premises to Herbart's “pedagogical didactics”.

View full abstract

What is man - this question of anthropology is by no means an arbitrary or aimless one directed toward man, but since it is the fundamental and primary question, the author pursuing this problem by relying on Kant's philosophy intends to clarify somewhat further which problem lies at the basis of this question or must be studied necessarily in connection with it. If Kant's entire philosophy istaken for anthropology, two different kinds of anthropology can be distinguished, one belonging to the field of experience and the other one to the transcendental realm. By studying the structure of Kant's anthropology, the author intended to clarify the foundations of the origin of both types of anthropology and their mutual relationship. It is intended furthermore, to clarify the meaning of Kant's work Anthropology under a Practical Viewpoint, and the basis of Kant's view on education. Kant does not discuss anthropology as a mere instrument of pedagogy, but in his philosophy the possibility of education originates only at the moment when the foundation of a possibility of anthropology emerges. Hence, the study of anthropology was considered necessary to understand Kant's pedagogy.

View full abstract