<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
 <record>
  <leader>     caa a22        4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="001">467920877</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="003">CHVBK</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="005">20180406152916.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="007">cr unu---uuuuu</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="008">170328e20060401xx      s     000 0 eng  </controlfield>
  <datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">10.1007/s10978-005-5622-1</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">doi</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">(NATIONALLICENCE)springer-10.1007/s10978-005-5622-1</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Coskun</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">Deniz</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">Faculty of Law, Radboud University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">Cassirer in Davos. An Intermezzo on Magic Mountain (1929)</subfield>
   <subfield code="h">[Elektronische Daten]</subfield>
   <subfield code="c">[Deniz Coskun]</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1="3" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">The Davos-debate between Ernst Cassirer and Martin Heidegger at Davos in 1929 has proved a landmark in the history of twentieth century philosophy. The debate not only marked the end of the heyday of continental Neo-Kantian philosophy, but influenced, although in implicit ways, legal and political theory as well. At various levels of discourse, philosophical, moral philosophical, and that of legal and political philosophy, in the first half of the twentieth century Cassirer acted as the advocate of what remained of the old European humanist tradition. Heidegger, on the contrary, acted as the exponent of the emerging existentialist, anti-humanist movement that would soon supplant the old tradition in significance and force. This is an account of an imaginary encounter between two traditions, so that the clash of their opposing forces may shed sparks on a (still) dark era in Western philosophical history. The conclusion sums up the lessons or wisdom to be learned for political and legal theory.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="540" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Springer, 2006</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Cassirer</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Davos</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Heidegger</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">law as symbolic form</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Neo-Kantianism</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="t">Law and Critique</subfield>
   <subfield code="d">Kluwer Academic Publishers</subfield>
   <subfield code="g">17/1(2006-04-01), 1-26</subfield>
   <subfield code="x">0957-8536</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">17:1&lt;1</subfield>
   <subfield code="1">2006</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">17</subfield>
   <subfield code="o">10978</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-005-5622-1</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">text/html</subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Onlinezugriff via DOI</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="908" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="D">1</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">research-article</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">jats</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">856</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">40</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-005-5622-1</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">text/html</subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Onlinezugriff via DOI</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">100</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">1-</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">Coskun</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">Deniz</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">Faculty of Law, Radboud University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">773</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">0-</subfield>
   <subfield code="t">Law and Critique</subfield>
   <subfield code="d">Kluwer Academic Publishers</subfield>
   <subfield code="g">17/1(2006-04-01), 1-26</subfield>
   <subfield code="x">0957-8536</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">17:1&lt;1</subfield>
   <subfield code="1">2006</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">17</subfield>
   <subfield code="o">10978</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="900" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Metadata rights reserved</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">Springer special CC-BY-NC licence</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="986" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">SWISSBIB</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">02014881X</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="898" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">BK010053</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">XK010053</subfield>
   <subfield code="c">XK010000</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="949" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="F">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">NL-springer</subfield>
  </datafield>
 </record>
</collection>
