Die ‘Krüppelfürsorge’ in der Weimarer Republik. Zwischen eigenem Standpunkt und diskursiver Anschlussfähigkeit an eugenische Argumentationsstrukturen

The ‘Krüppelfürsorge’ during the Weimar Republic. Oscillating between an Own Position and the Adoption of Eugenic Arguments. This article examines the discourse about physical disability led by the German ‘Krüppelfürsor‐ge’. It deals with the exhibition GeSoLei (Gesundheitspflege, soziale Fürsorge and Leibesübungen), which took place in Düsseldorf in 1926. The GeSoLei was one of the most popular platforms of the healthy and aesthetic body in the 1920s. It stood in the context of the German ‘national recovery’ after World War I and collected all types of medical, social and athletic professionals to expose their work to a broader audience. Also representatives of the so called ‘Krüppelfürsorge’ presented themselves and at the same time their perspective on people with physical disabilities on this exhibition. The article points out the ambivalent character of their perspective and shows the mixture of including and excluding people with physical disabilities, which was typical for the view of the ‘Krüppelfürsorge’. It demonstrates that the ‘Krüppelfürsorger’ on the one hand were quite progressive towards people with disabilities, but on the other hand showed a striking openness towards eugenic values.     

Spekulation und Physik im 18. Jahrhundert. Lomonossow,Kant und Lavoisier in Sachen Erhaltungsgesetz und Äther

As far as the law of preservation of matter and the existence of ether are concerned, Kant, Lomonossow and Lavoisier had very similar views. Nevertheless, according to historical evidence they worked out their theories never taking each other's results for granted. Whereas it is well known that Lavoisier did not base his experiments on the former ones by Lomonossow, it has been argued that Kant based his philosophy of nature on Lavoisier's experiments. I try to show here, that Kant had his philosophy of nature done, prior to Lavoisier's Elements of Chemistry. Further that the only one to have been able to influence Kant was not Lavoisier but Lomonossow. But Kant never mentioned Lomonossow. There is strong evidence that the similarity of views in Kant, Lomonossow and Lavoisier is not due to any kind of interaction between them. This also holds of the (same) mistakes, which Kant and Lomonossow made. The only substantial difference is that Kant thought, that some laws of nature may be logically inferred without experiments.