 In his essay “On Religion” (1789) Humboldt drew the outlines of a historical typology that would make it possible to study the relationship between religion and state power from the Greek city-states to present times and envisaged the purpose of the modern state as enabling its citizens to realize fully their “human vocation” (Bestimmung als Mensch, GS Vol 1: S.54). It would be necessary for this purpose, Humboldt thought, to accord a positive value to human sensuality and give it a freer and more creative rein. Consequently, he rejected the traditional dualistic view of human nature with its mind/body dichotomy and the Cartesian notion of the human spirit as a kind of ghost in the machine. Instead, he maintained, mind and body form a vital unity and what we call spirit (Geist) for him was nothing but “the finest ramification of sensuality.” The path to self-determination that Kant had demanded in his moral philosophy must therefore proceed through the cultivation of man’s sensuality (Sinnlichkeit). Hence the realm of aesthetics is granted a key function in any attempt to overcome the inherited mind/body dichotomy, in which Humboldt saw a major obstacle in the path of achieving individual self-determination. Schiller, in the central sections of his Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man of 1795 would take up Humboldt’s ideas. In the twentieth century members of the Frankfurt School, such as Herbert Marcuse in his book Eros and Civilization, would infuse these ideas with a renewed sense of relevancy and importance by linking them to Freudian psychology in their “Critical Theory” and philosophy. In his two contributions for Schiller’s journal Die Horen, Humboldt took the additional step of characterizing sexual difference as basic biological and anthropological givens of human culture and society.