This article investigates the notion of sensus communis as being introduced in the Critique of Judgment. I argue that, within the framework of Kant's philo- sophy, the general notion of a sensus communis, that is, a faculty that leads to sensuous and universal results, is paradoxical. An analysis of the theoretical sensus communis, understood as an awareness of the faculties' accord in cases of cognition, reveals that it is unclear why this faculty should amount to a sense. The aesthetic sensus (...) communis is the best candidate for a sensuous and communal faculty. However, I show that the communality of its results, that is, the community of the pleasure in the beautiful as being felt on the occasion of a given object, is insufficiently developed. (shrink)

Menschen haben psychische Störungen, zum Beispiel Depressionen, Angst- oder Abhängigkeitsstörungen. Doch was genau heißt es, eine psychische Störung zu haben? Dies ist die Hauptfrage, um die es in meinem Buch geht. Die Hauptthese, für die ich argumentiere, ist folgende: Eine Person hat dann und nur dann eine psychische Störung, wenn sie (i) mindestens eine der Fä- higkeiten, in ihrem Denken, Fühlen oder Handeln angemessen auf die ihr ver- fügbaren (scheinbaren) Gründe zu reagieren, nicht hat und sie (ii) durch den Zustand, (...) der dieser Unfähigkeit zugrunde liegt oder aus ihr resultiert, geschädigt wird. Ich nenne dies den “;Rehability View" (RHA), wobei “;;Rehability" ein Port- manteau aus den drei relevanten Grundbegriffen “;reasons" (Gründe), “;;harm" (Schädigung) und “;ability" (Fähigkeit) ist. (shrink)

This paper aims at developing an understanding of conspirational thinking as a means for dealing with epistemic and practical insecurity. This strategy of coping with insecurity results in the construction of a metaphysical system, which is centered around the idea of a nearly omnipotent conspirator. The paper argues that there is a relatedness between the Cartesian cogito and conspirational thinking. The latter can be conceived of as an aberration from the philosophical search for a fundamentum inconcussum. After the relevance of (...) the thought of Descartes for the current theorizing on conspirational thinking is explained with reference to its historical context in the first part of the paper, the second part shows that the motive for conspirational thinking lies in the repudiation of responsibility in the face of an often overwhelming perception of insecurity. The third part of the paper reflects on possibilities for the weakening of this ethical motive for conspirational thinking building on the Cartesian concept of generosity. (shrink)

Spinoza has been interpreted as a rationalist and a monist. This article tries to show that these views are to be specified. The intuitive knowledge of God plays a constitutive role in Spinoza's "Ethics". To reach it, one has to run through long chains of inferences. But the inferential mode of cognition will not lead to an understanding of the definition of God given in the first part of the "Ethics". This understanding can only be gained in the fifth part. (...) Thus, there is circular epistemic structure hidden in Spinoza's opus magnum, which has not been sufficiently described in the literature yet. (shrink)

Wittgenstein's discussion of rule-following can be considered as a part of his criticism of metaphysics: Naturalistic as well as non-naturalistic ontologies fail to present us an adequate explanation of the normative dimension of linguistic behavior. In this paper, we will reconstruct this criticism of metaphysics and show that thereby we gain an important philosophical insight: Wittgenstein's criticism implies that the normativity of language is not a phenomenon that stands in need for an explanation but rather – to the contrary – (...) has to be considered as a primitive, non-reducible condition that we have to presuppose in order to show how linguistic meaning is possible at all. In this sense, the notion of rule-following gives rise to a transcendental semantics. (shrink)

A rarely considered variety of objectivism in ethics takes the claim to objectivity of scientific and ethical judgments to be completely analogous. I show that this position is challenged by the socalled relativism of distance: Although we can make claims to objectivity in both areas, it is possible that agreement within each area extends to different degrees. A proper understanding of this challenge paves the way for us to make sense of two widely held assumptions: first, that there is objectivity (...) in ethics, and second, that the claim to objectivity in ethics reaches a limit that the sciences can transcend. (shrink)