The central aim of the inquiry begun in this text is to reach a semantic characterisationof philosophical discourse, that is, to describe the »language«, or the code, ofphilosophy. This inquiry contains an examination of the views on the nature andpurpose of philosophy held by Immanuel Kant and Ludwig Wittgenstein, but manyother philosophers, semioticians, linguists and literary theorists are brought into thediscussion.In the first part of the text, the view is expressed that, with regard to the peculiarphenomena that characterize philosophy , (...) a theory of philosophy itself is needed, but such that would notitself be caught in the same kind of discourse. Then some methodological restrictionsare introduced: mainly, that the »philosophy« to be dealt with is the classicalcontinental philosophy, which is percieved as a body of texts. The aim of the inquiryis then formulated as the description of the code by which these texts are organized;the method of the inquiry is specified as a deductive-hypothetical one. In the end,an outline of a semantic theory is offered, as a basis for this description.The second part of the text starts the examination of Kant’s and Wittgenstein’sphilosophical views and their views on philosophy. Kant’s theory of knowledge ispresented as one which asserts the primary role of subjective a priori forms whichshape what we know as »reality«, and is therefore opposed to Wittgenstein’s picturetheory of language, where language simply mirrors what is given. The conclusion isreached, however, that both Kant and Wittgenstein propose a parallel dichotomybetween that which can be known/said, and the thing-in-itself or the mystical, andwith regard to this they both claim that the aims of philosophy as seen traditionallymust be reconcieved to a great extent.The inquiry is continued in an another article. (shrink)

Previous efforts to bring the Hegelian dialectic closer to a clarification give reason for skepticism. The question: "What is dialectic", according to Dieter Henrich, "has remained without an answer so far". Hegel's objective-idealistic program is, however, so much linked to the possibility of a dialectical logic that it is an urgent desideratum to gain clarity about the stringency of dialectical argumentation. But this is only possible on the basis of a theory of dialectic. Hegel's own reflection on methods cannot be (...) considered sufficient in this respect. It does not enable us to defend the dialectical procedure against objections or to answer questions of method. In the following, a detailed reconstruction of the dialectic of 'being' and 'nothing' in Hegel's 'Science of Logic' will reveal basic structures of dialectical argumentation. As will be shown, antinomic structures play a key role. Such a 'reconstruction', however, will not be a simple confirmation of Hegelian texts, but will always have the character of a critique. In fact, it will turn out that in comparison with Hegel's development of categories, radical revisions are to be expected. ----- Bisherige Bemühungen, das Verfahren Hegelscher Dialektik einer Klärung näherzubringen, geben Anlass zur Skepsis. Die Frage: „Was ist Dialektik?“, so Dieter Henrich, sei „bisher ohne Antwort geblieben“. Das objektiv-idealistische Programm Hegels ist indes so sehr mit der Möglichkeit einer dialektischen Logik verknüpft, daß über die Stringenz dialektischer Argumentation Klarheit zu gewinnen ein dringliches Desiderat darstellt. Das aber ist nur auf der Grundlage einer Theorie der Dialektik möglich. Hegels eigene Methodenreflexion kann diesbezüglich nicht als zureichend erachtet werden. Sie versetzt uns nicht in die Lage, das dialektische Verfahren gegen Einwände zu verteidigen oder Methodenfragen zu beantworten. Im Folgenden sollen in einer detaillierten Rekonstruktion der Dialektik von ‘Sein’ und ‘Nichts’ in Hegels ‘Wissenschaft der Logik’ Grundstrukturen dialektischer Argumentation sichtbar gemacht werden. Wie gezeigt wird, kommt dabei antinomischen Strukturen eine Schlüsselfunktion zu. Eine solche 'Rekonstruktion' wird allerdings nicht eine umstandslose Bestätigung der Hegelschen Textvorlage sein können, sondern immer auch den Charakter einer Kritik haben. In der Tat wird sich ergeben, daß im Vergleich mit Hegels Kategorienentwicklung einschneidende Revisionen zu gewärtigen sind. (shrink)

Ovaj tekst nastavlja istraživanje započeto u članku naslovljenom „Semantičke strukture filozofije: postavljanje problema“. Počinje pokušajem suprotstavljanja Kantu i Wittgensteinu u više točaka: Kantov mentalni konstruktivizam, Wittgensteinova teorija slike, pitanje o granicama znanja/izrecivosti, prirodi logike, stavu da ima nečeg pogrešnog u filozofiji i tako dalje . Također, osvrće se i na filozofijske pretpostavke samog ovog teksta.Nakon toga, opis kôda, ili „jezika“, filozofije dan je kao tri kozmopoetička oblika. Upućuje se da je unutar tih triju shema moguće svrstati svaki filozofijski tekst te (...) je načinjena usporedba filozofije sa znanošću i književnošću. Raspravljano je i o ostalim stalnim pitanjima, poput naravi filozofskih problema u danom kontekstu i prijedloga metode analize nasuprot interpretiranju filozofijskih tekstova.U posljednjem dijelu teksta, autor postavlja pitanje o mogućnosti ostvarenja njegova cilja o ovome tekstu kao nefilozofskoj deskripciji filozofije te ga nakon kraće rasprave ostavlja otvorenim.This article continues the inquiry begun in the article entitled »The Semantic Structures of Philoso-phy: Posing the Problem«. It begins with an attempt to oppose Kant and Wittgenstein on many points: Kant’s mental constructivism, Wittgenstein’spicture theory, the question of limits to knowledge/expressibility, the view that there is somethingwrong with philosophy, the nature of logic, etc. .Also, the problem of a philosophical background to this very text is adressed.After this, the description of the code, or »language«, of philosophy is given as the three cosmopoeticforms. It is proposed that every philosophical text can be fitted into these schemata. Philosophyis then brought into comparison with science and literature. Other residual issues are discussed, in-cluding the nature of philosophical problems as seen in this context and the proposal of the methodfor analysing philosophical texts, as opposed to interpreting them.In the last part of the text, the question is briefly discussed and left open, namely whether the aim ofthis text to be a non-philosophical description of philosophy is achievable. (shrink)

Human dignity defines the foundation of mutual respect between persons in the law. In German constitutional law it defends a realm of individual freedom and inviolable protection against the interests of the collective. Dignity as a legal concept is not a good to be balanced or weighed against other goods, but a prohibition norm, not a reason but a constraint, thus guaranteeing a non-consequentialist and especially a non-utilitarian understanding of basic rights.

Handlungen, mit denen wir mehr Gutes tun, als unsere Pflicht ist, heißen in der Ethik supererogatorisch. Die Autorin steckt einen Rahmen für Theorien der Supererogation ab. In jenem Rahmen dokumentiert sie die Geschichte dieses Begriffes und würdigt aktuelle Theorien - um deren Beschränkungen zu überwinden. Auch wenn wir über das Gebotene hinausgehen, so ihre These, können wir fehlen; wir können uns neue Pflichten einhandeln.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 40.2 (2002) 256-257 [Access article in PDF] Book Review Die Struktur des menschlichen Geistes nach Augustinus: Selbstreflexion und Erkenntnis Gottes in "De Trinitate" Johannes Brachtendorf. Die Struktur des menschlichen Geistes nach Augustinus: Selbstreflexion und Erkenntnis Gottes in "De Trinitate." Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 2000. Pp. viii + 335. Cloth, DM 128,00. "The Trinity" is arguably Augustine's (philosophically) most demanding work. Yet (...) it is precisely its philosophical quality that is nowadays sometimes called in question for its apparent lack of argumentative coherence. H. I. Marrou has even expressed the view that this may have been intended, as the text is designed as an exercitatioanimi, a spiritual-mental exercise; i.e., the argumentative gaps are deliberately left open to be filled in by whoever undergoes the exercise. This would mean that "The Trinity" lacks any philosophical or theological position or doctrine in particular, and that it must not be judged by the standards of philosophical discourse, even those of Augustine's own day and age. Brachtendorf sets out with a revision of that view. Augustine, he argues, does indeed formulate a particular position. The impression that there may be gaps in his arguments could well stem from a misunderstanding of some of them. Augustine, Brachtendorf reports in his first chapter (1), developed his teaching of the triune God in close contact with the philosophy of Plotinus. However, he distanced himself from Plotinus by analyzing the process of cognition not by taking as an example the divine nous, but the menshumana. Apart from that he developed an ontology of the Trinity (2) and only then analyzed the human mind in analogy to it (3-4). He also looked into the relationship of mind and language ("word") (5) and developed further some aspects of this relationship such as the trinitarian structure of the human mind (6), the relationship of knowledge and wisdom (7), the human mind as the image of God (8), the self-reflection of the human mind (9), language as an expression of that self-reflection in the image of God (10), and the concept of the "inner word" (11).Brachtendorf concludes with an appeal not to read into Augustine's link of notitia and amor that he was interested in the analysis of self-knowledge merely for ethical reasons. Amor, he argues, expressly includes operations of the intellect. Augustine's interest was therefore genuinely theoretical and intellectualist. Amor, for Augustine, was a force that creates knowledge as such, no matter what the content. Its impact is practical and theoretical. Referring to the works of Charles Taylor, Martin Heidegger, Max Scheler, Hans-Georg Gadamer, and Hannah Arendt, Brachtendorf demonstrates how influential Augustine was with this aspect of his thought in the development of "Subjekt"-centered philosophies in the twentieth century. Yet, as influential as this approach may have been in this particular field, arguing, as it did, for the ontological character of human subjectivity (i.e., that the human mind was naturally structured in a trinitarian way, but had to make its natural intelligence explicit in thought through the learning of language) it did not revolutionize [End Page 256] the understanding of language. In consequence it did not impress the philosophers of the linguistic turn, and that is probably why today the argument of "The Trinity" is so often found wanting.Pointing back to the source Brachtendorf's study is a welcome contribution to the subject and a useful guide for all who now--hopefully, and encouraged by this work--set out for themselves to have a (closer) look at the original. Josef Lössl Catholic University Leuven... (shrink)

Mit der Äußerung von "Das ist schön / gut" kann man ganz verschiedene Dinge tun: Man kann einstufen, sein Gefallen kundgeben, eine positive stilkritische Bewertung vollziehen, einen beglückenden Eindruck wiedergeben, ein lobendes Urteil aussprechen. Die Teilnehmer an der Diskussion über die Struktur des ästhetischen Werturteils haben sich einseitig an dieser oder jener Wertäußerung orientiert. Die Diskussion ist deshalb in eine Sackgasse geraten.

Mit der Äußerung von "Das ist schön / gut" kann man ganz verschiedene Dinge tun: Man kann einstufen, sein Gefallen kundgeben, eine positive stilkritische Bewertung vollziehen, einen beglückenden Eindruck wiedergeben, ein lobendes Urteil aussprechen. Die Teilnehmer an der Diskussion über die Struktur des ästhetischen Werturteils haben sich einseitig an dieser oder jener Wertäußerung orientiert. Die Diskussion ist deshalb in eine Sackgasse geraten.

Gerhard Preyer rekonstruiert in diesem essential den harten Kern von Shmuel N. Eisenstadts allgemeiner Soziologie, wie Eisenstadt sie in der Untersuchung der Beziehung zwischen Handeln (Kreativität) und Struktur sowie zwischen Kultur und Sozialstruktur durchgeführt hat. Preyer ordnet seine Untersuchung in dem von ihm sogenannten „semantischen Map“ als eine evolutionäre Universalie des „konstitutiven basalen Bezugsrahmens“ der Erforschung der sozio-strukturellen Evolution an. Aus Eisenstadts Sicht legen die grundlegenden semantischen Maps das zentrale Problem der menschlichen und der sozialen Existenz, die Spezifikation ihrer (...) Lösungen und die Beziehung zu den grundlegenden Annahmen über die soziale Ordnung fest. Das Semantic Map und der Kampf um die Verteilung von Ressourcen ist der forschungsprogrammatische Bezugsrahmen seiner Reformulierung der Modernisierungstheorie, der Kritik an der klassischen Modernisierungstheorie als einer Konvergenztheorie und seiner Fassung des Problems der sozialen Ordnung. Die Studie wird mit einer Modifikation von Eisenstadts Ansatz einer mitgliedschaftstheoretischen Reinterpretation abgeschlossen. (shrink)

Der Aufsatz untersucht, inwiefern Grundstruktur und Strukturwandel der Allegorie Antworten auf historische Problemlagen darstellen. Er geht der Frage nach, wie diese Funktion der Allegorie erschöpft, ihre Struktur aufgelöst und jener des Romans angenähert wird, wenn sich Weltbilder von kognitiven Kosmologien in Moralsysteme verwandeln, die der Bewältigung innerweltlicher Situationen dienen.