„Übermaß und Widerstand“ ist ein systematischer Versuch, eine Brücke zwischen der transzendentalen Philosophie Kants und der Gegebenheitsphänomenologie Jean-Luc Marions zu spannen, wobei der Ansatz einer dynamischen Konstitution der Erfahrung vertreten wird, in welcher sichdie kognitiven Strukturen des Subjektes im Dialog mit erlebten Phänomenen an ihre Auffassungsmöglichkeiten anpassen. Damit ist die Beschreibung einer dialogisch-dynamischen Erfahrung beabsichtigt, welche die hermeneutischen und spontanen Leistungen des Subjektes anerkennt sowie Raum für eine Autonomie phänomenaler Manifestierung macht, d.h., dass die Phänomene die Bedingungen ihrer eigene Auffassung (...) durch ein erkennendes und reflektierendes Subjekt mitgestalten. Dementsprechend wird hier der Fokus auf ein Subjekt gelegt, welches hauptsächlich reflektierend tätig ist und dabei an sich arbeitet – d.h. an seinem erkennenden Vermögen, um sich einem breiten Spektrum phänomenaler Möglichkeiten aussetzen zu können. Dieser Ansatz wird daher für eine aktive Passivität des Subjektes argumentieren, wobei die Empfänglichkeit des Subjektes mit seinen Fähigkeiten zur Reflexion eng zusammenhängt. (shrink)

I show that Kant’s depiction of the christic figure in Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason is not contingent but explains how this figure functions in two essential ways: as a representation of a maximum of morality that can ground our moral disposition and in so doing acts as a stan­dard for morality. More precisely, the following argument is made: 1) the sublime nature of the image of Christ — as an image of universal respect for the law — (...) awakens the moral feeling of subjects in the sense of the possibility of overcoming one’s perverted nature; 2) as moral perfection it provides immediate transparency to the end goal of morality; 3) just as in the case of associative construction of empirical concepts, the sublime provides the prototype for association through which empirical acts are determined as moral ones; 4) the image of Christ also acts as motivator by encompassing said trans­parency and standard in the idea of moral perfection. These four points show that the image of Christ functions in a dual manner. Points 1) to 3) address Christ as a prototype/archetype (Urbild) — awakening and making possible a moral redefinition of the subject — while point 4) addresses Christ as an example (Vorbild) — sustaining and entertaining the moral redefinition as a motivating model. (shrink)

Wittgenstein talks in his Philosophical Investigations of a pupil engaging in a repetitive series continuation who suddenly begins to apply a different rule than the one instructed to him. This hypothetical example has been interpreted by a number of philosophers to indicate either a skeptical attitude towards rules and their application, an implicit need of knowledge and understanding of a rule accessible to those engaged in a given practice, or a certain normativity that guides our actions but is not cognitive, (...) but processual in nature. I wish to support and extend Ginsborg’s account of primitive normativity from a novel perspective in a twofold manner: 1) by describing the mechanism of primitive normativity via Kant’s concept of aesthetical and epistemic pleasure and displeasure; 2) by applying the conceptual pair of expected and unexpected uncertainty from adaptive learning theories, which describe the fluctuation of learning rates under uncertain circumstances.I am grateful to Dr. Romain Ligneul's help in better understanding the subtleties of this conceptual pair. (shrink)