Heinrich Rickert (1863-1936) war einer der bedeutendsten deutschen Philosophen vor dem Zweiten Weltkrieg und gilt neben Wilhelm Windelband als einer der Hauptvertreter der südwestdeutschen Schule des Neukantianismus. Seine auch heute noch anregende Philosophie hatte großen, interdisziplinären wie internationalen Einfluss. Die philologisch-kritische Ausgabe macht die Schriften endlich wieder verfügbar.

Einleitung.--Die begriffliche Erkenntniss der Körperwelt.--Natur und Geist.--Natur und Geschichte.--Die historische Begriffsbildung.--Naturphilosophie und Geschichts-Philosophie.

Heinrich Rickert (1863-1936) was One of the leading neo-Kantian philosophers in Germany and a crucial figure in the discussions of the foundations of the social sciences in the first quarter of the twentieth century. His views were extremely influential, most significantly on Max Weber. The Limits of Concept Formation in Natural Science is Rickert's most important work, and it is here translated into English for the first time. It presents his systematic theory of knowledge and philosophy of science, and deals (...) particularly with historical knowledge and the problem of demarcating the natural from the human sciences. The theory Rickert develops is carefully argued and of great intrinsic interest. It departs from both positivism and neo-Hegelian idealism and is worked out by contrast to the views of others, particularly Dilthey and the early phenomenologists. (shrink)

Argument and its performance as debate are ambient phenomena. It takes a world to have an argument, and as the world changes, so will the ways and means of argument. The current narratives circulating about post-truth, truthiness, alternative facts, and the like, while illuminating somewhat different registers, gloss this point. Collectively, they seem to assert that truth's sway in public discourse has lessened, threatening the possibility of robust civic discourse and politics. I am leery of such claims. They are in (...) general regressive, since they are nostalgic, working from a rear-view mirror mirage of stability and surety. Setting aside the panic such writers generate, and considering some deeper implications... (shrink)

The automatic tendency to anthropomorphize our interaction partners and make use of experience acquired in earlier interaction scenarios leads to the suggestion that social interaction with humanoid robots is more pleasant and intuitive than that with industrial robots. An objective method applied to evaluate the quality of human–robot interaction is based on the phenomenon of motor interference (MI). It claims that a face-to-face observation of a different (incongruent) movement of another individual leads to a higher variance in one’s own movement (...) trajectory. In social interaction, MI is a consequence of the tendency to imitate the movement of other individuals and goes along with mutual rapport, sense of togetherness, and sympathy. Although MI occurs while observing a human agent, it disappears in case of an industrial robot moving with piecewise constant velocity. Using a robot with human-like appearance, a recent study revealed that its movements led to MI, only if they were based on human prerecording (biological velocity), but not on constant (artificial) velocity profile. However, it remained unclear, which aspects of the human prerecorded movement triggered MI: biological velocity profile or variability in movement trajectory. To investigate this issue, we applied a quasi-biological minimum-jerk velocity profile (excluding variability in the movement trajectory as an influencing factor of MI) to motion of a humanoid robot, which was observed by subjects performing congruent or incongruent arm movements. The increase in variability in subjects’ movements occurred both for the observation of a human agent and for the robot performing incongruent movements, suggesting that an artificial human-like movement velocity profile is sufficient to facilitate the perception of humanoid robots as interaction partners. (shrink)

Text: Reproduktion nach Scan der Ausgabe von 1934, Verlag von J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) in Tübingen. - Von dem kleinen Buch, das ich hier der Öffentlichkeit übergebe, bitte ich den Leser, nichts anderes zu erwarten, als das, was sein Titel ausdrücklich sagt. Es handelt sich in ihm nicht etwa um die Grundlinien eines Systems der Philosophie, sondern ausschließlich um dessen Probleme, und wenn diese sich auch nicht darlegen lassen, ohne die Richtung anzudeuten, in der das System bei der (...) Ausführung sich zu bewegen hätte, so sollen doch in dieser Schrift hauptsächlich Fragen gestellt, nicht Antworten gegeben werden. Oft brechen die Darlegungen dort ab, wo mancher Leser glauben kann, daß die größten Schwierigkeiten noch ungelöst sind. Ja mehr: nur die Grundprobleme der Philosophie werden erörtert, und das Eingehen auf Sonderfragen ist fast überall vermieden. Einzelheiten sind dann allein herangezogen worden, wenn es zur Verdeutlichung der Hauptbegriffe wünschenswert erschien. [Auszug aus dem Vorwort des Buches]. (shrink)