En este trabajo,, seleccionado en la II Olimpiada de Filosofía que organiza FICUM en secundaria, se trata el tema de la libertad desde el punto de vista de los diferentes ámbitos de la filosofía.

In this paper I consider Tetens' reaction to Kant's Inaugural Dissertation in his two most important philosophical works, the essay “Über die allgemeine speculativische Philosophie” of 1775 and the two-volume Philosophische Versuche of 1777. In particular, I focus on Tetens’ critical discussion of Kant's account of the acquisition of concepts of space and time.

Supposons un auteur qui ait vécu au temps de Kant, qui ait influencé celui-ci, mais qui en même temps ait développé sa voie propre… Supposons que cet auteur ait critiqué certains moments de la pensée kantienne, en développant une voie originale sur des questions aussi importantes que celles de l’objectivité, voire du transcendantal… Un tel auteur devrait être considéré comme un protagoniste important dans l’histoire de la philosophie, nous offrant des possibilités de pensée originales. Il devrait jouir d’une grande notoriété (...) et être étudié par de nombreux commentateurs. Un tel auteur existe : il s’agit de Johann Nikolaus Tetens, qui n’est pourtant connu que de quelques spécialistes. (shrink)

Containing all of the key writings leading up to the publication of his Philosophical Essays in 1777, this volume presents complete works by Johann Nicolaus Tetens (1736-1807) in English for the very first time. These important essays focus on method in metaphysics and mathematics, the analysis of language, and various anthropological questions that occupied thinkers of the period. Key features of the volume include: · Accurate, readable translations · Detailed scholarly notes · A substantial introduction situating Tetens's works (...) in historical context · A German-English glossary This collection marks a significant contribution to scholarship on Kant and 18th-century German philosophy. (shrink)

SummaryHolm Tetens develops in his book „Gott denken. Ein Versuch über rationale Theologie“ theoretical and practical arguments against a naturalistic and in favour of a theistic understanding of reality. In my paper I focus on Teten’s claim that we are rationally justified to hope for the truth of classical theism. I distinguish between rationally justified and unjustified forms of hope and argue that we are rationally justified to hope for the redemption of reality as promised by classical theism. However, (...) this hope has a weaker basis of justification than Tetens seems to assume because serious objections to classical theism ought to be taken into consideration as well. (shrink)

SummaryWe briefly clarify Tetens’s concept of God and argue that there are some problems regarding both the precise formulation of his panentheism as well as its implications for sin and special divine action.

Building on the research of Manfred Kuehn, the author argues that, whatever influence the Scottish Common Sense Philosophy of Thomas Reid may have had on the development of Immanuel Kant’s refutation of idealism, it was filtered through the thinking of Kant’s largely forgotten German contemporary, Johann Nicolaus Tetens. While the importance of Tetens for understanding Kant is examined in connection with only one idea, the aim is to demonstrate that Tetens is a figure worthy of serious historical (...) consideration. (shrink)

Band 1. Stellenindex und Konkordanz zu Johann Nicolaus Tetens' Über die allgemeine speculativische Philosophie.

_ Source: _Volume 95, Issue 2, pp 287 - 299 Holm Tetens attempts to define ‘god’ as part of his rational theology. The term ‘god’ is supposed to be defined as ‘the infinite I-subject’. This should be achieved through the customary definition of a singular term by description. However, definitions of this kind have to meet certain formal requirements, which a Rational Theology should adhere to. This paper aims to show that Tetens’ definition faces problems with these requirements (...) since vital arguments are either missing or incomplete in a substantial way. In the process, possible approaches to remedy the outlined problems are hinted at. Overall, this paper raises the question of an alternative interpretation of his definition of god, which is central to the author’s project.Holm Tetens versucht im Rahmen seiner rationalen Theologie, eine Definition Gottes vorzulegen. Die Konstante ‚Gott‘ soll als ‚das unendliche Ich-Subjekt‘ definiert werden. Dies soll nach dem üblichen Schema der Definition einer Individuenkonstante über eine Beschreibung erfolgen. Für derartige Setzungen gibt es jedoch formale Voraussetzungen, die gerade unter dem Anspruch, eine rationale Theologie vorzulegen, eingehalten werden sollten. Nachfolgend soll gezeigt werden, dass Tetens’ Definition unter diesen Voraussetzungen problematisch ist, da erforderliche Argumentationen entweder fehlen oder in einem kritischen Maße unvollständig sind. Dabei werden auch Maßnahmen zur Behebung der aufgezeigten Mängel angedeutet, wie etwa die vom Autor stillschweigend vorausgesetzten Aussagen explizit zu machen. Insgesamt wirft die Untersuchung Fragen nach einer alternativen Deutung der für das Gesamtprojekt zentralen Gottesdefinition auf. (shrink)

SummaryThis paper presents a reconstruction and discussion of Holm Tetens’ new moral argument for theistic belief. The argument is a pragmatic one in that it intends to show that believing in God is rational because it has some morally desirable consequences. It asserts that the suffering of countless victims of evil in this world causes in atheists who try to be moral some morally questionable states of mind. By contrast, theists who have certain beliefs about the afterlife, judgment, and (...) reconciliation are not subject to these bad states of mind. Therefore, Tetens argues, theistic belief is more rational than disbelief. (shrink)

In this article, I focus on Johann Nikolaus Tetens’s linguistic theory to make three arguments: (a) this linguistic theory endorses a phonological (contra phonetic) approach to the acoustic sphere of language; (b) the phonological approach is based on the idea that sounds can turn into phonemes (of a properly human language) only when a minimally rational reflection on them is made; and (c) the phonological approach allows us to understand the phoneme as a differential unity, as being composed of (...) structure and function, and as giving a theoretical basis for language learning. (shrink)

Dans ses Essais philosophiques, Johann Nikolaus Tetens (1736-1807) distingue trois fonctions principales du pouvoir de représenter (percevoir, reproduire, inventer) auxquelles se rapportent respectivement la faculté d’appréhension, l’imagination (ou fantaisie reproductrice) et le pouvoir d’invention. Il apparaît pour chacune de ces facultés que le pouvoir de représenter est essentiellement synthétique : la perception réalise la synthèse du continu en unifiant le divers des impressions, l’imagination crée de nouvelles liaisons entre représentations préexistantes et le pouvoir d’invention façonne de nouvelles images en (...) transformant les représentations conservées en mémoire et en les réunissant en une même représentation simple. On peut donc affirmer qu’il existe une triple synthèse du pouvoir de représenter au moyen de laquelle sont produites toutes nos représentations. La question pour Tetens est de savoir si ces trois facultés peuvent être ramenées à une seule force fondamentale. On se demandera dans quelle mesure la triple synthèse tétenésienne peut être rapprochée de celle exposée par Kant dans la déduction transcendantale de 1781. On soulignera en outre la parenté entre la notion d’image générale (ou abstraction sensible) chez Tetens et la notion de schème (empirique) chez Kant. (shrink)

In the last decades, scholars have aptly pointed out the limits of J.N. Tetens’ contribution to the rise of Kant’s critical theory of knowledge. Less attention has been paid to the possibility of recognizing a further, possibly more consistent, contribution by Tetens to Kant’s thought, namely, to the development of Kant’s anthropology. The present paper aims to test some possible research lines in this direction. After an overview on the observational method shared by Tetens’ gnoseological framework and (...) Kant’s anthropological approach, we will more specifically dwell on some topics that seem to allow a continuity-claim between Tetens’ psychological analysis of the human cognitive faculties and Kant’s anthropological project. The main issues at stake in this investigation are the faculty of empirical productive imagination, the figure of the genius, and the relationship between language and Denkungsart. (shrink)

Kant’s introduction in the Kritik der reinen Vernunft (KrV) of a spontaneity proper to the understanding is often thought to be one of the central innovations of his Critical philosophy. As I show in this paper, however, a number of thinkers within the 18th century German tradition in the time before the KrV (including the pre-Critical Kant himself) had already developed a robust conception of the spontaneity of the mind, a conception which, in many respects lays the groundwork for Kant’s (...) later, rather more influential account. To illustrate this, I consider three accounts of the spontaneity of the mind—those of Crusius, the pre-Critical Kant, and Tetens—which, while distinct, nonetheless relate to and explicitly draw upon one another in important ways, forming as it were the interconnected and, thus far, largely overlooked pre-Critical context for Kant’s discussion of the spontaneity of the understanding in the KrV. As I conclude, while Kant’s own account of the spontaneity of the understanding, and particularly of the I think clearly departs from these accounts, it nonetheless continues to connect in significant ways with the trailblazing discussions of his immediate predecessors. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Hume and Tetens Manfred Kuehn Kant was neither the only nor even the first German philosopher who publicly responded to Hume. Indeed, there were many. But there were none who came as close to appreciatingHume as didJohann Nicolaus Tetens, who, in his two main works, the Über die allgemeine speculativische Philosophie or On General Speculative Philosophy (1775), and the Philosophische Versuche über die menschliche Natur und ihre (...) Entwicklung or Philosophical Essays on Human Nature and itsDevelopment (1?7), not only argued that Hume was a philosophical force to be reckoned with, but also seemed to think that philosophical progress wasimpossiblewithoutan extensionandfurtherdevelopment ofHumean views. This alone would make him an interesting figure in the history of the reception of Hume's philosophy, but, since Tetens is one ofthe most important representatives ofempiricism in eighteenthcentury Germany, and since he put forward ideas that demonstrably influenced Kant, he is perhaps still more interesting. In any case, it is most regrettable that he still is so little studied in Germany today, and that he is almost completely unknown in English-speaking countries. Though Lewis White Beck has offered an interesting discussion of Tetens' critique ofHume in his book on Early German Philosophy, and though some Anglo-American Kant scholars are somewhat aware of Tetens' influence upon Kant, his name is almost never mentioned by philosophical scholars concerned with Hume. If this paper were to remind them of Tetens and his possible importance for the discussion ofissues raised by Hume, I would be very happy. Nevertheless, I must admit to an ulterior motive, for I am not interested in the relationship ofTetens and Hume per se, but rather in how Tetens' discussion ofHume might have influenced Kant's conception of "Hume's problem." My question is: "What could Kant have learned from Tetens about Hume in 1777, that is, about four years before the publication of his Critique ofPure Reason?" To this end, I shall first briefly review the evidence for Kant's study of Tetens; secondly say something about Tetens' discussion of the self; thirdly sketch his theory ofthe causal principle as a special case ofhis laws of association; fourthly represent an important part of his theory of objectiveornecessarytruth; andfinallytryto showhowall ofthismight be significant for our understanding of the development of Kant's position vis a vis Hume. Volume XV Number 2 365 MANFRED KUEHN IL Johann Georg Hamann, always interestedinliterarygossip and always ready to spread it, wrote to Johann Gottfried Herder on May 12, 1779 that Kant was writing on his Critique, and that he had "always open on his desk" Tetens' work. Two years earlier, on October 12, 1777, he had already told him that Kant was "said to be very full of... Tetens." Hamann, mischievous as he could be, not only wanted to bring Kant's former student up to date on the work of his teacher, but clearly also made a comment on Kant's originality. But there are other indications that Kant carefully studied Tetens between 1777 and 1781. Thus, Kant's correspondence with Herz in 1778 contains references to Tetens as having said things of importance, and his reflections of the period also mention him. One ofthe most telling indications ofhis rather close reading ofTetens is to be found in one ofhis letters to the publisher of his first Critique: On October 15, 1780 he writes to him that he would prefer not to have the book set in the type of Tetens' Essays because the latter is "really tiring" to his eyes. That Tetens' work did not only tire his eyes, but also stimulated his thoughts can be seen from one of his preparatory manuscripts to his Prolegomena of 1783, for there Kant suggested that Tetens could have given people occasion to think about the very problem of the Critique. Though he considered Tetens' attempt concerning the possibility of a priori knowledge as failed, he also viewed it as one of the most important attempts in that direction.??. It is well known that Kant himselfclaimed that "Hume's problem" was what first woke him from his dogmatic slumber. Though there is no similar pronouncement by Tetens, it is clear that he not only knew Hume well, but... (shrink)

La question de savoir si, compte tenu du nombre de ses facultés théoriques et pratiques, l’âme humaine possède une seule force fondamentale qui les unit ou les combine, plusieurs, ou aucune, a appartenu au champ de controverse le plus influent de l’Europe philosophique entre Leibniz et Kant. Johann Nikolaus Tetens a présenté une solution personnelle à ce problème. Sa manière de prouver que l’âme est dotée d’un pouvoir fondamental qui consiste en une parfaite spontanéité propre est aussi éloignée du (...) dogmatisme spéculatif que du cadre d’une psychologie empirique. Tetens formule, en quelque sorte, les conditions de possibilité d’une connaissance de l’âme humaine sans procéder de manière méthodiquement empirique. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie Jahrgang: 63 Heft: 5 Seiten: 994-1000.

SummaryIn Germany, Holm Tetens is an influential analytic philosopher of science, mind, and logic. For many years he had been arguing within the widely accepted framework of naturalism and atheism. It came, to put it mildly, as a surprise to the entire philosophical community in Germany when he published a book defending theism in 2015. In this book “Thinking God” he claims that physicalism is an incomplete account of reality, because the mental and ideal realm cannot be reduced to (...) the physical realm. As an alternative, he develops a version of theistic idealism which stands in the tradition of “panentheism”. Human subjectivity is fully embedded into the all-encompassing divine subjectivity. In dealing with the problem of theodicy, he then argues that the hope for eternal life and salvation by a supremely good being makes life more meaningful, esp. because it offers a prospect for justice to the countless victims of history. To Tetens, the worldview of naturalism and the worldview of theistic idealism are on the one hand both equally rational and defensible. On the other hand, both cannot be defeated by knock-down arguments. In closing, he urges his peers in philosophy to take the question of God seriously again. Shortly after the publication of the book, the Catholic Academy of Bavaria and the Munich School of Philosophy jointly organized an international master class on Tetens’s views which was taught by himself. The papers published in this issue grew out of this master class. For each paper by a young scholar there is also a reply by Tetens. The following editorial addresses specifically the German-speaking audience. It was thus not translated into English. All original papers discussing Tetens’s views and his replies to these, however, were written in English for the sake of reaching a larger worldwide readership. (shrink)

Holm Tetens, a philosopher from Berlin, reasons for the existence of God. In contrast to classical arguments for God’s existence, he uses a comparative way of reasoning. Tetens starts with naturalism, the prevalent metaphysics of present times, and tries to show that in comparison to that, theism is the more reasonable choice. Neither naturalism nor theism can be proven. Thus, Tetens has to find different criterion in other to show that theism is more reasonable than naturalism. In (...) his understanding, a human being is a morally responsible I–subject. Unlike naturalism, theism is compatible with this philosophical anthropology, making it the more reasonable metaphysic. This article aims to trace back Tetens argument and examines his claim that no metaphysic can pe proven by empirical data. A special emphasis is laid on Tetens’ concept of the morally responsible I–subject as the central criterion in order to choose between two metaphysics. (shrink)

Dans ce texte, je me concentre sur le rôle que jouent les « concepts fondamentaux » dans les premières esquisses de deux projets de réforme de la métaphysique : ceux de Johann Nikolaus Tetens et d’Emmanuel Kant. Un an avant la publication, par l’Académie de Berlin, de la fameuse Preisfrage de 1761 (qui demande une comparaison de la méthode en métaphysique avec celle utilisée en géométrie), Tetens a déjà publié un petit texte dans lequel il cherche les causes (...) du faible nombre de vérités acquises en métaphysique. Selon lui, bien que la méthode des géomètres soit recommandable, elle ne peut être simplement copiée en philosophie et ne saurait garantir la même clarté que celle que l’on observe en mathématiques. De toute façon, afin de pouvoir utiliser cette méthode, la tentative de construire une métaphysique contenant uniquement des vérités non réfutables doit débuter avec la recherche des concepts ontologiques fondamentaux. De son côté, en 1763, Kant a explicitement répondu à la Preisfrage, mais il n’est pas faux de dire que sa recherche d’une réponse définitive n’aboutira qu’en 1781, avec la publication de la Critique de la raison pure. Cette réponse à la crise de la métaphysique inclut une nouvelle théorie de l’objectivité. Comme on le sait, dans cette théorie, un rôle important revient aux premiers concepts de l’entendement (les catégories). Comment se fait-il que le problème des concepts premiers et le problème de l’objectivité ont été corrélés aussi bien par Tetens que par Kant? Et qui s’est inspiré de qui? (shrink)

Kant claims that the transcendental self can be represented as a “feeling of existence” (Gefühl eines Daseins). Some interpreters take this claim to be inconsistent with Kant’s larger theory of self-consciousness. I consider the extent to which two eighteenth-century philosophy texts that Kant knew well - Tetens’ Philosophische Versuche über die menschliche Natur und ihre Entwickelung and Feder’s Logik und Metaphysik - can contribute to our understanding of Gefühl eines Daseins. I point to some continuities between Kant’s characterization of (...) “Gefühl” in Gefühl eines Daseins, and Tetens’ and Feder’s conceptualizations of Selbstgefühl. I show that Gefühl eines Daseins is prima facie consistent with Feder’s clear “I” (or Selbstgefühl) and Tetens’ clear Selbstgefühl; and both Gefühl eines Daseins and clear Selbstgefühl relate to higher cognition. Finally, I discuss whether the notion of Selbstgefühl is compatible with key aspects of Kant’s conceptualization of the self - the transcendental-empirical distinction, and the atemporality of the self. (shrink)

Agnostisch in der Frage nach Gott zu sein, liegt im Trend. Der Glaube an Gott hingegen scheint eher Produkt infantilen Wunschdenkens zu sein, für viele vergleichbar mit dem Glauben an Märchen. Umso berraschender, wenn auch professionelle Philosophen die Frage nach Gott in der Gegenwart neu stellen. Dies tut in zahlreichen Veröffentlichungen der Berliner Philosoph Holm Tetens. In intensiver Auseinandersetzung mit ihm sowie Willard V. Quine, John Henry Newman und William James geht das Buch Argumentationsmustern für einen rational verantworteten Gottesglauben (...) nach"-- Back cover. (shrink)