Ausgehend von einer Gegenüberstellung der erkenntnistheoretischen Grundpositionen des Empirismus und der Transzendentalphilosophie (Apriorismus) will der Autor am Beispiel der Probleme «Begriffsbildung» und «Kausalität» zeigen, wie sich klassische philosophische Kontroversen (Hume-Kant) unter Zuhilfenahme erkenntnistheoretisch relevanter biologisch-psychologischer Forschungsergebnisse (J. Piaget, K. Lorenz) lösen lassen.

In this paper, first, I want to clarify the nature and function of private property. Second, I want to clarify the distinction between “common” goods and property and “public” goods and property, and explain the construction error inherent in the institution of public goods and property. Third, I want to explain the rationale and principle of privatization.

One so-called paradox of blackmail concerns the fact that “two legal whites together make a black.” That is, it is licit to threaten to reveal a person’s secret, and it is separately lawful to ask him for money; but when both are undertaken at once, together, this act iscalled blackmail and is prohibited. A second so-called paradox is that if the blackmailer initiates the act, this is seen by jurists asblackmail and illicit, while if the blackmailee (the person blackmailed) originates (...) the contract, this is commonly interpreted as bribery and is not illicit.But these are paradoxes only for legal theorists innocent of libertarian theory. The authors use that perspective to reject the claim thatblackmail should be unlawful. If this act were legalized, then both paradoxes would disappear, precisely their contention. (shrink)

Die Rezeption des Jesus-Buchs von Papst Benedikt hält an. Vielfältige Aspekte werden diskutiert. Eigene Aufmerksamkeit findet dabei das Gespräch des Papstes mit dem Jesus-Verständnis von Rabbiner Jacob Neusner. Dieses Gespräch ist bereits als Faktum von großem hermeneutischen Gewicht: Jüdische Stimmen sind eine Instanz für die Erkenntnisbildung christlicher Theologie. Am Dissens des Rabbiners in seinem literarischen Gespräch mit Jesus knüpft der Papst an, um das christologisch bestimmte Jesus-Verständnis zu präzisieren. Allerdings wirft Neusners Pointierung des Dissenses die Frage auf, ob sein Jesus-Verständnis (...) nicht zu sehr beim Differenzkriterium verharrt, ohne dem Kriterium der Kohärenz zwischen Jesus und dem Judentum hinreichend gerecht zu werden. Diese Frage trifft nicht gleichermaßen das päpstliche Jesus-Verständnis, legt der Papst doch mit der Kennzeichnung Jesu Christi als "lebendige Tora Gottes" ein Fundament von Kontinuität, dem weiter nachzugehen die christliche Theologie aufgerufen ist. Jedoch schwächt die päpstliche Redefigur des "Überschreitens" diese Kontinuität, über die man vom nächsten Jesus-Buch des Papstes weitere Aufhellung erhofft.Pope Benedict's book on Jesus continues to find reception. Many different aspects are being discussed. Special attention is given to the Pope's conversation with Rabbi Jacob Neusner's understanding of Jesus. By its very presence, this conversation has great hermeneutic weight: Jewish voices have authority in forming knowledge within Christian theology. For the Pope's Christological understanding of Jesus, he picks up the rabbi's dissent in his literary conversation with Jesus. Of course, Neusner's emphasis on disagreement raises the question whether his understanding of Jesus does not persist too much with the criterion of difference without doing justice sufficiently to the criterion of coherence between Jesus and Judaism. This question does not apply to the same degree to the Pope's understanding of Jesus, since in attributing to Jesus Christ the character of "living Torah of God", the Pope lays a foundation of continuity that calls upon Christian theology to reflect further. However, the Pope's use of the expression "transcending" weakens this continuity, which causes one to hope for further clarification in the Pope's next book on Jesus. (shrink)

ONE OF THE MOST prominent theorists of anarcho-capitalism is Hans- Hermann Hoppe. In what is perhaps his most famous result, the argumentation ethic for libertarianism, he purports to establish an a priori defense of the justice of a social order based exclusively on pri- vate property. Hoppe claims that all participants in a debate must presuppose the libertarian principle that every person owns himself, since the principle underlies the very concept of argumentation. Some libertarians (e.g., Rothbard (...) 1988) have celebrated Hoppe’s argument as the final nail in the coffin for collectivism of any type; following Hoppe, they believe that to deny the libertarian ethic is not only wrong, but also internally contradictory. On the other hand, a number of other prominent libertarians characterized Hoppe’s initial statement of his case as “one muddle after another” (Steele 1988, p. 47) or “a tissue of bald assertions” (Yeager 1988, p. 45). (shrink)

In dieser Leseausgabe werden die philosophischen Schriften von Aristoteles in der heute eingeführten Abfolge präsentiert. Als Grundlage dienten die vorhandenen Bände der Philosophischen Bibliothek, wobei auf den Abdruck des griechischen Textes verzichtet wurde. Kurze Vorbemerkungen zu den einzelnen Bänden geben eine erste Orientierung, Register erschließen die einzelnen Schriften. Die Randverweise auf die Paginierung der Gesamtausgabe der überlieferten Werke Aristoteles' von Immanuel Bekker (Berlin 1831-1870), nach der üblicherweise zitiert wird, ermöglichen ein leichtes und schnelles Auffinden gesuchter Textstellen.

Marxism from a false starting point. Finally, I will demonstrate how Austrianism in the Mises—Rothbard tradition can give a correct but categorically different explanation of their validity. bet me begin with the hard core of the Marxist belief system: (1) "The history of mankind is the history of class struggles."2 It is the history of struggles between a relatively small ruling class and a larger class of the exploited. The primary form of exploitation is economic: The ruling class expropriates part (...) of t.he productive output of the exploited or, as Marxists say, ‘it appropriates a social surplus product" and uses it for its own consumptive.. (shrink)

Der Vortrag zum Thema "Schmerzen", den der 100-jährige Hans-Georg Gadamer anläßlich des von der Orthopädischen Universitätsklinik Heidelberg am 11. November 2000 organisierten Symposions abhielt, war der letzte öffentliche Auftritt des großen Heidelberger Philosophen. In ihm formulierte Gadamer eine für das medizinische Kollegium ungeheure Provokation, indem er den Schmerz als eine lebenslange Aufgabe beschrieb, die, weit entfernt ein Makel oder gar Deformation des leidenden Individuums zu sein, sich vielmehr dem strukturell annähert, was Gadamer zeitlebens beschäftigt hat: der Hermeneutik. Der Akt (...) des Verstehens prägt auch das anschließende Gespräch zwischen Gadamer und dem Fachpublikum, in dem sich beide Seiten zögernd aufeinander zu bewegen. Das vorliegende Bändchen trägt dem in zweierlei Hinsicht Rechnung: Es gibt die freie, lebendige Rede Gadamers möglichst unverstellt wieder und flankiert die Anregungen Gadamers mit Überlegungen zum Phänomen "Schmerz" aus medizinischer und therapeutischer Sicht. (shrink)

The idea of moral certainties is venerable, highly contentious, and nevertheless alive. What I call “hinge ethics” (in analogy to hinge epistemology) combines three currents – meta-ethical concerns about the scope and limits of moral knowledge and objectivity, the idea of limits of doubt as articulated in On Certainty, and sympathies for Wittgensteinian ideas about ethics. This essay critically assesses hinge ethics, focusing on Nigel Pleasants’ work. My main objection is not that Wittgensteinian ideas about certainty cannot be transferred from (...) the domain of physical phenomena to the moral domain. Nor shall I nail my colours to the mast of moral relativism. Instead my main tack will be as follows: Several of the views hinge ethicists detect in or derive from On Certainty are intriguing and ingenious, yet either unwarranted and/or not echt Wittgensteinian. Purported moral certainties like the wrongness of killing are neither ineffable, nor non-propositional, nor quasi-transcendental preconditions of moral thought and action. In so far as morality has scaffolding foundations, it is not certainties but capacities. At least some of these capacities are cognitive, a matter of social cognition. (shrink)

Bd. 1 Das Absolute-Gesellschaft.-Bd.2 Gesetz-Relation.

This book constitutes the outcome of an international conference held at the Otto-Mobes-Volkswirtschaftsschule, Graz-Stifting( Austria), from June 16 to 22, 1974. The conference was initiated by a project group working on determinants and controls of social science development at the In stitute for Advanced Studies and Scientific Research in Vienna and or ganized by the editors of this volume. It was held under the auspices of the Austrian Ministry of Science and Research. The main topics of the conference were those (...) at the forefront of the 'state of argumentation' (to borrow from one of our contributors) in philosophy and sociology of science ever since the controversy between Thomas S. Kuhn and Sir Karl R. Popper has sharpened our awareness for the methodological and substantial presuppositions involved with questions of growth and development in science. Let us give two examples of those topics. The borderline between sociology of science and philo sophy of science has become more and more unclear; while the work of at least some philosophers of science comes to have an empirical flavour, sociologists of science are increasingly apt to include logical and methodo logical components of the research process as their objects of examina tion. Papers included in this volume testify to both tendencies. (shrink)

Hans-Hermann Hoppe contends that the fact that a person has the capacity to argue entails that she has the moral right of exclusive control over her own body. Critics of Hoppe’s argument do not appear to have pinpointed its flaws. I expose the logical structure of Hoppe’s argument, distinguishing its pragmatic-contradiction and its mutual-recognition components. I provide three counterexamples to show that Hoppe’s mutual-recognition argument is invalid and I argue that the truth that appears (...) to motivate the argument is simply a banality. I show that Hoppe’s pragmatic-contradiction argument is invalid, has a false premise and fails to link up with his mutual-recognition argument in the way that he requires to reach his conclusion. I conclude by outlining three perils of pragmatic-contradiction arguments, the weakness of mutual-recognition arguments, and the implausibility of attempts to derive a universal moral status from a specialised activity such as argumentation. (shrink)

Bd. 1. Absicht -Gemeinwohl -- Bd. 2. Gerechtigkeit-Praxis -- Bd. 3. Quantität-Zweifel.