By 1989, the neo-liberal logics of identity and difference took over the Socialist, as well as the Christian basic notions of identity and difference. This means, neither Socialist solidarity nor Christian love for brethren eases the power of difference. In such cases, difference is not a simple difference, value, or ideology any more, but ontology, moreover, it acquires logical character. While in the divided world difference was based on hidden identity, now neo-liberal - human-rights identity is being filled with concrete (...) contents by an unreconcileable difference. The power of difference is the final state of being different. In the relations of the present, the logic of identity doesn't simply dominate, but it seems to be a higher, maybe straight unexceedably final variant of identity - we are not simplyidentical with one another, but as a result of the grounding on human rights we are identical in our most dignified nature. But in actual fact, political and social spaces show a row of mutations differing from this. This doesn't mean the ideology of identity would have got unveiled, but that identity - logic has become selective in a new way. While the identity - logic is working in the foreground, in the background, a difference - logic stronger than ever before, is operating ruthlessly. (shrink)

The actual originality and radicalism of Canetti's mass psychology provides a comprehensive picture of humanity and society which could also accommodate a naturalized political domain. Proceeding according to a deliberate plan, Canetti discusses four “purely” political complexes on the basis of his mass‐psychological conception. These four complexes are completed, architecturally as it were, by the Schreber Case, the keystone, which legitimately unites and synthesizes the political and psychological domains in terms of power. His strategy does not involve the projection of (...) already available psychological explanatory patterns onto the political subject‐matter. He chooses rather a political subject‐matter in the analysis of which the already elaborated mass‐psychological insights can resurface. The way leads, therefore, not from mass psychology to politics, but from politics to politics seen in a different way—via innovative mass‐psychological insights. The four case‐studies selected by Canetti display remarkable coherence in their conceptual structure. At the same time, they are also astonishingly diverse and variable. The Versaille Case describes a unique act involving the suppression of collective identity, while the Inflation Case captures the possibility of the shocking devaluation of individual and collective identity, a possibility which can in principle always become reality. The approach is yet again different in the Parliamentarianism Case: politics is shown to be wise enough to restrain political struggle by means of a taboo. Finally, for the case of socialism Canetti provides an original concretization and interpretation of a widely shared view, which is nevertheless seldom articulated with the required precision, namely that socialism and human nature run, at least latently, counter to one another, making their incompatibility predetermined. (shrink)

Bei der umfassenden Thematik der Relation zwischen Philosophie und Pädagogik liefert die Philosophie von Kant ein ganz besonders reiches und vielschichtiges Beispiel für die Reflexion. Kants Philosophie steht in einer dreifachen Beziehung zur im wahren und ursprünglichen Sinne genommenen Schulphilosophie. Erstens gilt der Gesamtkorpus der Kant’schen Philosophie als bewusste und kritische Überwindung der Leibniz-Wolff’schen Metaphysik . Zweitens gilt die Kant‘sche Philosophie, auch wenn sie in diesem wahren Sinne des Begriffs selber keineswegs als Schulphilosophie aufgefasst werden kann, in ihrer spezifisch ausgearbeiteten (...) Ausführung als Überwindung des Leibniz-Wolff’schen Systems auch als Schulphilosophie. Und drittens kann die Kant’sche Philosophie, auf ihre Art, versteht sich, auch als neue positive schulphilosophische Alternative gelten, für welche sie etwa durch ihre systematische, vollständige Ausführung der Problemkreise, der konsequent zur Geltung gebrachten hermeneutischen und didaktischen Aspekte oder durch die vollständige sprachliche Kohärenz wie prädestiniert ist. Unter diesem Aspekt unterscheidet sich die Relation Kants zum Leibniz-Wolff’schen System von derselben bei Schelling oder eben Hegel. Hegel geht auch regelrecht auf die vielfache historische Bedeutung dieser gewaltigen Schulphilosophie ein, auf einer ähnlichen Linie hebt Schelling sogar hervor, dass selbst noch die Fehler dieser Schule von unvergleichlichem Nutzen für die Philosophie waren, weil es ohne sie zu keiner späteren Blütezeit der Philosophie hätte kommen können. Für Kant bedeutet diese umfassende Schulphilosophie weder die Vergangenheit noch den Gegenpol, aber auch nicht die niedrige Stufe der hohen Philosophie, für ihn bedeutet diese große Schulphilosophie einen denkerischen Rahmen, der einerseits in jeder seiner Einzelheit transformiert werden muss, während die neue hohe Philosophie andererseits den Rahmen der Schulphilosophie bei ihrer Konstitution in Anspruch nehmen muss. Dies ist nur möglich, weil das Bedürfnis nach Philosophie zwar nicht identisch mit dem nach Schulphilosophie ist, es in breiten Flächen aber tatsächlich abdeckt. (shrink)

Nietzsche's vision of modern democracy includes an aspect which many tend to neglect given the historical experience with totalitarian systems of the twentieth century. Precisely on account of its triumphant progress, 'irresistible' democracy, according to Nietzsche, tends to instrumentalize the activities of its enemies. This is a claim made by a philosopher whose work Alfred Baeumler and Georg Lukács considered an extreme political archaism. For a long time no serious objection was raised against this absurd verdict. The present article attempts (...) to show how Nietzsche's universalistic approach assigns a definite place to democratic systems and specifies why these systems are of special relevance for the universal-emancipatory development of humankind It argues that by stating the prophylactic character of the democratic system Nietzsche reaches the very core of his philosophy whereby he differs markedly and positively from other political philosophers. The difference lies precisely in the fact that for Nietzsche a given political system is not an ultimate value or objective, but simply an occasion to realize universal human ambitions. Nietzsche's political philosophy, therefore, establishes a distinction between various political systems evaluating them in terms of their prophylactic potential for the purposes of universal-emancipatory development. /// A visão nietzschiana da democracia moderna inclui um aspecto que muitos intérpretes tendem a esquecer devido à experiência histórica do século XX com sistemas totalitários. Para Nietzsche, é devido ao seu triunfante progresso que a democracia 'irresístivel' tende a instrumentalizar as actividades dos seus próprios inimigos. Curiosamente, esta é a pretensão de um filósofo cuja obra Alfred Baeumler e Georg Lukács consideravam como sendo uma forma extrema de arcaísmo politico, veredicto este contra o qual durante muito tempo nenhuma objecção se levantou. Objectivo dopresente artigo, porém, é precisamente mostrar até que ponto a abordagem universalista de Nietzsche atribui aos sistemas democráticos um lugar determinado e ao mesmo tempo especifica a razão pela qual estes sistemas ocupam um lugar privilegiado no que se refere ao desenvolvimento universal-emancipatório da humanidade. A tese do autor, com efeito, é a de que é precisamente ao afirmar o carácter profíláctico do sistema democrático que Nietzsche alcança o verdadeiro núcleo central da sua filosofia, facto esse mediante o qual ele claramente se distingue de outros pensadores polítcos. A diferença está precisamente no facto de para Nietzsche um determinado sistema político nunca constituir em si um valor último ou objectivo, antes encontra o seu valor na ocasião que porporciona para a realização de ambições humanas universais. A filosofia politica de Nietzsche, portanto, estabelece uma distinção entre uma diversidade de sistemas políticos propondo uma avaliação dos mesmos de acordo com o seu potential profiláctico no que se refere aos objectivos de um desenvolvimento universal e emancipatório. (shrink)

Nietzsche's fundamental vision of modern democracy includes an essential aspect which many tend to neglect given the indelible historical experience with totalitarian systems of the twentieth century. "Irresistible" democracy, precisely on account of its triumphant progress, also sets the course for, or, to use another contemporary expression, instrumentalizes the activities of its very enemies. It is, to say the least, quite striking to read such a claim made by a philosopher whose work Alfred Baeumler and Georg Lukäcs have labelled as (...) extreme political archaism, while for a long time no serious objection was raised against this absurd verdict. We can see that Nietzsche's universalistic approach assigns a definite place to democratic systems and also specifies why these systems are of special relevance for the universal-emancipatory development of humankind. By stating the prophylactic character of the democratic system in such a decisive fashion, Nietzsche reaches the very core of his philosophy. By doing so he differs markedly and positively from several other political philosophers. The difference lies in the fact that for Nietzsche a given political system is not an ultimate value or objective, but, as already mentioned, an opportunity to realize universal human ambitions. This is why his political philosophy establishes a principled distinction between various political systems while also evaluating them according to their prophylactic potential to be utilized for the purposes of universal-emancipatory development. (shrink)

Nietzsche's fundamental vision of modern democracy includes an essential aspect which many tend to neglect given the indelible historical experience with totalitarian systems of the twentieth century. "Irresistible" democracy, precisely on account of its triumphant progress, also sets the course for, or, to use another contemporary expression, instrumentalizes the activities of its very enemies. It is, to say the least, quite striking to read such a claim made by a philosopher whose work Alfred Baeumler and Georg Lukäcs have labelled as (...) extreme political archaism, while for a long time no serious objection was raised against this absurd verdict. We can see that Nietzsche's universalistic approach assigns a definite place to democratic systems and also specifies why these systems are of special relevance for the universal-emancipatory development of humankind. By stating the prophylactic character of the democratic system in such a decisive fashion, Nietzsche reaches the very core of his philosophy. By doing so he differs markedly and positively from several other political philosophers. The difference lies in the fact that for Nietzsche a given political system is not an ultimate value or objective, but, as already mentioned, an opportunity to realize universal human ambitions. This is why his political philosophy establishes a principled distinction between various political systems while also evaluating them according to their prophylactic potential to be utilized for the purposes of universal-emancipatory development. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Nietzscheforschung Jahrgang: 23 Heft: 1 Seiten: 53-64.

This article compares Hendrik de Man's neo-Marxist approach with that of the Hungarian poet Attila József. It suggests that de Man's “refinement” of Marxism amounts to foregrounding psychological aspects; he tends to replace “hard,” political or economic elements of Marxist and neo-Marxist theories with “soft,” psychological elements. For him Intellectual Socialism stands in opposition to Labor Socialism. This view may have challenged the synthesis-makers, including József, who sees himself as a “proletarian poet”: in his poetry he formulates the optimal relationship (...) between the new intelligentsia and the proletariat, addressing the philosophical dilemmas raised by de Man. Whereas for de Man, Marx and philosophical Marxism are both of the past, demanding a mechanical interpretation, for József, Marxism—approached with no intention at revision—is a valid theory that calls for certain adjustments. His aspiration, even if unintended, is a correction and criticism of de Man's superficial categorization. Whereas de Man finds in Marxism the deterministic logic of eighteenth-century natural science, which analogy justifies its psychological refinement, for József the notion of law is always bound to society and history. (shrink)

Dans le cadre de la thématique liée aux relations entre la philosophie et la pédagogie, Kant offre un trčs riche sujet de réflexion ŕ plusieurs niveaux. La philosophie de Kant est en relation triple avec la philosophie scolaire prise au sens originel. Primo, l’ensemble de la philosophie de Kant est une critique consciente de la métaphysique de Leibniz et Wolff . Secundo, la philosophie de Kant – bien qu’elle ne se laisse pas interpréter comme une philosophie scolaire au sens strict (...) du terme – peut, ŕ cause de sa maničre spécifique d’exposer la réfutation du systčme de Leibniz et Wolff, ętre considérée comme une philosophie scolaire. Tertio, la philosophie de Kant peut, ŕ sa maniere, se comprendre comme une nouvelle alternative positive ŕ la philosophie scolaire, ŕ laquelle elle semble presque ętre destinée grâce ŕ sa maniere d’exposer les problčmes, ŕ ses aspects herméneutiques et didactiques et ŕ la cohérence de son langage. Vu sous cet angle, le rapport de Kant au systčme de Leibniz et Wolff diffčre de celui de Schelling, et męme de celui de Hegel. Hegel analyse, lui aussi, correctement la signification historique multiple de la puissante philosophie scolaire, alors que, sur la męme ligne, Schelling souligne que męme les erreurs de cette école ont été utiles ŕ la philosophie, puisque celle-ci n’aurait pas pu s’épanouir sans elle. Aux yeux de Kant, la philosophie scolaire compréhensive n’est ni de l’histoire, ni un pôle opposé, ni męme un degré inférieur de la haute philosophie, mais un cadre de réflexion qui, d’une part, doit se transformer dans tous ses détails, alors que, d’autre part, la nouvelle haute philosophie doit prendre en considération, en se constituant, le cadre de la philosophie scolaire. Cela est possible parce que la nécessité de la philosophie, bien qu’elle ne soit pas identique ŕ la nécessité de la philosophie scolaire, fait pourtant découvrir cette derničre dans toute son étendue. (shrink)

Gadamer’s hermeneutic philosophy avoids the problem of literary objectiveness altogether. His approach witnesses the general fact that an indifference towards literary objectiveness in particular, leads to a peculiar neglect of par excellence literariness as such. It seems obvious, however, that the constitutive aspects of the crisis of literary objectiveness cannot be shown to contain the underlying intention of bringing about this situation. At this point, one can identify what could probably be the most important element in a definition of literary (...) objectiveness. In contrast to ‘natural’ objectiveness and objectiveness based on various societal conventions, the legitimacy of a literary work is solely guaranteed by its elements being organized in accordance with the rules of literary objectiveness. Thus when the crisis of literary objectiveness intensifies, literariness will also find itself in a crisis. This crisis detaches new, quasi-literary formations from various definitions of literariness. When literary objectiveness ceases, however, to be understood as a system constituted by various objective formations aiming to correspond in one way or another to the ‘world’, scientific analysis of literary objectiveness will be rendered impossible. The crisis of literary objectiveness thus brings about the crisis of the theory of literature and the philosophy of art. Gadamer explicitly argues that the scientific approach proves to be inadequate in the analysis of artistic experience. This attitude results in the categorical rejection of a scientific orientation, but he seems to overemphasize an otherwise correct thesis on the non-reflexive character of artistic experience. It is the anti-mimetic and Platonic character of Gadamer’s aesthetic hermeneutics that determines the status of literary objectiveness in his system of thought. What is of crucial importance, however, is to point out that this aesthetics entails a fundamental reduction of the significance of literary objectiveness. As soon as the essence of aesthetic object-constitution is taken to be re-cognition, the absolutely natural interest in the original object represented by a work of art.Undoubtedly, Gadamer’s conception answers a number of questions that tend to be ignored by other theories. It is just as obvious, however, that Gadamer completes here the aesthetic devaluation of the objective domain. It is not the characteristics of the ‘original’ that constitute the image, but in effect the image turns the original into an original. Paraphrasing this claim one arrives at a near paradox: not objectiveness makes a work of art possible, but a work of art lends objects their objectiveness. (shrink)

Whilst considering the problems of the relationship between philosophy and pedagogy, Kant’s philosophy offers one especially rich and layered example for consideration. Kant’s philosophy stands in a triple relationship towards school-philosophy, understood in its real and original context. First, the complete corpus of Kant’s philosophy is valid as a conscious and critical prevalence of Leibniz-Wolff metaphysics . Secondly, Kant’s philosophy – even if one cannot in its real meaning consider it as school-philosophy – in its specific made source, as well (...) as the prevalence of the Leibniz-Wolff system, counts as school-philosophy as well. And thirdly, Kant’s philosophy, in its own way, can understand itself as a new positive school-philosophy alternative, for which it is predestined with its systematically complete execution of problem circles, consequently significant hermeneutic and didactic aspects or its complete linguistic coherence. Thus Kant’s relationship towards the Leibniz-Wolff system differs from Schelling’s or even Hegel’s relationship. Hegel also enters correctly into the manifold historical significance of this strong school-philosophy, while Schelling underlines that the mistakes of this school were of incomparable value to philosophy, because without it there wouldn’t have been an efflorescence of philosophy. For Kant, this scholastic philosophy does not mean history or a contrary pole, nor does it mean a lower degree of higher philosophy – for him, it means a contemplative framework which on the one hand must be transformed in each of its particularities, while on the other hand the new higher philosophy must in its constitution take into consideration its school-philosophical framework. This is possible only because the need for philosophy, if it is not already identical to the need for school-philosophy, unveils school-philosophy in its width. (shrink)