The purpose of this article is to critically assess the ‘three-world theory’ as it is presented—with some slight but decisive differences—by Jürgen Habermas and Karl Popper. This theory presents the philosophy of science with a conceptual and material problem, insofar as it claims that science has no single access to all aspects of the world. Although I will try to demonstrate advantages of Popper’s idea of ‘the third world’ of ideas, the shortcomings of his ontological stance become visible from the (...) pragmatic point of view in Habermas’s theory of communicative acts. With regard to the critique that the three-world theory has met in both its pragmatic and ontological versions, I will take a closer look at John Searle’s naturalistic counter-position. By teasing out some problematic implications in his theory of causation, I aim to show that Searle’s approach is, in fact, much closer to Popper’s than he might think. Finally, while condoning Habermas’s distinction between the natural world and the lifeworld, I will opt for a pragmatically differentiated view of ‘the real’, rather than speaking of different worlds. (shrink)

This volume is dedicated to Wittgenstein's remarks on Frazer's The Golden Bough and represents a collaboration of scholars within philosophy and the study of religion. For the first time, specialized investigations of the philological and philosophical aspects Wittgenstein's manuscripts are combined with the outlook of philosophical anthropology and ritual studies. In the first section of the book Wittgenstein's remarks are presented and discussed in light of his Nachlass and relevant lecture-notes by G.E. Moore, reproduced in this book as facsimiles. The (...) second section deals with the cultural and philosophical background of the early remarks, while the third section focuses specifically on the general problem of understanding as being a main issue of these remarks. The fourth section concentrates on the philosophical development characteristic of the later remarks. Finally, the fifth section reviews Wittgenstein's opposition to Frazer, and the ramifications of his remarks, in light of ritual studies. The book is intended for scholars in philosophy and religious studies, as well as for the general reader with an academic interest in philosophy and the philosophy of religion. (shrink)

Der Didaskalikos des mittelplatonischen Philosophen Alkinoos aus dem 2. Jahrhundert n. Chr. ist eine der wenigen vollständig erhaltenen platonischen Schriften vor der Zeit Plotins und des Neuplatonismus. Der vorliegenden Edition und Erstübersetzung ins Deutsche werden eine Einleitung sowie eine Bibliographie vorangestellt. Die Anmerkungen zum Text erläutern philosophische Zusammenhänge, erklären philologische Einzelheiten und weisen markante Stellen nach. Der Band ist von Interesse besonders für Philosophen, Philologen und Theologen.

The book works out new perspectives for a philosophy of religion that aims beyond the internal questions of rationality within a theological tradition, on the one hand, and the outer criticism of religion from naturalistic quaters, on the other. Instead it places itself within a wider philosophical view in line with groundbreaking thoughts about culture and a basic human 'conditionality' among interwar philosophers such as Ernst Cassirer, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Walter Benjamin, and Martin Heidegger. The book also offers a concrete interpretation (...) of examples of religious phenomena displaying a human world-relation that centers on issues of 'truth', 'name', and 'habitation'. Finally, lines are drawn to Jean-Luc Nancy's current rethinking of Christianity. (shrink)

The article points to similarities between Radical Orthodoxy and the Post-Structuralist critique of rationalistic secularism together with a shared appraisal of aesthecism. However, although the people of Radical Orthodoxy are sympathetic to the modern experience of immanence, they criticize the flattened immanence which seems to result from a post-structuralist perspective, and claim instead that immanence has to be appreciated as creational (and therefore participating in the divine) in order to withstand the threat of nihilism. Thus, Post-Structuralism is only an ally (...) up until the point where it tends to undermine the foot-hold in pre-modern tradition and the commitment to revealed truth. Yet, the way in which Radical Orthodoxy appeals to the better myth (contrary to the ontology of difference pertaining to Post-Structuralism) still carries with it traits of postmodernism and thereby risks the relativism it strives to avoid. (shrink)