COVID-19 and its social and political consequences have led to increased attention to the sometimes philosophically neglected concept of solidarity. This paper reflects the discourse on solidarity in times of COVID-19 from the viewpoint of the philosophical debate on solidarity. We argue that currently – regarding this debate – the critical potential of solidarity as a political concept is often undermined. Solidarity should rather be used as a social-diagnostic lens to focus on and criticise problematic exclusions caused by current political (...) developments. This applies especially to the cross-border and transnational dimension of political solidarity, which is often neglected in the national constrictions of political COVID-19 strategies. The paper concludes with observations on which levels and in which directions the reflection on solidarity could stimulate both the political and the philosophical debate on global crises such as COVID-19. (shrink)

The article looks into the critical potential, but also the limits of the current discussion on post-democracy and the crisis of democracy and proposes an examination of the concept of crisis. The thesis is that the current talk of a crisis of democracy suggests an uncritical, namely restitutive understanding of the crisis that could be appropriated for an apology of Western liberal democracy. In contrast, the text argues for a renewed focus on the self-reflexive and critical potential of the term. (...) Based on a pragmatist concept of problem and action, “crisis” is defined as a certain kind of problem-solving problem and further determined on the basis of four criteria. The contribution this definition makes to the current debate is shown by the example of Jacques Rancière’s diagnosis of post-democracy, which can be read as a diagnosis of crisis in the defined self-reflexive and critical sense. (shrink)

Ein sicheres Kriterium für den menschlichen Tod gibt es nicht. Die neu entfachte Diskussion über den Hirntod zeigt, dass allein aus einem medizinisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Verständnis heraus keine angemessene Bestimmung des Todes zu gewinnen ist. Die Beiträge des Bandes verdeutlichen: Um den Tod begrifflich angemessen zu fassen, muss die personale Dimension des menschlichen Lebens berücksichtigt werden.

Dealing with the reform of the Transplantation Law, the first issue of the new rubric “Philosophie aktuell” met with strong and lively interest from our readers. Subsequent to this discussion a growing number of reports were published dealing with violations of mandatory rules of conduct in transplantation medicine. Therefore the topic is revisited here from the slightly different vantage point “organ transplantation II: elucidation and confidence”.

ZusammenfassungDie aktuelle philosophische Diskussion um eine angemessene Bestimmung des Todesbegriffes ist vor allem durch zwei konkurrierende Ansätze geprägt: Gemäß dem einen Ansatz ist der menschliche Tod der Tod des Körpers, gemäß dem anderen Ansatz der Tod der Person bzw. des Bewusstseinslebens. Der vorliegende Beitrag zeigt, dass beiden Ansätzen ein dualistisches und objektivistisches Verständnis des Menschen zugrunde liegt, dessen Anwendung in der Praxis zu zahlreichen Konflikten führt. Um diese Konflikte zu lösen, wird unter Rückgriff auf zentrale Einsichten der philosophischen Anthropologie Helmuth (...) Plessners ein integratives Konzept des menschlichen Todes entwickelt, das es erlaubt, die personale Perspektive auf den Tod einzubeziehen. Auf der Grundlage dieses Konzeptes erscheint es geboten, das Hirntodkriterium als Todeskriterium aufzugeben und die aktuellen Organspendekampagnen grundlegend neu auszurichten. (shrink)