Zu den Grenzfragen des Lebens. Bioethik als Feld intensiver Auseinandersetzung im fachwissenschaftlichen Diskurs und kontroverser Diskussionen in der breiten Öffentlichkeit. Das Handbuch erläutert die Grundlagen und gibt einen Überblick über Bereiche, in denen bioethische Fragen relevant sind, wie Menschenwürde, Leben, Tod und Krankheit. Daneben widmet es sich den speziellen bioethischen Problemen wie etwa Zulässigkeit von Sterbehilfe, Präimplantationsdiagnostik oder embryonaler Stammzellenforschung und zeigt die Schnittstellen der Bioethik zu anderen Disziplinen und gesellschaftlichen Bereichen auf (Bioethik in der Lehre, Biopolitik, Biorecht und Ethikkommissionen).

Dieter Birnbacher is professor of philosophy at the University of Düsseldorf and a member of the Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations’ scientific board. In 1988 he published the book Verantwortung für zukünftige Generationen ; which was translated into French and Polish. Hanna Schudy is an ethicist and environmentalist interested in questions of intergenerational responsibility concerning the natural environment. She is a doctoral student at the University of Wroclaw and a DAAD scholarship holder. The interview was conducted in (...) December 2011 at the Heinrich Heine Universität; Duesseldorf. It is part of Ms. Schudy’s current research into “The principle of responsibility in Hans Jonas’ and Dieter Birnbacher’s environmental ethics”. (shrink)

--Über Schellings Konstruktion des Christentums, von W. Becker.--Zur systematischen Differenz von Apriorität und Reinheit in Kants Lehre von den synthetischen Urteilen a priori, von K. Cramer.--Endlichkeit des Bewusstseins und absolulte Gewissheit bei Descartes, von H. Fahrenbach.--Objektivation und Designation, von W. Flach.--Über den spekulativen Anfang, von H.F. Fulda.--Vorgestalten der Reflexion, von H.-G. Gadamer.--Formalisierung und Formalismus von J. Glöckl.--Naturzweck und Wesenbegriff, von E. Heintel.--Fichtes ursprüngliche Einsicht, von D. Heinrich.--Zur Präsenz der transzendentalen Differenz in der dialektischen Vernunft, von W. Marx.--Zum Verhältnis von (...) Faktizität und Reflexion in der Transzendent alphilosophie, von H. Radermacher.--Beziehung und Beziehungsloses (Absolutes) von J.J. Schaaf.--Ist Metaphysik des Transzendenten möglich? von H. Wagner.--Vernunft als Kanon, Organon und Kathartikon des allgemeinen Verstandes, von R. Wiehl.--Gestaltwelt, von G. Wolandt. (shrink)

Kant's well-known statement from the “Critique of Practical Reason” (§ 7) that the consciousness of the basic law of pure practical reason (or the customary/moral law) can be called a fact of reason (V, 31.24) has not yet become the subject of adequate attention of domestic researchers. In the “Critique of Practical Reason”, Kant justify his famous categorical imperative by appealing to the “fact of reason” (§ 7). A closer reading of this passage reveals that it refers to a “fundamental (...) law of pure practical reason” and its “consciousness” is called “a fact of reason”. It is likely to think that Kant makes a “naturalistic fallacy” when he tries to justify “ought” (law) from “is” (fact). An analysis of the broader context of the use of the term “fact”, which occurs in the Critique in general 11 times, proves that its denotation is a moral law, which is explained in the corresponding train of thought. A special problem of interpretation is the explanation of the genitive in the expression “a fact of reason” [ein Factum der Vernunft]. It is common to read it as genitivus subjectivus (the fact is a product (act) of the reason, the fact arises thanks to the reason) and as genitivus objectivus (the reason itself is a fact, something factual). But from the standpoint of modern studies of Kant its reading as genitivus auctoris (Willaschek, Wolff, Noller) is promising. Kant’s specific use of the Latin form “ein Factum” in other works, which has the meaning not of “fact”, but of “imputable act” also, testifies in favor of this. Starting with Dieter Heinrich’s article “The Concept of Moral Insight and Kant’s Doctrine of the Fact of Reason” (1960), many researchers interpret the thesis of the “fact of reason” as Kant’s rejection of the attempt at the deduction of moral insight in the “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Moral” (1785). However, as modern studies (Riedel, Wolff) show, this interpretation is not convincing enough. There are sufficient reasons to believe that it is Kant’s moral and legal doctrine of imputatio facti can explicate an enigmatic passage of the II Critique. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Directions in Contemporary German AestheticsMatthew PritchardÄsthetisches Denken, 6th ed., by Wolfgang Welsch. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1990 (2003), 223 pp.Aisthetik: Vorlesungen Über Ästhetik Als Allgemeine Wahrnehmungslehre, by Gernot Böhme. Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 2001, 199 pp.Ästhetische Korrespondenzen: Denken Im Technischen Raum, by Reinhard Knodt. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1994, 166 pp.The relationship between the Anglo-American and German aesthetic traditions is a paradoxical one. On the one hand, acquaintance with one or more figures from (...) the “great tradition” in German aesthetic thought over the last 250 years is a given for most philosophically oriented writers on aesthetics in Britain and America. Thinkers such as Kant or Adorno form a real and abiding part of our background. In some cases the connection with German intellectual lineages goes a good deal further. As an extreme case, take Terry Eagleton’s The Ideology of the Aesthetic,1 whose engagement with German thought is so deep that I have come across it as a set text for aesthetics courses in German universities (despite the fact that none of the dozen authors Eagleton analyzes are cited in their original language). On the other hand, interest in contemporary German aesthetics in English and American circles appears to be relatively slight. One would have little idea, from reading any of the philosophical journals in English, of just how much activity there is in this area, only a small proportion of which has been translated, cited, or reviewed. And yet the past two decades have seen the publication of dozens of relevant books by German authors, many proposing independent theoretical approaches. Among these—aside from the books reviewed here—are the substantial work done on performance and performativity by Erika Fischer-Lichte (Ästhetik des Performativen, 2004) and Dieter Mersch (Ereignis und Aura, 2002); the theoretical oeuvre of the prize-winning literary critic Karl Heinz Bohrer, of which Suddenness: On the Moment of Aesthetic Appearance, originally published in 1981, has made it into English; Ruth Sonderegger’s Romantic-leaning plea Für eine Ästhetik des Spiels (2000); Dieter Heinrich’s work on the philosophy of art and subjectivity, Fixpunkte: Aufsätze [End Page 117] und Essays zur Theorie der Kunst (2003); Martin Seel’s Aesthetics of Appearing (2004); the traditional neo-Kantian perspective of the late Rüdiger Bubner as set out in his Ästhetische Erfahrung (1989); Gábor Paál’s Was ist schön?—Ästhetik und Erkenntnis (2003); Konrad Paul Liessmann’s Reiz und Rührung: Über ästhetische Empfindungen (2003)... the list could be continued. And this is not to mention empirical-psychological approaches, works on the history of aesthetics, the reception accorded to analytical aesthetics and American philosophers such as Goodman and Danto, or the continuation of European poststructuralist and Frankfurt School traditions (for example, in the work of Albrecht Wellmer and Christoph Menke).Given this large “backlog” of writing not yet assimilated into Anglo-American discussion, it makes sense to be selective and range a little further than the most recently published texts. Owing to sheer diversity, I cannot honestly claim that the three books I am going to discuss here are “representative” of the interests driving contemporary German aesthetics. But I have chosen them for certain common traits, traditions, and emphases that seem to me to present a stimulating contrast with the approach of Anglo-American philosophical aesthetics, while retaining many points of contact with non-German thought. That the contrast does not come down to the crass standoff of “analytical” vs. “Continental,” and all the clichés about academic style that go with it, should become obvious. It is more interesting than that, and although I want to leave the details to the discussion of the three books, I can mention at the outset a few aspects I regard as important. One is that none of these authors addresses themselves exclusively to either the philosophy of art or to the aesthetics of nature and the environment. Instead they tend to make points relating to both, or to regard both as aspects of a single situation. “Environmental aesthetics” in Anglo-American philosophy—for instance, the work of Allen Carlson—is not only of recent date but is still a subdiscipline separated from aesthetics... (shrink)

With this new book, Andrea Staiti provides both a richly researched work in the history of philosophy and an important new introduction, a contextualization really, of Edmund Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology. Staiti situates Husserl among the Neo-Kantian philosophers, particularly Wilhelm Windelband, Heinrich Rickert, Emil Lask, and Franz Böhm of the Southwest school, and two life-philosophers influential in the development of his mature conception of transcendental phenomenology, Wilhelm Dilthey and Georg Simmel. The historical approach he adopts in the book is modeled (...) on the Konstellationsforschung employed in the study of German Idealism by Dieter Heinrich, and this technique when applied to Husserl’s.. (shrink)

Heinrich Rickert (1863-1936) was One of the leading neo-Kantian philosophers in Germany and a crucial figure in the discussions of the foundations of the social sciences in the first quarter of the twentieth century. His views were extremely influential, most significantly on Max Weber. The Limits of Concept Formation in Natural Science is Rickert's most important work, and it is here translated into English for the first time. It presents his systematic theory of knowledge and philosophy of science, and (...) deals particularly with historical knowledge and the problem of demarcating the natural from the human sciences. The theory Rickert develops is carefully argued and of great intrinsic interest. It departs from both positivism and neo-Hegelian idealism and is worked out by contrast to the views of others, particularly Dilthey and the early phenomenologists. (shrink)

Although Schmitt never answered Strauss publicly, in the third edition of his book he changed a number of passages in response to Strauss’s criticisms.

A critique of algorithmic rationalisation offers at best some initial reasons and preliminary ideas. Critique is understood as a reflection on validity. It is limited to an “epistemological investigation” of the limits of the calculable or of what appears “knowable” in the mode of the algorithmic. The argumentation aims at the mathematical foundations of computer science and goes back to the so-called “foundational crisis of mathematics” at the beginning of the 20th century with the attempt to formalise concepts such as (...) calculability, decidability and provability. The Gödel theorems and Turing’s halting problem prove to be essential for any critical approach to “algorithmic rationalisation”. Both, however, do not provide unambiguous results, at best they run towards what later became known as “Gödel’s disjunction”. The chosen path here, however, suggests the opposite way, insofar as, on the one hand, the topos of creativity appear constitutive for what can be regarded as cognitive “algorithmic rationalisation” and which encounters systematic difficulties in the evaluation of non-trivial results. On the other hand, the investigations lead to a comparison between the “mediality” of formally generated structures, which have to distinguish between object-and metalanguages, and the “volatile” differentiality of human thought, which calls for syntactically non-simulatable sense structures. (shrink)

Vorwort - Einleitung: Welt und Wirkung von Hegels Ästhetik I. KUNSTIDEAL UND KULTURPOLITIK. Otto Pöggeler. System und Geschichte der Künste bei Hegel - Helmut Schneider. Aus der Ästhetikvorlesung Hegels 1820/1821 - Lucia Sziborsky. Schelling und die Münchener Akademie der bildenden Künste. Zur Rolle der Kunst im Staat - Annemarie Gethmann-Siefert. Die Rolle der Kunst im Staat. Kontroverses zwischen Hegel und den Hegelianern II. DIE BILDENDEN KÜNSTE UND DIE HISTORIE. Heinrich Dilly. Hegel und Schinkel - Werner Busch. Wilhelm von Kaulbach (...) -peintre-philosophe und modern painter. Zu Kaulbachs Weltgeschichtszyklus im Berliner Neuen Museum - Gregor Stemmrich/Annemarie Gethmann-Siefert. Hegels Kügelgen-Rezension und die Auseinandersetzung um den eigentlichen historischen Stil in der Malerei - Wolfgang Beyrodt. Ansichten vom Niederrhein. Zum Verhältnis von Carl Schnaases Niederländischen Briefen zu Georg Forster III. MUSIK UND POESIE. Konrad Schüttauf. Melos und Drama. Hegels Begriff der Oper - Jürgen Söring. Hegel und die Romantheorie R. Wagners IV. POESIE UND WELTKULTUR. Hans-Georg Gadamer. Die Stellung der Poesie im System der Hegelschen Ästhetik und die Frage des Vergangenheitscharakters der Kunst - Dieter Bremer. Hegel und Aischylos - Clemens Menze. Das indische Altertum in der Sicht Wilhelm von Humboldts und Hegels - Barbara Stemmrich-Köhler/Annemarie Gethmann-Siefert. Von Hammer, Goethe und Hegel über Firdausi. Literaturkritik. Geschichtsbild und kulturpolitische Implikation der Ästhetik - Karlheinz Stierle. Malerei und Literatur der italienischen Renaissance in Hegels Ästhetik - Ursula Rautenberg. Ein Hegelianer unter Germanisten. Karl Rosenkranz' mediaevistische Studien. (shrink)

Edition aus dem Nachlass Heinrich Barths in der Universitätsbibliothek Basel.

According to Chen's Linguistic Savings Hypothesis, our native language affects our economic behavior. We present three studies investigating how cross-linguistic differences in the grammaticalization of future-time reference affect intertemporal choices. In a series of decision scenarios about finance and health issues, we let speakers of altogether five languages that represent FTR with increasing strength, that is, Chinese, German, Danish, Spanish, and English, choose between hypothetical sooner-smaller and later-larger reward options. While the LSH predicts a present-bias that increases with FTR-strength, our (...) decision makers preferred later-larger options and this future-bias increased with FTR-strength. In multiple regressions, the FTR-strength effect persisted when controlled for socioeconomic and cultural differences. We discuss why our findings deviate from the LSH and ask in how far the FTR-strength effect represents a habitual constitution of linguistic relativity or an instance of online decision framing. (shrink)

The center of this investigation is the ‘real hard problem’ of phenomenal perception (Chalmers), i.e. of the qualitative kind of perception presenting the subject with forms, colors, smell, pleasurable or negative feelings etc.; the problem of Human consciousness, however, will explicitly not be treated. The ‘explanatory gap’ (Levine) complained by the philosophy of mind, that is to say the failure of all attempts to supply a neuronal explanation of experiences, is emergence-theoretically treated: Systems own properties and laws different from their (...) components; so the emergence concept shows promise also for the explanatory potential with respect to neuronal systems. Here the phenomenal character of perception is explained from the systemic co-action of perception and behavior, whereby also an interpretation is opened to Davidson’s anomal monism. Qualitative feelings, as is further shown, are not to be understood as needless ‘epiphenomena’, but as a necessary completion of per-ception when, as in the case of higher animals, the behavior is primarily controlled by phenomenal perception. (shrink)

Schmerzen, körperliche Erschöpfung, Erosionen oder Spuren zeitlichen Verfalls und ähnliches verweisen auf Erfahrungen, die sich diskursiver Einholung nicht ohne weiteres fügen. Mit dem Formlosen, der bloßen Materialität oder dem Chaos assoziiert, widersetzen sie sich den generellen Begriffen des Textes und des Verstehens. Zudem verweigern sie sich ihrer Entschlüsselung als Konstruktion - im Sinne ihrer begrifflichen Bezeichnung und Unterscheidung - wie auch ihrer Inszenierung als einer ästhetischen Praxis, weil sie in allen ihren Hervorbringungen als eine nicht aufgehende Heterogenität immer schon mitschwingen. (...) Denn es gibt keine Arbeit ohne den Rest, keinen Diskurs ohne das Nichteinholbare oder Undarstellbare, keine Technik ohne Versagen, kein Denken ohne die Widerständigkeit der Dinge, worin sie ebenso sehr verwickelt sind, wie sie diese verleugnen. Posthermeneutik ist der Versuch, diese 'andere', 'negative' Seite neu zu denken - und damit das mit einzubeziehen, was nicht Verstehen ist, aber ins Verstehen eingeht, was nicht Zeichen ist, aber notwendige Voraussetzung aller Zeichenprozesse bleibt, was nicht Sinn ist, aber die Bedeutungen stört, was nicht Medium ist, aber alle Medialität mitprägt. (shrink)

In these essays, appearing for the first time in English, Gadamer addresses practical questions about recent politics in Europe, about education and university reform, and about the role of poetry in the modern world. This book also includes a series of interviews that the editors conducted in 1986. Gadamer elaborates on his experiences in education and politics, touching on the collapse of the Weimar Republic, the early Frankfurt School, Heidegger and the Nazis, university life in East Germany, and the prospects (...) for Europe in the coming years. Hans-Georg Gadamer was probably Heidegger’s leading interpreter in Germany, and in the 1950s and 1960s he became the world’s leading exponent of hermeneutics. His hermeneutical theory explains how it is that ancient art and philosophy still speak to us today. His influential idea of the “fusion of horizons” also shows how it is that we understand what is remote form our own culture. (shrink)

In media philosophy since Benjamin, the concept of medium is conceived in terms of »translation« or »transport«. In a similar vein, Christoph Tholen has brought the literal sense of »metaphor« as »meta-pherein« into focus. In my paper I argue that Tholen’s approach misses the »meta« of »metaphor«, corresponding to the Latin »trans«. This is contrasted with the greek »dia« that allows the development of a performative notion of medium, which orients itself at material practices of transition.