The term phenomenology can be used in a generic sense to cover a variety of areas related to the problem of consciousness. In this sense it is a title that ranges over issues pertaining to first-person or subjective experience, qualia, and what has become known as "the hard problem" (Chalmers 1995). The term is sometimes used even more generally to signify a variety of approaches to studying such issues, including contemplative, meditative, and mystical studies, and transpersonal psychology.(1) Within the disciplines (...) of philosophy and psychology, however, phenomenology has a more specialized meaning. In this case it refers to the methodology and philosophy initiated by the philosopher Edmund Husserl at the beginning of the twentieth-century and developed in various ways by theorists such as Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, and Schutz. I restrict the scope of this review to phenomenology in this more specialized sense. In the light of several recent publications, the general questions I address are: What is and what ought to be the relationship between phenomenology and cognitive science? and What, if any, recent contributions has phenomenology made to the science of consciousness? (shrink)

The present paper argues for the relevance of Immanuel Kant and the German Enlightenment to contemporary social epistemology. Rather than distancing themselves from the alleged ‘individualism’ of Enlightenment philosophers, social epistemologists would be well-advised to look at the substantive discussion of social-epistemological questions in the works of Kant and other Enlightenment figures. After a brief rebuttal of the received view of the Enlightenment as an intrinsically individualist enterprise, this paper charts the historical trajectory of philosophical discussions (...) of testimony as a source of knowledge, via such philosophers as C. Thomasius, C. A. Crusius, J. M. Chladenius, G. F. Meier, and finally Kant. Building on recent work on Kant's epistemology of testimony, the paper considers Kant's broader contributions to social epistemology. This includes an analysis of Kant's comments on the social basis of contingent epistemic standards, e.g. in the sciences, as well as on problems arising from the management of what Kant calls the growing ‘volume of knowledge’. Special attention is paid to the relation between Kant's views and contemporary problems arising both in the context of education and from our increased reliance on scientific experts. (shrink)

"Have the courage to use your own understanding! - that is the motto of enlightenment." - Immanuel Kant The Enlightenment is one of the most important and contested periods in the history of philosophy. The problems it addressed, such as the proper extent of individual freedom and the challenging of tradition, resonate as much today as when they were first debated. Of all philosophers, it is arguably Kant who took such questions most seriously, addressing them above all in (...) his celebrated short essay, An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? In this engaging and lucid book, Samuel Fleischacker first explains and assesses Kant’s philosophy of Enlightenment. He then considers critics of Kant’s views - from Burke and Hegel to Horkheimer and Adorno - and figures he regards as having extended Kant’s notion of enlightenment, such as Feuerbach, Marx, Habermas, Foucault, and Rawls. Throughout, he demonstrates how Kant holds two distinct theories of enlightenment. On the one hand, Kant proposes a ‘minimal’ view, where to be enlightened is simply to engage in critical public discussion, allowing diversity of opinion to flourish. On the other, he argues that Kant elsewhere calls for a ‘maximal’ view of enlightenment, where, for example, an enlightened person cannot believe in a traditional religion. With great skill Fleischacker shows how these two views are taken in a multitude of directions by both critics and advocates of Kant’s philosophy. Arguing that Kant’s minimal enlightenment is a precondition for a healthy proliferation of cultures, religious faiths and political movements, What is Enlightenment? is a fascinating introduction to a key aspect of Kant’s thought and a compelling analysis of philosophical thinking about the Enlightenment. Including helpful chapter summaries and guides to further reading, it is ideal for anyone studying Kant or the philosophy of the Enlightenment, as well as those in related disciplines such as politics, history and religious studies. (shrink)

Robert Brandom's "The Pragmatist Enlightenment" describes the advent of American pragmatism as signaling a sea-change in our understanding of human reason away from the top-down Euclidian models of reasoning, warrant and knowledge inspired by the physical sciences, toward the far more bottom-up, narrative, inherently fallible and dialogical forms of reasoning of the life and human sciences. It is against this backdrop that Talmudic Judaism emerges not only as an early anticipation of the pragmatist enlightenment, but as going a (...) substantial and radical step beyond it, that in the context of religious commitment and reasoning, is unprecedented. (shrink)

Religion, law, and politics: historical contexts -- Religion and the limits of philosophy -- The prince and the church: the critique of Lutheran papalism -- Ecclesiastical history and the rise of clerical tyranny -- The history of Roman law -- Natural law (I): the institutes of divine jurisprudence -- Natural law (II): the transformation of Christian Thomasiuss natural jurisprudence -- The interpretation of nature -- Conclusion: reason and faith in the early German Enlightenment.

The French, it is well known, love revolutions, political, scientific or philosophical. There is nothing they like more than a radical upheaval of the past, an upheaval so complete that a new tabula rasa is levelled, on which a new history can be built. None of our Prime Ministers starts his mandate without promising to write on a new blank page or to furnish a complete change in values and even, for some, in life. Each researcher would think of him (...) or herself as a failure, if he or she did not make such a complete change in the discipline that nothing will hereafter be the same. As to the philosophers they feed, from Descartes up to Foucault's days, on radical cuts, on ‘coupure épistémologique’, on complete subversion of everything which has been thought in the past by everybody. No French thinker, indeed no student of philosophy, would seriously contemplate doing anything short of a complete revolution in theories. To hesitate, to respect the past, would be to compromise, to be a funk, or worse, to be eclectic like a vulgar Anglo-Saxon! (shrink)

Jürgen Osterhammel’s book, first published in 1998 and now updated and translated from the original German, is a masterful survey of travel literature on and theoretical treatments of Asia by Europ...

The philosophy of Scottish Enlightenment became popular in Poland at the turn of 18th and 19th centuries due to its conciliatory nature characteristic for the mentality of our philosophers of that epoch. Th e central for that philosophy category of common sense was not identical with the French bon sens opposed both to fi deism of theologians and to metaphysical subtleties of the 17th century philosophical systems. In the period of breakthrough between the Polish Enlightenment and Romanticism the (...) category of common sense, popular sense based upon common experience and intuition acquired an unusual popularity, since it reconciled two intellectual formations – the disappearing one and the succeeding one.The initiators in spreading Scottish philosophy in Poland were the brothers Czartoryski and the following, associated with them thinkers: Karol Sienkiewicz who propagated pre-romantic Ossianism; Krystyn Lach-Szyrma who propagated the ideas of D. Stewart; Michał Wiszniewski, who was a pupil of Th. Reid, this one considered to be a founder of the Scottish school of common sense philosophy; Jan Śniadecki, who declaring himself for the “Scottish School” criticized both Kant and the French materialists. (shrink)

Bien, Victor At the 2013 Council of Australian Humanist Societies AGM, held in Sydney on 4 May, it was resolved to adopt 'the defence and promotion of the values of the Enlightenment as an ongoing process for organising our aim, objects and programs.'.

This dictionary offers a balanced overview and helps readers understand and appreciate the Enlightenment Movement. Cross-referenced dictionary entries cover the significant persons, places, events, institutions, and literary works of the movement, and a chronological table charts the progression of the movement by indicating the date, the main figures involved, the political or society events, and the science, arts, or letters that resulted.

하버마스는 계몽과 세속화된 종교를 역사적으로 대립적이거나 배제적인 것으로 파악한다. 동시에 하버마스는 계몽과 종교, 지식과 믿음이 사실상 공통적인 윤리적인 내용을 가진다고 주장한다. 그렇다면 이 둘이 공통적인 내용을 가지는데, 어떻게 둘 간의 갈등이 생긴 것일까? 또한 역사적으로 상호 배제적인 것으로 파악되던 믿음과 지식이 현대 사회에서 “반성적 도약”을 통해 화해에 이를 수 있을까? 헤겔에 따르면 믿음과 지식은 “현실 세계로부터의 도피”라는 점에서 동일한 생성론적 원천을 가지며, 의식의 순수 사유를 현실의 반대로서 현실의 진리라고 파악한다는 점에서 내용적 동일성도 가진다. 하지만 이 진리를 믿음은 표상의 형식 속에, (...) 지식은 개념의 형식 속에 표현한다는 점에서 둘은 다르다. 이 형식적 차이는 둘 간의 상호 비판을 가능케 하여, 계몽의 변증법과 종교의 세속화를 촉발한다. 지식과 믿음, 계몽과 종교는 하나이자 동일한 정신의 자기 이해라는 과정이라는 동전의 양면을 불과하다. 우리는 계몽과 세속화의 관계에 대한 헤겔의 이론으로부터 하버마스가 주장하는 “반성적 도약”의 가능 토대를 얻을 수 있다. (shrink)

First Published in 1999. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

This book situates Hitler in the context of European Intellectual history.