Die Frage nach dem Wesen des Denkens gehört nicht nur zum Bestand der klassischen philosophischen Fragestellungen, sondern stellt auch ein wiederkehrendes Thema in aktuellen Diskussionen dar. Dieses Überblickswerk versammelt differenzierte Darstellungen des Denkens aus einer systematisch-historischen Perspektive. Die Beiträge untersuchen die Verhältnisse von Denken und Sprechen, Denken und Handeln, Denken und Wahrnehmen, Denken und Fühlen und beleuchten so die zentralen Aspekte des Begriffs »Denken« in vielfältiger Weise.
Die Frage nach dem Wesen des Denkens gehört nicht nur zum Bestand der klassischen philosophischen Fragestellungen, sondern stellt auch ein wiederkehrendes Thema in aktuellen Diskussionen dar. Dieses Überblickswerk versammelt differenzierte Darstellungen des Denkens aus einer systematisch-historischen Perspektive. Die Beiträge untersuchen die Verhältnisse von Denken und Sprechen, Denken und Handeln, Denken und Wahrnehmen, Denken und Fühlen und beleuchten so die zentralen Aspekte des Begriffs "Denken" in vielfältiger Weise.
AbstractThis paper seeks to reconstruct philosopher Aleksandr Bogdanov's approach to the philosophy of Spinoza in the context of the debate against Plekhanov. I demonstrate that the Soviet interest in Spinoza's theory has never been purely historical, but rather, it served an important function in developing the theoretical foundations for Marxist philosophy. However, Bogdanov was one of only a very few who objected strongly to Plekhanov's attempt to relate Spinoza's philosophy to Marxism in a direct way. Two principles underlie Bogdanov's critique: one being methodological, the other—systematic. The methodological principle has a hermeneutical character, since it demands that we treat historical concepts by taking into account their context and their changes during the time. According to Bogdanov, failing to fulfil this principle results in the dogmatization and instrumentalization of philosophy, and transforms it into political doctrine. The systematic principle concerns Bogdanov's radical rethinking of the relationship between extension and thought. I argue that by rethinking Spinoza's concepts in the framework of "ideo-empirical parallelism", Bogdanov develops his own theory of cognition, which he called "empiriomonism". When considered in historical context, I argue that these debates can serve as a window into the foundational role the Spinoza's philosophy has played in the formation of different versions of Russian Marxism, as well as in the development of Russian Marxism in general.
Abstract The paper focuses on the rediscovery of Misch's A History of Autobiography and its relevance to the problem of self-knowledge and self-esteem. Misch's work is used to reconstruct a new aspect of self-esteem and to demonstrate that self-esteem can be interpreted as an early historical form of self-knowledge. In particular, self-esteem is characterized as a kind of self-knowledge in the category of the Other, that is, self-esteem appears to be self-knowledge derived from the social perspective regarding the individual.
In this volume, scholars in the human sciences from different countries examine the meaning of philosophical knowledge today. The answer to the question of what is philosophical knowledge is not self-evident because of different cultural traditions in which national philosophies are situated. Thus philosophical knowledge can be understood as knowledge of history of philosophy, or of philosophical systems, schools and methodologies; or it can be seen as the ability to solve philosophical problems. Sometimes philosophical investigations affect not philosophy alone, but extend to other disciplines. One significant fact is that the problem of philosophical knowledge is not restricted to the theory of philosophy, but reflects the situation in philosophy itself, as well as the status of philosophy among other human sciences and its social prestige in general. Whether we still need philosophy today, in the period of total austerity, will depend upon what criteria we use to define the image of philosophy and its knowledge. On the other hand, the concerns about philosophy today – diagnosed in the present volume – are not merely intra-disciplinary; they are decisive for social outcomes in the world of today. These social outcomes – for educational curricula, for the position of women and minorities, for the political process and the formation of civil society – are the focus of the papers in this issue. In its totality, the issue offers an overview of the contemporary situation in philosophy in different countries in the 'new' Europe, which allows reflection about the differences and general tendencies in its development.
The article focuses on the problem of necessity in the social sphere. The concept of necessity is, first, introduced as a derivative of cause-and-effect and logical relations. Then the author emhisezes the peculiarity of the sphere of social interactions which consists of the fact that social reality is constituted by language and can therefore be considered as a discursive universe. Due to this peculiarity, the necessity in the sphere of social relations has not a causal but a quasi-causal character. The latter means that the relationship between individual phenomena has the character of "events" that are formed in a certain narrative context. Here, reality loses the role of the ground for events and performs only the function of reference. In this case, necessity functions as the attribution of the role of cause to certain events. To demonstrate how these theoretical positions work in practice, the author considers the political doctrine of K. P. Pobedonostsev (1827–1907), a jurist, lawyer and prominent political figure of his time, who shares the views of Russian conservative nationalists. This analysis allows us to confirm the hypothesis that there is always a gap between political action and real processes. From this, in turn, it follows that the necessity of political actions is caused not by the logic of the mere fact but by the logic of the interpretation of the facts within the framework of a certain political program. After that, the author argues that, in the field of social, two scenarios for justifying necessity are possible — mythical and argumentative. He analyzes and compares these two types of scenarios as well as the ideas of necessity formed within them. The last part of the work examines the concept of fate as a subjective side of the question of necessity. The author also argues that the place of unfolding fate is a discursive universe. From this, it follows that fate is intertwined with events that are quasi-causal; therefore it has a probabilistic character. Thus, the connection between ...
In: Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta: Vestnik of Saint-Petersburg University. Filosofija i konfliktologija = Philosophy and conflict studies, Band 37, Heft 3, S. 479-492
The article addresses the problem of how myth relates to rationality. In the classical formulation, this question appears in the following manner: are mythos and logos opposites? It can be stated that myth has become one of the key themes of philosophy in the 20th century. It has been studied in ethnography and anthropology, cultural studies, art theory, political science and even in the theory of knowledge. Myth is understood not only as a special artistic form, but also a special form of intuition, form of thinking, and form of life. Despite the sometimes cardinal difference in approaches to the analysis of myth, one common feature in its understanding can be identified. Mythical thinking is considered either as irrational or as protorational. For example, in Cassirer and Blumenberg, myth appears as an affective rationality, in Vico and Schelling — as a poetic rationality. The reason for this can be seen in the fact that myth is considered as a product of imagination. The latter is indisputable, but does this mean that myth and rationality are incompatible? In order to answer this question, the concept of imagination should be analyzed. Drawing on the theories of Hume, Aristotle, and Kant, the author contends that there is a special type of imagination referred to as "conceptual", which is a human capacity of spontaneous production of concepts. The conceptual imagination seems to be a distinctive feature of human rationality. However, if this is so, then rationality is a condition of myth and not its counterpart. Myth and discursive thinking thus turn out to be merely different forms of realization of our human rationality, of which discursive imagination is the common basis.
The Editorial Board asked scholars specializing in social and human sciences two questions regarding jointness – the focus of the journal Koinon. We were in particular seeking their views on, firstly, the state of being-in-common of human existence in the present-day world and the most urgent problems that complicate the collectivity and cohesion of human communities today. Secondly, we wanted to know their opinion on the significance of the concept and the problem of jointness in their research field. The editorial board received answers that differed not only in subject-field specifics but also in methodological approaches and even individual psychological colouring, emotional tone. Prominent representatives of various social and human sciences (philosophers -historians of philosophy and philosophers of culture, anthropologists, ethnologists, political scientists, historians, and psychologists) responded to the questions raised by the editorial board. All the respondents noted the importance of jointness for their professional work. At the same time, each respondent outlined his/her vision of the issue, which resulted in a mosaic – of course, incomplete, unfinished, but very revealing and interesting – of many problems that people face in the process of living together, from which an image of the dramatic common life of modern humanity with its contradictions, difficulties, but also eternal aspirations of social harmony and fruitful cooperation of people, social groups, ethnic groups, states, hopes for their finding, ensues. And this reality-as the answers reveal – is a decisive factor determining the diversity of research interests in modern social and human sciences. But it is also the need for co-creation and interdisciplinary dialogue of subjects of various social and human sciences, supporters of different worldviews and methodologies. ; Редколлегия задала два вопроса о совместности – главной теме журнала «Koinon» – ученым разных социогуманитарных дисциплин. Нас интересовало их мнение, во-первых, о состоянии совместности человеческого существования в современном мире и важнейшие проблемы, осложняющие сегодня коллективность и сплоченность человеческих сообществ; во-вторых, о значении концепта и проблемы совместности в их исследовательской сфере. Редколлегия получила ответы, отличающиеся не только предметно-профессиональной спецификой, но и методологическими подходами и даже индивидуально-психологической окраской, эмоциональным тоном. Были получены ответы от видных представителей разных социогуманитарных наук. На вопросы редколлегии ответили философы (историки философии и философы культуры), антропологи, этнологи, политологи, историки, психологи. Все отметили ключевое значение проблемы совместности для их профессиональной работы. При этом каждый отвечающий обозначил свое видение проблем, а в результате сложилась мозаичная (разумеется, неполная, незавершенная, но весьма показательная и интересная) картина многих проблем, с которыми сталкиваются люди в процессе совместного существования; из нее вырастает образ драматической общей жизни современного человечества с его противоречиями, трудностями, но и вечными чаяниями социальной гармонии и плодотворного сотрудничества людей, социальных групп, этносов, государств, надеждами на их обретение. И эта реальность – как видно из ответов – решающий фактор, определяющий не только разнообразие исследовательских интересов современных социальных и гуманитарных наук, но и необходимость со-творчества и междисциплинарного диалога субъектов различных социогуманитарных наук, сторонников разных мировоззрений и методологий.
Frontmatter -- Vorwort -- Inhalt -- I: Kritischer Realismus -- Alois Riehl – Leben, Werk und Wirkung -- Objekt und Objektivität in Kant und Riehl -- Alois Riehl's Epistemological Argument for Realism about Things in Themselves -- Riehls Auffassung der transzendentalen Deduktion der reinen Verstandesbegriffe -- Alois Riehls transzendentaler Realismus -- Alois Riehl und die Frage des psychophysischen Parallelismus -- Freedom and Determinism in Alois Riehl's The Philosophical Criticism -- II: Wissenschaftlicher Realismus -- Alois Riehl and Scientific Philosophy -- Alois Riehl über Hermann von Helmholtz und die Bedeutung geometrischer Axiome -- Alois Riehl and the Principle of the Conservation of Energy -- Riehl's 'Objectivist' Account of Perception -- Kantian Externalism from Riehl to Putnam -- III: Kontexte -- Heterothesis, Antithesis und die Transzendentalphilosophie. Zur Auseinandersetzung zwischen Alois Riehl und Heinrich Rickert -- Zum Einfluss von Alois Riehl auf Richard Hönigswald -- 'Realistischer Kritizismus' und 'Österreichischer Neukantianismus' -- Riehl als Neukantianer -- Riehls Geschichtsbegriff: Analyse und Kritik -- "Alle großen Dinge kommen aus der großen Leidenschaft her": Zu Alois Riehls Bild von Friedrich Nietzsche -- "Alle poetischen Ideen sind Bilder": Alois Riehl und das Problem der Form in der Kunst -- IV: Wirkungs- und Rezeptionsgeschichte -- Transzendentale Systeme im Wien des 20. Jahrhunderts -- The Reception and Rejection of Alois Riehl's Philosophy in Poland: Jan Stepa and Władysław Tatarkiewicz -- Appendix -- Alois Riehl (1824–1924): Selected Archive Sources on Life and Work -- Personenregister
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
