This collection presents the English-language reader for the first time with essays that are representative of Bernstein's much-neglected revisionist period, 1901-1921. Bernstein himself suggested that this later work included significant new elements, indicating further progress in his liberal-socialist theory. Bernstein's later work acquires additional significance in light of the events of 1989, which have discredited not only Marxism-Leninism, but revolutionary Marxist theory in general, thus making the reevaluation of Bernstein's revisionism a worthwhile experience.

This book is about Kant's account of human understanding, of our capacity to form concepts of, and to be conscious of, things in the world. It argues that his insights into what is needed for human understanding conflict with his overall view of the nature of that capacity.

"Allerdings, das ist eine grosse Frage, der ich zu sehr ausgewichen bin, die Evidenz des Ich als ein Identisches, das also doch nicht in dem Bündel bestehen kann." (Husserl, 1907) Bekanntlich verwirft Husserl in den Logischen Untersuchungen die Auffassung, "dass die Beziehung auf das Ich etwas zum we sentlichen Bestande des intentionalen Erlebnisses selbst Gehöriges sei'',! und bildet um 1907, nach Einführung der phänomenolo gischen Reduktion, "die Beziehung auf das Ich zu unterlassen, oder von ihr zu abstrahieren" geradezu die Bedingung, (...) ein "reines Phänomen im Sinne der Phänomenologie" 2 zu gewinnen. Und bekanntlich heisst es demgegenüber in den Ideen von 1913: "Unter den allgemeinen Wesenseigentümlichkeiten des tran szendental gereinigten Erlebnisgebietes gebührt eigentlich die erste Stelle der Beziehung auf das,reine' Ich",3 und revidiert Husserl in der zweiten Auflage der Logischen Untersuchungen von 4 1913 seine Stellungnahme zur Frage des reinen Ich. Weniger bekannt ist bisher, wie Husserl auf seinem Denkweg von der einen zur anderen Stellungnahme zum Problem des Ich gekommen ist. Was bewegte ihn, das "Ich" in die phänomeno logische Problematik einzubeziehen? Zu vermuten war, dem Wandel in der Stellung zum Problem des Ich liege ein Wandel im Verständnis der Phänomenologie selbst zugrunde. Welche Phänomene motivierten, auf dem phänomenologischen Boden selbst, die Einbeziehung des Ich? Vor allem dieser Frage gehen wir, unter Berücksichtigung des Nachlassmaterials des Husserl Archivs (Leuven), in unserer Studie nach. (shrink)

One might want to say that the difference between an apple and the colour red is a greater difference than that between an apple and a pear, between red and blue. In the same vein, one might want to say that the philosopher's question “What, really, is a piece of wax?” has greater generality than the more ordinary question “What distinguishes a piece of wax from a piece of soap?” I think Wittgenstein would say that to talk in this way (...) is to make the difference at issue seem too slight, so that we fail to see what the difference really amounts to.I should like to suggest that the following thesis is pervasive and fundamental in Wittgenstein's later teaching. (shrink)

I argue that the current view (as held by, eg., Warnock, Anscombe and Stenius) of Wittgenstein's theory of language in the Tractates is mistaken. This view maintains that Wittgenstein's theory is one of 'isomorphism'; that, roughly, a sentence has meaning in virtue of its being a facsimile of a fact or possible fact. But a detailed study of significant passages in the Tractattis shows that Wittgenstein held no such view. His use of important terms, such as Salz, Bild, Sachverhalt, Tatsache (...) , etc., has been crucially misunderstood. There is no isomorphism. The theory is not about sentences at all, but about talking sense. (shrink)

Kant’s response to Cartesian scepticism is often characterized in the following way. Whereas Descartes drives a wedge between subjective experience and objective reality, Kant argues that there could be no such thing as experience at all if reality were not itself structured in just the way our thought about it is structured. This picture of Kant’s response to Descartes portrays him as succeeding, where Descartes fails, in arguing directly from the nature of experience to the nature of reality; as subscribing, (...) therefore, to Descartes’ view that one is immediately aware only of one’s own mental states, but as seeing a way out of the subjective predicament. I maintain that this picture is deeply flawed. Kant’s transcendental argument is in fact a thoroughgoing critique of Descartes’ subjectivism, and destroys the Cartesian barrier to recognizing that our awareness of reality is unmediated and direct. (shrink)

Some philosophers—indeed, a large number—have presented us with a picture of human knowledge which makes it problematic as to whether we can ever be acquainted with an objective world. Given the nature of perception and thought as characterized by, e.g., Descartes and Hume, there is a problem about how anything I can be aware of can have any sort of objective status; there is a problem of how my awareness of anything can amount to anything other than its merely seeming (...) to me that things are thus and so. And of course many of these same philosophers, and other philosophers, have tried in all sorts of different ways to counter this skeptical thrust. Some, like Descartes, have argued that although human perceiving and human thinking are themselves purely subjective affairs, nevertheless the content of some of our thoughts and ideas is such that it (the content) could not exist if there did not also exist certain things of a quite objective nature. Another way of putting Descartes' thesis is to say that although all our concepts of things are, as concepts, purely subjective entities, nevertheless the content of some of our concepts requires that there exist certain objective entities. (shrink)

The book makes a direct contribution to the connection between phenomenology and cognitive science.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain (...) in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

Was passiert, wenn jemand zeigt, dass die Dreifaltigkeit der Ausgangspunkt der Freiheitsgeschichte der Menschheit ist? Dass in ihr das Risiko grundgelegt ist, das in jeder Begegnung eingeschlossen ist? Dass sie das Netz ist, das jede menschliche Liebe unterfangt? Und dass sie schliesslich die ausserste Spannung auszieht, von der Fulle des Seins zum Nichts und zum Tod? Plotzlich ruckt dann die Dreifaltigkeit mitten ins Zentrum des Verstehens von Menschheitsentwicklung und Kultur, von Gottinnigkeit ebenso wie von Gottesferne. Nichts Geringeres unternimmt die vorliegende (...) Arbeit des Franziskaners P. Eduard Prenga. Den wesentlichen Bezugspunkt bildet dabei der italienische Theologe Piero Coda, der an der Papstlichen Lateran-Universitat sein Lehrer war. Der Mensch in seiner Geschichtlichkeit ist das Ziel der sich schenkenden Liebe Gottes, so wie sie im Neuen Testament bezeichnet wird: agape. Deshalb offenbart dieser sich selbst. Diese Offenbarung stellt die Theologie vor die Frage: Wie kann die Dreieinigkeit gedacht und ins Menschliche "uber-setzt" werden? Die vorliegende Studie unternimmt den Versuch einer Antwort, indem sie vom trinitatstheologischen Denken des italienischen Theologen Piero Coda ausgeht und zu Edmund Husserls Phanomenologie der Intersubjektivitat und Interpersonalitat gelangt. Dabei ist sie sowohl trinitarische Ontologie als auch trinitarische Phanomenologie. (shrink)

Marx, like many of his contemporaries, uncritically assumed that humanity develops from primitive beginnings to ever more perfect stages. In his theory of human development he measured progress by two main standards: the decrease of all forms of dependence, and the increase of universality in man's relations to nature and to his fellow man. In our century, not only have new structures of power and dependence emerged, but successive movements have also been generated to restore the more ordered and limited (...) relationships of the past. If belief in progress is nowadays no longer self-evident, such a state of affairs can help us reflect on the conditions necessary to realize the values which determined Marx's categorical imperative, or his insistence that we overthrow all relations by which man is made a debased and enslaved being. One of these conditions is the voluntary limitation of our needs: the need to use material goods without regard for others, the need to build up or maintain security even at the cost of violence, and the need to restrict the circle of those with whom we identify to our own particular culture, race, class or ways of thinking and acting. (shrink)

Dieser Titel aus dem De Gruyter-Verlagsarchiv ist digitalisiert worden, um ihn der wissenschaftlichen Forschung zugänglich zu machen. Da der Titel erstmals im Nationalsozialismus publiziert wurde, ist er in besonderem Maße in seinem historischen Kontext zu betrachten. Mehr erfahren Sie hier.