English title: The Fundations of Normativity by Kant and Spener. In one of the chapters in Conflict of Faculties, Kant presents so-called “Spener’s problem”. Kant refers to the conception of the 17th century theologian Philipp Jakob Spener, concerning the problem of radical moral transformation of individuals. Spener became famous as one of the founders and main exponents of pietistic theology, which in the 18th century became one of the most significant intellectual trends at the University of (...) Königsberg and about which one may assume, that it could influence the evolution of Kantian philosophy. The goal of the article is to compare the main assumptions of Spener’s theology with Kantian theory of moral motivation. The analysis focuses on the possibility of describing the phenomenon of normativity in both conceptions. (shrink)

‘Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluuunt celebranturque. igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt. et pereuntibus addita ludibria, (...) ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent, aut crucibus adfixi aut flammandi, atque ubi defecisset dies in usum nocturni luminis urerentur. hortos suos ei spectaculo Nero obtulerat et circense ludicrum edebat, habitu aurigae permixtus plebi vel curriculo insistens. unde quamquam adversus sontes et novissima exempla meritos miseratio oriebatur, tamquam non utilitate publica sed in saevitiam unius absumerentur.’ Tac.Ann. 15. 44. (shrink)

L’influence de Pierre Poiret sur le milieu piétiste en Allemagne est très hétérogène. Il a lui-même découvert les idées d’Antoinette Bourignon à Francfort et s’est chargé de diffuser ses enseignements à travers les groupes piétistes, notamment les « piétistes radicaux ». Les idées millénaristes de J. W. et J. E. Petersen sont assez comparables à celles de Poiret. La Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie de G. Arnold a mieux fait connaître l’importance de Poiret à propos du franchissement des frontières entre les confessions (...) religieuses. Les piétistes du Wurtemberg comme J. A. Bengel et Chr. F. Oetinger ont été influencés par le projet théologique de Poiret tel qu’il est esquissé dans l’Œconomie divine. Dans l’orphelinat de Halle, les écrits de Poiret sont publiés par A. H. Francke et A. W. Böhme. En même temps, Poiret est fortement critiqué par Ph. J. Spener, J. W. Jäger et J. Lange. Il fait enfin connaître la piété mystique par les biographies de plusieurs auteurs mystiques de la fin du Moyen Âge. Via G. Tersteegen, ces biographies sont mieux connues en Allemagne. Les dirigeants du mouvement de réveil (catholique) de l’Allgäu (début du XIXe siècle) ainsi que Hedwig von Redern, écrivain de la Gemeinschaftsbewegung (fin du XIXe siècle) ont repris ces biographies mystiques dans leur enseignement de la vie pieuse. (shrink)

Anna Szyrwińska geht in ihrem Buch der Frage nach, ob und inwieweit die pietistische Theologie Einfluss auf die Philosophie Immanuel Kants hatte. Ihre historische und systematisch-philosophische Analyse zeigt, dass Kants praktische Philosophie an mehreren Punkten an die pietistische Lehre und vor allem an die Theologie Philipp Jakob Speners anschließt. Weiter ergeben ihre Untersuchungen, dass dies insbesondere für die internalistische Motivationstheorie und die radikal inkompatibilistische Freiheitsvorstellung bei pietistischen Denkern gilt, die sich dann auch bei Kant wiederfinden.

Viewed from a certain perspective, nothing can seem more secure than introspection. Consider an ordinary conscious episode—say, your current visual experience of the colour of this page. You can judge, when reflecting on this experience, that you have a visual experience as of something white with black marks before you. Does it seem reasonable to doubt this introspective judgement? Surely not—such doubt would seem utterly fanciful. The trustworthiness of introspection is not only assumed by commonsense, it is also taken for (...) granted by many of theorists about the mind. Within both philosophy and the science of consciousness it is widely held that introspection is generally reliable, at least with respect to the question of one’s current (or immediately prior) conscious states. Without this assumption, we could not make sense of theorists’ widespread use of introspection, both in support of their own position and to undermine that of their opponents. (shrink)

In Describing Inner Experience, Hurlburt and Schwitzgebel explore the proper limits of scepticism about consciousness and the prospect of a scientific investigation of consciousness. Their debate with each other focuses on the question about whether we can trust people's reports about their inner experiences and on Hurlburt's introspective method, DES. I point out that their discussion leaves unclear the crucial question of the aims and objectives of DES. This makes it difficult genuinely to assess DES's merits and the problems for (...) theorizing that might be created by inaccuracy in the introspective data. I then provide a taxonomy of different introspective methods, depending on different roles played by introspective data and on the kinds of questions that are being asked. I suggest that introspective methods tasked to answer a certain group of questions -- certain philosophical questions about experience -- are more vulnerable to the possibility of introspective error than others. (shrink)

This chapter discusses the main types of so-called ’subjective measures of consciousness’ used in current-day science of consciousness. After explaining the key worry about such measures, namely the problem of an ever-present response bias, I discuss the question of whether subjective measures of consciousness are introspective. I show that there is no clear answer to this question, as proponents of subjective measures do not employ a worked-out notion of subjective access. In turn, this makes the problem of response bias less (...) tractable than it might otherwise be. (shrink)

The possibility of transforming social reality is one of the presuppositions of critical social sciences. How can it be turned into both an object and a central objective of inquiry, particularly in sociology? A brief look at the history of the discipline, in the form of a return to certain texts of German critical theory inspired by Marx and Weber – both of whom placed possibilities at the heart of their sociology – and to Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology allows us to (...) show that the problem of elaborating an inquiry about possibilities has often been posed and is viewed as a privileged vector for critical knowledge. The contours of this research tradition are outlined in this article. It goes on to propose several fields of application that either already exist or are in the making. The article then suggests making the possibilities of the present and the hopes considered and practised a focal point of critical sociology. Following such a research programme should also lead to a better way of handling the recurrent contestation of the transformative ambitions of these disciplines and the doubts about their emancipatory power. The last section evokes the temporal schemes according to which it is advisable, in the present, to apprehend these latent desirable possibilities from the angle of the relationship to the future and the question of progress. (shrink)

Block's argument against correlationism depends in part on a view about what subjects in certain experiments can be aware of phenomenally. Block's main source of evidence for this view is introspection. I argue that introspection should not be trusted in this respect. This weakens Block's argument and undermines correlationism at the same time.

Kammerer and Frankish (this issue) put forward a map of a space of possible forms of introspection with the aim that (among other things) it can be used as a theoretical tool or framework to systematically compare and contrast different accounts of introspection. Using the distinction between phenomena (real-world systems), models, and modelling frameworks, I question whether such a map in the ambitious form proposed is feasible.

This paper offers a new argument in favour of experiential pluralism about visual experience – the view that the nature of successful visual experience is different from the nature of unsuccessful visual experience. The argument appeals to the role of experience in explaining possession of ordinary abilities. In addition, the paper makes a methodological point about philosophical debates concerning the nature of perceptual experience: whether a given view about the nature of experience amounts to an interesting and substantive thesis about (...) our own minds depends on the significance of the psychological or mental kind claim made by it. This means that an adequate defence of a given view of the nature of experience must include articulation of the latter's significance qua psychological or mental kind. The argument advanced provides the material to meet this demand. In turn, this constitutes further support for the argument itself. (shrink)

In this paper I critically examine uses of introspection in present-day philosophy of perception. First, I introduce a distinction between two different meanings of the term ‘introspection’: introspective access and introspective method. I show that they are both at work in the philosophy of perception but not adequately distinguished. I then lay out some concerns about the use of introspection to collect data about consciousness that were raised in over a hundred years ago, by some early experimentalist psychologists, part of (...) so-called ‘Introspectionist Psychology’. As I argue, these concerns apply to current philosophical uses of introspection but they are not acknowledged, much less addressed. I explain this by applying the distinction between introspective access and introspective method. As a result, extant arguments relying on introspection-based phenomenal descriptions are methodologically problematic. These problems do not call into question the use of introspection in theorising altogether. But we need to take more care in how we use it. (shrink)

Cet ouvrage trouve son point de départ dans un séminaire intitulé « Puissance, Mouvement, Acte » organisé, en 2001-2004, par les éditeurs de ce volume qui rassemble donc les principales contributions consacrées à la notion de puissance. Comme l’indique le titre, le volume comporte néanmoins un point focal, à savoir la philosophie d’Aristote en laquelle la notion de dynamis se trouve, avec l’energeia, mise au principe d’une ontologie qui s’efforce d’articuler substantialité et mobilité, déterm...

Politik soll ihre Entscheidungen nicht nur sachgerecht und gemäß den rechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen treffen, sondern ebenso den Ansprüchen der Moralität genügen. Anhand der vier Themen Moral, Terrorismus, Globalisierung und Demokratie zeigen renommierte Experten allgemeinverständlich auf, welche Herausforderungen damit für Politik und Ethik verbunden sind. Mit Beiträgen von Moritz Leuenberger, Herfried Münkler, Francis Cheneval und Julian Nida-Rümelin.