Philosophical analysis was the central preoccupation of 20th-century analytic philosophy. In the contemporary methodological debate, however, it faces a number of pressing external and internal challenges. While external challenges, like those from experimental philosophy or semantic externalism, have been extensively discussed, internal challenges to philosophical analysis have received much less attention. One especially vexing internal challenge is that the success conditions of philosophical analysis are deeply unclear. According to the standard textbook view, a philosophical analysis aims at a strict biconditional (...) that captures the necessary and sufficient conditions for membership in the relevant category. The textbook view arguably identifies a necessary condition on successful philosophical analyses, but understood as a sufficient condition it is untenable, as I will argue in this paper. To this end, I first uncover eight conditions of adequacy on successful philosophical analyses, some of which have rarely been spelled out in detail. As we shall see, even sophisticated alternatives to the textbook view fail to accommodate some of these conditions. I then propose the concept grounding view as a more promising account of philosophical analysis. According to this view, successful philosophical analyses require necessary biconditionals that are constrained by grounding relations among the concepts involved. Apart from providing a satisfactory account of philosophical analysis in its own right, the concept grounding view is also able to meet the challenge that the success conditions of philosophical analysis are problematically unclear. (shrink)

This chapter proceeds from the standard picture of the relation between intuitions and experimental philosophy: the alleged evidential role of intuitions about hypothetical cases, and experimental philosophy’s challenge to these judgments, based on their variation with philosophically irrelevant factors. I will survey some of the main defenses of this standard picture against the x-phi challenge, most of which fail. Concerning the most popular defense, the expertise defense, I will draw the bleak conclusion that intuitive expertise of the envisaged kind is (...) largely a myth. Next, I will consider the mischaracterization objection, which has mainly been developed by Deutsch and Cappelen on the basis of textual evidence: that philosophers do not appeal to intuitions as evidence for their case judgments, but instead argue for them. This would render the x-phi challenge mostly irrelevant, due to its focus on intuitions about hypothetical cases. I will then consider a few instructive replies to the mischaracterization objection, which are all unconvincing on further inspection. Finally, I will discuss some potential normative consequences of the mischaracterization objection, and I will argue that it recommends a shift away from the excessive focus on intuitions about cases in metaphilosophy and experimental philosophy, towards more work on the role of argumentation in the method of cases. More speculatively, I claim that philosophers should always argue for their case judgments, even if they have strong intuitions about them, because an argument-based methodology would be more transparent and philosophically fruitful than one that mainly relies on intuition. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction What is Chemistry about? Is Chemistry Reducible to Physics? Are There Fundamental Limits to Chemical Knowledge? Is Chemical Research Ethically Neutral? Conclusion References.

Excusable ignorance not only undermines moral culpability but also agent-responsibility. Therefore, excusable ignorance absolves of liability for costs. Specifically, it defeats liability that is meant to be derived from causal responsibility wherever strict liability cannot be justified. To establish these claims this paper assesses the potential of arguments for liability of excusably ignorant agents and thereby demarcates the proper domain of strict liability and traces the intuition that seemingly supports strict liability accounts to more general principles. The paper concludes that (...) liability cannot be justified in cases of excusable ignorance. Finally, it stresses that although excusable ignorance defeats the link from causal responsibility to liability for costs this does not imply that victims are left to fend for themselves. (shrink)

In this brief introduction, we would first like to explain how these two special issues of Philosophical Psychology ( 23.3 and 23.4 ) actually came about. In addition, we will provide an outline of their overall structure and shortly summarize the featured papers.

Die neue deutsche Kierkegaard-Übersetzung beruht auf der dänischen Edition Søren Kierkegaards Skrifter, die seit 1994 im Søren Kierkegaard Forschungszentrum in Kopenhagen erstellt wird. Sie beginnt mit der Übersetzung der auf elf Bände angelegten Journale und Aufzeichnungen, aus denen bislang auf deutsch nur Auszüge auf einer philologisch teilweise unzuverlässigen Textgrundlage bekannt sind. Die dänische Ausgabe hat hier neue Maßstäbe in der Editionsphilologie gesetzt, indem etwa die von früheren Herausgebern aufgebrochenen ursprünglichen Texteinheiten wiederhergestellt und deren Eingriffe in die Manuskripte durch Verwendung von (...) Licht- und Elektronenmikroskopie von Kierkegaards eigenem Text unterschieden werden. Durch diese Technik lassen sich auch von Kierkegaard selbst unleserlich gemachte Eintragungen entziffern. Die räumliche Anordnung der Aufzeichnungen wird in einem aufwendigen zweispaltigen Druckbild annähernd wiedergegeben. Die einleitenden Editionsberichte geben Auskunft über Überlieferungsverhältnisse, Chronologie und Inhalt der Bände. Daneben bietet DSKE eine Fülle von Realkommentaren, die zusammen mit zahlreichen Abbildungen ein neues und tieferes Verständnis von Kierkegaards Gesamtwerk ermöglichen. (shrink)

Gegenstand dieser Arbeit ist der anthropologische Personenbegriff Heinrichs von Gent (vor 1240-1293). Die zentrale These lautet, Heinrich entwickele zwar keine geschlossene Theorie der menschlichen Person, verbinde aber ganz verschiedene philosophische Kontroversen seiner Zeit inhaltlich durch eine bestimmte Perspektive auf den Menschen in seinem Verhältnis zu Gott auf der einen Seite und der Natur auf der anderen Seite miteinander. Vor diesem Hintergrund widmet sich der Autor Heinrichs Beitrag zu den Fragen nach dem Prinzip der Individuation, der Ewigkeit der Welt sowie dem (...) Verhältnis von Verstand und Wille. Im Zentrum der Darstellung steht hierbei jeweils, wie Heinrich zu seiner Positionierung unter Rückgriff auf verschiedene Autoritäten ein Konzept entwickelt, hinter dem eine scharfe Grenzziehung zwischen den Bereichen Gott, Mensch und Natur steht. Die Bestimmung dessen, wie der Mensch einerseits aus reinen Naturkategorien herausgehoben wird, wie zugleich aber vermieden werden muss, den Menschen selbst zu Gott werden zu lassen oder Gott in denselben Strukturen wie die von ihm geschaffene Natur zu verstehen, verknüpft Heinrich von Gent immer wieder mit dem Begriff Person. Sich als Person gegenüber Naturkausalitäten frei verhalten zu können, begründet für Heinrich die Würde einer Person. Die philosophiehistorisch angelegte Studie zeigt durch die direkte Auslegung der Quellentexte auf, wie Heinrich von Gent eine solche Position entwickelt: Einerseits durch Rückgriff auf verschiedene Traditionen und andererseits in Auseinandersetzung mit anderen Denkern seiner Zeit, allen voran Thomas von Aquin. (shrink)

Die Dinge als Dinge sind in den letzten Jahrzehnten immer mehr ins Zentrum des Forschungsinteresses gerückt. In diesem Buch geht es darum, ob es so etwas wie eine Rhetorik der Dinge gibt, ob man eine Theorie des Stilllebens zu den Dingen im Bild formulieren kann und was all das zusammen mit der Frage nach dem Ding-Design mit Rhetorik zu tun hat.

[1] Fundamentale Fragen der Moraltheologie -- 2. Religiöse Grundlage der Moral, Glaube, Hoffnung, Liebe.

Nanotechnology has from its very beginning been surrounded with an aura of novelty. For instance, on the 28 introductory pages of the report that prepared the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), Nanotechnology Research Directions (NSTC/IWGN 1999), we read 73 times the term “new”, 15 times “novel”, 7 times “innovation”, and 21 times “revolution”. The authors concede that one should distinguish between different nanotechnologies, because “Many existing technologies do already depend on nanoscale processes. Photography and catalysis are two examples of ‘old’ (...) nanotechnologies” (ibid, p. xxvi). One might conclude here that, if all the existing nanotechnologies are “old” nanotechnologies, “new” nanotechnologies do not yet exists but are only promises of the future. However, without further explanation and distinction between presence and future, they suggest that most nanotechnologies are or will be new. Furthermore, they claim that nanotechnology (in singular) is a generator of further new technologies, since “Nanotechnology will give birth to new fields that at present are only visions of leading researchers” (ibid., p. xviii). Whenever science managers speak of nanotechnology (in singular), sophisticated distinctions seem to give way to plain claims about the present and future novelty of nanotechnology. As the NNI director Mihail Roco wrote in a 2001 report, “A revolution is occurring in science and technology […] Nanotechnology will fundamentally transform science, technology, and society. In 10 to 20 years, a significant proportion of industrial production, healthcare practice, and environmental management will be changed by the new technology.” (Roco & Bainbridge, pp. 1, 19) When they put on their hats as science managers, scientists rarely reject but mostly support such novelty claim, as did for instance the chemists George Whitesides and Paul Alivisatos in the earlier report: “Nanostructures are the entry into a new realm in physical and biological science.” (NSTC/IWGN 1999, p.. (shrink)

Simmel never finished his book on Hegel. Simmel rarely mentions Hegel throughout his collected works. But when he does, it is often with praise. However, Simmel explicitly distances himself from Hegel in those places where, as readers, we find Hegelian traits. What should we make of this complex relationship? With the aim of contributing to understanding Simmel’s systematic thought, I assess the extent to which Simmel was and was not influenced by Hegel. I refer to two lesser-known writings, in which (...) Simmel addresses Hegel’s philosophy at length, along with some of the more incidental mentions of Hegel that Simmel makes throughout his oeuvre. I show that Simmel adopts Hegel’s conception of philosophy while rejecting its system building. I then argue that what most scholars consider to be Hegelian in Simmel’s philosophy, namely dialectics, in fact represents his weakest, or most general, form of Hegelianism. Moreover, I show that given Simmel’s aesthetic focus, he may have been more influenced by Schiller than by Hegel in this regard. Finally, among other Hegelian features that are often overlooked, I consider Simmel’s conceptual relationality of individual–society as well as his critique of Kantian ethics. (shrink)

Behaviour is a key term in Plessner’s philosophical biology and anthropology. »Eccentric positionality« means the embeddedness of all human modes of be- haviour in the spectrum of animal behaviour (centric positionality) and at the same time the evoulutionary emergence of original patterns of human behaviour (via eccentricity). This paper aims at showing that if one considers Plessners main oeuvres rather systematically than chronologically they can be seen as exemplary realisations of Plessner’s theory of behaviour.

Denjenigen, die mit der im Titel angesprochenen Thematik und Problematik auch nur halbwegs vertraut sind, fällt in der Regel sofort das Verdikt Fichtes über das Judentum aus dem Beitrag zur Berichtigung der Urtheile des Publicums über die französische Revolution von 1793 ein. Es gilt als eines der frühesten Dokumente eines Übergangs vom religiösen Antijudaismus zum politischen Antisemitismus avant la lettre. Nimmt man nun noch die Tatsache hinzu, daß derselbe Philosoph nach verbreitetem Verständnis mit seinen Reden an die deutsche Nation von (...) 1807/8 auch als einer der frühesten Begründer des Nationalismus in Deutschland gilt, so sehen viele Interpreten den weiteren Weg, der schließlich im chauvinistschen Rassenantisemitismus der NS-Zeit endete, geradezu zwanghaft vorgezeichnet. Ein Beispiel für viele andere, die man in der Einleitung meines Buches Fichtes Idee der Nation und das Judentum, das im Oktober 2000 bei Rodopi/amsterdam erschienen ist, zu Hauf finden kann, ist Léon Poliakov: Im 5. Band seiner großen Antisemitismusstudie versteigt er sich zu einer Aussage wie: Fichtes »nationalsozialistische Ausleger hatten es nicht nötig, diese Texte [= der Reden an die deutsche Nation] allzu sehr umzubilden, um den Nachweis erbringen zu können, daß er der erste Prophet der nationalsozialistischen Gottgläubigkeit und des ›arischen Glaubens‹, jenen Eckpfeilern der nebulösen Metaphysik Hitlers gewesen ist.« Nebenbei gesagt: Weder diese beiden Begriffe, noch was immer sie bezeichnen mögen, kommen auch nur entfernt bei Fichte vor, aber das hat weder Poliakov noch andere Fichte-Kritiker, die im Tenor ähnlich geurteilt haben, je gestört. (shrink)

Michael Levin challenges the methodological soundness of Robert Nozick’s argument for the minimal state, but supports his final result: The exclusive aims of the state must be the “protection against force, theft, fraud, [and the] enforcement of contracts”. To replace Nozick’s, Levin builds a Hobbesian defense of the minimal state. He claims that the hypothetical rational choice of the less extensive bargain by the individuals in the state of nature morally justifies a minimal, but no other state. I analyze and (...) seek to improve upon this Hobbesian defense of the minimal state. While Levin’s arguments can support the claim that any justified state has to be at least as extensive as the ultraminimal state, they also provide ground, contrary to his intention, upon which to build more extensive states. (shrink)

Wilhelm Bender was professor of systematic theology in Bonn from 1876–1888. Like many of his contemporaries, he steered a course away from mediatory theology via the ‘Ritschlian school’ to liberal theology. His attempt to sublate Darwin's theory of evolution and scientific materialism into an idealistic system of the history of religion and culture set him in sharp opposition to the conservative currents within the Church, costing him his chair. In his efforts to establish a relative absoluteness of Christianity as the (...) highest value discernible in the history of religion he can be seen as a forerunner of Ernst Troeltsch. (shrink)

In this work, the basic principles of nanotechnology and its most important fields of application are presented and the current state of knowledge and the discussion surrounding the evaluation of the potential dangers associated with nanotechnology are explained. Finally, a legal evaluation of the regulatory needs and the development of benchmarks for an innovation-friendly risk minimization are presented.