Mit diesem Band legt Ernst A. Schmidt seine Forschungen über 'das Leere' in Antike und Früher Neuzeit vor. Schmidt behandelt zunächst die Atomistik von Leukipp bis Lukrez, die Porentheorie von Empedokles bis Heron von Alexandria sowie die Theorie des Philoponos. Dem schliesst sich eine Untersuchung zur Rezeption der antiken Konzepte in der fru·hneuzeitlichen Physik (Galilei, Gassendi, Henry More) an. Im Anhang bringt Schmidt eine kritische Darstellung des antiken Atomismus in drei Texten des 18. Jahrhunderts, bei Polignac, (...) Wieland und Le Sage. Es gibt bislang keine vergleichbar umfassende und quellengesättigte Arbeit zum Thema. Wer sich für 'das Leere' interessiert oder nach Quellen sucht, wird von Schmidt bestens versorgt. In this book Ernst A. Schmidt, emeritus of Classical Philology at Tübingen University, presents his research on the subject of "the void" in antiquity and early modern times. Schmidt first deals with atomistics from Leucipp to Lucretius, the pore theory from Empedocles to Heron of Alexandria, and the theory of Philoponos. This is followed by an investigation of the reception of ancient concepts in early modern physics (Galileo, Gassendi, Henry More). In an appendix the author offers a critical account of ancient atomism in three texts from the 18th century by Polignac, Wieland and Le Sage. There is no comparably comprehensive and source-saturated work on the subject to date. Anyone interested in "the void" or looking for sources will be well served by Schmidt. (shrink)

This paper analyzes, first, the reception of Schelling’s philosophy in the environment of Kant in Königsberg, and second in Kantian writings published by his students Jäsche and Rink. – The only two passages Kant mentions Schelling are to be found in the latest leaves of the Opus postumum. Here Schelling’s philosophy is characterized as transcendental idealism. In current research it became rather common to interpret these passages as a positive account of Schelling’s philosophy, moreover, that Kant recognized Schelling’s transcendental idealism (...) as an improvement of his own philosophy. However, in the latest leaves of the Opus postumum the term transcendental idealism is – remarkably – strongly linked with Spinozism. In this paper I argue, thirdly, that Kant in the Opus postumum employs transcendental idealism in a negative way in order to distinguish his own transcendental philosophy clearly from the wrong philosophical account transcendental idealism brings forward. (shrink)

This paper presents the correspondence in the year 1799 between Jeronimo de Bosch, the curator of the university of Leiden, and Kant or rather F. Th. Rink, who obviously was writing on behalf of Kant. The correspondence was initiated by a letter that de Bosch sent on 6 July 1799 to Kant accompanied by a lengthy poem on Kant's ethics. This paper presents two critically-edited, hitherto unknown letters by Rink to De Bosch and an autograph by Kant. These letters provide (...) us with new materials pertaining to the development of and Kant's involvement in Rink's edition of Mancherley zur Geschichte der metacritischen Invasion, the so-called „Gedächtniszettel“ and Kant's activities in the summer of 1799 while editing his so-called Opus postumum. It also sheds new light on the reception of Kant's philosophy in Holland, mainly with respect to De Bosch's Kantian sources. (shrink)

This paper deals with the importance of Fichte’s first visit at the Stift of Tübingen (June 1793) on his philosophical development, ultimately leading to the formulation of the outlines of his wl 1794/5. This paper aims to show that Fichte had been forced to his criticism of Reinhold and than that of Kant by arguments addressed by the Tübingen professor Johann Friedrich Flatt. Therefore, Fichte’s own presentation of his philosophical awakening, attributed to the influence of his Aenesidemus-reading seems to be (...) a skilful retouching of the historical facts. If the presented hypothesis can take some plausibility it opens an interesting perspective on the development of post-Kantian philosophy, as Flatt’s criticism of Reinhold and Kant was not only of importance for Fichte, but also for Hegel and Schelling, albeit denied by all of them. In diesem Beitrag soll gezeigt werden, dass Fichte zu seiner Kant- und Reinhold-Kritik und damit letztendlich auch zu den ersten Schritten auf dem Wege zu seiner eigenen philosophischen Position – ausmündend in die wl von 1794 – auch durch die Kritik Johann Friedrich Flatts an Kant und Reinhold genötigt wurde. Die spätere Darstellung seiner Anfänge durch Fichte selbst, die dem Einfluss der Aenesidemus-Lektüre für seine philosophische Entwicklung die größte Wirksamkeit zuschrieb, könnte unter diesem Aspekt als eine geschickte Retouche der historischen Tatsachen bewertet werden, auf die es in diesem Beitrag geht. Kann die hier aufgestellte Hypothese einige Plausibilität für sich beanspruchen, eröffnet sich eine interessante Perspektive auf die weitere Ausbildung der nachkantischen Philosophie, sofern Flatts Kant- und Reinhold-Kritik nicht nur für Fichte, sondern auch für Hegel und Schelling einen wichtigen – wenn auch von ihnen verleugneten – Stellenwert hatte. (shrink)

This volume provides a framework for approaching and understanding mental normativity. It presents cutting-edge research on the ethics of belief as well as innovative research beyond the normativity of belief—and towards an ethics of mind. By moving beyond traditional issues of epistemology the contributors discuss the most current ideas revolving around rationality, responsibility, and normativity. -/- The book’s chapters are divided into two main parts. Part I discusses contemporary issues surrounding the normativity of belief. The essays here cover topics such (...) as control over belief and its implication for the ethics of belief, the role of the epistemic community for the possibility of epistemic normativity, responsibility for believing, doxastic partiality in friendship, the structure and content of epistemic norms, and the norms for suspension of judgment. In Part II the focus shifts from the practical dimensions of belief to the normativity and rationality of other mental states—especially blame, passing thoughts, fantasies, decisions, and emotions. These essays illustrate how we might approach an ethics of mind by focusing not only on belief, but also on debates about responsibility, rationality, These essays illustrate how we might approach an ethics of mind by focusing not only on belief, but also more generally on debates about responsibility and rationality, as well as on normative questions concerning other mental states or attitudes. -/- The Ethics of Belief and Beyond paves the way towards an ethics of mind by building on and contributing to recent philosophical discussions in the ethics of belief and the normativity of other mental phenomena. It will be of interest to upper-level students and researchers working in epistemology, ethics, philosophy of action, philosophy of mind, and moral psychology. (shrink)

Insect endoparasitoids are able to circumvent the defense reactions of their habitual hosts. In a hymenopteran wasp species, virus‐like particles, found on the egg surface are responsible for the protection against the encapsulation reaction of the host caterpillar. Some of the particle proteins are structurally and probably functionally related to host protein(s). Biological properties of some of the host proteins suggest that they might be involved in the insect defense reaction.

This paper analyzes, first, the reception of Schelling’s philosophy in the environment of Kant in Königsberg, and second in Kantian writings published by his students Jäsche and Rink. – The only two passages Kant mentions Schelling are to be found in the latest leaves of the Opus postumum. Here Schelling’s philosophy is characterized as transcendental idealism. In current research it became rather common to interpret these passages as a positive account of Schelling’s philosophy, moreover, that Kant recognized Schelling’s transcendental idealism (...) as an improvement of his own philosophy. However, in the latest leaves of the Opus postumum the term transcendental idealism is – remarkably – strongly linked with Spinozism. In this paper I argue, thirdly, that Kant in the Opus postumum employs transcendental idealism in a negative way in order to distinguish his own transcendental philosophy clearly from the wrong philosophical account transcendental idealism brings forward. (shrink)

This paper argues that the revisions made for the second edition of Kant’s Anthropology are made by Kant himself.