Am 26. Juni 1956 wiederholte sich zum hundertsten Male der Todestag Max Stirners. Durch das Erscheinen seines Werkes "Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum", in dem er seine Zeit, die nachhegelianische Epoche, schonungslos kritisierte, war er bei den einen berühmt, bei anderen berüchtigt geworden. In neuerer Zeit lenkte er die allgemeine Aufmerksamkeit vor allem durch Nietzsche und durch die posthum erschienene Kritik Marxens an seinem Werk wieder auf sich, die letzterer 1845/46 gemeinsam mit Engels verfaßte, der Zeitumstände wegen aber "der nagenden (...) Kritik der Mäuse überlassen" mußte. Sie erschien erstmals unter dem Titel "Die deutsche Ideologie" in der Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe, 1932, I. Abt., 5. Band. (shrink)

Mit dem vorliegenden Beitrag sucht der Verf. eine Begründung für die auch von anderen Phänomenologen geteilte Meinung zu geben, daß einer entschiedenen Auswirkung der „wesentlich neuen” Intentionen der Phänomenologie die ihr von Husserls selbst gegebene transzendentalphilosophische Formulierung im Wege steht. Zum Zweck der Begründung dieser Meinung wird die Idee der Transzendentalphilosophie — den schwankenden Umschreibungen Husserls und schon Kants gegenüber - bestimmt als die einer Theorie der notwendigen Bedingungen der Möglichkeit des Gegebenseins von etwas überhaupt, verbunden mit der Idee des (...) Vorrangs einer solchen Theorie notwendiger Möglichkeitsbedingungen. Diese Bestimmung gestattet alsdann, Husserls transzendentalen Idealismus als einen solchen zu bestimmen, welcher das - seinerseits transzendental genannte -Bewußtsein als notwendige Möglichkeitsbedingung der Realität setzt, keineswegs etwa als deren zureichenden Grund. Damit unterscheidet sich ein so bestimmter transzendentaler Idealismus in scharfem Gegensatz von einem Idealismus wie dem Fichtes, welcher die Intelligenz als den zureichenden Grund der Realität nachzuweisen sucht. Doch damit nicht genug. Nach der Darlegung Fichtes wäre zu eben diesem Nachweis - der Intelligenz als zureichenden Grundes der Realität als erfordert, die Realität als notwendige Bedingung der Möglichkeit der Intelligenz selber auszuweisen. Der „kritische” Idealismus Fichtes verbindet sich somit mit einem fundamentalen Realismus. Die von Fichte charakterisierte philosophische Gegenposition zu der seinigen, die eines „dogmatischen” Materialismus, bestünde in der Behauptung der materiellen Realität als zureichenden Grundes der Intelligenz oder des Bewußtseins und erforderte den Nachweis des Bewußtseins als notwendiger Möglichkeitsbedingung der Realität. Einen solchen Materialismus hat in der Tat, unter der Bezeichnung eines „dialektischen”, Friedrich Engels vertreten, der ihn deutlich von einem bloß mechanischen Materialismus im geläufigen Sinne des modernen Wissenschaftspositivismus abgrenzt, welcher sich auf die Hervorhebung der in der materiellen Realität gelegenen notwendigen Möglichkeitsbedingungen auch des Bewußtseins beschränkt, indessen der „dialektische” Materialismus die Materie als den zureichenden Grund einer notwendigen Entwicklung, zuletzt auch von menschlicher Intelligenz behauptet. So impliziert der „dialektische” Materialismus - nach den Begriffen Fichtes - von sich aus einen fundamentalen Idealismus, und ein transzendentaler Idealismus wie der von Husserl vertretene droht zur bloßen Fundamentalbetrachtung für die evolutionistische Metaphysik eines „dialektischen” Materialismus zu degenerieren. Die transzendentalphilosophische Formulierung der Phänomenologie stellte sich so in den Dienst der Befestigung einer extremen Form des uns alle beherrschenden Objektivismus, den zu durchbrechen doch die maßgebliche Intention einer phänomenologischen Philosophie bleiben muß. Bezüglich der klassischen Debatte um Idealismus und Realismus oder Materialismus ergibt sich, daß sich die Vordergrundsgegensätze der Positionen von Bewußtsein oder Intelligenz und Realität oder Materie verwischen und das wahre Problem im Hintergrund dieser Debatten ein in ihnen bisher kaum ausdrücklich berührtes ist : das der Ambivilenz der Grundverhältnisse, welcher zufolge zureichende Gründe die ihrer notwendigen Möglichkeitsbedingungen, notwendige Möglichkeitsbedingungen die ihrer zureichenden Gründe sind. (shrink)

The thesis that mental content is normative is ambiguous and has many forms. This article deals only with the thesis that normativity is connected to our mental attitudes rather than with the content of the attitudes, and more specifically with the view that it is connected to belief. A number of writers have proposed various versions of a ‘norm of truth’ attached to belief. I examine various versions of this claim, and defend it against recent criticisms according to which this (...) norm lacks normative force, that it violates the principle that ‘ought implies can,’ and that it is viciously circular. I defend the view that we should distinguish the statement of the objective norm and the way it is regulated, and that this distinction can answer most of the criticisms of the norm of truth for belief. (shrink)

Normative accounts of the correctness of belief have often been misconstrued. The norm of truth for belief is a constitutive norm which regulates our beliefs through ideals of reason. I try to show that this kind of account can meet some of the main objections which have been raised against normativism about belief: that epistemic reasons enjoy no exclusivity, that the norm of truth does not guide, and that normativism cannot account for suspension of judgement.

Many authors assume that we are rationally required to be somewhat moved by any recognized reason. This assumption turns out to be unjustified if not false, both in general and under any non-trivial restriction. Even its most plausible forms are contradicted by the possibility of exclusionary reasons. Some have doubted the latter’s possibility. But these doubts are also shown to be unfounded, and exclusionary reasons’ pervasive role in normative theorizing is defended.

What is truth? What value should we see in or attribute to it? The war over the meaning and utility of truth is at the center of contemporary philosophical debate, and its arguments have rocked the foundations of philosophical practice. In this book, the American pragmatist Richard Rorty and the French analytic philosopher Pascal Engel present their radically different perspectives on truth and its correspondence to reality. Rorty doubts that the notion of truth can be of any practical use (...) and points to the preconceptions that lie behind truth in both the intellectual and social spheres. Engel prefers a realist conception, defending the relevance and value of truth as a norm of belief and inquiry in both science and the public domain. Rorty finds more danger in using the notion of truth than in getting rid of it. Engel thinks it is important to hold on to the idea that truth is an accurate representation of reality. In Rorty's view, epistemology is an artificial construct meant to restore a function to philosophy usurped by the success of empirical science. Epistemology and ontology are false problems, and with their demise goes the Cartesian dualism of subject and object and the ancient problematic of appearance and reality. Conventional "philosophical problems," Rorty asserts, are just symptoms of the professionalism that has disfigured the discipline since the time of Kant. Engel, however, is by no means as complacent as Rorty in heralding the "end of truth," and he wages a fierce campaign against the "veriphobes" who deny its value. _What's the Use of Truth?_ is a rare opportunity to experience each side of this impassioned debate clearly and concisely. It is a subject that has profound implications not only for philosophical inquiry but also for the future study of all aspects of our culture. (shrink)

Skeptics try to persuade us of our ignorance with arguments like the following: 1. I don’t know that I am not a handless brain-in-a-vat [BIV]. 2. If I don’t know that I am not a handless BIV, then I don’t know that I have hands. Therefore, 3. I don’t know that I have hands. The BIV argument is valid, its premises are intuitively compelling, and yet, its conclusion strikes us as absurd. Something has to go, but what? Contextualists contend that (...) an adequate solution to the skeptical problem must: (i) retain epistemic closure, (ii) explain the intuitive force of skeptical arguments by explaining why their premises initially seem so compelling, and (iii) account for the truth of our commonsense judgment that we do possess lots of ordinary knowledge. Contextualists maintain that the key to such a solution is recognizing that the semantic standards for ‘knows’ vary from context to context such that in skeptical contexts the skeptic’s premises are true and so is her conclusion; but in ordinary contexts, her conclusion is false and so is her first premise. Despite its initial attractiveness, the contextualist solution comes at a significant cost, for contextualism has many counterintuitive results. After presenting the contextualist solution, I identify a number of these costs. I then offer a noncontextualist solution that meets the adequacy constraint identified above, while avoiding the costs associated with contextualism. Hence, one of the principal reasons offered for adopting a contextualist theory of knowledge–its supposedly unique ability to adequately resolve the skeptical problem – is undermined. (shrink)

The article defends ethical vegetarianism, which, for present purposes, is stipulatively taken to be the view that it is morally wrong to eat animals when equally nutritious plant-based foods are available. Several examples are introduced to show that we all agree that animals deserve some direct moral consideration and to help identify and clarify several commonsense moral principles—principles we all accept. These principles are then used to argue that eating animals is morally wrong. Since you no doubt accept these principles, (...) the argument demonstrates that consistency with your own beliefs and values commits you to the immorality of eating meat and requires you to alter your eating behavior accordingly. [Article available online at no cost at links listed above.]. (shrink)

Constructivism as a distinct metaethical position has garnered significant interest in recent years due in part to Sharon Street’s theory, Humean metaethical constructivism. According to Street’s account, practical reasons are constructed by individual valuing entities. On this view, then, whether a particular reason applies to an individual is completely contingent upon what that individual actually values. In this article I argue for the recognition of multiple sources of practical reasons and values, including both individuals and communities. The resulting view, which (...) I call layered constructivism, strengthens the constructivist project and begins to resolve some of the common critiques leveled against Street’s Humean constructivism. To begin, layered constructivism retains many of the benefits of Street’s approach, such as providing a naturalistic picture of normativity and maintaining a close tie between practical reasons and individual motivation. Moreover, the inclusion of collective sources of normativity and the importance of the resulting values for individuals is supported by recent empirical research on norms. Layered constructivism can also respond to the common concerns that Humean constructivism fails to adequately account for the immense influence our social lives have on our normative reasons and values, and that it entails an objectionable level of contingency. Finally, acknowledging the existence of differently constructed reasons helps us make sense of the pervasive human experience of navigating a variety of seemingly incommensurable normative reasons. (shrink)

Sosa takes epistemic normativity to be kind of performance normativity: a belief is correct because a believer sets a positive value to truth as an aim and performs aptly and adroitly. I object to this teleological picture that beliefs are not performances, and that epistemic reasons or beliefs cannot be balanced against practical reasons. Although the picture fits the nature of inquiry, it does not fit the normative nature of believing, which has to be conceived along distinct lines.

Both Kant and Dilthey distinguish between cognition and knowledge, but they do so differently in accordance with their respective theoretical interests. Kant’s primary cognitive interest is in the natural sciences, and from this perspective the status of psychology is questioned because its phenomena are not mathematically measurable. Dilthey, by contrast, reconceives psychology as a human science.For Kant, knowledge is conceptual cognition that has attained certainty by being part of a rational system. Dilthey also links knowledge with certainty; however, he derives (...) the latter from life-experience rather than from reason. Dilthey’s psychology begins with the self-certainty of lived experience and life-knowledge, but this turns out to fall short of cognitive understanding. In the final analysis, both Kant and Dilthey move beyond psychology to arrive at self-understanding. Because of his doubts about introspection, Kant replaces psychology with a pragmatic anthropology to provide a communal framework for self-understanding. Dilthey supplements psychology with other human sciences as part of a project of anthropological reflection.Author Keywords: Anthropology; Cognition; Dilthey; Kant; Knowledge; Psychology. (shrink)

The identity theory of truth, according to which true thoughts are identical with facts, is very hard to formulate. It oscillates between substantive versions, which are implausible, and a merely truistic version, which is difficult to distinguish from deflationism about truth. This tension is present in the form of identity theory that one can attribute to McDowell from his views on perception, and in the conception defended by Hornsby under that name.

This paper attempts to clarify some issues about what is usually called “doxastic voluntarism”. This phrase often hides a confusion between two separate (although connected) issues: whether beliefis or can be, as a matter of psychological fact, under the control of the will, on the one hand, and whether we can have practical reasons to believe something, or whether our beliefs are subject to any sort of “ought”, on the other hand. The first issue -- which I prefer to call (...) the issue of volitionism about belief -- is psychological, and I take the answer to be negative, along the lines of the conceptual arguments against believing at will adduced by writers such as Bernard Williams. The second issue -- which I call voluntarism proper -- is normative, and the answer that I give is a qualified yes. Belief is not a matter of the will, although there are certain things that we ought to believe. (shrink)

I discuss Ruth Marcus' conception of beliefs as dispositional states related to possible states of affaires. While I agree with Marcus that this conception accounts for the necessary distinction between belief and linguistic assent, I argue that the relationship between dispositional beliefs and our assent attitudes is more complex, and should include other mental states, such as acceptances, which, although they contain voluntary elements, are further layers of dispositional doxastic attitudes.

This article examines Keith Lehrer's distinction between belief and acceptance and how it differs from other accounts of belief and of the family of doxastic attitudes. I sketch a different taxonomy of doxastic attitudes. Lehrer's notion of acceptance is mostly epistemic and at the service of his account of the "loop of reason", whereas for other writers acceptance is mostly a pragmatic attitude. I argue, however, that his account of acceptance underdetermines the role that the attitude of trust plays in (...) his analysis of reason. (shrink)

In this article, I develop and defend a version of reliabilism – internal reasons reliabilism – that resolves the paradox of epistemic luck, solves the Gettier problem by ruling out veritic luck, is immune to the generality problem, resolves the internalism/externalism controversy, and preserves epistemic closure.

Historical and philosophical background -- Del Medigo on the material intellect -- Del Medigo on the agent intellect -- Del Medigo on conceptualisation -- Hic homo intelligit?

This paper was presented at the XIX World Congress of Philosophy, "Mankind at a Turning Point: Philosophical Perspectives" held in Moscow, August 22-28, 1993. The author, representing the International Association of Women Philosophers, criticizes the use of "Mankind" in the Congress title and incorporates a resolution, subsequently passed unanimously by the steering committee of the Fédération Internationale des Sociétés de Philosophie, that calls for the use of non-sexist language at future World Congresses.

Daniel Dombrowski contends that: a number of versions of the ontological argument [OA] are sound; the deity whose existence is most well established by the OA is the deity picked out by Hartshorne’s neoclassical concept of God; skeptics who insist that the OA only shows that “if God exists, then God exists necessarily” are contradicting themselves, and the OA is worth a great deal since it effectively demonstrates the rationality of theism. I argue that theses and are clearly false and (...) offer a presumptive case for thinking that is false, since, absent an independent proof of God’s existence, the theist appears to be in no position to rationally assert. I also show that the Anselmian OA harmonizes rather poorly with a Hartshornean neoclassical conception of God. I conclude by assessing the philosophical and dialectical worth of ontological arguments vis-à-vis establishing the rationality of theism. (shrink)

Keine ausführliche Beschreibung für "Der Wahrheitsgehalt der Religion" verfügbar.