Christoph Horn

Diferentes interpretações foram oferecidas ao argumento agostiniano do cogito, tradicionalmente preocupadas com as possíveis semelhanças entre esse e o cogito, sum de Descartes. Centrando-se em De civitate Dei XI 26, o autor oferece uma análise minuciosa do tema em Agostinho, considerando três aspectos: o tema da relação entre o cogito cartesiano e o agostiniano, o lugar do argumento agostiniano no contexto da filosofia da Antiguidade Tardia, o sentido do argumento do cogito no pensamento do próprio Agostinho.

This article attempts to challenge those contemporary philosophical approaches to justice (and this is the majority of them) which ascribe to the notion of justice a dominant role within ethics and political philosophy. In the first section, this overestimation of justice is traced back to J.S. Mill (and to John Rawls). After having pointed out some of the essential features of the Millian (and Rawlsian) concept, I show how far these attributes are away from what we (in our everyday language) mean by the word ‚justice’. Finally, I try to spell out what might be more plausibly seen as the focus of our shared moral intuition, and to highlight to which extent there is an overlap with our common idea of justice.

In several of his treatises, Plotinus discusses truth as a phenomenon that is situated primarily in the Intellect. As the paper aims to make plausible, the Plotinian theory of truth is based on a model of predication that bridges the gap between ontological and propositional aspects. It explains why the contents of the Intellect are grasped infallibly. To a large extent, the Plotinian theory of fallibility and infallibility can be regarded as a transformation of Platonic and Aristotelian considerations on the cognition of what is simple, and analytically implied in a concept. Plotinus, based on his doctrine that the Intellect is the original place of truth, as something internal, adapts the theories of Plato and Aristotle. But there is also an original contribution made by Plotinus to the history of perfect knowledge: the idea of an immediate and spontaneous cognition, i.e., consciousness, which is without deception.

This article attempts to challenge those contemporary philosophical approaches to justice (and this is the majority of them) which ascribe to the notion of justice a dominant role within ethics and political philosophy. In the first section, this overestimation of justice is traced back to J.S. Mill (and to John Rawls). After having pointed out some of the essential features of the Millian (and Rawlsian) concept, I show how far these attributes are away from what we (in our everyday language) mean by the word ‚justice’. Finally, I try to spell out what might be more plausibly seen as the focus of our shared moral intuition, and to highlight to which extent there is an overlap with our common idea of justice.

En s’appuyant sur le cours de Ricœur sur Le Concept philosophique de volonté – professé en 1967 – l’article examine la position que le philosophe français assume sur la question très controversée concernant l’histoire conceptuelle de la volonté dans la pensée occidentale et notamment dans la philosophie ancienne. En partant d’une clarification terminologique – centrée sur la distinction entre trois concepts de volonté (appétitif, décisionnel et dynamique) – l’article met en cause la thèse défendue ici par Ricœur, selon laquelle le concept de volonté serait absent dans la philosophie ancienne et en particulier dans la pensée d’Aristote. Toutefois, d’accord avec Ricœur, on reconnaît chez Augustin une approche foncièrement novatrice du concept de volonté, dont on précise le sens et la portée dans la partie conclusive.

When handling the concept “meaning of life,” it is necessary to differentiate between meaning of life in a strict sense and meaning in life. While the meaning of life refers to human life in general and out of a super subjective perspective, the meaning in life considers the meaning in an individual life out of a subjective perspective. However, in both versions, a problem arises as to whether the question of a meaningful life could be answered objectively or subjectively. A possible though controversial solution is a unity between the happiness from the subjective perspective and the meaningfulness from the objective. Further, the conflict between meaning of life and morality favors an objectivist approach in the attribution of meaning.

Die "Gesetze" ("Nomoi") sind Platons spätester und umfangreichster Dialog. Bei seinem Tod waren die zwölf Bücher stellenweise unvollendet. Aber nicht nur deswegen bildet die Schrift eine interpretatorische Herausforderung. Die "Gesetze" weichen zudem in vielen Hinsichten von den Lehren ab, die uns aus den früheren Dialogen vertraut sind. Primär ist der Dialog der Politischen Philosophie gewidmet: Es geht um die Grundlagen zur Gründung einer idealen Stadt namens Magnesia, um Fragen der Gesetzesordnung, der Ämter, der Erziehung, der Rolle von Männern und Frauen, um Strafrecht, den Umgang mit Geld, die Theologie sowie Komödie und Tragödie. Dass die Forschung zu den "Gesetzen" in den letzten Jahren viele neue Facetten erschlossen hat, spiegelt der vorliegende Band, der Originalbeiträge von 13 anerkannten Platon-Experten versammelt. MIT BEITRÄGEN VON: Chris Bobonich, Hallvard J. Fossheim, Christoph Horn, Manuel Knoll, André Laks, Francisco Lisi, Irmgard Männlein-Robert, Jörn Müller, Matthias Perkams, Klaus Schöpsdau, Anna Schriefl und Eckhart Schütrumpf.

In the epistemology of his middle period, Plato repeatedly describes the alleged ‘intellection of true reality’ in terms of sight, vision, illumination, or touch. Does this show more than Plato’s preference for optic and haptic metaphors? Should we assume that this goes back to a specific reason to be found in his underlying epistemological position? On the traditional reading, Plato actually wants to defend a sort of intuitionism. According to this still wide-spread reading, he claims that there is a very particular way of grasping Forms: Philosophers manage to come into a sort of direct contact with intelligible objects. Intellection is thus conceived as a quasi-visual presence of intelligible Forms. In our contribution, we want to challenge this interpretation by raising several objections against it. Surprisingly, there exists a close parallel in Aristotelian scholarship: Although Aristotle’s epistemology is built on considerably different foundations, there is an interpretative tradition according to which one has to assume a strict discontinuity between the methodical procedure and the intellection of the highest epistemic objects. As for Plato, we want to refuse an interpretation of Aristotle based on a concept of intuition characterized by the following features: Intuition is a specific way of gaining knowledge. It is independent of empirical conditions and leads to apriori knowledge. It consists of some experience of evidence or is accompanied by it. Knowledge gained by this kind of intuition does not need any further argument or justification

Vor dem Hintergrund der aktuellen Frage nach einer angemessenen Einladungspolitik für akademische Veranstaltungen wird zunächst betont, dass das Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung zum absoluten Kern jeder liberalen politischen Ordnung gehört. Seine Wahrnehmung unterliegt jedoch zugleich klaren Bedingungen und weist Legitimitätsgrenzen auf. Im vorliegenden Artikel werden fünf solche Bedingungen genereller Art formuliert, nämlich ein a) Moralitätskriterium, b) ein Reziprozitätskriterium, c) ein Legalitätskriterium, d) ein republikanisches Gemeinwohlkriterium und e) ein Relevanzkriterium. Es folgen weitere sechs Kriterien für die Limitierung des wissenschaftstypischen Gebrauchs von Meinungsfreiheit: f) das Sozialisationskriterium, g) das Expertisekriterium, h) das Einschlägigkeitskriterium, i) das Methodenkriterium, j) das Qualitätskriterium und k) das Objektivitätskriterium. Illiberale Positionen werden sodann als solche definiert, die das Prinzip des Vorrangs der Grundfreiheiten nicht anerkennen. Schließlich stelle ich Überlegungen zum Toleranzbegriff mit dem Ergebnis an, dass gegenüber illiberalen Positionen Toleranz in der Regel nicht angemessen ist.