Christoph Menke

Ian McEwan's novel centers on a British High Court Judge, Mrs Justice Fiona Maye, who works within the Family Division. For Christoph Menke, the law constitutes subjects in their very autonomy, and thereby hollows out their autonomy from the inside, for the subject becomes a subject by judging and imposing violence on themselves. In McEwan's novel, the law functions alongside other social practices, and different practices demand different but related forms of integrity. McEwan's novel centers on a British High Court Judge, Mrs Justice Fiona Maye, who works within the Family Division. In an article on Marx's critique of the law published two years after the German edition of Law and Violence, he continues the project of probing the limits of legality. Benjamin notes areas of social life that do not depend on violence to resolve conflicts.

In einem Brief nennt Adorno die "Negative Dialektik" kurz nach ihrem Erscheinen unter seinen Schriften "das philosophische Hauptwerk, wenn ich so sagen darf“. Dieser herausgehobenen Bedeutung, die das Werk für Adorno hatte, entspricht nicht nur die lange Zeit, die er mit der Abfassung des Buchs beschäftigt war, sondern auch die lange Geschichte, die ihre zentralen Motive in seinem Denken haben. Philosophische Begriffsklärung, die Arbeit an "Begriff und Kategorien“ einer negativen Dialektik, versteht Adorno dabei als dialektischen Übergang in inhaltliches Denken – und so betreibt er sie auch hier. Das hat Konsequenzen für die Form des kooperativen Kommentars, der in diesem Band versucht wird. Adornos "Negative Dialektik" zu kommentieren, kann nur in dem Bewußtsein der unüberbrückbaren Kluft gelingen, die den Kommentar von diesem Text trennt.

What makes a revolution possible? The text understands this as the question for the subject that is able to make a revolution. Any attempt to answer this question is faced with an aporia: The subject of the revolution can neither be identified with its historically produced social form, nor can it be the subject “as such,” as the power of negativity prior to history and society. The article suggests to find a way out of this aporia in the idea of a transcendental turn of subjectivity: The revolution is the transcendental usage of the subject’s historically acquired and socially formed capacities. The possibility of the revolution lies in the revolutionizing of possibilities.

This article connects two seemingly contradictory Kantian thesis with respect to the aesthetics: the statement of the autonomy of the aesthetic in front of the ethical and the assertion of the beautiful as a symbol of morality. The author points to the fact that this apparent confrontation clears up thanks to the concept of analogy proposed by Kant between the beautiful and the good, and again thanks to the understanding of the orientation of both the aesthetic taste and the moral attitude in front of the good as dispositions resulting from a process of reflexion. This notion is dealt with in the article according to its three meanings.

It is a well-known fact that the term ‘subject’ acquired its still predominant meaning only as late as the mid-eighteenth century, and that this led to the formation of the term ‘subjectivity’ at the end of the century. In this recent or ‘modern’ use, the term ‘subject’ is no longer taken just in its grammatical meaning where a subject is that of which something can be predicated, but refers to anything that can say ‘I’. In this sense, the predicate ‘subjectivity’ is not coextensive with, but is confined to, the realm of human beings. There are human beings who are not yet or are no longer subjects, but there are no subjects who are not human beings. Only human beings have the capacity to say ‘I’. This describes the new meaning the term ‘subject’ gains at that moment in the eighteenth century, but it does not yet grasp why this new use of the term ‘subject’ marks the beginning of a new, ‘modern’ way of thinking. For that semantic shift of the word ‘subject’ does not of course mean that subjectivity, referring to the capacity to say ‘I’, was discovered only then and unknown before. Rather, the epochal significance of the new use of the term lies in the fact that—and the way in which—the reference to beings capable of saying ‘I’ is often mixed up in an opaque way with the indication of a quite different determination: namely the specifically modern determination of the subject of reflection. The modern emphasis refers to the subject as the instance or place of a process of reflection in which anything objectively existing or pregiven is dissolved. This is what makes the shift in our speaking of a ‘subject’, some time in eighteenth century philosophical discourse, into a decisive fact for our understanding of modernity: it connects the reference to I-saying beings with the emphasis on a new practice of reflection.

Fragen wir nach den Pflichten und Rechten, die wir einander gegenüber haben, so ist die erste Antwort der Moderne, dass es Pflichten und Rechte der Gleichheit sind: Gleichheit ist die vorrangig nromative Idee der Moderne. Das gilt im Moralischen ebenso wie im Politischen. Gleichheit ist die Grundidee der modernen Moralphilosophie und der modernen Verfassungsstaaten. Die moderne Begründung und Durchsetzung der Gleichheitsidee begleitet jedoch wie ein Schatten eine andere Einstellung: eine Haltung der 'Befragung' der Gleichheit. Diese andere Einstellung betrachtet die Gleichheitsidee von außen, in ihren Folgen für das Leben der Individuen; sie betrachtet die Gleichheit in ihren Brechungen und Spiegelungen in deren Leben. Das ist die Methode der Befragung der Gleichheit: Sie ist eine 'Reflexion' der Gleichheit im Verhältnis zur Individualität. Die Idee der Gleichheit kann für die Individuen Einschränkungen, gar Verzerrungen und Verletzungen bedeuten; was für alle gerecht ist, ist nicht für jeden gut. Das ist der Inhalt der Befragung der Gleichheit: Sie ist eine 'Kritik' der Gleichheit am Maßstab der Individualität. Christoph Menke geht es in seinem Buch um dieses Unternehmen einer Befragung der Gleichheit. Dazu bezieht er sich auf wichtige Stationen ihrer Geschichte: die romantische Revolutionskritik (Burke, Schiller), Nietzsches Genealogie der Moral, Schmitts Theorie der Souveränität, Adornos negative Dialektik der Gleichheit. Zugleich betrachtet er die gegenwärtigen philosophischen Debatten um die Idee der Gleichheit: die Debatte um den Begriff der Gerechtigkeit (Derrida); um den Wohlfahrtsstaat (Luhmann, Taylor, Foucault); zwischen Liberalismus und Kommunitarismus (Rawls).

The use of violence in law, the argument for its legitimacy says, constitutes an "unsurpassable limiting case"; it is at the disposal of law, whose internal organization is "symbolic" or normative, as a "symbiotic mechanism" that operates by action upon "physical-organic existence." The law to be discussed here is the law of tragedy; not just any sort of order guaranteed by a power that establishes a minimum of reliability of expectations, but the specific form of law engendered by the tragic labor of reflection. Oedipus issues the legal curse of autonomy only as a proxy, in his role as judge. Walter Benjamin offers an alternative to consent or rejection, instauration or destruction, an alternative he calls "relief of law". The dualism of bourgeois liberalism consists in confronting autonomous participation in the law and the right of free non-participation as mutually external registers.

The paper asks for the preconditions and the consequences of the emergence of aesthetics in and for philosophy. The question is: what does it mean for philosophy to engage the question of the aesthetic? My answer will be: it means nothing less than putting philosophy in question. Or, more precisely: by engaging the question of the aesthetic, philosophy puts itself in question. In order to show this, I will refer to a brief passage in the Phenomenology of the Spirit and then attempt to turn it against what I take it to be Hegel’s own intention. The paper attempts to sketch this argument in three brisk moves by (1) distinguishing a philosophy of the “poetic” from a philosophy of the “aesthetic”; (2) describing the aesthetic as “regressive” and “(self-)reflexive”; and (3) sketching the paradoxical place of aesthetics within philosophy. &nbsp

Un des problèmes centraux des discussions sur la relation entre éthique et esthétique tourne autour de la question de la violence. Celle-ci emprunte deux avenues dans le texte. La première traite d'aspects déterminés de la peinture de Francis Bacon, comme la façon dont l'art représente la violence. À ce propos, on formule la thèse que la provocation éthique de cette peinture ne repose pas tant sur le fait qu'elle représente la violence, mais qu'elle engendre en sa présence un détachement esthétique, et même, un plaisir à l'occasion de cette présentation. La deuxième avenue proposée interroge l'effet éthique du plaisir esthétique en face de la violence. La théorie aristotélicienne de la catharsis est alors amenée comme modèle d'une « économie de la différence » qui permet d'élucider la relation entre plaisir esthétique et jugement éthique.A central problem in the discussion about the relation between Ethic and Aesthetic is the question of violence. This question follows two paths in the text. The first one debates the determinated aspects in Francis Bacon painting, the way art represents violence. On that matter, we draw up the thesis that the ethical provocation in his painting don't stand upon the representation of violence but also his tryptic creates an aesthetical indifference and even a pleasure. The second part questions the ethical effects of the aesthetical pleasure in front of violence. The aristotelien catharsis theory is therefore proposed as a model of an "economy of the difference" that allows the elucidation of the relation between aesthetical pleasure and ethical judgment

The use of violence in law, the argument for its legitimacy says, constitutes an "unsurpassable limiting case"; it is at the disposal of law, whose internal organization is "symbolic" or normative, as a "symbiotic mechanism" that operates by action upon "physical-organic existence." The law to be discussed here is the law of tragedy; not just any sort of order guaranteed by a power that establishes a minimum of reliability of expectations, but the specific form of law engendered by the tragic labor of reflection. Oedipus issues the legal curse of autonomy only as a proxy, in his role as judge. Walter Benjamin offers an alternative to consent or rejection, instauration or destruction, an alternative he calls "relief of law". The dualism of bourgeois liberalism consists in confronting autonomous participation in the law and the right of free non-participation as mutually external registers.