Thomas Khurana

Der Beitrag zeichnet die Selbstbeschreibung der Theorie Luhmanns als »Supertheorie« nach und macht an ihr kenntlich, inwiefern die Verwiesenheit der Theorie auf andere Beschreibungen und die Uneinholbarkeit der Theorie für sich selbst unterbelichtet und unzureichend entfaltet bleiben (1). Luhmanns Konzeption wird daher Derridas Quasi-Konzept des »theoretical jetty«, des theoretischen Entwurfs, zur Seite gestellt, das es ermöglicht, den Aporien der Selbstbezüglichkeit der Theorie, den resultierenden Ungreifbarkeiten und der Verwiesenheit auf andere Theorien in anderer Weise Rechnung zu tragen (2). Das erlaubt schließlich Anregungen für eine andersgeartete Theoriekonstruktion: für Möglichkeiten supplementärer statt schlicht totalisierender Theorieverhältnisse, für nicht-thematistische Markierungen der Selbstbezüglichkeit von Theorien und für eine Theoriekonstruktion, die Generalisierung und Respezifikation als Prozeßformen stärker hervorhebt (3).

Der Ton ist scharf und die Kritik beißend, mit der Alain Badiou in seinem Essay Ethik das belegt, was er eine „ethische Ideologie" nennt - eine die westlichen Gesellschaften dominierende Vorstellung vom Ethischen, als deren „philosophische Sub-Struktur" (116) er einen „durchschnittlichen" Kant (19) und eine lose mit Levinas verbundene Ethik der Differenz ausmacht. Dieser „Ideologie" will Badiou antithetisch eine eigene „Ethik der Wahrheiten" entgegensetzen. Die Härte der Kritik ist gewiss deijenige Zug des Essays, der ihm eine breite Aufmerksamkeit eingetragen hat; die inneren Spannungen in Badious eigener Position aber sind es, die einen genaueren Blick verdienen und zu der interessanteren Lesart führen, dass Badiou sich entscheidender Probleme der ethischen Ideologie weniger entledigt, als sie in einer veränderten Form wieder aufzunehmen.

„Daß alle Sätze die Zeit in irgendeiner Weise enthalten, scheint uns zufällig, im Vergleich damit, daß auf alle Sätze die Wahrheitsfunktionen anwendbar sind.“ Die Zeit „schmeckt nach Inhalt“, die Wahrheitsfunktionen hingegen nach „Darstellungsform“. Diese Bemerkung Wittgensteins spiegelt eine Intuition wider, von der sich der überwiegende Teil analytischer Sprachphilosophie leiten lässt. Sebastian Rödl zeigt in seinem Buch, dass diese Intuition fehlgeht und dabei mit einem verengten Verständnis von Logik und einer falschen Auffassung der Natur unseres endlichen Verstandes zusammenhängt. Für einen endlichen Verstand sind entgegen dieser Intuition „Wahrheitsbezug und Zeitbewußtsein [...] zwei Seiten einer kognitiven Form“ (81), und in einer diesem Verstand angemessenen, aus dem Prinzip des Anschauungsbezugs entwickelten Logik fällt die Zeit nicht auf die Seite des Inhalts, wie Wittgenstein gemutmaßt hatte, sondern charakterisiert die Formen unseres Aussagens: die Formen prädikativer Einheit. Das von diesem Gedanken vorausgesetzte Verständnis von Logik entfaltet Rödl im ersten Teil seiner Arbeit; das für einen anschauungsbezogenen Verstand charakteristische System der Formen zeitlicher Aussagen entwickelt er im zweiten Teil. In meiner Besprechung konzentriere ich mich auf eine Beschreibung des Systems zeitlicher Aussageformen (I), um dieses System in einem zweiten Schritt daraufhin zu befragen, ob sich durch dessen Darstellung tatsächlich ein angemessenes und vollständiges Bild der Zeitlichkeit eines endlichen Verstandes ergibt (II).

Das Leben tritt in Hegels Phänomenologie des Geistes an einem äußerst bedeutenden „Wendungspunkt“ auf, an dem das Bewusstsein sich als Selbstbewusstsein erfasst und mithin den Begriff des Geistes gewinnt. Das Leben ist die letzte Gegenstandsform, die dem Bewusstsein gegenüberliegt, bevor es sich selbst als seinen Gegenstand erfasst. Durch diese Schwellenposition wird die Figur des Lebendigen zu einem besonderem Reflexionsmedium für die Struktur des Geistigen: Der Geist tritt im Medium des Lebens in Gestalten eines Noch nicht und des Schon da auf, die ihm eine besondere Erkennbarkeit verleihen. Dieser Artikel zielt vor diesem Hintergrund darauf, die strukturelle Homologie (I) ebenso wie die strukturelle Differenz (II) von Leben und Geist herauszuarbeiten. Mein besonderes Interesse gilt dabei der Frage (III), inwiefern der Geist, sofern sein Begriff an genau diesem Wendungspunkte gewonnen wird, etwas Lebendiges bleibt, so sehr er vielleicht auch die Gestalt des Bewusstseinsgegenstandes „Leben“ überschreiten muss.

“Life” has become an enigmatic keyword in diverse fields of contemporary philosophy in the past years – from political thought and its reflections on biopolitics to practical philosophy and its recourse to forms of life, to aesthetics and its reflections on the modes of life and liveliness in aesthetic representation. The contributions included in the following special section investigate the peculiar way this keyword functions in a diversity of fields, in order to bring to light the underlying conceptual and structural implications of this term in these different domains. As these contributions show, the use of the marker “life” is more than a fleeting fashion – it articulates a modern predicament with deep historical roots.

This paper revisits the concept of autonomy and tries to elucidate the fundamental insight that freedom and law cannot be understood through their opposition, but rather have to be conceived of as conditions of one another. The paper investigates the paradigmatic Kantian formulation of this insight and discusses the diagnosis that the Kantian idea might give rise to a paradox in which autonomy reverts to arbitrariness or heteronomy. The paper argues that the fatal version of the paradox can be defused if we avoid the legalistic model of autonomy and rather turn to the model of participation in a practice. This leads to a dialectical understanding of the idea of autonomy that preserves the insight that freedom and law are mutually conditioning and simultaneously reveals that they remain in irresolvable tension with one another.

The way in which a schema represents something is precisely by abstracting from some of its features; in a schema, representation and abstraction are thus not opposed to each other but rather internally related. The first part of this paper investigates this internal relation by delineating Kant’s concept of schema as the term mediating concept and intuition. Due to its pivotal position, however, the schema tends to collapse either into the conceptual or into the intuitive. The second part of the paper turns to Heidegger who tries to overcome this difficulty: he does not conceive the schema as a supplementary representation that connects already determinate concepts and intuitions, but rather locates schematization immanently in the very articulation of concept and intuition themselves. The third part of the paper proposes that the schematicity of our representations can be reflected in three pictorial strategies that are important for contemporary art: reduction, serialization, and reconstruction. These strategies are exemplified in certain images which put us in a position to see through our own representational form, as it were, and observe the procedures of figuration involved in that very form.

In Plasticity at the Dusk of Writing (Malabou 2010), Catherine Malabou looks back over her earlier intellectual trajectory and attempts to clarify the precise relationship between her own philosophical investigations and the crucial sources on which she has principally drawn, namely Hegelian dialectic, Heidegger’s ‘destruction’ of the history of ontology, and Derrida’s project of deconstruction. In this process, she also undertakes to take a step beyond the complex constellation of these three sources, arguing for a philosophy of plasticity which can at once take up and transform the practices of dialectic, destruction, and deconstruction in what she describes as a ‘plastic reading’.

For post-Kantian philosophy, “life” is a transitory concept that relates the realm of nature to the realm of freedom. From this vantage point, the living seems to have the double character of being both already and not yet free: Compared with the external necessity of dead nature, the living already seems to exhibit a basic type of spontaneity and normativity that on the other hand still has to be superseded on the path to the freedom and normativity of spirit. The contributions in the third volume of the series Freedom and Law take their departure from Hegel in order to investigate the extent to which we need figures and concepts of the living to understand the genesis and structure of theoretical and practical self-determination. In these analyses, Hegel’s philosophy reveals itself as a thinking not restricted to a mere opposition between the determinations of life and the freedom of spirit, but rather conceives of a freedom that realizes itself in and through life: a freedom of life.

In his rich and complex narrative of the different routes of Anglo-American philosophy in the past decades, Karl Ameriks diagnoses a recent and growing “interest in the metaphysical side of German philosophy.” What is more, he embraces this “metaphysical turn,” arguing that there is “no responsible way” to approach the merits of the classical German tradition without engaging such metaphysical questions. Since both the content of his diagnosis and his plea for a renewed engagement with ‘metaphysics’ depend on his specific use of this term, I will make two comments meant to clarify Ameriks’ understanding of this concept. I will suggest that, if we abide by his specific conception, much of the ‘new desire for metaphysics’ that the editors of this volume see at work in contemporary philosophy will remain unsatisfied. The first indication of this lies in the fact that, (I) it seems far from obvious that ‘metaphysical’ philosophy as Ameriks understands it is actually opposed to a number of self-proclaimed ‘post-metaphysical’ projects in contemporary philosophy. The second, more substantive point I want to highlight (II) is the specifically modest, defensive, and reflexive understanding of metaphysics that underlies Ameriks’ account.

Khurana distinguishes different ways in which Derrida’s deconstruction can be understood as an attempt at transforming the transcendental question. Derrida’s essay “Cogito and the History of Madness” might lead us to the assumption that Derrida’s primary interest lies in a move of radicalization: in identifying conditions that are even more fundamental or basic than the conditions of the acts of our theoretical and practical cognition that transcendental philosophy has highlighted. He suggests, however, that instead of a mere radicalization, Derrida’s decisive move in the transformation of the transcendental question resides rather in complicating the way we understand these conditions of possibility: (i) in an attempt to reveal conditions of the possibility of a certain type of act as being simultaneously the conditions of the impossibility of the purity of this act (a project that is sometimes termed “quasi-transcendental”); and (ii) an attempt to complicate the distinction between empirical and transcendental conditions (an investigation that is sometimes called “ultra-transcendental”).

For post-Kantian philosophy, “life” is a transitional concept that relates the realm of nature to the realm of freedom. From this vantage point, what is living seems to have the double char- acter of being both already and not yet free: Compared with the external necessity of dead nature, living beings already seem to exhibit a basic type of spontaneity and normativity that on the other hand still has to be superseded on the path to the freedom and normativity of spirit. The origin of this constellation is to be found in Kant’s discussion of natural purposes in the third Critique; its most articulated shape, however, is developed in Hegel’s conception of life. To introduce the questions that this volume discusses, I will briefly characterize the way in which Kant opens up this conception of the living (I) and outline the way in which Hegel develops this approach (II, III). I will close with a brief outlook on the contributions collected in this volume (IV).

It is, by now, a well-established thesis that one major path that runs from Kant, through Fichte and Schelling, up to Hegel is defined by the conception of freedom as autonomy. It is less known and has been less frequently the object of study that from Kant to Hegel a new idea of life takes shape as well. Even less taken into account is the fact that these two paths from Kant to Hegel might be systematically intertwined. If the notion of life in German Idealism is discussed at all, it has been discussed mostly in dealing with the philosophies of nature and biology of Kant and his successors. This framing is, of course, not wrong in itself; yet to my mind we can only fully account for the thought of what is living and the new interest that the idealist philosophies of nature actually deserve if we regard life as a practical notion. For the idealists, life is, as Fichte has it, an “analogue of freedom in nature,” and it describes the one form of object we can encounter in nature that possesses a kind of unity and organization that comes close to the unity and the organization of spirit. In various accounts of German Idealism, life is not only regarded as an analogue of a self-grounded order, but figures furthermore as a precondition of the actuality of freedom: It is in being alive that we might become free. How exactly this is so is of course not only a very complicated issue but also a contested one among Kant and his successors. In order to outline at least two basic approaches to relating ‘life’ and ‘autonomy,’ I would like to present a sketch of a reading of Kant, in whose works the analogy of life and autonomy first manifests itself, and of Hegel, who has to my mind most fully developed the potential of this constellation.