Guenter Zoeller

Allerdings findet sich die transzendentale Theorie bei Kant in einiger Verlegenheit, wenn es darumgeht, den Status der apriorischen Bedingungen von Erfahrung positiv zu bestimmen. Reine Anschauung und reines Denken werden als Formelemente aller Erfahrung bzw. von deren Gegenständen verstanden. Die Empirie ist demzufolge ein Kompositum von aposteriorischem Material und apriorischer Form. Kants formalistische Auffassung der transzendentalen Bedingungen von Erfahrung läßt nun das eigentliche Zustandekommen der reinen Formen und den ihrer Formfunktion zugrundeliegenden Status ungeklärt. Mehr noch, Kants Verfahren überträgt die problematische Natur des transzendentalen Bedingungsgefüges auf das von letzterem durch Formpräsenz Begründete. Das in die Erfahrung formend eingegangene reine Anschauen und Denken ist selber keine Erfahrung und scheint auch das dadurch Geformte, die Erfahrung, in den nicht zureichend geklärten Bereich des Nicht-Empirischen hinüberzuziehen.

Fichte hat nur eine, die allererste und nicht einmal förmlich zum Abschluß gebrachte, Darstellung der Wissenschaftslehre publiziert, doch in den nächsten knapp zwei Jahrzehnten bis zu seinem Tod im Januar 1814 die Wissenschaftslehre noch insgesamt fünfzehn Mal öffentlich vorgetragen und dabei dreizehn Mal neu oder verändert dargestellt. Hinzukommen noch drei umfangreiche Ausarbeitungen, die den öffentlichen Vortrag der Wissenschaftslehre vorbereiten bzw. begleiten: »Eigne Meditationen über ElementarPhilosophie« aus den Jahren 1793-94, die Aufzeichnungen betitelt »Seit d. 1.April 1808. nach den Reden an die deutsche Nation« aus dem Jahre 1808 und wesentliche Teile der als Diarium geführten Notate aus den Jahren 1813 und 1814. Nur wenige von Fichtes Zeitgenossen - praktisch nur die Zuhörer seiner fortgesetzten Vorlesungen über die Wissenschaftslehre in Berlin, Erlangen und Königsberg - haben diese öffentlichen, aber unveröffentlichten Arbeiten zur Kenntnis nehmen können.

The paper assesses Martin's recent logico-phenomenological account of judgment that is cast in the form of an eclectic history of judging, from Hume and Kant through the 19th century to Frege and Heidegger as well as current neuroscience. After a preliminary discussion of the complex unity and temporal modalities of judgment that draws on a reading of Titian's "Allegory of Prudence" (National Gallery, London), the remainder of the paper focuses on Martin's views on Kant's logic in general and his theory of singular existential judgment in particular. The paper argues against Martin's key claims of the primacy of formal logic over transcendental logic and of the synthetic nature of judgment in Kant. It also takes issue with each of the four interpretations of singular existential judgment in Kant offered by Martin: existence as logical predicate, as copula, as thesis and as logical subject

Kivy distinguishes between three different claims to authenticity in the historical performance movement: authenticity with respect to the composer’s intention, authenticity with regard to sound, and authenticity in matters of performance practice. To this, Kivy adds a fourth notion of authenticity that does not figure in the idealized self-description of the historical performance movement but rather points to an alternative kind of authenticity championed by Kivy himself: the authenticity that a performance might have due to the sincerity of the artist or artists performing it. Kivy proposes to examine each of those four notions of authenticity in two sets of four chapters each—with the first set operating at the descriptive level of conceptual analysis and the second set moving on to the evaluative level of aesthetic judgment.

InhaltVorwortSiglenverzeichnisEröffnung und GrußwortePlenarvorträgeGünter ZÖLLER: Fichte in Berlin in München Claudio CESA : Urfragen und Gestalten der Menschheitsgeschichte im Hinblick auf den späten FichteBernard BOURGEOIS: Über die Sich-selbst-Gleichheit der Fichteschen Rechts- und StaatslehreReinhard LAUTH: Zur grundsätzlichen Richtung der philosophischen Fichte-Forschung Fichtes letzte Darstellungen der Wissenschaftslehre Urs RICHLI: Die ursprüngliche Konstitution des Wissens in Fichtes später WissenschaftslehreAlexander SCHNELL: Schema – Soll – SeinAndreas SCHMIDT: Jenseits des Selbstbewußtseins. Zur intellektuellen Anschauung in Fichtes Wissenschaftslehre von 1810Daniel DOHRN: Freiheit und Gebundenheit in der Wissenschaftslehre 1811Christian KLOTZ: Fichtes Deduktion der Bewußtseinsform in der Wissenschaftslehre 1811Kunihiko NAGASAWA: Gott und Wissen in der WL von 1810Hans-Peter FALK: Fichtes späte Wissenschaftslehre Hitoshi MINOBE: Die Freiheit der Erscheinung in der Wissenschaftslehre von 1811Anton A. IVANENKO: Der zweideutige Begriff des Seins im Vortrag der Wissenschaftslehre vom Jahre 1812 Michael Bastian WEISS: Das Als und das Nicht-Als, oder: Szenario des Bildens. Zu Fichtes theoretischem Appell zum Praktischen in der Wissenschaftslehre 1812Benedetta BISOL: Die Ich-Lehre in der Wissenschaftslehre 1812M. Jorge de CARVALHO: Reflexion und ReflexibilitätMartin BONDELI: Zum Begriff der Apperzeption in Fichtes Wissenschaftslehre 1813/1814Hartmut TRAUB: Liebe, Sein und Leben. Vom inneren Wesen der Wissenschaftslehre Cristiana SENIGAGLIA: Das Prinzip Individualität und seine praktische Bedeutung.Überlegungen zu Fichtes Diarien

This paper examines the relation between intuition and concept in Kant in light of John McDowell's neo-Kantian position that intuitions are concept-laden.2 The focus is on Kant's twofold pronouncement that thoughts without content are empty and that intuitions without concepts are blind. I show that intuitions as singular representations are not instances of passive data intake but the result of synthetic unification of the given manifold of the senses by the power of the imagination under the guidance of the understanding. Against McDowell I argue that the amenability of intuitions to conceptual determination is not due some pre-existing, absolute conceptuality of the real but to the "work of the subject."3 On a more programmatic level, this paper seeks to demonstrate the limitations of a selective appropriation of Kant and the philosophical potential of a more comprehensive and thorough consideration of his work. Section 1 addresses the unique balance in Kant's philosophy between the work on particular problems and the orientation toward a systematic whole. Section 2 outlines McDowell's take on the Kantian distinction between intuition and concept in the context of the Kant readings by Sellars and Strawson. Section 3 exposes McDowell's relapse into the Myth of the Given. Section 4 proposes a reading of Kant's theoretical philosophy as an epistemology of metaphysical cognition. Section 5 details Kant's original account of sensible intuition in the Inaugural-Dissertation of 1770. Section 6 presents the transition from the manifold of the senses to the synthesis in the imagination and the unification through the categories in the Critique of pure reason . Section 7 addresses Kant's formalism in epistemology and metaphysics.Esse artigo examina a relação entre intuição e conceito em Kant à luz da posição neokantiana de John McDowell de que intuições estão conceitualmente "carregadas". 1 O foco é sobre o duplo pronunciamento de Kant, segundo o qual pensamentos sem conteúdo são vazios e intuições sem conceitos são cegas. Mostro que intuições como representações singuares não são casos de introdução passiva de dados, mas o resultado da unificação sintética do múltiplo dado dos sentidos pelo poder da imaginação sob a orientação do entendimento. Contra McDowell, defendo que a amabilidade das intuições para com a determinação conceitual não é devida a alguma conceitualidade pré-existente, absoluta do real, mas ao "trabalho do sujeito".2 Num nível mais programático, o presente artigo visa demonstrar as limitações de uma apropriação seletiva de Kant e o potencial filosófico de uma análise mais abrangente e aprofundada de sua obra. A seção 1 aborda o equilíbrio único na filosofia de Kant entre o trabalho com problemas particulares e a orientação em direção a um todo sistemático. A seção 2 descreve a posição de McDowell acerca da distinção kantiana entre intuição e conceito no contexto das leituras de Kant por Sellars e Strawson. A seção 3 expõe a reincidência de McDowell no "mito do dado". A seção 4 propõe uma leitura da filosofia teórica de Kant como uma epistemologia do conhecimento metafísico. A seção 5 detalha a explicação original de Kant sobre a intuição sensível na "Dissertação de 1770". A seção 6 apresenta a transição do múltiplo dos sentidos para a síntese na imaginação e para a unificação por meio das categorias na Crítica da razão pura . A seção 7 aborda o formalismo de Kant na epistemologia e na metafísica

Minds, Ideas and Objects is a collection of conference papers on the topic of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century theories of ideas or “sensory experience, thought, knowledge and their objects.” At least half the twenty-three papers are by well-known historians of philosophy who seldom disappoint, and there is some equally thought-provoking work among the rest. Some papers say little that is surprising, and some, including good ones, fail to convince, but few are weak. It is perhaps to be expected that coverage of the period is uneven, but chance has played some odd tricks, giving us one paper each on Leibniz and Hume and none on Spinoza, whereas Berkeley excites the attention of six contributors, one more even than Kant. Most philosophers discussed are narrowly canonical, with just a page on Cudworth and only four even on Reid, but there are a couple of welcome articles on the vastly rewarding, until recently seldom studied Arnauld-Malebranche debate. Günter Zöller’s “The Austrian Way of Ideas,” summarizing the views on intentionality of Brentano and his pupils, Twardowski, Meinong, and Husserl, reminds us of the close continuities between early-modern and twentieth-century concerns.

The contribution examines the aesthetic aspect of cognition in Kant by exploring the central function of the power of the imagination (Einbildungskraft) in Kant’s critical epistemology, first featured in the Critique of Pure Reason (1781; 1787) and revisited in the Critique of the Power of Judgment (1790). First, the focus will be on the relationship between the power of the imagination and the two main sources of (theoretical) cognition in Kant, viz., sensibility and the understanding. Second, special attention will be devoted to the distinction between schema and symbol, as alternative products of the power of the imagination in the service of rendering discursive concepts intuitive – with schemata serving to make sensible the concepts of the understanding (Verstand) and symbols suited to provide intuitional counterparts to the concepts of reason (Vernunft).

In the summer semester of 1931, Heidegger taught a lecture course entitled, "Interpretations of Ancient Philosophy," at the University of Freiburg. The edited version of Heidegger's manuscript for the course was published as volume 33 of the Martin Heidegger Gesamtausgabe in 1981 and is now available in an English translation that includes the original editor's epilogue and a brief foreward by the translators. The course covers the first three chapters of Book IX of Aristotle's Metaphysics. Within the general discussion of force or capability and actuality throughout Book IX, the three opening chapters deal with force understood as movement in its essence and actualization. Heidegger undertakes a close reading of Aristotle's text and proceeds by way of a sentence-by-sentence translation and commentary of the Greek original. Moreover, the citations, translations, and interpretations are not limited to the portion of the text under review but include relevant passages from other chapters and books of the Metaphysics as well. The text of the Metaphysics cited is that of the edition by W. Christ, first published in 1895. Heidegger's textual comments and corrections as well his various addenda are clearly indicated in the Greek text.

In her recent study, Kant's Organicism.Epigenesis and the Development of Critical Philosophy, Jennifer Mensch employs the technical term "organicism" to designate both Kant’s thinking about organisms and his thinking about other matters–chiefly among those transcendental cognition –in terms of his thinking about organisms. The article places Mensch's organicist reading of Kant into the wider context of recent and current work on Kant as a natural historian and its repercussion for understanding the critical core of Kant’s philosophy. To that end, the article addresses the methodological function of conceptual metaphors in general and of biological metaphors in particular in Kant. The article proceeds in three steps, first focusing on an alleged anthropological turn in recent work on Kant, then addressing the distinction between schematism and symbolism in Kant’s critical epistemology and concluding with a consideration of the possibilities and limitations inherent in an organicist reading of Kant.

El presente artículo compara a Kant y a Fichte en la perspectiva doble de identidad y diferencia referida a dos pensadores a quienes une una primera relación de maestro y alumno y a quienes separa una posterior difamación mutua. En el centro de la presentación se encuentra la relación entre espíritu de libertad y forma del sistema que une a Kant y a Fichte más allá de divergencias metódicas y de diferencias doctrinales. La comparación crítica entre Kant y Fichte se desarrollará en cuatro etapas: partirá de la ubicación general de Kant dentro del idealismo alemán y se extenderá a la empresa doble de Kant, expresada de forma crítica, de una doctrina de los principios apriorística de naturaleza y libertad, para después ir a la concepción enfáticamente reclamada por Fichte de un “primer sistema de la libertad”,[1] y de ahí a las manifestaciones de la libertad en el sistema filosófico de Fichte, teniendo como punto de vista rector el contraste con Kant.[2] Palabras clave: [1] En la forma de citación de la Gesamtausgabe de Fichte se señalará el tomo y el volumen con números romanos y arábigos respectivamente, y después el número de página en cuestión. [2] El presente artículo es parte de un proyecto de carácter más amplio, cuyo tema es la dilucidación del aporte filosófico de Kant y de Fichte; de ahí que se haga continua referencia a publicaciones particulares de mi autoría.

This essay seeks to present Fichte as a political thinker of European significance. To this end, the first section elucidates the basic political profile of Fichte’s philosophy. The second section further investigates the political character of Fichte’s philosophy by recourse to the triple motto of the French Revolution – „Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” – and its correlation with Fichte’s trinity of „I”, „You” and „We“. The final section addresses the mediating and transitional role and function of the political in Fichte, for whom the state is not a final end but always only a means.Der Beitrag mochte J. G. Fichte als politischen Denker von europaischem Format vergegenwartigen. Zu diesen Zweck exponiert der erste Abschnitt den politischen Grundzug von Fichtes Philosophieren. Der zweite Abschnitt verfolgt die politische Pragung von Fichtes Philosophieren im Ruckgriff auf das triplizitare Motto der Franzosischen Revolution – „Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite“ –, dem die Fichtesche Triade von „Ich“, „Du“ und „Wir“ zugeordnet wird. Der abschliesende Abschnitt behandelt die mediale und transitorische Stellung und Funktion des Politischen bei Fichte, fur den der Staat niemals Selbstzweck und immer nur Mittel zum Zweck ist.