Guenter Zoeller

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Hegel’s Idea of a “Phenomenology of Spirit” by Michael N. ForsterGünter ZöllerMichael N. Forster. Hegel’s Idea of a “Phenomenology of Spirit.” Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. Pp. xi + 661. Paper, $30.00.Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) has remained an enigmatic and controversial work. Typically it has been studied and appropriated selectively, by focusing on a few topics or sections of this immense opus. There are also several commentaries on all or part of the work that immerse the reader in plenty of detail, but often with insufficient attention paid to the work’s overall design. Forster’s book is thematically focused but has sufficient scope to provide the reader with an overall orientation about the Phenomenology. Moreover, it is written in a clear, accessible language, with plenty of genuinely philosophical material to balance the more narrowly exegetical aspects of the study. Forster’s work stands in the tradition of a number of German and French studies that seek to unravel the “genesis and structure” (Hyppolite) of the Phenomenology as a key to understanding and assessing the import of Hegel’s singular work. Forster discusses those earlier readings, subjects them to a thorough critique, and develops original positions on a number of key issues in scholarship on the Phenomenology.The entire first half of the book (Parts One and Two) is concerned with the “official project of the Phenomenology,” which Forster reconstructs as three sets of philosophical tasks. First are the pedagogical tasks designed to introduce the reader to the superior viewpoint of Hegel’s system and its ability to overcome the ills specific to modern culture. In particular, Hegel is shown to further advance Herder’s and Schiller’s philosophical project of replacing the multiple, unreconciled dualisms of the modern intellectual and moral outlook with a unified, monistic account of natural and social reality. In a strong interpretive move, Forster attributes a naturalism of sorts to Hegel’s integrationist account of mind and body or self and world.Second are the epistemological tasks designed to justify the cognitive claims of Hegel’s [End Page 541] system (“science”) against those of all other philosophical and popular viewpoints. In particular, Forster shows Hegel’s indebtedness to the ancient (Pyrronic) skeptical strategy of equipollence, i.e., the method of setting into opposition equally strong arguments on both sides of any issue and thereby producing an equal balance of justification on all sides of the issue. Of all possible viewpoints only Hegel’s own, which is not subject to any external opposition, eludes the scope of the method of equipollence.The third, specifically metaphysical set of tasks of the Phenomenology centers around the work’s social and (on Forster’s reading) naturalist conceptions of God, meaning and truth, in which transcendent warrants are replaced by communal consensus. Forster concludes the first half of his study with a detailed consideration of the relation between the Phenomenology and Hegel’s system proper. He stresses that the work is only the “appearance” (Erscheinung) of the philosophical science itself and that it remains systematically independent of the latter.Part Three examines the role of history and historicism in the Phenomenology. Forster distinguishes between teleological or normative historicism and intellectual or descriptive historicism, and limits his investigation to the latter as the philosophically defensible of the two enterprises. He argues extensively for a one-to-one correlation between the various “shapes of consciousness” to be found in the core of the Phenomenology (from the chapter on Consciousness through the chapter on Reason) and specific periods in human history. This chronological history of consciousness is shown to be supplemented by two further accounts of the history of consciousness (in the chapter on Spirit and in the chapters on Religion and Absolute Knowledge, respectively), in which the first history’s focus on individual consciousness is enlarged to include supra-individual mind (“spirit”).In Part Four Forster explains the tripling of the history of consciousness with a shift in the plan of the Phenomenology, away from the more limited project of the original or “Ur-Phenomenology”—to lead individual consciousness to the viewpoint of (Hegelian) science—to the more ambitious goal...

Since 1962 a group of researchers at the Bavarian Academy of Sciences under the leadership of Reinhard Lauth has been publishing the collected works of Johann Gottlieb Fichte. The Academy edition proceeds chronologically in four parallel series: series 1 contains the works published by Fichte himself; series 2 contains unpublished works; series 3 contains the correspondence; and series 4 contains transcripts of Fichte’s lectures from other hands. The edition is now nearing completion. No other philosophical editorial project worldwide can match it in terms of scope and execution.

This article features the contributions of Fichte and Schopenhauer to a philosophical account of action against the background of Kant's earlier and influential treatment of the topic. The article first presents Kant's pertinent contributions in the areas of general epistemology and metaphysics, general practical philosophy, the philosophy of law and ethic. Then the focus is on Fichte's further original work on the issue of action in those same areas. Finally, the article turns to Schopenhauer's radical revision of the Kantian and Fichtean affirmative accounts of acting and willing through the correlated introduction of the irrational will, the self-negated will and ethical inaction.

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.

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.