Guenter Zoeller

The paper investigates Kant's usage of the legal-political symbolism of war and peace in his self-interpretation of the historical role of the critical philosophy. The focus is on Kant's late essay, "Announcement of the Imminent Conclusion of a Treatise on Perpetual Peace in Philosophy" from 1796. The essay is placed in thecontemporary context of Kant's controversy with the historian and publicist, Johann Georg Schlosser, who had reduced Kant's transcendental philosophy to the mechanical operations of a "manufacturing industry for the production of mere form" and had misread Kant's moral philosophy as requiring complete cognition ofnature for arriving at the formation of the categorical imperative. Kant's reply to Schlosser places the refutation of the latter's charges into the broader context of the cultural function of philosophy as an area for intellectual warfare. On Kant's view, neither dogmatic pseudo-victories nor skeptical pseudo-truces are able to assure a lasting peace in philosophical debates. Only the critical balance between the theoretical restriction of reason to possible experience and its practical enlargement to unconditional principles of action is able to pacify the world of thought into a peace of mind armed with strong arguments.

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.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 39.2 (2001) 304-305 [Access article in PDF] Wildfeuer, Armin G. Praktische Vernunft und System. Entwicklungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur ursprünglichen Kant-Rezeption Johann Gottlieb Fichtes. Stuttgart-Bad/Cannstatt : Frommann-Holzboog, 1999. Pp. 596. Cloth, DM 168. The subtitle of this book, a slightly revised dissertation from the University of Bonn (1994), reads: "Investigations into the developmental history of Johann Gottlieb Fichte's original reception of Kant." The work comes to almost 600 pages. The main text is heavily overlaid with detailed footnotes, extensive quotations and supplementary material in smaller print and narrow line spacing. To the reader who is patient enough to face this scholastic mode of presentation, there emerges behind it a valuable contribution to our overall understanding of Fichte's philosophical work in general and its core discipline, the Wissenschaftslehre or first, transcendental philosophy, in particular.In the grand narrative about the development of German idealism Fichte is placed between Kant and Schelling. More precisely, he is typically portrayed as continuing but also revising Kant's work under the double influence of the leading early post-Kantian, Karl Leonhard Reinhold (1758-1823), and the skeptical anti-Kantian and anti-Reinholdian, Gottlob Ernst Schulze (1761-1833), called "Aenesidemus" after the title of his anonymous main work.Wildfeuer's investigations supplement this picture with a detailed consideration of what could be called "Fichte before Fichte": the early development of Fichte's thought, prior to his encounter with Reinhold and prior even to his encounter with Kant (1790). To be sure, Wildfeuer also deals with Fichte's continued philosophical development up through 1794, and he has many interesting things to say about the lasting presence of Fichte's earliest concerns in his more mature work. But the chief merit of the book is the sustained attention it pays to the very beginnings of Fichte's thought.Much of the prehistory of Fichtean philosophy has to be conjectured, given the scarcity of documents about Fichte's years of study (1780-84) and of his work as itinerant tutor (1785-1793). From Fichte's own testimony in his correspondence it is clear that prior to encountering Kant's three Critiques he held a determinist position regarding nature as well as human conduct. Based on some indications in Fichte's later works, Wildfeuer identifies as the chief source of Fichte's determinism the work of Karl Ferdinand Hommel (1722-1781), a professor of law at Leipzig, whom Fichte could have heard as a student and whose pseudonymous treatise Alexander von Joch... On Reward and Punishment According to Turkish Laws (1770) Fichte cites. Hommel (alias von Joch) maintains a deterministic view of human action, while justifying the social practice of punishment and reward. In particular, he maintains the dependence of the will on the intellect and of the latter on sensations or sensory impressions. Wildfeuer refers to this position, as it was temporarily adopted by Fichte, as that of the primacy of the understanding over the will.But Wildfeuer also shows that from early on Fichte's determinist leanings in speculation were counterbalanced by the conviction that feeling, especially feeling in religious matters, is an equally valid source of truth. For Wildfeuer, this early duality of speculation and feeling is the lasting basis of Fichte's life-long concern with reconciling the competing demands of head and heart. In particular this pre-Kantian key concern [End Page 304] in Fichte informs the latter's central systematic occupation with the unity of the mind amidst its differentiation into faculties or kinds of mental activity.Further texts which Wildfeuer examines in pursuit of the pre-Kantian Fichte are his Latin Valedictory Address, given upon graduating from one of Germany's finest secondary schools at the time, the Princely College of Pforta (1780), and the "Aphorisms on Religion and Deism" (1790).On the basis of this material Wildfeuer goes on to reconstruct the distinct reception that each of Kant's three Critiques received by Fichte. According to Wildfeuer, the Critique of Pure Reason originally was read by...

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.

Written in 1839 and chosen as the winning entry in a competition held by the Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences, Schopenhauer's Prize Essay on the Freedom of the Will marked the beginning of its author's public recognition and is widely regarded as one of the most brilliant and elegant treatments of free will and determinism. Schopenhauer distinguishes the freedom of acting from the freedom of willing, affirming the former while denying the latter. He portrays human action as thoroughly determined but also argues that the freedom which cannot be established in the sphere of human action is preserved at the level of our innermost being as individuated will, whose reality transcends all dependency on outside factors. This volume offers the text in a previously unpublished translation by Eric F. J. Payne, the leading twentieth-century translator of Schopenhauer into English, together with a historical and philosophical introduction by Günter Zöller.

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.

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

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

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.

Anthropology, History, and Education, first published in 2007, contains all of Kant's major writings on human nature. Some of these works, which were published over a thirty-nine year period between 1764 and 1803, had never before been translated into English. Kant's question 'What is the human being?' is approached indirectly in his famous works on metaphysics, epistemology, moral and legal philosophy, aesthetics and the philosophy of religion, but it is approached directly in his extensive but less well-known writings on physical and cultural anthropology, the philosophy of history, and education which are gathered in the present volume. Kant repeatedly claimed that the question 'What is the human being?' should be philosophy's most fundamental concern, and Anthropology, History, and Education can be seen as effectively presenting his philosophy as a whole in a popular guise.

InhaltVorwortSiglenverzeichnisJürgen STOLZENBERG: Fichtes Deduktionen des Ich 1804 und 1794Ulrich SCHLÖSSER: Worum geht es in der späteren Wissenschaftslehre und inwiefern unterscheiden sich die verschiedenen Darstellungen von ihr dem Ansatz nach?Enrico GIORGIO: Der Begriff »absolutes Wissen« in der WL-1801/02 aus der Perspektive der SpätlehreFaustino FABBIANELLI: Ist die späte Wissenschaftslehre ein »Aktualer Idealismus«? Ein spekulativer Vergleich zwischen Fichtes und Gentiles DenkenVadim V. MURSKIY: Fichtes Spätwerk in Bezug auf das Problem der Einheit und der Veränderung seiner LehreJohannes BRACHTENDORF: Substanz, Subjekt, Sein – die Spinoza-Rezeption der frühen und der späten WissenschaftslehreBirgit SANDKAULEN: Spinoza zur Einführung. Fichtes Wissenschaftslehre von 1812Ewa NOWAK-JUCHACZ: Philosophie als vox pacis. J. G. Fichtes Pragmatik als Gegenstück des regulativen Friedensideals I. KantsVladimir ALEKSEEVIC ABASCHNIK: Die ersten Fichteaner über die Schwierigkeiten des Verständnisses der WissenschaftslehreMarina PUSCHKAREWA: Fichte und Schelling. Das Problem des »Trägers des Wissens«Robert MARSZAŁEK: Fichtes Religionstheorie im Licht der Schellingschen Gedanken zur MythologieSalvatore PATRIARCA: Gesetz und Selbstbestimmung des Absoluten. Ein Vergleich zwischen der späten Philosophie Fichtes und der mittleren Philosophie SchellingsPaul ZICHE: Systemgrundriß und blitzartige Einsichten. Zum Verhältnis von Propädeutik und systematischer Philosophie bei Fichte und SchellingGiacomo RINALDI: Method and Speculation in Fichte’s Later PhilosophyAngelica NUZZO: Fichte’s 1812 Transcendental Logic – Between Kant and HegelDiogo FERRER: Hegels Fichte-Kritik und die späte WissenschaftslehreRolf AHLERS: Der späte Fichte und Hegel über das Absolute und SystematizitätMatteo Vincenzo D’ALFONSO: Schopenhauer als Schüler FichtesXabier Insausti UGARRIZA: José Manzanas Rezeption des späten FichteIbon Uribarri ZENEKORTA: Manzana zwischen Kant und Fichte. Das Absolute als entscheidende FrageHiroshi KIMURA: Fichte und Tekirei Edo – Bild und Feld