Manuel Dr. Knoll

Political epistemology asks whether there is knowledge about values, the good, the just, and the morally right that could be applied to political issues. Debates on such questions go back to the ancient Greeks. While Protagoras claims that no moral facts and no moral knowledge exist, both Socrates and Plato strive to overcome Protagoras’s skeptical claims. After reconstructing their debate, this article argues, in the tradition of Protagoras, that there is no ultimate moral knowledge to ethically orientate political decisions. The main argument against the existence of a mind-independent and objective moral reality about which moral knowledge could be achieved is based on the existence of myriad widespread deep disagreements on values, justice, morality, and ethics, which are resistant to rational solution. The arguments presented against ethical realism and cognitivism in section II are mainly based on Max Weber’s and Isaiah Berlin’s views that deep disagreements on values, morality, and ethics exist. The arguments set out against these positions in section III rest on deep philosophical disagreements on social and political justice, which are a characteristic feature of the history of political thought.

Der vorliegende Aufsatz ist ein Porträt von Martha C. Nussbaum, das die enorme Vielfalt ihres wissenschaftlichen Werks und ihrer Veröffentlichungen als Public Intellectual beleuchtet. Nussbaums Denken, das sich auch als Reaktion auf schmerzhafte Erfahrungen und als Widerstand gegen ihre soziale und kulturelle Herkunft interpretieren lässt, kann als feministisch, moralistisch, egalitaristisch und anti-elitär charakterisiert werden. Der vorliegende Text thematisiert Nussbaums Biografie, ihren intellektuellen Werdegang, und fokussiert auf folgende Themen: ihre Faszination für die antike Philosophie, ihren Fähigkeiten-Ansatz, ihren feministischen Liberalismus, ihre Philosophie der Emotionen und ihre Rolle als „öffentliche Intellektuelle“.

Since the early 20th century, two new disciplines emerged in the tradition of analytic philosophy: meta-ethics and political epistemology. Nevertheless, debates on such questions go back to the ancient Greeks and, in particular, to the debates between Plato and Protagoras. This article elucidates the controversy between Plato and the influential sophist Protagoras from the perspective of contemporary meta-ethics and political epistemology. It argues that the main motivation of Plato’s philosophical endeavors is to overcome Protagoras’s skeptical claims that no moral facts and no moral knowledge applicable to political issues exist. The paper defends the thesis that there exists a deep disagreement between Protagoras and Plato on the existence of moral facts and moral knowledge. A deep disagreement is a disagreement that cannot be resolved through the use of reasons and arguments. Applying the foundationalist approach Robert J. Fogelin proposes in his seminal paper “The Logic of Deep Disagreements”, this article argues that the deep disagreement between Protagoras and Plato exists because their political thought is based on “underlying principles” that clash. While Plato’s political philosophy rests on his religious and theological convictions, the political thought of Protagoras is based on his skepticism, relativism, and agnosticism.

Aristotle’s Politicsis not only famous for its theory of constitutions, but for its statements about human nature. According to the central claim of Aristotle’s political anthropology, man is by nature a political animal (phusei politikon zôon). This famous statement is presented as the conclusion of the first set of arguments that Aristotle develops in the second chapter of book I of the Politics(Pol.,I, 2, 1252a24–1253a3). Aristotle’s statement is inextricably linked with the claim that the polisexists by nature (phusei), which he mentions in the same phrase, as part of his conclusion: “From these considerations it is evident that the polisis one of the things that exist by nature, and that man is by nature a political animal”(Pol.,I, 2, 1253a1–3). Evidently, the claims that the polisexists by nature and that man is by nature a political animal are complementary. This article presents an interpretation of the two complementary claims or theses arguing that in Pol.,I, 2 Aristotle conceives exclusively of human beings as political animals because the whole chapter focuses on theanalysisof the polis,a community peculiar to humans. Italso examines Aristotle’sclaim that the polis“is by nature prior (proteron) to the household and to the individual”(Pol.,I, 2, 1253a18–19). The paperdisagrees withscholars whounderstand this claim as an independent third thesis and theoremand argues that Aristotle’s claim functions as a strong argument for the thesis that man is by nature a political animal. Furthermore, it contends thatAristotle neither defends an organic theory of the polisnor has a “tendency towards totalitarianism”(J. Barnes).

This article examines the development of ancient Greek theological thought from Hesiod to Aristotle. It argues against Aristotle’s and John Burnet’s accounts of the advance of early Greek philosophy. Complementing Werner Jaeger’s views, the paper claims that there is a process of rationalization within ancient Greek theology which does not progress in a linear fashion. Rationalization is defined as demystification and demythologization. The degree of ‘rationality’ of a theological view depends primarily on its degree of anthropomorphism. The less human characteristics or behaviors are attributed to the Divine, the more ‘rational’ a view is. This article argues that the efforts of a group of Greek theologians to purge anthropomorphism were only partly successful.

Este artigo contribui para o debate sobre a relação da filosofia prática e teórica de Aristóteles. Ele argumenta que sua filosofia prática depende em grande parte de sua concepção teleológica da natureza. Esta tese é dirigida principalmente contra os estudiosos que sustentam que Aristóteles não deriva de relações políticas e humanas de condições naturais ou cósmicas. O artigo defende a interpretação antropocêntrica de David Sedley da teleologia natural de Aristóteles e mostra como Aristóteles aplica explicações teleológicas às relações de poder entre os seres humanos - entre homens e mulheres e entre homens livres e escravos naturais - e seus propósitos e objetivos. O artigo enfoca o argumento da “função” (ergonomia) humana de Aristóteles, que é um argumento teleológico no centro de sua filosofia prática. Argumenta que este argumento, que Aristóteles apresenta para definir ‘florescimento humano’ ou ‘felicidade’ (eudaimonia), depende de sua definição de homem como o único ‘ser vivo que tem linguagem e razão’ (zôon logon echon). Alega ainda que a disputa sobre se Aristóteles identifica eudaimonia apenas com uma vida de contemplação ou se eudaimonia inclui uma vida política pode ser esclarecida referindo-se ao propósito natural dos logotipos.

According to the prevailing opinion, the classical formulation of the principle of the sovereignty of the people is found in Rousseau. Against that view, this article argues that Marsilius of Padua and Locke should be regarded as earlier pioneers and important forerunners of this principle. To demonstrate this thesis, the paper examines Marsilius’s conception of the “human legislator” and Locke’s ideas on legislation, representation, and on the limitation of the legislative power. Though Locke excludes the majority of the people from the right to be represented in the legislative power, his concept of this “supreme power” is progressive compared to the conceptions of “sovereignty” found in Bodin and Hobbes. Even for Rousseau, women are still excluded from the sovereignty of the people. This is a strong argument to include Locke and Marsilius in the history of the idea of the sovereignty of the people.

This article contributes to the debate on the relation between Aristotle’s practical and theoretical philosophy. It argues that his practical philosophy depends to a considerable extent on his teleological conception of nature. This thesis is primarily directed against scholars who maintain that Aristotle does not derive political and human relations from natural or cosmic conditions. The paper defends David Sedley’s anthropocentric interpretation of Aristotle’s natural teleology and shows how Aristotle applies teleological explanations to power relations among human beings – among men and women and among freemen and natural slaves – and their purposes and goals. The article focuses on Aristotle’s human ‘function’ (ergon) argument, which is a teleological argument at the centre of his practical philosophy. It argues that this argument, which Aristotle presents to define ‘human flourishing’ or ‘happiness’ (eudaimonia), depends on his definition of man as the only ‘living being that has language and reason’ (zôon logon echon). It further claims that the dispute about whether Aristotle identifies eudaimonia only with a life of contemplation or whether eudaimonia includes a political life can be clarified by referring to the natural purpose of logos.

This short article is a response to Douglas Cairns, Mirko Canevaro, and Kleanthis Mantzouranis, who in Polis 39 (2022) explicitly criticize both of my previous interpretations of Aristotle’s view of democratic justice and of the relation of proportional and numerical equality. Against Cairns et al., I argue that there is no tension or contradiction between Aristotle’s statements on these two kinds of equality and on democratic justice. The paper suggests a new reading of Aristotle’s texts that strictly distinguishes between Aristotle’s own views and his references to ‘respected opinions’ (endoxa). It concludes that Aristotle consistently identifies democratic justice with ‘numerical’ or ‘arithmetic’ equality and not with proportional equality, which he usually identifies with equality ‘according to worth or merit’ (kat’ axian).

Was bedeutet soziale und politische Gerechtigkeit? Wie konnen der Sozialstaat und die dazu notigen Umverteilungen von Einkommen und Vermogen gerechtfertigt werden? Uber diese Fragen wurde in den letzten Jahrzehnten ausgiebig geforscht und diskutiert. Die vielleicht bemerkenswertesten Antworten prasentierte der amerikanische Philosoph Michael Walzer in seinem 1983 erschienenen Werk Spheres of Justice. Die funfzehn Beitrage des Bandes kommentieren die verschiedenen Massstabe einer gerechten Verteilung, die Walzer fur Guter bzw. Spharen wie Staatsburgerschaft, Wohlfahrt und Sicherheit, Geld, Amter, Arbeit, Freizeit, Bildung, Anerkennung und politische Macht vorschlagt. Der Band enthalt zudem eine ausfuhrliche Einfuhrung der Herausgeber in Spharen der Gerechtigkeit und ein Vorwort von Michael Walzer, in dem er seine Idee einer "komplexen Gleichheit" und seine zentrale Fragestellung erklart: Wie lasst sich eine gerechte Gesellschaft von Gleichen schaffen, wenn sich ungleiche Verteilungen letztlich nicht vermeiden lassen? Der Band ist unerlassliche Lekture fur alle Philosophen, Politikwissenschaftler und Soziologen, die sich fur Walzers Gerechtigkeitstheorie interessieren.

Platons Nomoi standen lange zu Unrecht im Schatten seiner Politeia. Dennoch prasentiert der umfangreiche und schwer zu interpretierende Dialog die Einsichten und Innovationen seines reifen Staatsdenkens. Sie werden in dem Band von internationalen Platon-Experten erschlossen. Zu diesen Einsichten und Innovationen zahlt der Gedanke, dass Machtmissbrauch durch politische Institutionen verhindert werden kann, und dass den Gesetzen Vorreden bzw. Praambeln vorangestellt werden sollen, die zu ihrer Befolgung uberreden. Die versammelten Original-Beitrage behandeln die zentralen Themen des Dialogs wie die neue Mischverfassung, die politische Theologie, den Gesetzesbegriff, das Verhaltnis von Tugend- und Gesetzeslehre, die Erziehung und Bildung sowie den Einfluss und die Wirkung des Dialogs in der Antike, der Neuzeit und der Gegenwart. Eine ausfuhrliche Einleitung fuhrt in das Werk und seine Wirkungsgeschichte ein und informiert den Leser uber die Themen und Thesen der versammelten Beitrage.

This article examines Aristotle’s theory of ‘factional conflict’ (stasis) in Book 5 of the Politics and claims that it is mainly directed against the a-historical account of constitutional change Plato develops in the Republic. Aristotle’s investigation of the causes of stasis is oriented towards the normative political goal of stabilizing political orders and preventing their ‘change’ (metabolê) into different ones. This article argues that the constitution Aristotle calls ‘polity’ (politeia) constitutes his solution to the challenge of stabilizing democracies and oligarchies. The paper also aims at elucidating Aristotle’s conception of an empirical political science, his political realism, and the method he applies in conjunction with it in the ‘empirical’ Books of the Politics (Book 4 through 6).

This article gives a detailed analysis of Nussbaum’s ‘capabilities approach’ and her claim that it is a genuinely Aristotelian contemporary po-litical philosophy. The paper examines how Nussbaum bases her ‘capabilities approach’ on human nature and questions her assertion that both Aristotle’s account of human nature and her own approach are not metaphysical. In order to analyze the normative dimension of Nussbaum’s ‘capabilities approach’, this article focuses on Aristotle’s doctrine of distributive justice and equality. It shows how Nussbaum adopts and modifies this doctrine in an egalitarian way and demonstrates that her reading and appropriation of it is problematic. With reference to contemporary literature on Aristotle’s Politics, the article criticizes how Nussbaum assimilates Aristotle’s political philosophy into modern values and notions, laying out six primary reasons supporting the thesis that Nussbaum’s ‘capabilities approach’ cannot be regarded as an Aristotelian one.

The paper discusses different interpretations of Callicles and Thrasymachus’ positions. There are good reasons for interpreting Callicles as a critic of democracy and as an aristocratic political thinker whose political views are closer to Plato’s than is usually assumed. The paper argues that Callicles defends a natural right of the best citizens to rule over the crowd. However, in contrast to Plato, for Callicles the rule of the best should not aim at the common good but at their personal advantage. The paper also discusses the view that Thrasymachus is just a sociologist of power who diagnoses what actually happens in politics (Henning Ottmann, Max Salomon). This interpretation is still current, and enables us to understand important aspects of legislation in contemporary democracies. Finally, the paper argues that there are reasons to understand Thrasymachus not only as a political realist, but, similar to Protagoras, as a moral sceptic.

In the recent literature, it has been argued that Nietzsche’s perspectivism should not be reconstructed as an epistemological position. This article criticizes both this view and interpretations that reduce perspectivism to a theory of knowledge. It claims that “perspectivism” is also an appropriate name for Nietzsche’s meta-ethical position. The paper argues that Nietzsche should be interpreted as an anti-realist and moral skeptic. Its epistemological claim is that Nietzsche perspectivism provides a hermeneutic method that allows the human animal to achieve knowledge and truth about the world. The article distinguishes between a strong metaphysical and a weak hermeneutic version of the correspondence theory of truth. It argues that Nietzsche only rejects the former: the possibility of knowledge about the essence of the world and things-in-themselves. With his perspectival hermeneutic method, Nietzsche mainly aims at knowledge and truth about objects that are human products and phenomena.

Scholars have long recognized the existence of myriad widespread deep disagreements on values, justice, morality, and ethics. In order to come to terms with such deep disagreements, resistant to rational solution, this article asserts the need for developing an ethics of disagreement. The reality that theoretical disagreements often turn into practical conflicts is a major justification for why such an ethics is necessary. This paper outlines an ethics of deep disagreement that is primarily conceived of as a form of virtue ethics. Such an ethics asks opposing parties in moral and intellectual conflicts to acknowledge that (a) deep disagreements exist, (b) opposing positions should be recognized as worthy of respect, and that (c) one should seek dialogue and mutual understanding. This ethical approach conceives of toleration as a moral and political virtue and presents an argument for toleration based on deep disagreements.