Manuel Dr. Knoll

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.

This paper aims to show the continuity and unity of Nietzsche’s political thought. Its first thesis the claim is made that The Greek State and the third Untimely Meditation already contain essential elements of Nietzsche’s later conception of the “Übermensch”, the meaning of which is better understood by connecting it to arguments articulated in these early writings. According to the second thesis of this paper, Nietzsche conceives the generation of a higher type of man or “Übermensch” not primarily as the affair of an isolated individual but as a social and political task.

Según una influyente línea interpretativa, la mejor polis de Aristóteles debe ser considerada una politeia. Esta corriente predomina aún hoy entre los eruditos alemanes. En tanto paladina de la “social democracia aristotélica”, Martha Nussbaum pertenece también a esta línea exegética. En oposición a tales interpretaciones, este ensayo defiende la tesis de que Aristóteles pertenece a la tradición de pensamiento político aristocrático. Esta tradición se remonta a Teognis, Heráclito y Platón y se inicia como una crítica dirigida tanto a la decadencia de la virtud aristocrática cuanto al ascenso de valores democráticos e igualitarios. Este trabajo demuestra que Aristóteles concibe las diferentes formas de constitución como manifestaciones de distintas concepciones de la justicia distributiva. Aristóteles mantiene una clara preferencia por una concepción aristocrática de la justicia, y, por tanto, por la aristocracia. La constitución de la mejor polis que detalla en los libros VII y VIII de la Política debe entenderse como una “verdadera aristocracia” en la que los cargos políticos son distribuidos según el mérito entre los ciudadanos que sean los mejores desde el punto de vista moral e intelectual. Palabras clave: Aristóteles, pensamiento político aristocrático, justicia distributiva, aristocracia, mejor polis.

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.

This paper gives a detailed analysis of Nussbaum's,,capabilities approach“ and her claim that it is a genuinely Aristotelian contemporary political philosophy. The paper comprehensively examines how Nussbaum bases her approach on human nature and questions her assertion that Aristotle's account of human nature and her approach are not metaphysical. It analyses the normative dimension of her,,capabilities approach“ and shows how she adopts and modifies Aristotle's doctrine of distributive justice in an egalitarian way. With reference to contemporary literature on Aristotle's _Politics_, the paper criticizes that Nussbaum assimilates his political philosophy into modern values and notions, laying out several reasons supporting the thesis that Nussbaum's,,capabilities approach“ should not be regarded as an Aristotelian approach

This article starts off with a historical section showing that deep disagreements among notions of social and political justice are a characteristic feature of the history of political thought. Since no agreement or consensus on distributive justice is possible, the article argues that political philosophers should – instead of continuously proposing new normative theories of justice – focus on analyzing the reasons, significance, and consequences of such kinds of disagreements. The next two sections are analytical. The first sketches five possible reasons for deep disagreements among notions of social and political justice. The second discusses the meta-ethical relevance of the lack of consensus on justice and rejects ethical realism and cognitivism based on the argument from deep disagreements.

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.

This article presents a republican interpretation of Michael Walzer’s theory of distributive justice and of his idea of complex equality. It demonstrates that Spheres of Justice is not only a defense of pluralism and equality, but also of liberty or freedom. Like Quentin Skinner and Philip Pettit, Walzer understands liberty as non-domination. For Walzer, a just distribution of all social goods leads to a “complex egalitarian society” in which every citizen is equally free from domination and tyranny. Against alternative interpretations, this paper suggests that Walzer is indeed a political egalitarian and that complex equality should be interpreted as a simple equality of liberty or freedom. In the conclusion, the article argues that Walzer’s and Pettit’s versions of republicanism are complementary because they each illuminate the other’s blind spot and thus mutually fix each other’s particular shortcoming.

Up to now researchers have maintained that Nietzsche’s philosophy has no concept of social justice or have hardly noticed such a concept. On the contrary, this article argues that social justice plays an important role in Nietzsche’s political thinking. It shows that his conception of justice is modelled after Plato’s antique concept of political justice. The main thesis of the paper is that this conception is embodied in Nietzsche’s notion of a well-ordered state or society. An additional thesis concerns the anthropological basis of what Nietzsche holds to be a just social order. This basis is constituted by his conviction that people are not only fundamentally unequal but also extremely different in worth and rank.

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.

After presenting an overview of the research on Nietzsche’s political thought, this article discusses Robert C. Holub’s book Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem. While Holub talks about Nietzsche’s “eugenic calculations”, he does not mention his notion of a “great politics”, which aims at breeding superior humans. This notion is central for Hugo Drochon’s Nietzsche’s Great Politics and Gary Shapiro’s Nietzsche’s Earth. Great Events, Great Politics, which are critically examined in the article. Shapiro’s “postmodern” interpretation of Nietzsche’s thought neglects Zarathustra’s crucial statement that “The Übermensch is the meaning of the earth”. Drochon uses Bernard Williams’s four criteria to define what a “coherent politics” is. Drochon’s arguments that Nietzsche is indeed a political thinker are persuasive. However, William’s criteria are not sufficient and need to be amended.

This article examines Aristotle’s theory of ‘factional conflict’ 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’ into different ones. This article argues that the constitution Aristotle calls ‘polity’ 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.

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).