Andree Hahmann

In this paper we examine the genealogy and transmission of moral duty in Western ethics. We begin with an uncontroversial account of the Stoic notion of the kathēkon, and then examine the pivotal moment of Cicero’s translation of it into Latin as ‘officium’. We take a deflationary view of the impact of Cicero’s translation and conclude that his translation does not mark a departure from the Stoic ideal. We find further confirmation of our deflationary position in the development of the notion of ‘duty’ in Germany between the 16th and 18th centuries. We examine Pufendorf’s critique of ancient eudaimonism and his appropriation of officium, and claim that it foreshadows Kant’s rejection of Garve’s Ciceronian ethics. We demonstrate the undeniable parallels between Kant’s Groundwork and Garve’s influential translation of Cicero’s De Officiis, thereby indicating a novel way in which we should understand Cicero’s contribution to the development of modern moral philosophy.

This paper attempts to furnish a Stoic reply to an accusation addressing the Stoics' ideal of the wise man according to which it is impossible to realize their ideal and therefore their whole system has to face a paradox: How is wisdom possible when all people are fools and it is impossible for them to become good? In addition to this question there is another important problem connected with the ideal of wisdom. The Stoic philosophers deny transcendental ideas. Instead they are well known for their thorough-going materialism. Therefore, even their idea of the wise man must be based on experience. How would it otherwise be possible to form the idea of wisdom by a method of analogy if experience did not provide any example of truthful virtue to us? A possible answer to this problem can be found in the writings of Seneca, a Stoic of the first century A.D. Seneca emphasizes the close relation between wisdom and human mortality owing to which it is at least possible for the philosopher who has made sufficiently progress in his efforts to gain wisdom to find lasting happiness in death

In Kant's theoretical philosophy substance is not only constitutive for objects as one of the categories of pure reason, but also functions as a substrate for the unity of time. Result of these different functions is an ambiguity in the meaning of Kant's notion of substance. Is there only one or are there many individual substances? This paper traces the ways in which Kant uses substance not only in the Critique of Pure Reason, but also in the draft „Transition 1–14“ of the Opus postumum to find a solution for this problem.

In Kant's theoretical philosophy substance is not only constitutive for objects as one of the categories of pure reason, but also functions as a substrate for the unity of time. Result of these different functions is an ambiguity in the meaning of Kant's notion of substance. Is there only one or are there many individual substances? This paper traces the ways in which Kant uses substance not only in the Critique of Pure Reason, but also in the draft „Transition 1–14“ of the Opus postumum to find a solution for this problem.

Die sog. Preisschrift über die Fortschritte der Metaphysik hat in den letzten Jahren überraschend wenig Aufmerksamkeit in der Kantforschung erfahren. Das beginnt sich erst langsam zu ändern, bedingt vor allem durch das Wiedereinsetzen eines allgemeinen Interesses an Metaphysik, aber auch durch die Wiederentdeckung der Einsicht, dass die kantische Philosophie nicht nur ihren Ursprung in der nach-wolffschen Philosophie des 18. Jahrhunderts hat, sondern dass Kant mit seinen Fragestellungen insgesamt dieser philosophischen Strömung sehr viel näher bleibt, als die bislang eher auf die empiristische Tradition hin ausgelegten Interpretationsansätze bemerkt haben. Die Beiträge dieses Bandes thematisieren den metaphysischen Ursprung und die metaphysische Stoßrichtung der kantischen Philosophie. Das geschieht vor allem im Ausgang von und mit Blick auf die kantische Preisschrift, die eine besondere Stellung in Kants Werk einnimmt. Ausgehend von dieser Schrift wird einerseits ein Blick zurück auf die Entwicklung der kritischen Philosophie sowie deren Architektonik in Abgrenzung zur rationalistischen Schulphilosophie geworfen und andererseits ein Blick nach vorn zur vermeintlich nachkritischen Revision der Systematik im Opus postumum.

Bereits in der Antike galt Alexander von Aphrodisias als der größte Aristoteleskommentator. In seiner Schrift „De fato“ widmet er sich dem Determinismusproblem, einem Problem, das Aristoteles zwar in allen seinen Implikationen behandelt, aber kein eigenständiges Buch dazu verfasst und keine eindeutige Stellungnahme dazu gemacht hat. Im Sinne der aristotelischen Philosophie argumentiert Alexander gegen einen nicht genannten philosophischen Gegner, der von den meisten Interpreten jedoch als stoisch angesehen wird. In diesem Aufsatz soll die Diskussion zum Wesen des Zufalls wiedergegeben werden. Bemerkenswert ist, dass in dem Buch zwei unterschiedliche Meinungen zum Wesen des Zufalls zu finden sind, welche von völlig verschiedenen Prämissen, die in den jeweiligen Systemen verankert sind, ausgehen. Es wird gezeigt, dass Zufall sowohl bei Aristoteles als auch bei den Stoikern wesentlich an Finalursachen gebunden ist, und zwar einmal als akzidentelle Verursachung und dann als eine Ursache, die dem menschlichen Verstand grundsätzlich verborgen bleibt. Abschließend soll die Frage aufgeworfen werden, ob das Wesen des Zufalls ohne Rekurs auf teleologische Kausalitätsformen überhaupt adäquat begriffen werden kann.

Bereits in der Antike galt Alexander von Aphrodisias als der größte Aristoteleskommentator. In seiner Schrift „De fato“ widmet er sich dem Determinismusproblem, einem Problem, das Aristoteles zwar in allen seinen Implikationen behandelt, aber kein eigenständiges Buch dazu verfasst und keine eindeutige Stellungnahme dazu gemacht hat. Im Sinne der aristotelischen Philosophie argumentiert Alexander gegen einen nicht genannten philosophischen Gegner, der von den meisten Interpreten jedoch als stoisch angesehen wird. In diesem Aufsatz soll die Diskussion zum Wesen des Zufalls wiedergegeben werden. Bemerkenswert ist, dass in dem Buch zwei unterschiedliche Meinungen zum Wesen des Zufalls zu finden sind, welche von völlig verschiedenen Prämissen, die in den jeweiligen Systemen verankert sind, ausgehen. Es wird gezeigt, dass Zufall sowohl bei Aristoteles als auch bei den Stoikern wesentlich an Finalursachen gebunden ist, und zwar einmal als akzidentelle Verursachung und dann als eine Ursache, die dem menschlichen Verstand grundsätzlich verborgen bleibt. Abschließend soll die Frage aufgeworfen werden, ob das Wesen des Zufalls ohne Rekurs auf teleologische Kausalitätsformen überhaupt adäquat begriffen werden kann

Kant is well known for his criticism of knowledge claims of traditional metaphysics. The concept of substance must be considered one of the most important notions in ontology. Kant transforms traditional ontology into an analytic of pure understanding. Accordingly, the concept of substance has become a category of pure understanding. The application of this category in the First Analogy of Experience faces some particular problems, which are highlighted in the current debate. This paper seeks to furnish a coherent reading of the First Analogy by considering which purpose the category of substance is meant to serve in transcendental idealism

In Germany the voices calling for a critical discussion of racist ideas in the works of the so-called classics of philosophy are growing louder. So far, the focus has been primarily on Kant and Hegel, in whose works racist statements are easily detected. However, the role of these racist ideas in their respective systems remains unclear, and especially in the case of Kant, the question also arises whether Kant is the author of the statements at all. Moreover, the accusation itself is quite ambiguous both in terms of its premises and its subject matter. This paper aims to help clarify this debate. It is primarily concerned with Kant’s philosophy, which is, however, situated in the context of some of the central assumptions of the Enlightenment. It will be shown that racist claims result from crucial elements of Kant’s mature philosophical system.

Kant s definition of substance is the focus of this philosophical study. The analysis shows that an adequate understanding of the term and the critical metaphysics of the substance which result from it must take into account the philosophical controversy over the simple substance in the first half of the 18th century dominated by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Christian Wolff. It is only against this background that the complexity and inconsistence of the critical concept of substance becomes fully apparent. "

Kant’s highest good consists of happiness and the worthiness of happiness, that is, morality. The question of the exact connection between these two parts is disputed. Some argue that Kant proposed different, sometimes contradictory, concepts of the highest good. First, the highest good is said to consist in the distribution of happiness in relation to morality. Second, the highest good is said to describe a maximal or best state in which the greatest morality is associated with the highest happiness. This paper will show how the problematic relationship between the two elements of the highest good can be resolved and explain the different versions of the highest good.

Schiller’s philosophy of history has received comparatively little attention. This is partly because Schiller is perceived as a poor imitation of Kant or the existence of a systematic philosophy of history is simply denied. This chapter aims to remedy this deficit by first showing that Schiller developed a philosophy of history that shaped his understanding of history. The second part will identify important differences between Schiller’s conception of history and that of Kant. It will be shown that essential aspects of Schiller’s philosophy of history can not only be traced back to a period before his first engagement with Kant, but also that it coincides with his overarching aesthetic-philosophical project.

The majority of current interpreters of Aristotle’s theory of perception assume that perception must be understood as a passive process. This assumption is mainly justified by systematic considerations. Particularly influential for the ongoing debate on the proper understanding of Aristotle’s theory is the work of Myles Burnyeat, whose interpretation amounts to a devastating critique of the Aristotelian philosophy of perception. This paper wants to shed some light on the kind of activity that is involved in perception. It will be shown that by considering the special kind of activity with which Aristotle identifies perception many of the problems that are seen by Burnyeat and others can be circumvented and a coherent interpretation can be provided, which, in turn, must be considered to be essential in order to judge the systematic relevance of Aristotle’s theory of perception.