Gerhard Seel

Since the end of the 18th century philosophy has been going through an identity crisis which threatens its very existence. This crisis is due to the emancipation of the empirical sciences in the course of which philosophy has lost nearly all its traditional objects. We fi rst examine four traditional ways to overcome this crisis: philosophy as the all embracing universal science, philosophy as a priori knowledge, philosophy as common sense, philosophy as small talk. We show that these conceptions have grave shortcomings and therefore are not convincing. Instead we propose the following conception of philosophy: philosophy has to put and to answer radical questions, questions that spring from the conditions of human existence itself. We fi nally justify this conception by a refl ection on the history of philosophy and an analysis of the deep motivation of its founder, Socrates. This leads us to the insight that to engage in moral philosophy is itself a moral duty.

Es gibt zwei Versionen von Naturalismus in der Ethik: Der erste (Praktischer Naturalismus I) behauptet, daß jeder praktische Satz (der eine Norm oder ein Werturteil ausdrückt) äquivalent zu einem deskriptiven Satz ist. Der zweite (Praktischer Naturalismus II) sagt, daß die Gültigkeit von praktischen Sätzen ausschließlich von kontingenten empirischen Tatsachen abhängt. Um scharf zwischen diesen beiden Versionen zu unterscheiden, wird der Begriff der praktischen Gültigkeit eingeführt und in einer Form definiert, die sich radikal von Tarskis Konvention T unterscheidet. Die erste Version des Naturalismus wird generell als durch die Argumente von Moore und Hare widerlegt angesehen. Die zweite Spielart wurde bislang nicht widerlegt. Es wird versucht zu zeigen, daß der Praktische Naturalismus II, wenn er als radikaler Naturalismus formuliert wird, einen circulus vitiosus oder infiniten Regreß impliziert. Der einzige Weg, dies zu verhindern ist, zumindest ein praktisches Prinzip zuzulassen, dessen GüUigkeit nicht von kontingenten Tatsachen abhängt. Auf diese Weise hängt der Naturalismus in der Ethik von wenigstens einem transzendenten Prinzip ab.

Since more than 50 years Kant scholars debate the question whether the Law of Right as introduced in the Metaphysics of Morals by Kant can be justified by the Categorical Imperative. On the one hand we have those who think that Kant's theory of right depends from the Categorical Imperative, on the other hand we find a growing group of scholars who deny this. However, the debate has been flawed by confusion and misunderstanding of the crucial terms and principles. Therefore, my first task will be to clarify these terms and principles by introducing distinctions that have been neglected too often. After this I try to show a) that the Law of Right can in fact be justified by using the testing method the Categorical Imperative prescribes and b) that there is no other way to justify it. Doing this I criticize in detail the new arguments adherents of the independence thesis have recently put forward.

Ever since Aristotle's famous argument about the sea-battle tomorrow, there has been intensive and controversial discussion among philosophers whether the truth of statements about the future leads to determinism. Ther e is controversy about Aristotle's own solution to the problem, as well as the views of classical and medieval commentators on Aristotle. Seel's book attempts to answer this question for the Neoplatonist Ammonius (5th-6th century AD). In so doing, he also opens up new insights into Neoplatonic thought.

As an introduction to the plenary session “Metaphysics and Aesthetics” in my article I try to describe the state of philosophy of art today and give an outlook to its future development. In the last century analytical philosophy of art has been occupied with the following four questions: What is the essence of art? What is the ontological status of works of art? What are aesthetic qualities and how do we come to know them? Have aesthetic value judgments objective validity? In the first step I explain why analytical philosophy of art failed to answer these questions and what this failure has to do with the end of art. In the second step I attempt to give a definition of art myself which allows to show that this failure and the end of art were inevitable. Finally I try—as a consequence—to define the general features of the art of the future.