Guenter Zoeller

No ano de 2014, não só ocorreu o bicentenário da morte de Johann Gottlieb Fichte, mas também completou cem anos o começo da Primeira Guerra Mundial ou Grande Guerra, como ainda é denominada no ocidente. O desembarque dos aliados na Normandia completou cinquenta anos. Além disso, esse ano marcou os doze séculos que nos separam, ou melhor, nos unem à morte de Carlos Magno e dois milênios à de Júlio César Otaviano, conhecido como Augusto — todos eles aniversários de grandes acontecimentos políticos e históricos que causaram mudanças profundas e consequências duradouras. Nessa constelação analista, parece oportuno tornar presente a morte de Fichte, em 29 de janeiro de 1814, o qual foi um pensador político nos moldes europeus. Com tal finalidade, a primeira parte desta conferência expõe o caráter político do filosofar de Fichte. A segunda parte investiga o cunho político de seu filosofar, remetendo-o ao tríplice lema da Revolução Francesa — “Liberdade, Igualdade, Fraternidade” —, ao qual é correlacionada a tríade fichtiana “Eu”, “Tu” e “Nós”. A parte final trata da posição e da função mediais e transitórias do político em Fichte, para quem o Estado nunca é um fim em si mesmo, mas apenas meio para um fim.

InhaltVorwort SiglenverzeichnisJakub KLOC-KONKOLOWICZ: »Jeder wird Gott« – Zur Erfüllung des Gesetzes und zumStatus des handelnden Ich Claus DIERKSMEIER: Über die Wirtschaftstheorie in Fichtes Rechtslehre von 1812 Bernhard JAKL: Recht und Zwang in Fichtes Rechtslehre von 1812 Bärbel FRISCHMANN: Fichte über den Rechtsstaat als Sozialstaat Christian STADLER: Dimensionen und Wandlungen des Fichteschen Rechtsbegriffes im Vergleich Jena – Berlin C. Jeffery KINLAW: Law, Morality and Bildung in the 1812 Rechtslehre Claude PICHÉ: L’instauration d’un ordre juridique juste d’après Fichte Gaetano RAMETTA: Das Problem der Souveränität in Fichtes Staatslehre Carla De PASCALE: Fichte und die Verfassung des Vernunftreichs Roberta PICARDI: »Sittliche Natur« und Geschichte beim frühen und späten Fichte Takao SUGITA: Das Nationale in Fichtes Spätwerk Makoto TAKADA: Zur Umwandlung der Staatslehre des späten Fichte Nele SCHNEIDEREIT: Der Diskurs der Moderne in J. G. Fichtes Staatslehre Virginia LÓPEZ-DOMÍNGUEZ: Die Staatslehre von 1813 oder der Kampf der Aufklärung gegen den politischen Irrationalismus der Romantiker zur Verteidigung einer christlich-revolutionären SozialutopieGiovanni COGLIANDRO: »Der Begriff sey Grund der Welt« – Die Sittenlehre 1812 und die letzten Darstellungen der Wissenschaftslehre Max MARCUZZI: La ligne moraleBjörn PECINA: Die affektive Vermittlung. Deutungs- und affekttheoretische Dimensionen der späten Religionsphilosophie FichtesWolfdietrich SCHMIED-KOWARZIK: Religion der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Christentums. Zur Religionsphilosophie im Spätwerk Fichtes Wilhelm G. JACOBS: Der Gottesbegriff in den »Thatsachen des Bewußtseyns« von 1810/11 als Übergang zur Wissenschaftslehre in specie

Der Beitrag eruiert den Metaphysikbegriff Kants in der systematischen Spanne zwischen Wissenschaftslehre und Weisheitslehre. Der erste Abschnitt erörtert das architektonischmethodologische Verhältnis von transzendentaler Kritik und theoretischer Metaphysik beim kritischen Kant, insbesondere in der Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Der zweite Abschnitt präsentiert Kants kritische Konzeption einer limitativen Metaphysik des Anti-Materialismus, Anti-Determinismus und Anti-Fatalismus in den Prolegomena zu einer jeden künftigen Metaphysik. Der dritte Abschnitt behandelt Kants kritische Konzeption einer praktisch-dogmatischen Metaphysik des "Übersinnlichen in uns, über uns und nach uns" im Fragment der Preisschrift über die Fortschritte der Metaphysik.

The essay examines Kant’s Enlightenment conception of metaphysics as a science to be kept free of ideological prejudice and extrarational cognitive resources and to be established under the conditions of public, intersubjectively valid discourse. I analyze Kant’s self-interpretation of his transcendental philosophy as “metaphysics of metaphysics” and argue for the extensional partial identity of the critique of metaphysics and the metaphysics so rendered possible. In particular, I identify the “future metaphysics” envisioned by Kant as the “metaphysics of nature in general” or the “physiology of pure reason,” which was projected by Kant but never carried out by himself and is not to be confused with the “metaphysics of material nature” presented by Kant in his Metaphysical Principles of Natural Science. I further show how in Kant the “restriction” of the understanding and its pure concepts to sensible intuition is counterbalanced by the “bounding” of sensibility and its formal conditions to the appearances, at the exclusion of the “empty space” of the non-sensory. In drawing on Kant’s distinction between “limit” and “boundary”, I establish the precise position of critical metaphysics “on the boundary” of the world of sense and the world of the understanding. In concluding, I argue that for Kant a “future metaphysics that will be possible as science” is restricted to transcendental philosophy, at the exclusion of the theoretical cognition of the supersensible, which is thereby delegated forever to the object domain of practically based rational but non-scientific belief or faith.

306 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 34:2 APRIL ~996 exposition of Siris but also in the way he is able to tie it thematically to the earlier periods of Berkeley's life. Much of the content of this book has already appeared in articles published by Berman within the past twenty-odd years. Yet, since some this material resides in journals difficult of access without an excellent library, the volume is a welcome addi- tion to the Berkeley literature. In the enormous wake of his mentor, A. A. Luce, Berman has carefully and skillfully plotted his own course, presenting us with a bal- anced and compelling account of Ireland's greatest philosopher, one in which the man is a more sympathetic and fallible figure that that presented in either Luce's portrait of the "good bishop"--"the man with vision but in no sense a visionary" --or Yeats's sketch of a darker and more devious character. While Berman's Berkeley is one who "united the incompatible virtues of worldly wisdom and childlike inno- cence," and had "a delicate sense of what was required if the world was to be changed" , Berman does not hesitate to examine Berkeley "at his worst: in his biblical endorsement of slavery; his approval of kidnapping for the sake of converting the American Indians; in his theological rejection of all rebellion, no matter how tyrannical the ruler; [and] in his intolerant attitude to free-thinkers" . Even for those who will be dissatisfied with..

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

Two hundred years after his death, Kant remains one of the most important modern philosophers. The Prolegomena is the ideal introduction to Kant's unique account of the nature human knowledge, according to which we actively shape the world as we know it. This new edition of Kant's own summary of his philosophy is designed specially for students. Guenter Zoeller assumes no prior knowledge of the Prolegomena and provides an extensive and comprehensive introduction which explores Kant's life, the origin and reception of the Prolegomena, the organization of the work, its principal arguments, and its philosophical significance. This edition also includes detailed notes to aid student understanding, as well as a chronology, a glossary and an annotated bibliography.

The essay places the modern Euro-American conception of publicity into the historical and systematic context of the Western political tradition of republicanism. Section 1 features the state as the public realm of political deliberation and decision in the twin traditions of the Greek city state and the Roman republic. Section 2 analyzes the redrawing of the boundaries between the public and the private in early modern political thought. Section 3 examines the transformation of the distinction between the public and the private in politico-philosophical reflection on high modern commercial and civil society. The focus throughout is on the republican requisites of the rule of law and of self-rule in political society

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Ästhetische Autonomie als Abnormität: Kritische Analysen zu Schopenhauers Ästhetik im Horizont seiner Willensmetaphysik by Barbara NeymeyrGünter ZöllerBarbara Neymeyr. Ästhetische Autonomie als Abnormität: Kritische Analysen zu Schopenhauers Ästhetik im Horizont seiner Willensmetaphysik. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1996. Pp. x + 430. Cloth, DM 250.00.Like a latter-day Janus, Schopenhauer faces the history of philosophy in two directions. As a self-proclaimed follower of Kant and one-time student of Fichte, he partakes in the development of transcendental-idealist philosophy at the beginning of the nineteenth-century. When published in 1818, Schopenhauer’s four-part system of philosophy in The World as Will and Representation, consisting of an epistemology, a philosophy of nature, an aesthetics, and an ethics, was the first philosophical system of German idealism executed in detail. Yet with his orientation toward the natural sciences, from which he sought confirmation of his metaphysics, and through the delayed reception of his work, which began only in the 1850s, Schopenhauer seems to belong to the later nineteenth century, as an immediate precursor of Nietzsche. At the systematic level, the double orientation of [End Page 475] Schopenhauer’s philosophy finds expression in the concurrence of two types of philosophical theory in his work: a transcendental philosophy based on the correlation between a nonworldly subject of cognition and its world of objects, structured according to the basic forms of the principle of sufficient reason, and a metaphysics of the will based on the ultimate reality of everything and everyone as will.The systematic instability that threatens Schopenhauer’s double philosophy of transcendental idealism and voluntaristic metaphysics has prevented his work from being included in the canonical tradition of classical German philosophy and has resulted in a reductive and selective appropriation of parts and aspects of his work, especially focussing on his philosophy of music and his ethics of pity. But recently a number of authors have begun to explore and explain the overall, systematic dimension and potential of Schopenhauer’s philosophy. Rudolf Malter has argued forcefully and in great detail for the significance of Schopenhauer as a key figure in the transcendental tradition from Kant to Heidegger, and John Atwell has laid open the systematic ambition and scope of Schopenhauer’s philosophical project of an anthropomorphic cosmology.1Barbara Neymeyr’s thorough and well-informed reading of Schopenhauer’s aesthetics continues this trend toward a systematic Schopenhauer interpretation. The specific focus of her work, a revised doctoral dissertation that had been directed by Gerold Prauss (Freiburg i. Br.), is the systematic integrity, or lack thereof, of Schopenhauer’s metaphysics of the beautiful. The study soon widens to consider the background of Schopenhauer’s aesthetics in his overall metaphysics of the will. Neymeyr argues that the aesthetic in Schopenhauer occupies a decidedly abnormal systematic position. The norm from which the aesthetic seems to deviate in a radical way is the heteronomy of the intellect in the service of the all-powerful will. Normally, in the nonaesthetic attitude, the intellect is only a tool of the will, providing cognitive illumination to the latter’s originally blind striving. Abnormally though, in the aesthetic attitude, the intellect is supposed to achieve temporary freedom from the will. (Lasting emancipation is afforded only by the ethical, understood as ascetic denial of all willing.) Yet, as Neymeyr argues, in the absence of the will’s driving force, there is no positive basis for any self-determination and intentional activity on the part of the emancipated as well as emaciated aesthetic intellect. Moreover, the role of the will as ultimate reality in Schopenhauer suggests to Neymeyr that the apparent aesthetic emancipation of the intellect from the will is still a case of the will’s ultimate, although clandestine mastery over the intellect. The liberation of the aesthetic intellect from the will is at bottom, so Neymeyr, the cosmic will’s self-liberation from its manifestation as individual will. Thus for Neymeyr, aesthetic autonomy constitutes an inadmissable abnormality in Schopenhauer’s systematic philosophy.Exhibiting great ingenuity and extensive familiarity with the entire corpus of Schopenhauer’s writings, Neymeyr tracks the various levels and forms of inconsistency that [End Page 476] plague Schopenhauer’s aesthetic...

U članku se ispituje Kantova prosvjetiteljska koncepcija metafizike kao znanosti koju valja držati slobodnom od ideoloških predrasuda i izvanracionalnih kognitivnih resursa te je ustanoviti pod uvjetima javnog, intersubjektivno važećeg diskursa. Analiziram Kantovu vlastitu interpretaciju njegove transcendentalne filozofije kao “metafizike metafizike” i zastupam ekstenzionalni djelomični identitet kritike metafizike i metafizike koja je tako učinjena mogućom. Posebice identificiram “buduću metafiziku”, koju je Kant zamislio kao “metafiziku prirode općenito” ili “fiziologiju čistog uma”, koju je Kant bio zacrtao, ali je sam nikada nije proveo i koju ne treba brkati s “metafizikom materijalne prirode” koju je Kant izložio u svojim Metafizičkim načelima prirodne znanosti . Nadalje pokazujem kako je kod Kanta “ograničenje” razuma i njegovih čistih pojmova na osjetilno zrenje kompenzirano “ograničavanjem” osjetilnosti i njenih formalnih uvjeta na pojave, uz isključenje “praznog prostora” onog neosjetilnog. Oslanjajući se na Kantovo razlikovanje “ograničenja” i “granice” , utvrđujem točnu poziciju kritičke metafizike “na granici” osjetilnog svijeta i razumskog svijeta. Zaključno tvrdim da je “buduća metafizika koja će biti moguća kao znanost” za Kanta ograničena na transcendentalnu filozofiju, uz isključenje teoretske spoznaje nadosjetilnoga, koja je time zauvijek predana predmetnom području praktički zasnovanoga racionalnog, ali ne-znanstvenog vjerovanja ili vjere .The essay examines Kant’s Enlightenment conception of metaphysics as a science to be kept free of ideological prejudice and extrarational cognitive resources and to be established under the conditions of public, intersubjectively valid discourse. I analyze Kant’s self-interpretation of his transcendental philosophy as “metaphysics of metaphysics” and argue for the extensional partial identity of the critique of metaphysics and the metaphysics so rendered possible. In particular, I identify the “future metaphysics” envisioned by Kant as the “metaphysics of nature in general” or the “physiology of pure reason,” which was projected by Kant but never carried out by himself and is not to be confused with the “metaphysics of material nature” presented by Kant in his Metaphysical Principles of Natural Science . I further show how in Kant the “restriction” of the understanding and its pure concepts to sensible intuition is counterbalanced by the “bounding” of sensibility and its formal conditions to the appearances, at the exclusion of the “empty space” of the non-sensory. In drawing on Kant’s distinction between “limit” and “boundary” , I establish the precise position of critical metaphysics “on the boundary” of the world of sense and the world of the understanding. In concluding, I argue that for Kant a “future metaphysics that will be possible as science” is restricted to transcendental philosophy, at the exclusion of the theoretical cognition of the supersensible, which is thereby delegated forever to the object domain of practically based rational but non-scientific belief or faith

Der Beitrag erörtert das diffizile Verhältnis von Staat und Religion in Hegels Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften. Systematischer Ausgangspunkt ist die alternative Zuordnung des Themas zur Sphäre des absoluten und der des objektiven Geistes in der ersten bzw. zweiten Fassung der Berliner Enzyklopädie. Der Beitrag will zeigen, daß die doppelte systematische Verortung der Verhältnisbestimmung von Staat und Religion in der Berliner Enzyklopädie Hegels komplexe Einschätzung des modernen Staates als von der modernen Religion sowohl getrennt als auch ihr systematisch zugehörig wiederspiegelt. Zu diesem Zweck behandelt der Beitrag zunächst den systemarchitektonischen Grundcharakter von Hegels enzyklopädischem Projekt, sodann die sukzessive Entwicklung einer im spezifischen Sinne modernen Konzeption von Sittlichkeit in den Nürnberger, Heidelberger und Berliner Fassungen der Enzyklopädie und schließlich die systematische Annäherung der Sittlichkeit des modernen Staates an die Geistigkeit der modernen Religion in den beiden Berliner Fassungen der Enzyklopädie.

This chapter reports the biography of Arthur Schopenhauer and explores his particular thoughts on musical philosophy. Schopenhauer was born on February 22, 1788. With his philosophy in general, and more specifically with his philosophy of art, Schopenhauer has probably exercised a greater effect on artists and musicians than any other thinker or writer. His reflections on music were contributions that either focused on the metaphysical significance of the art form or made factual and normative statements about the factors and forms of musical composition. Schopenhauer's theory of redemption through art and of music's closeness to metaphysical origins was warmly received by Europe's cultivated bourgeoisie.