Guenter Zoeller

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.

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

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

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

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.

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...

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.

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

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.

The paper assesses Martin’s recent logico-phenomenological account of judgment that is cast in the form of an eclectic history of judging, from Hume and Kant through the 19th century to Frege and Heidegger as well as current neuroscience. After a preliminary discussion of the complex unity and temporal modalities of judgment that draws on a reading of Titian’s “Allegory of Prudence” (National Gallery, London), the remainder of the paper focuses on Martin’s views on Kant’s logic in general and his theory of singular existential judgment in particular. The paper argues against Martin’s key claims of the primacy of formal logic over transcendental logic and of the synthetic nature of judgment in Kant. It also takes issue with each of the four interpretations of singular existential judgment in Kant offered by Martin: existence as logical predicate, as copula, as thesis and as logical subject.

The paper investigates Kant's usage of the legal-political symbolism of war and peace in his self-interpretation of the historical role of the critical philosophy. The focus is on Kant's late essay, "Announcement of the Imminent Conclusion of a Treatise on Perpetual Peace in Philosophy" from 1796. The essay is placed in thecontemporary context of Kant's controversy with the historian and publicist, Johann Georg Schlosser, who had reduced Kant's transcendental philosophy to the mechanical operations of a "manufacturing industry for the production of mere form" and had misread Kant's moral philosophy as requiring complete cognition ofnature for arriving at the formation of the categorical imperative. Kant's reply to Schlosser places the refutation of the latter's charges into the broader context of the cultural function of philosophy as an area for intellectual warfare. On Kant's view, neither dogmatic pseudo-victories nor skeptical pseudo-truces are able to assure a lasting peace in philosophical debates. Only the critical balance between the theoretical restriction of reason to possible experience and its practical enlargement to unconditional principles of action is able to pacify the world of thought into a peace of mind armed with strong arguments.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 39.2 (2001) 304-305 [Access article in PDF] Wildfeuer, Armin G. Praktische Vernunft und System. Entwicklungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur ursprünglichen Kant-Rezeption Johann Gottlieb Fichtes. Stuttgart-Bad/Cannstatt : Frommann-Holzboog, 1999. Pp. 596. Cloth, DM 168. The subtitle of this book, a slightly revised dissertation from the University of Bonn (1994), reads: "Investigations into the developmental history of Johann Gottlieb Fichte's original reception of Kant." The work comes to almost 600 pages. The main text is heavily overlaid with detailed footnotes, extensive quotations and supplementary material in smaller print and narrow line spacing. To the reader who is patient enough to face this scholastic mode of presentation, there emerges behind it a valuable contribution to our overall understanding of Fichte's philosophical work in general and its core discipline, the Wissenschaftslehre or first, transcendental philosophy, in particular.In the grand narrative about the development of German idealism Fichte is placed between Kant and Schelling. More precisely, he is typically portrayed as continuing but also revising Kant's work under the double influence of the leading early post-Kantian, Karl Leonhard Reinhold (1758-1823), and the skeptical anti-Kantian and anti-Reinholdian, Gottlob Ernst Schulze (1761-1833), called "Aenesidemus" after the title of his anonymous main work.Wildfeuer's investigations supplement this picture with a detailed consideration of what could be called "Fichte before Fichte": the early development of Fichte's thought, prior to his encounter with Reinhold and prior even to his encounter with Kant (1790). To be sure, Wildfeuer also deals with Fichte's continued philosophical development up through 1794, and he has many interesting things to say about the lasting presence of Fichte's earliest concerns in his more mature work. But the chief merit of the book is the sustained attention it pays to the very beginnings of Fichte's thought.Much of the prehistory of Fichtean philosophy has to be conjectured, given the scarcity of documents about Fichte's years of study (1780-84) and of his work as itinerant tutor (1785-1793). From Fichte's own testimony in his correspondence it is clear that prior to encountering Kant's three Critiques he held a determinist position regarding nature as well as human conduct. Based on some indications in Fichte's later works, Wildfeuer identifies as the chief source of Fichte's determinism the work of Karl Ferdinand Hommel (1722-1781), a professor of law at Leipzig, whom Fichte could have heard as a student and whose pseudonymous treatise Alexander von Joch... On Reward and Punishment According to Turkish Laws (1770) Fichte cites. Hommel (alias von Joch) maintains a deterministic view of human action, while justifying the social practice of punishment and reward. In particular, he maintains the dependence of the will on the intellect and of the latter on sensations or sensory impressions. Wildfeuer refers to this position, as it was temporarily adopted by Fichte, as that of the primacy of the understanding over the will.But Wildfeuer also shows that from early on Fichte's determinist leanings in speculation were counterbalanced by the conviction that feeling, especially feeling in religious matters, is an equally valid source of truth. For Wildfeuer, this early duality of speculation and feeling is the lasting basis of Fichte's life-long concern with reconciling the competing demands of head and heart. In particular this pre-Kantian key concern [End Page 304] in Fichte informs the latter's central systematic occupation with the unity of the mind amidst its differentiation into faculties or kinds of mental activity.Further texts which Wildfeuer examines in pursuit of the pre-Kantian Fichte are his Latin Valedictory Address, given upon graduating from one of Germany's finest secondary schools at the time, the Princely College of Pforta (1780), and the "Aphorisms on Religion and Deism" (1790).On the basis of this material Wildfeuer goes on to reconstruct the distinct reception that each of Kant's three Critiques received by Fichte. According to Wildfeuer, the Critique of Pure Reason originally was read by...

Kivy distinguishes between three different claims to authenticity in the historical performance movement: authenticity with respect to the composer’s intention, authenticity with regard to sound, and authenticity in matters of performance practice. To this, Kivy adds a fourth notion of authenticity that does not figure in the idealized self-description of the historical performance movement but rather points to an alternative kind of authenticity championed by Kivy himself: the authenticity that a performance might have due to the sincerity of the artist or artists performing it. Kivy proposes to examine each of those four notions of authenticity in two sets of four chapters each—with the first set operating at the descriptive level of conceptual analysis and the second set moving on to the evaluative level of aesthetic judgment.

Written in 1839 and chosen as the winning entry in a competition held by the Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences, Schopenhauer's Prize Essay on the Freedom of the Will marked the beginning of its author's public recognition and is widely regarded as one of the most brilliant and elegant treatments of free will and determinism. Schopenhauer distinguishes the freedom of acting from the freedom of willing, affirming the former while denying the latter. He portrays human action as thoroughly determined but also argues that the freedom which cannot be established in the sphere of human action is preserved at the level of our innermost being as individuated will, whose reality transcends all dependency on outside factors. This volume offers the text in a previously unpublished translation by Eric F. J. Payne, the leading twentieth-century translator of Schopenhauer into English, together with a historical and philosophical introduction by Günter Zöller.