Guido Kreis

Die Welt ist alles, was wir in unseren naturwissenschaftlichen Theorien beschreiben konnen so eine weit verbreitete Uberzeugung, die seit den Tagen des Positivismus unser Weltbild bestimmt. Aber reicht das tatsachlich schon aus? Wer sich am Ideal der wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnis orientiert, neigt dazu, viele nicht-begriffliche Erfahrungsformen zu unterschlagen, die uns aus dem Alltag vertraut sind: Symbolsysteme wie Musik, Literatur oder Bilder, Instanzen der unmittelbaren Erfahrung wie Anschauung, Wahrnehmung oder Gefuhl und den Bereich des praktischen Konnens. In der Regel sind wir nicht in der Lage, den Gehalt dieser Phanomene vollstandig begrifflich wiederzugeben. Dennoch ist das weite Feld des Nichtbegrifflichen eine unverzichtbare Voraussetzung unserer Satze und Gedanken: Ohne Kunst, Wahrnehmung und Handeln gibt es kein Denken, keine Wissenschaft, keine Philosophie. Der Band geht der Vielfalt des Nicht-Begrifflichen in asthetischen, symboltheoretischen und semantischen Untersuchungen nach. Aus ihnen ergibt sich ein umfassender systematischer Uberblick uber eines der spannendsten und offensten Problemfelder der aktuellen philosophischen Debatte. Mit Beitragen von: Andreas Bartels, Uwe Baumann, Volker Beeh, Gottfried Boehm, Olaf Breidbach, Joachim Bromand, Gottfried Gabriel, Markus Gabriel, Ernest Wolf Gazo, Annemarie Gethmann-Siefert, Jurgen Goldstein, Jens Halfwassen, Thomas Soren Hoffmann, Wolfgang Harms, Jochen Horisch, Peter Janich, Guilherme F. R. Kisteumacher, Jakub Kloc-Konkolowicz, Imi Knoebel, Theo Kobusch, Klaus-M. Kodalle, Sibylle Kramer, Guido Kreis, Wolfgang Kubin, Sonke Lorenz, Antonio Cota Marcal, Aliasghar Mosleh, Theodoros Penolidis, Dominik Perler, Hans-Joachim Pieper, Andrzej Przylebski, Birgit Sandkaulen, Matthias Schmoeckel, Oswald Schwemmer, Josef Simon, Pirmin Stekeler-Weithofer, Dieter Teichert, Kai Vogeley, Gottfried Willems und Gereon Wolters"

Gottesbeweise gehören zu den großen Themen der abendländischen Philosophie. Im 20. Jahrhundert sind sie mit Hilfe der modernen Logik neu formuliert worden und auch in der analytischen Philosophie werden Gottesbeweise seit Jahrzehnten kontrovers diskutiert. Offenkundig ist die Frage nach der Existenz Gottes im nachmetaphysischen Zeitalter aktueller denn je. Der Band versammelt die großen Gottesbeweise des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit ebenso wie die klassischen Einwände von Hume und Kant. Die sprachanalytische Debatte wird ausführlich dokumentiert und ein eigener Teil ist Kurt Gödel gewidmet, dessen ontologischer Beweis bis heute nicht stichhaltig widerlegt worden ist. Umfassende einleitende Essays führen in die Problematik der Gottesbeweise ein und bieten gut verständliche Rekonstruktionen der jeweiligen Beweisversuche.

Kann es sein, dass unser Denken unauflösliche Widersprüche enthält? Die Paradoxien des Unendlichen sind ein guter Kandidat dafür. Kant hat in seiner transzendentalen Dialektik behauptet, dass wir das Unendliche nicht konsistent denken können. Hegel hält mit einer faszinierenden positiven Dialektik dagegen, die das Unendliche widerspruchsfrei denken will. Bei Cantor jedoch, der die moderne Auffassung des Unendlichen revolutioniert hat, kehren die Paradoxien wieder zurück. Guido Kreis zeigt, dass unsere Begriffe vom Unendlichen relativ zu unseren besten Theorien tatsächlich inkonsistent sind, und führt anhand dieser negativen Dialektik zugleich in die Grundformen der modernen Dialektik ein.

In the first two sections of the following remarks, I will establish a working definition of Cassirer's concept of a symbolic form. Symbolic forms are primarily forms of expression (1). Furthermore, they must be conceived as forms of world-disclosure and forms of mind and spirit (2). Finally, I will highlight the key elements of Cassirer's analysis of the practical dimension of symbolic forms (3). I argue that a reconsideration of the concept of a symbolic form will naturally let the philosophy of symbolic forms adopt the shape of a critical theory of society.

This paper analyses two early Chinese ways of modeling the ethical significance of art using music as an example. I shall focus on the Xunzi 《荀子》 as a paradigmatic statement of Confucian views, and selected passages from the Zhuangzi 《莊子》 as an exemplary manifestation of Daoist aesthetics. I argue that the Xunzi opts for a direct ethical impact of music, while it does not rely on an independent aesthetic conception of the goodness of music. By contrast, I argue that the Zhuangzi discusses music on the grounds of an independent aesthetic conception of its goodness, while music can only claim an indirect ethical significance. Both models are mutually exclusive. This gives reason to believe that the Xunzi and the Zhuangzi present us with the two systematically possible ways of modeling the ethical impact of art.

This paper develops its exegetical claim by building mainly on a reconstruction of a central argument in the Critique of Pure Reason and supporting it with material from Kant’s other critical works. It argues that Kant’s philosophy does not permit us any judgment about things in themselves whatsoever. This could be called a form of ignorance, albeit a unique one. On the developed reading, Kant claims that there cannot be any objectively valid judgment about things in themselves, and since so-called judgments without objective validity are actually no judgments at all, there is no judgment about things in themselves available to us – not even a negative one. The paper considers the theses and antitheses of the antinomies, analytic judgments, and the practical postulates as potential candidates for such judgments, each of which fail the objectivity test. It ends by concluding that we should read Kant’s critical writings in such a way that they do not feature any judgments about things in themselves and suggests one way to do so: putative judgments of this sort could be read as higher-order judgments about the concept of a thing in itself.

In this paper, I shall discuss the assumption that Kant’s method in the Critique of Pure Reason is a transcendental analysis of experience. In order to do this, I will consider the conception of transcendental analysis that Marburg Neo-Kantianism powerfully introduced into Kant interpretation. I shall first develop a general model of transcendental analysis in the Marburg sense. I shall then ask whether this is a suitable model for the interpretation of the first Critique. Kant’s distinction between the analytic and synthetic method in the Prolegomena seems to contradict this, given that it is a distinction between two different mathematical methods of demonstration. However, I shall argue that any such reading is incompatible with the Critique, and that transcendental analysis is indeed a legitimate interpretative model for understanding Kant. I shall finally turn to Strawson’s conception of descriptive metaphysics, which has strong affinities to Kant and the Marburg school. Most importantly, Strawson helps us to understand three significant aims at which transcendental analysis is directed. Finally, comparing transcendental analysis to dominant conceptions of analysis in philosophy, I shall argue that it constitutes a variety of philosophical analysis sui generis.

: Cassirer’s Analytic Philosophy. Cassirer’s Philosophy of Symbolic Forms is a systematic self-reflection of human intellectual capacities in culture. One of Cassirer’s crucial methodological devices is analysis. His Philosophy of Symbolic Forms starts with the acknowledgment of ‚the factum of culture‘: the fact that there is a variety of culturally established forms of symbol use and exchange in science, myth, religion, art, ethical life, and everyday discourse. Cassirer then analyses the factum of culture into its necessary transcendental conditions. This significantly resembles Strawson’s conception of a descriptive metaphysics of the human conceptual scheme, as developed in his 1959 book Individuals. This chapter examines the systematic parallels between Cassirer and Strawson. I will distinguish several different accounts of philosophical analysis in order to clarify the conception of analysis that is distinct to the Kantian projects of Cassirer and Strawson. The chapter aims at a novel appreciation of the systematic status of Cassirer’s Philosophy of Symbolic Forms and its argumentative potential.

Kant claimed that it is impossible for us to have a consistent notion of the infinite. I shall concentrate on three versions of the paradoxes of the infinite: Kant’s first antinomy, the paradoxes of Cantorian set theory, and applications of Cantorian arguments to the metaphysics of the world. I shall dare two side-glance looks at Ancient Chinese Philosophy, where analogies to the Western paradoxes can be found. I shall first discuss key passages from the Chinese sophists, and then consider the formulation of the Law of Non-Contradiction in the Moist Canons. I conclude that the paradoxes of the infinite remain a major challenge for reason.

“Social Community and Absolute Spirit.” Hegel’s social philosophy has its systematic place in the sections on objective spirit in the Encyclopedia. Objective spirit, however, passes into absolute spirit, whereby the latter is supposed to be the truth of the former. As a consequence, the concern arises that Hegel’s theory of social freedom might at best be defendable at the expense of subscribing to a transcendent metaphysics of the absolute. In this paper, however, I argue that this is not the case, by offering an alternative account of Hegel’s notion of absolute spirit. Firstly, I shall trace back this notion to its roots in the subjective and the objective spirit. Secondly, I argue that the absolute spirit extends specific forms of self-reflection, in which members of social communities explicitly address their own freedom, to a kind of universal self-reflection, in which we as philosophers explicitly thematize the basic concepts of our conceptual scheme. Thirdly, I shall discuss how this universal self-reflection shows that human subjects are free in an absolute sense, i. e., as not being limited by any kind of In- Itself. This awareness of absolute freedom adds a fundamental, and indeed indispensable, aspect to our self-understanding as being socially and politically free.