Hannes Bajohr

This introduction to the special issue on Judith N. Shklar starts with a brief outline of her early life, her emigration, and the academic circumstances of and influences on her major works. A second part elucidates how the negativism and skepticism that constitute the central tenets of her political thought can best be described as a “phenomenology of the vulnerability of the Other.” Her empha- sis on active historical remembrance, wariness towards communitarianism, and distrust of overly harmonious models of society puts her in the company of recent theories of political dissensus. A final look at the problems arising from her nega- tivism identifies the weak spots in Shklar’s argument, drawing out the difficulty of institutionalizing such a position and the internal incoherence of a perspective that historically is aimed at the twentieth century and theoretically at the seventeenth.

Öffentlichkeit ist ein, wenn nicht das zentrale Konzept im Denken Hannah Arendts. Doch obwohl der Begriff in allen philosophischen und essayistischen Schriften Arendts eine ausgezeichnete Stellung einnimmt, wurde und wird 'Öffentlichkeit' bei ihr meist nur einseitig im politischen Sinn rezipiert. Hannes Bajohr hingegen zeigt, dass er Dimensionen besitzt, die über diese konventionelle Interpretation hinausgehen: Öffentlichkeit wird bei Arendt zu einer Bedingung von Erkenntnis und hat epistemologische Bedeutung.

Judith Shklar wrote about Hannah Arendt throughout her career. However, her nuanced readings are often ignored by scholars who prefer to depict both philosophers as stark counter-images. In this paper, I offer a more complex comparison on the basis of all of Shklar’s writings about Arendt. Shklar’s critique is grounded in what she sees as the Romantic strand in Arendt’s thought, which she identifies with a metaphysical, elitist, and aestheticizing stance towards politics, a distaste for modernity, and a nostalgia for Greek antiquity. For Shklar, this position comes to the fore both in what she believes to be Arendt’s purely therapeutic notion of revolution as well as the rejection of her own Jewish identity. Nevertheless, Shklar also admired Arendt’s insights about exile and her appreciation of Kant. Through her sustained critique of Arendt, Shklar developed her own conception of a realist, rights-affirming, and anti-metaphysical liberalism.

This article periodizes the work of Hans Blumenberg on the basis of a rupture in its underlying strategies of justification and traces this rupture in Blumenberg’s theory of history, his theory of language, and his aesthetics. In all three areas, there is a shift from an immanent and historical-phenomenological to a transcendent and phenomenological-anthropological strategy of justification, which threatens to make the early and the late Blumenberg incommensurable with each other. The article argues against an overly monolithic reading of Blumenberg and an overemphasis on anthropology as a »life project.« Instead, it advocates a pluralization of interpretative approaches to Blumenberg.