Roberto Redaelli

The aim of this paper is to reconsider the relationship between living body and artefacts in the perspective of Helmuth Plessner’s aesthesiology. According to the outcomes of Plessner’s aesthesiology, I present two main theses: 1) artefacts are not created, but rather discovered (entdeckt) and expressed by human agency, and 2) the bodily dimension of the human being is the condition of the “discovery” of material and symbolic artefacts. To argue these theses I highlight a) the process of “somatisation” that engages the Kantian transcendental model of subject in Plessner’s philosophical anthropology, b) Plessner’s rejection of the Kantian profile of Uexküll’s theory of Umwelt as an application of this transcendental model of subjectivity in the biological field, and c) the development in Plessner of a type of transcendental aesthetics, which can be linked with S. Crowell’s recent theory of perception.

In this paper, we formulate a second-order moral principle, called 'Model Consistency Principle', designed to guide the moral reasoning of organisational decision-makers whose actions may contribute to the training of artificial intelligence (AI) models. Unlike conventional approaches in AI ethics that primarily address developers, regulators, or users of AI systems, this inquiry has focused on those moral agents who, while not directly involved in developing these technologies, nonetheless shape the rules that AI systems learn through their institutional or corporate decisions. The core claim of this principle is that when actions are liable to become part of an AI training set, a moral agent cannot simply act according to their own principles and criteria. Instead, they should also consider what rules an AI model might infer from their behaviour, ensuring that these inferences align with the criteria they would otherwise have followed. A decision that takes this principle into account, while aimed at reducing the weight of variables considered irrelevant in the rules inferred by the AI, will nonetheless need to consider these very variables precisely to avoid spurious correlations. Actions that would otherwise be morally permissible may cease to be so when considered within the context of AI training, not because they violate the agent's principles, but because they fail to adequately guide the AI model toward inferring the correct decision rule.

Heutzutage widmen viele Disziplinen dem normativen Charakter unserer Lebensformen aus unterschiedlichen Perspektiven besondere Aufmerksamkeit. Von der Linguistik bis zur Rechtswissenschaft, von der Anthropologie bis zur Philosophie, von der Ökonomie bis zu den Neurowissenschaften bildet das Thema der moralischen Normativität einen gordischen Knoten der Gegenwart, auf den sich die Bemühungen der wissenschaftlichen und philosophischen Verständigung richten. Der folgende Band ist auf ein besseres Verständnis der moralischen Normativität ausgerichtet. Er versammelt Arbeiten von Primatologen, Soziologen und Rechtsphilosophen, Ethikern und Phänomenologen und deren Beiträge zur Lösung der Fragen nach dem normativen Profil ethischer Begriffe, Urteile und Gründe, d.h. nach der Quelle ihrer Bindungskraft, die das Verhalten des menschlichen Akteurs leitet. Mit Beiträgen von John J. Drummond | Federico L.G. Faroldi | Edoardo Fittipaldi | Roberto Redaelli | Alessio Rotundo | Richard Wrangham.

The emergence of generative artificial intelligence, such as large language models and text-to-image models, has had a profound impact on society. The ability of these systems to simulate human capabilities such as text writing and image creation is radically redefining a wide range of practices, from artistic production to education. While there is no doubt that these innovations are beneficial to our lives, the pervasiveness of these technologies should not be underestimated, and raising increasingly pressing ethical questions that require a radical resemantization of certain notions traditionally ascribed to humans alone. Among these notions, that of technological intentionality plays a central role. With regard to this notion, this paper first aims to highlight what we propose to define in terms of the intentionality gap, whereby, insofar as, currently, (1) it is increasingly difficult to assign responsibility for the actions performed by AI systems to humans, as these systems are increasingly autonomous, and (2) it is increasingly complex to reconstruct the reasoning behind the results they produce as we move away from good old fashioned AI; it is now even more difficult to trace the intentionality of AI systems back to the intentions of the developers and end users. This gap between human and technological intentionality requires a revision of the concept of intentionality; to this end, we propose here to assign preter-intentional behavior to generative AI. We use this term to highlight how AI intentionality both incorporates and transcends human intentionality; i.e., it goes beyond (preter) human intentionality while being linked to it. To show the merits of this notion, we first rule out the possibility that such preter-intentionality is merely an unintended consequence and then explore its nature by comparing it with some paradigmatic notions of technological intentionality present in the wider debate on the moral (and technological) status of AI.

Riassunto : Il presente articolo intende lumeggiare l’esito tanto fecondo quanto problematico a cui conduce l’originale opera laskiana di risemantizzazione del concetto di soggettività. Al centro di tale opera si staglia la progressiva elaborazione di ciò che il filosofo rubrica, al termine del suo Denkweg, sotto il titolo di soggetto ricettivo. Con tale concetto, a cui è intimamente legato quello di “dedizione”, Lask individua in una mera ricettività intuitiva il momento sorgivo e originario di ogni processo cognitivo; il solo momento che rende possibile un accesso diretto all’oggetto trascendente. Ma come si realizza questo accesso? Qual è lo statuto di ciò che il filosofo nomina “dedizione”? L’insufficiente risposta a tali quesiti conduce il pensiero laskiano ad un esito aporetico, ossia alla riduzione della dedizione a momento ideale e alla conseguente riattivazione, in ambito conoscitivo, dell’inaggirabile distanza tra soggetto e oggetto. Ma, se in tale aporia è riconosciuto il limite del modello della conoscenza elaborato da Lask nel suo sistema maturo, non è comunque possibile occultare il decisivo contributo offerto dalla sua riflessione al problema gnoseologico: il superamento del coscienzialismo attraverso l’elaborazione di un soggetto concreto-ricettivo e, accanto a esso, di un peculiare realismo. Parole chiave : Emil Lask; Soggettività; Ricettività; Coscienza; Concreto/astratto Emil Lask. Subjectivity and Receptiveness: This paper intends to illuminate the problematic outcome of Lask’s redefinition of the concept of subjectivity. The main result of this operation is the elaboration of the notion of receptive subject. With this concept, strictly linked to the notion of Hingabe, Lask identifies the original element of every cognitive process in simple intuitive receptivity. Intuitive receptivity alone provides direct access to the transcendent object. But how is this access possible? What is the relation between the receptive-intuitive element of knowledge and predicative activity? What is the status of Hingabe? The insufficient answers to these questions lead the Lask’s thought to an aporetic outcome, namely, the reduction of Hingabe to an exclusively abstract and ideal receptivity, and consequently to the reactivation, in the theory of knowledge, of the distance between subject and object. However, while this distance marks the limit of the model of knowledge developed by Lask, the main contribuition of his thought remains valid: the overcoming of trascendental subjectivism through the elaboration of a concrete-receptive subject and of an original form of realism. Keywords : Emil Lask; Subjectivity; Receptivity; Consciousness; Concreteness/Abstractness

This paper examines the two different modalities of finitude identified by Heidegger, i.e. perishing and dying, respectively attributed to animals and to human beings. The first goal of the paper is to bring to light the structural link in Heideggerian philosophy between death and language, by virtue of which Dasein dies properly only within the symbolic space originated by the word. The second goal is to assess the extent to which the Heideggerian distinction between perishing and dying has held up in the environment of contemporary philosophy: despite some unavoidable limitations, recent scientific outcomes seem provide its validation.

Riassunto: Il presente contributo intende vagliare l’attualità della riflessione antropologica proposta da Heinrich Rickert, comparandone gli esiti ultimi con i risultati più fecondi ottenuti dalle recenti ricerche condotte nel campo dell’antropologia evolutiva e filosofica. A tale scopo sono presentate nel testo due tesi rickertiane di notevole interesse teoretico: il profilo sociale-comunitario quale cifra dell’essere umano e la capitale funzione svolta dalla dimensione corporea nel processo di costituzione del mondo culturale. La prima tesi, sviluppata da Rickert in campo assiologico, si connette alla definizione di uomo declinata da Michael Tomasello nei termini di ultra-social animal, mentre la seconda tesi contribuisce, in modo originale, a quella rivalutazione della sfera corporea dell’uomo, che riveste, a partire dal secolo scorso, un ruolo centrale in alcuni ambiti di ricerca del frastagliato scenario filosofico. Parole chiave: Antropologia Filosofica; Antropologia Evolutiva; Neokantismo; Teoria dei valori; Heinrich Rickert Sociality, Corporeity, and Values. The Current Significance of Rickertian Axiological Anthropology: This paper aims at assessing the current significance of the anthropological reflections of Heinrich Rickert, comparing his most important contributions to recent results in the fields of evolutionary and philosophical anthropology. With this aim in mind, we examine two Rickertian theses of considerable theoretical interest: the fundamental value of sociality in being human and the foundation role of the corporeal in the cultural world. The first thesis, developed by Rickert in the field of axiology, closely relates to Michael Tomasello’s definition of man as an ultra-social animal. The second thesis represents an original contribution to the re-evaluation of the corporeal basis of human experience, which has continued to play a central role in some areas of philosophical research since the last century. Keywords: Philosophical Anthropology; Evolutionary Anthropology; Neo-Kantianism; Theory of Value; Heinrich Rickert

The aim of this paper is to reconsider the relationship between living body and artefacts in the perspective of Helmuth Plessner’s aesthesiology. According to the outcomes of Plessner’s aesthesiology, I present two main theses: 1) artefacts are not created, but rather discovered and expressed by human agency, and 2) the bodily dimension of the human being is the condition of the “discovery” of material and symbolic artefacts. To argue these theses I highlight a) the process of “somatisation” that engages the Kantian transcendental model of subject in Plessner’s philosophical anthropology, b) Plessner’s rejection of the Kantian profile of Uexküll’s theory of Umwelt as an application of this transcendental model of subjectivity in the biological field, and c) the development in Plessner of a type of transcendental aesthetics, which can be linked with S. Crowell’s recent theory of perception.

The aim of the paper is to provide a relational explanation of the sources of moral normativity, within a Neo-Kantian framework. To this purpose, the key notions employed are those of we-society and stance-taking, developed by Neo-Kantian philosopher Heinrich Rickert. Specifically, by resorting to such notions, the paper attempts to overcome two limits ascribed to the theory of moral normativity of Ch. Korsgaard: namely W. Smith’s objection of solipsism and S. Crowell’s problem of non-deliberate action, whereby Ch. Korsgaard’s identification of the source of normativity in reflection would lead her theory to a form of solipsism and to failing to explain actions based on so-called ‘mindless coping’. In tackling these objections, the paper outlines a Rickertian inspired theory, according to which the sources of moral normativity can be explained on the basis of the heterological I-You relationship, which is the foundation of the we-society intended as a set of values, patterns of expectations, tacit consents, and procedural knowledge.