Simon Schüz

The paper argues that the methodological tensions in Hegel’s "Realphilosophie"—between affirmation and critique of science, between empirical content and a priori concepts—can be resolved by reading it as a hermeneutics of the sciences, guided by a “hermeneutical a priori.” In Hegel’s "Anthropology", this a priori is the concept of the human as essentially spiritual. A case study of Hegel's reception of race theories (Blumenbach, Camper, Steffens) shows how this a priori lead to alleged physiological differences being interpreted as expressions of spiritual qualities, and ultimately as a hierarchical ordering of “races.” I analyze Hegel's reception of Camper’s cranial morphology and tie it back to the Anthropology's underlying systematic premises and methodological constraints. The result challenges purely culturalist readings of Hegel’s concept of race and adds a methodological layer to the discussion. It shows that Hegel's conception of race was driven by a problematic attempt at scientific grounding rather than being a mere reflection of common prejudice.

Die philosophiegeschichtliche Epoche der ‚klassischen deutschen Philosophie‘ wird verschieden datiert, meist als beginnend mit dem Erscheinen von KantsKant, ImmanuelKritik der reinen Vernunft 1781 und endend mit dem Tod HegelsHegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich 1831 oder der Revolution von 1848 (vgl. Jaeschke/Arndt 2012, 17–24). Die jüngere Forschung betrachtet diese Epoche als ‚Konstellation‘ (Dieter Henrich) interagierender philosophischer Diskurse, die nicht auf eine gemeinsame Doktrin wie den Idealismus oder einen linearen Fortschrittsnarrativ ‚von Kant zu Hegel‘ reduziert werden können. Wenn es in dieser Konstellation überhaupt ein Zentrum gibt, dann ist dies Kants Transzendentalphilosophie.

The goal of this paper is to interpret Fichte’s terminology of ‚light‘ and ‚imaging‘ in the WL-1804-ii as a rendition of transcendental principles. This analysis is intended as a contribution to the discussion concerning the theoretical status and methodology of the later doctrines of science. i begin with an exposition of four criteria for transcendentally constitutive principles: 1. presuppositional character, 2. constitutivity, 3. categorial difference between conditions and conditioned, 4. immanent justification. The systematic function of ‘light’ is exemplarily reconstructed according to these criteria. The focus of analysis lies on the fourth criterion, which is framed as the philosophical problem which Fichte’s conception of a ‘law of imaging’ in the 24th and 25th lectures answers to. The ‘law of imaging’ is reconstructed as a special form of performative self-validation which is intended to satisfy the criterion of immanent justification. A further upshot of this reading is a reappraisal of Fichte’s treatment of light’s perpetual ‘objectivization’.

Naturalism is perhaps the most pervasive “-ism” in contemporary philosophy. Different variations of naturalism can be found in virtually all corners of theoretical and practical philosophy. Critics have rightfully noted that it is (a) often not clear what “naturalism” means exactly and, subsequently, (b) whether those who consider themselves naturalists in the same philosophical debate actually hold compatible, let alone the same, beliefs. Among the different forms of naturalism that hold currency today, scientific naturalism seems to be the most widespread and therefore articulated. It can be summarized as the ontological thesis that what exists are solely the entities posited by the natural sciences and the methodological thesis that philosophical inquiry should take the results of the natural sciences as authoritative. The paradigm of scientific naturalism has received a growing amount of critical attention from within and outside of analytic philosophy in the last few decades. The main thrust of a host of these critiques is to “soften” the claim of scientific naturalism by rejecting its reductionist or even eliminativist implications, yet retaining a commitment to naturalism under a new description. This has led to a proliferation of new forms of naturalism that seek to broaden the criteria which determine what belongs to the natural world, usually self-titled as a “liberal” or “relaxed” naturalism. Within the analytic tradition, naturalism has been thus critiqued since the 1990s by thinkers like Hornsby, Strawson, Nagel, Stroud, Putnam, McDowell or more recently Baker, De Caro, Macarthur, Beale & Kidd, Cahill & Raleigh. Such critiques are commonly motivated by Neo-Aristotelian and/or Wittgensteinian intuitions. From outside the analytic tradition, phenomenologists in the Husserlian tradition as well as thinkers in the Idealist tradition have been steadfastly critical of scientific naturalism as well, albeit for different reasons. However, these new proposals all have to contend with scientific naturalism and its more restrictive criteria for what counts as natural (although these are debated in their own right).

Transformative theories of human nature posit that the genus of animality is wholly transformed by the specific difference of reason. The aim of this paper is to show that the two most prominent transformative approaches, ‘resolute’ and dialectical’, face a dialectical impasse that Helmuth Plessner’s philosophical anthropology is able to resolve. First, I outline objections to the resolute approach which motivate the ‘dialectical’ turn to second nature. Second, I show that the dialectical approach faces a dilemma. It either runs into an internal ‘interaction problem’ by its qualitative distinction of nature and spirit. Or it assimilates both in a way that either amounts to a collapse into the resolute approach or which creates the problem of a merely ‘artificial naturalness’. Third, I reconstruct Plessner’s ‘form-typological’ approach to how the genus living being is differentiated into structural types. This enables a dilemma-free rendition of transformation as ‘natural artificiality’: it is human first nature to seek embodied expression in second nature.

Wie ist es möglich, durch das Nachdenken über die notwendigen Bedingungen der Erfahrung und des Weltbezugs zu validen Aussagen über eine Welt zu gelangen, die unabhängig von erfahrenden Subjekten existiert? Die vorliegende Studie entwickelt dieses Problem der objektiven Geltung ausgehend von der zeitgenössischen Debatte um transzendentale Argumente. Sie gewinnt so einen systematischen Zugang zu zwei paradigmatischen Entwürfen des nachkantischen Idealismus: Hegels Phänomenologie des Geistes und Fichtes Wissenschaftslehre 1804-II. Im Zuge einer detailgenauen, auf systematische Fragen fokussierten Rekonstruktion beider Werke zeigt der Autor, dass Hegel und Fichte das Problem objektiver Geltung jeweils unterschiedlich durch eine philosophische Therapie auflösen, welche die Form eines Aufstiegs zum absoluten Wissen hat. Die Studie präsentiert eine neuartige Lesart von Hegels Phänomenologie, die ihr Bezüge zur Methode geometrischer Konstruktion nachweist, sowie von Fichtes WL 1804, die die Rolle des Begrifflichen neu bestimmt. Systematisch entwickelt sie ein skeptisches ‚revenge problem‘: Der Idealismus ist mit einer internen Spannung von Objektivitätsanspruch und Skepsis behaftet, welche den transzendentalen Ansatz zur Steigerung seines Reflexionsniveaus auffordert.

The aim of this paper is to shake up the consensus view on transcendental arguments (TAs) that the ambitious “world-directed” kind fails and that only moderate, “belief-directed” transcendental arguments have a claim to validity. This consensus is based on Barry Stroud’s famous substitution objection: For any transcendental claim ‘p is an enabling condition for X’ we can readily substitute ‘the belief that p’ for ‘p’. I depart from the observation that the force of Stroud’s objection depends on it being applicable to any world-directed TA whatsoever. This requires a much more substantive justification than is commonly supposed. I rehabilitate world-directed TAs by posing a dialectical dilemma for the Stroudian skeptic: a certain moderate TA is required to uphold the skeptical challenge, but this TA brings with it the commitment to a distinction which restricts the scope of the challenge, namely to ‘empirical’ instead of ‘transcendental’ beliefs about the world. The positive result is a new way of understanding what world-directed transcendental arguments are: a way of showing us which of our beliefs about the world are true because they are, in the sense of Wittgenstein’s meter-measure analogy, constitutive of our very standard for objectivity.