L'idéalisme comprend le devoir moral comme une catégorie éternelle et le formule en lois qui s'adressent aux sentiments de chaque individu. Le matérialisme, au contraire, cherche à expliquer la conscience morale par les conditions sociales et à l’exposer historiquement. L'article ci-dessus donne les grandes lignes d'une telle analyse. Il distingue entre la morale, phénomène de notre temps, l'éthique de l'antiquité et la conception autoritaire du moyen âge. La morale se base essentiellement sur la société bourgeoise, dans laquelle l'intérêt particulier et (...) l’intérêt général sont distincts. L'individu qui, dans l'activité quotidienne, ne recherche que son propre avantage, éprouve à l’appel de sa conscience, le souci de la société. L'auteur démontre ce fait au moyen d'une analyse de l’impératif catégorique de Kant.La morale bourgeoise contient déjà les germes de sa victoire sur elle- même. Elle tend vers une société dans laquelle le devoir et l'intérêt ne seront plus séparés. On retrouve cette tendance non seulement chez Kant, mais encore chez d'autres grands philosophes bourgeois. Les idées de justice, d'égalité et de liberté prennent peu à peu, au fur et à mesure que la société bourgeoise se développe, une autre signification que celle qu'elles paraissent avoir eue au début ; elles exigent aujourd'hui la modification des conditions pour l'introduction desquelles elles ont pourtant été proclamées à l'origine. Cette dialectique est une des raisons de la perplexité actuelle en matière d’idées sur le monde et la vie. Dans l'exposition de cette dialectique, l'auteur montre comment les idées bourgeoises ne vivent plus aujourd'hui dans la pensée idéaliste, mais bien plus dans la pensée matérialiste. Les deux formes principales d’expression de la morale ont actuellement, d’après M. Horkheimer, la pitié et la politique. Elles ne peuvent pas être rationnellement liées l'une à l'autre, mais le sens moral se manifeste dans toutes deux.L'impulsion morale est vivante non seulement dans la vie pratique, mais aussi dans la science. Le matérialisme nie la possibilité d'une science entièrement objective : les intérêts des hommes influencent la recherche scientifique. Il est vrai que ces intérêts, si sublimes qu'ils puissent être, ne sont pas l'émanation d’un sujet libre, comme l'enseigne l'idéalisme, mais la conséquence nécessaire du processus historique. Aussi le matérialisme n’exige- t-il nullement, pour autant que le respect de la vérité reste l'élément de base, le manque de chaque jugement moral dans la science. La croyance du positivisme actuel à la possibilité de faire des constatations affranchies de toute théorie, comme d'ailleurs son aversion envers toute théorie en général, sont dues à ce qu’il ne possède pas lui-même de grandes idées directrices. La théorie naît partout où les connaissances sont sciemment rapportées à un but, c'est-à-dire strictement en relation avec des valeurs de la pratique.Philosophical idealism conceives moral obligation as an eternal category, and formulates it in commandments that appeal to individual sentiment. Philosophical materialism on the other hand, endeavours to explain moral consciousness in terms of social conditions, and to present it in its historical perspective. This essay attempts to furnish the main features for such an analysis. It distinguishes ethics, as a phenomenon of modern times, from that of ancient times, and from the authoritative attitude in the middle ages. Its foundation rests on bourgeois society in which individual and collective interests become sharply separated from each other. The individual, who in his daily work looks to his private interests, experiences through his conscience, concern for the public welfare. H. proves this through his analysis of Kant’s categorical imperative.Bourgeois morality already contains within itself the seeds of its own dissolution. It indicates a society in which duty and interest are no longer separate. This tendency in ethics becomes manifest, not only in Kant, but also in other great philosophers of bourgeois society. With the development of the latter the ideas of Justice, Equality, and Freedom acquire a content other than that they seem to have possessed in their genesis, and to-day require that change in conditions, to effect which, they were originally introduced. This dialectical process is one of the causes of the present-day philosophical uncertainty. H. shows in his exposition of this dialectical process, how bourgeois ideas are no longer active in idealist thought, but are so in materialist thought.The two main forms in which contemporary ethics expresses itself, are according to H. pity and politics, which cannot indeed, in a rational way, be connected one to the other. Both arise out of a moral sentiment. This moral impulse is active not only in practical life, but also in knowledge. Philosophical materialism denies the possibility of completely objective knowledge : men’s interests find expression also in their cognition. Indeed, however sublime these interests are, they do not spring from „free“ beings, as idealism maintains, but are the necessary results of historical processes.Accordingly, materialism in no way claims for knowledge, freedom from all subjective valuations, but only that a consideration for truth, remain the dominant characteristic. The belief of modern positivism in the possibility of attitudes free from all valuations, as well as its disinclination for all theory, is due to the fact that it possesses no great leading ideas. In all cases is theory vindicated, only when knowledge has a definite aim, that is, when it is related to practical values. (shrink)

Introduction Max Horkheimer was born on February in Stuttgart. By the time he died, on 7 July in Nuremberg, he had played a decisive role in launching and ...

_The purpose_ of this article is to explain in religious, secular, and post-secular contexts the functional potential of conceptualizing the miracle as a text or message with a motivational effect. _Theoretical basis._ Max Weber, Ernst Tugendhat, Alexander Geppert and Till Kössler analysed the processes of enchantment and disenchantment of the world on a philosophical basis. The representatives of the Frankfurt school (Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin) and their followers describe the cultural processes of post-secularism (Jürgen Habermas, Peter Sloterdijk) (...) in detail. The logic of cultural and social representation of amazing events and their descriptions can be realized by combining hermeneutic analysis with a functionalist approach based on the model of Niklas Luhmann and the discursive ethics of Karl-Otto Apel. _Originality._ Desired cultural, social and political situations in society often arise unexpectedly and suddenly, which provokes to characterize them as a miracle. However, at the basis of the emergence of such situations are the rules of social communication, in particular those that provide for asymmetric communication with questions that await answers. A miracle appears at the moment of transformation of asymmetric communication into a symmetrical one: each specific miracle-phenomenon needs its own metaphorical understanding and interpretation as a message. _Conclusions._ The article proposes an analysis of miracle phenomenon in its cosmological, anthropological and educational implications. Some tendencies fixed by communicative turn of the contemporary philosophy are also contributed to considering the miracle in its objective and subjective representations. The semantics of the miracle is analysed according to the relevant problem fields. The functionality of miracle is examined on its ability to show orientation for the contemporary societies with their tendency to post-secularity. The fusion of Pre-modernity and Late Modernity is taking into account when the semantics of miracle is described accordingly to their communication functionality. The enchanting and disenchanting dialectic is explained on semantics of miracle as a world and cosmic events. (shrink)

ResumenLa disputa del positivismo materializó la polémica entre frankfurtianos y popperianos. Pero esta oposición ha sido tan malentendida como exagerada. Entre ambas filosofías existen interesantes vinculaciones y afinidades que remiten a una raíz común: Kant. En concreto, es su optimismo ilustrado el que, según trataré de argumentar, contagia las filosofías de Horkheimer y de Popper, ambas presididas por una decidida confianza en la razón. Filosofías que representan contemporáneamente, aun desde posiciones dispares, la esencial conexión de la razón con la (...) libertad del género humano.Palabras Clave: Razón, Ilustración, dialéctica, historia, libertadAbstractThe positivist dispute exposed the argument between Horkheimer and Popper. But this opposition has been both misunderstood and exaggerated. Between these two philosophies there are interesting affinities which lead to a common root: Kant. Specifically, his illustrated optimism is the one that, as I will try to prove, is present in the philosophies of Horkheimer and Popper, since both are dominated by a determined confidence in reason. These philosophies represent in our time, from different positions, the essential connection between reason and freedom in mankind.Keywords Reason, Enlightenment, dialectics, history, freedom. (shrink)

The subject of this study is the relation between dialectic and dialogue. First an attempt is made to delineate a universe of discourse 'communication'. Mutual acknowledgement as a subject ('intersubjectivity') is proposed as a distinctive characteristic of the concept of dialogue, and a distinction is made between several classes of dialogue (see the diagram). Then the concept of dialectic is examined. Special attention is paid to the question what is to be understood by the term 'modern dialectical thinking' (from Fichte (...) onwards). Because it seems impossible to describe dialectic as a method in a methodical way, or to find some one characteristic common to such divergent dialectical philosophies as those of Fichte, Hegel, Marx, Engels, Marxism-Leninism and various forms of Neo-Marxism (L. Goldmann, Th. Adorno, E. Bloch), the proposal is made to stipulate that the terms dialectic, dialectical method and dialectical thinking in the modern sense should only be used when negation and/or contrast (in a specific sense, peculiar to the thinkers mentioned) characterize a mode of thinking in a more or less systematic way. After these preliminaries the relation between dialogue and dialectic is examined as it presents itself from an historical point of view. As regards Plato, it is contended that his dialektikê technê neither constitutes a dialogal philosophy, nor a dialogic (theory of the dialogue). His 'dialogues' rather are an instance of the 'literary dialogue' (with agogic intentions). Hegel's way of thinking is characterized as monological and speculative. Though his conception of thought as a process, as well historical as collective, does not logically exclude a dialogue, his attitude towards it seems to be rather cool (or at least ambiguous). With Marx the concept of the class struggle enters the dialectic and this concept is essentially inimical to the concept of the dialogue as a peaceful means of solving conflicts. In Marxism-Leninism the distinction between antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions (necessitated by the universalization of the dialectic by Engels and the Russian pretension of having founded the socialist state) implies the view that only in socialist and communist societies fundamental contradictions are absent and that consequently only within these societies there is no need for non-peaceful means of solving conflicts. In the thought of Th. Adorno, M. Horkheimer and H. Marcuse there seems to be no room for a dialogue, as a consequence of the Utopian implications of their concept of negation. Only in J. Habermas we meet with a positive attitude towards the (social-practical) dialogue. For him the dialogue even is 'the normative foundation' of his 'critical theory' of society. Dialectic is seen by him as a consequence of a repression of the dialogue (and so the dialogue as an antidote against the dialectic of ‘Verdinglichung’). The main conclusion drawn from this historical survey is that, as far as modern dialectical thinking is concerned, dialectic exhibits an antithetic relation towards the concept of dialogue generally, and more specifically towards the 'social-practical dialogue'. With all these thinkers a positive attitude towards dialectical thinking de facto implies a negative evaluation of the dialogue (or at least coolness towards it), or conversely (Habermas). Finally the author presents some considerations of a more general nature: that dialectic and dialogue are not to be considered correlative concepts, because contrasting opinion (not dialectic) is a sufficient condition for the dialogue; that the startingpoint for a social-practical dialogue may be found in the concept of 'problematic situations related to generally accepted ends' (such as e.g. well-being); that the socialpractical dialogue is directed at a consensus indeed, at least directly, but that this does not prevent it from being directed indirectly at the truth; that the concept of synthesis constitutes the normative foundation of the dialogue, because the ideal consensus consists in a synthesis of contrasting points of view. (shrink)

ExcerptIn a letter to his friend and intellectual collaborator Theodor W. Adorno, on December 25, 1935, Walter Benjamin describes music as a field of inquiry “fairly remote” from his own.1 Several years later, in another letter to Max Horkheimer, he writes that the “state of musical affairs … could not be any more remote” for him.2 Yet despite these claims of unfamiliarity with aurality, there are numerous observations on acoustic phenomena throughout Benjamin's oeuvre. From his early essays on language (...) to his autobiographical studies and late works on critical historiography, Benjamin displays a keen sensitivity to sound that ranges from…. (shrink)

The main goal of this article is to present Negative Dialectics as a central theme in the Adorno’s thought. In this work Adorno develops the antinomies that there are in the concept of instrumental reason, in order to assert the necessity for a new notion of rationality: a dialectical, negative and materialistic reason, which holds, at the same time, the non identity between subject-object, thought and reality. In this way Philosophy becomes critique of Idealism because this philosophical system defends the (...) “identity thinking” and the irrational society that supports, making a true freedom impossible. Instead of this conception Adorno defines Metaphysics as “negative dialectics” and antisystem, whose method is the analysis of thinking’s models, as a result of his own critical epistemology. (shrink)

La reivindicación del sentimiento moral en el pensamiento materialista de M. Horkheimer adquiere nueva relevancia en el actual debate sobre los fundamentos y la motivación de la acción moral. Pero esa relevancia se malograría si fuera interpretada en un sentido contrario a su genuina intención. Ella no está, en efecto, en abrir la puerta a un irracionalismo romántico ni en proponer un retorno a una fundamentación premoderna, metafísica o teológica, de la moral, anticipándose a buena parte del actual pensamiento (...) neoconservador. Su originalidad y relevancia radican más bien en que el planteamiento materialista de Horkheimer incita a una decidida superación de las morales idealistas, formales y abstractamente universales, es decir particulares, hacia una moral postidealista de la compasión y la justicia universal. (shrink)

Dialectic of Enlightenment is undoubtedly the most influential publication of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory. Written during the Second World War and circulated privately, it appeared in a printed edition in Amsterdam in 1947. "What we had set out to do," the authors write in the Preface, "was nothing less than to explain why humanity, instead of entering a truly human state, is sinking into a new kind of barbarism." Yet the work goes far beyond a mere critique of (...) contemporary events. Historically remote developments, indeed, the birth of Western history and of subjectivity itself out of the struggle against natural forces, as represented in myths, are connected in a wide arch to the most threatening experiences of the present. The book consists in five chapters, at first glance unconnected, together with a number of shorter notes. The various analyses concern such phenomena as the detachment of science from practical life, formalized morality, the manipulative nature of entertainment culture, and a paranoid behavioral structure, expressed in aggressive anti-Semitism, that marks the limits of enlightenment. The authors perceive a common element in these phenomena, the tendency toward self-destruction of the guiding criteria inherent in enlightenment thought from the beginning. Using historical analyses to elucidate the present, they show, against the background of a prehistory of subjectivity, why the National Socialist terror was not an aberration of modern history but was rooted deeply in the fundamental characteristics of Western civilization. Adorno and Horkheimer see the self-destruction of Western reason as grounded in a historical and fateful dialectic between the domination of external nature and society. They trace enlightenment, which split these spheres apart, back to its mythical roots. Enlightenment and myth, therefore, are not irreconcilable opposites, but dialectically mediated qualities of both real and intellectual life. "Myth is already enlightenment, and enlightenment reverts to mythology." This paradox is the fundamental thesis of the book. This new translation, based on the text in the complete edition of the works of Max Horkheimer, contains textual variants, commentary upon them, and an editorial discussion of the position of this work in the development of Critical Theory. (shrink)

This study described the relationships between academic class and student moral sensitivity and reasoning and between curriculum design components for ethics education and student moral sensitivity and reasoning. The data were collected from freshman (n = 506) and senior students (n = 440) in eight baccalaureate nursing programs in South Korea by survey; the survey consisted of the Korean Moral Sensitivity Questionnaire and the Korean Defining Issues Test. The results showed that moral sensitivity scores in patient-oriented care and conflict were (...) higher in senior students than in freshman students. Furthermore, more hours of ethics content were associated with higher principled thinking scores of senior students. Nursing education in South Korea may have an impact on developing student moral sensitivity. Planned ethics content in nursing curricula is necessary to improve moral sensitivity and moral reasoning of students. (shrink)

Means and ends -- Conflicting panaceas -- The revolt of nature -- Rise and decline of the individual -- On the concept of philosophy.

These essays, written in the 1930s and 1940s, represent a first selection in English from the major work of the founder of the famous institute for Social ...

Ibn al-ʻArabī, 1165-1240; views on freedom; Sufism; Islamic philosophy.

Noch während des Zweiten Weltkriegs in den Vereinigten Staaten entstanden, 1947 als Buch erschienen, mit der Neuausgabe von 1969 endgültig zum einflussreichsten Werk der ”Frankfurter Schule“ geworden: eine Sonderausgabe zum hundertsten Geburtstag Theodor W. Adornos am 11. September 2003.

Theory in the traditional sense of the word comprises a deductive system in which hypotheses and their logical consequences are compared with empirical observations. Such comparison is usually regarded as a verification of the theory. The ideal for this conception of theory is a universal scientific system in which the theories of the different scientific disciplines are brought together under the head of a few fundamental principles.Traditional theory and reality belong to two distinct and separate provinces. Insofar as men make (...) forecasts with the help of theory and attempt to change reality, they do not act as theoreticians. Theory remains in the realm of contemplation. Philosophers have frequently made something absolute out of this aspect of theory and, under the title of,logosf or.spirit', have deified the subject of these intellectual activities. It appears in their systems as the creator of the world. What they are really doing, however, is treating the scholar’s activity, which is based on the division of labor in modern society, as an dbjective and independent substance. The real subject of theory in its traditional aspect is not pure spirit but the scholar who performs definite and necessary functions in modem society.If such an analysis is accepted, the philosophical naiveté of the theoretician disappears. He perceives that not only thinking as such, but also its task, its direction, and the structure of the objective world are ultimately connected with human activity and work. Out of the historical process by which men wrest their living from nature, there emerges the separation of material and intellectual work, as well as the structure and the content of the latter. The dogmatic differentiation between the logical and historical premises of science cannot be maintained. The theoretician is himself part and parcel of the subject which forms the real objective world. To take an active part in the direction of the social life of humanity, therefore, becomes a function and a requirement of science.So it is as theory, in the critical sense of the word, that the author regards the type of reasoning which attempts to impart to social life in its totality a rational form and which does not limit itself to working within the framework of the given system of the division of labor. The history of different scientific theories shows theory, with its unity and clarity, in contrast and opposition to the heterogeneity and disharmony of the real world. In the attempts to achieve harmony in society, thought may play an important role.The author analyses the logical structure of critical theory in the performance of such a function. Its content is the description of present society in terms of a development towards a rational form. Critical theory, therefore, always remains intimately linked up with the reality of existence. It needs for its development in each and every instance the existence and assistance of the various scientific disciplines. Its logical structure, however, is more complicated than that of theory in the traditional sense, because it does not regard its objectives as a separate and foreign province. Science, in the traditional sense, even where it formulates developments in nature and human history, regards interests and purposes as given facts and guideposts that are foreign to its own structure. It has a utilitarian character in a directly understandable sense. Critical theory, however, is confronted with the task of justifying its own problems and their differentiation and has to adjust its internal structure accordingly. It does not set up an unchanging system but sees as its purpose the attempt to apply the knowledge that has been accumulated in the traditional theories to the social totality in the direction that critical theory itself indicates.La théorie, au sens traditionnel, est un système déductif. La confrontation des connaissances obtenues par voie déductive avec les faits constatés permet la vérification de la théorie. L'idéal est un système universel de la science dans lequel les théories des différentes disciplines, toutes ensemble, sont rattachées à un petit nombre de propositions premières.La réalité demeure extérieure à une théorie ainsi conçue. Dans la mesure où les hommes utilisent la théorie pour faire des prévisions et pour modifier la réalité, ils ne sont plus des théoriciens. En ce sens, la théorie est purement contemplative. Les philosophes qui ont analysé la connaissance ont souvent porté à l'absolu cet aspect de la théorie et ont fait du sujet des opérations intellectuelles, sous les noms de,Logos4 ou de,Esprit4, le démiurge du monde. En vérité, ils ont ainsi hypostasié l'activité, qui dans la société moderne revient au savant du fait de la division du travail. Le sujet réel de la théorie sous sa forme traditionnelle, loin d'être l'esprit pur, est le savant qui remplit dans la société bourgeoise une fonction nécessaire, bien déterminée.Après cette prise de conscience, la naïveté philosophique du théoricien doit disparaître. Il comprend que la pensée, ses tâches et son orientation, l'organisation du monde qui lui est donné, se ramènent en dernière analyse au travail humain. Le combat de l'homme avec la nature est la condition de l’évolution historique, dans laquelle le travail matériel se sépare du travail intellectuel, il détermine la structure et le contenu de ce dernier. La séparation rigide des hypothèses logiques et historiques de la science est impossible à maintenir. L'activité du théoricien exprime le sujet concret qui ne donne pas forme à la seule théorie, mais aussi au monde réel. Prendre position dans la vie sociale, l'influencer consciemment devient une tâche immanente à la science.Par théorie au sens critique, H. entend la connaissance qui ne se contente pas de construire ses systèmes en respectant les cadres de la division du travail existante, mais qui s'efforce de donner à la totalité sociale une forme raisonnable. Dans l'histoire, la cohérence logique et comme transparente qui caractérise les théories traditionnelles, était en contradiction avec les rapports réels. Dans les tentatives pour rendre la société conforme à l'harmonie de la pensée, celle-ci peut jouer un rôle important.H. étudie la structure logique que présente la pensée lorsqu'elle exerce une telle fonction. Elle a pour contenu la représentation de la société actuelle, envisagée par rapport à révolution vers la raison. La théorie critique forme par conséquent un jugement existentiel unique. Pour développer et justifier celui-ci, elle a besoin, à chaque instant, de la science spéciale. Mais comme la théorie ne conçoit pas les buts qu'elle s'assigne comme extérieurs à elle, elle est logiquement plus compliquée que la théorie traditionnelle. Même lorsque la discipline spéciale construit des évolutions comme dans l'histoire naturelle et humaine, elle est orientée par des objectifs et des intérêts. Elle est, en un sens immédiatement compréhensible, utile. La théorie critique, au contraire, doit justifier elle-même la manière dont elle pose les problèmes, qui d'ailleurs sans cesse se transforment, elle doit modifier en conséquence l'ordre de son développement. Elle ne travaille pas en vue d'un système fixe, mais se comprend elle-même comme une tentative pour appliquer le savoir accumulé par les théories traditionnelles, à la marche historique de l'ensemble social, afin d'exercer une action dans un sens bien déterminé.Aussi bien, cette fonction de la théorie est-elle la réalisation des intentions authentiques de la philosophie idéaliste classique. (shrink)

Contrary to Vaesen's argument that humans are unique with respect to nine cognitive capacities essential for tool use, we suggest that although such cognitive processes contribute to variation in tool use, it does not follow that these capacities arenecessaryfor tool use, nor that tool use shaped cognition per se, given the available data in cognitive neuroscience and behavioral biology.

These essays, written between 1949 and 1967, focus on a single theme: the triumph in the twentieth century of the state-bureaucratic apparatus and ‘instrumental reason’ and the concomitant liquidation of the individual and the basic social institutions and relationships associated with the individual.

No debemos olvidar que existe una relación dialéctica entre libertad y justicia. Cuanto mayor es la justicia, más necesario es limitar la libertad; cuanto mayor es la libertad que se disfruta, más se amenaza la justicia, porque los más fuertes, los más inteligentes, los más hábiles acaban oprimiendo a los demás. Esta antítesis de libertad y justicia debe estar siempre presente en nuestra conciencia, incluso cuando pensamos en la sociedad del futuro.

Although social philosophy is the focus of general philosophical concern, it is in no better shape today than most philosophical, indeed most fundamentally intellectual, efforts. One is unable to f...

The first Ukrainian translation of Max Horkheimer's article "History and Psychology", made by Vitaly Bryzhnik under the scientific and literary editorship of Ivan Ivashchenko.

These essays reveal another side of Horkheimer, focusing on his remarkable contributions to critical theory in the 1930s. Max Horkheimer is well known as the director of the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research and as a sometime collaborator with Theodor Adorno, especially on their classic Dialectic of Enlightenment. These essays reveal another side of Horkheimer, focusing on his remarkable contributions to critical theory in the 1930s. Included are Horkheimer's inaugural address as director of the Institute, in (...) which he outlines the interdisciplinary research program that would dominate the initial phase of the Frankfurt School, his first full monograph, and a number of other pieces published in the 1930s. The essays, most of which have not appeared in English before, are surprisingly relevant to current post-philosophy debates, notably "On the Problem of Truth," with its focus on pragmatism, and "The Rationalism Debate in Current Philosophy," a sustained critique of the post-Cartesian philosophy of consciousness. Horkheimer's 1933 critique of Kantian ethics, "Materialism and Morality," is of particular interest given the current reaction to the neo-Kantian aspect of Habermas's work. There are also essays relevant to the current foundations debate within Continental philosophy, and the rationality/relativism question is sustained throughout the volume. (shrink)

Metaphysics and science stand opposed in modern times. In the average mind, aspects of each exist side by side without real unity. Philosophers have for centuries struggled to resolve the contradictions and to give the intelligible universe a true unity. The modern school of „logical empiricism“ seeks to achieve harmony by attributing validity only to the physical sciences. All statements that cannot be reduced to the concepts and judgments of the specialized disciplines are devoid of meaning for this school.Each of (...) the two components of this philosophy, namely, a certain form of logic and empiricism, contains errors. Traditional empiricism maintained that all knowledge is compounded from isolated perceptions. The new doctrine, however, holds that science has no immediate concern with perceptions, but that the statements of observers announcing such perceptions — „protocol statements“ as they are called — constitute its only subject matter. The task of science is to organize this material in such a way that predictions may be made from it. The author attempts to show that this description holds only for a particular function of knowledge, which, to be sure, is highly significant for industry and technology. To the extent that thought is not limited to these ends, it performs other functions. Thought plays a particularly important role in establishing perceptions and in constructing a theoretical reflection of living reality. Empiricism totally ignores thought, together with all the intellectual factors which, bound up with definite interests, sketch a living picture of reality. The concept of history, which is only intelligible from subjectively determined goals, belongs among those concepts which logical empiricism must inevitably misconstrue because of its behavioristic theory of man.Logistics, which modern empiricism adopts, is basically nothing but the old formal logic, enriched by a few theories and symbolic techniques. In the author’s opinion, the separation of the form and content of knowledge, which is fundamental for logistics, has dubious validity. Confronted with more complex structures of knowledge, comprehensible only in their totality, logistics reveals its impotence. Furthermore, logistics conflicts with empiricism itself. Having derived their propositions from limited material, the empiricists should claim only limited validity for logistics, if they are consistent in their doctrine. But in setting itself up as a norm for criticizing metaphysical statements, logistics shows that it contradicts a doctrine which has use for facts alone.Thus, logical empiricism does not destroy metaphysics. Since it subsumes under the term metaphysics all thought which transcends the special disciplines, romantic illusions as well as dialectical theories, it misunderstands the decisive contradictions of the present situation. In fact, it contributes to the general confusion, to a large extent. However important the achievements of the logical empiricists may be in special fields, they have failed to work out a clear philosophy. Métaphysique et science s’opposent dans les temps modernes. Des éléments empruntés aux deux modes de pensée se juxtaposent sans s’unir dans la conscience moyenne. Depuis des siècles, les philosophes s’efforcent de résoudre les contradictions et de donner à l’univers de notre intelligence une unité véritable. L’école moderne de „l’empirisme logique“ veut arriver à cette harmonie en ne reconnaissant de valeur qu’aux sciences positives. Dans la mesure où des opinions ne se laissent pas réduire aux concepts et aux jugements des disciplines spécialisées, elles passent pour dénuées de signification.Les deux composants de cette philosophie, une certaine forme de la logique et l’empirisme, contiennent l’un et l’autre des erreurs. L’ancien empirisme soutient que toute connaissance se ramène à des perceptions isolées. D’après la doctrine nouvelle, la science n’a pas affaire immédiatement à des perceptions ; cependant, les propositions d’observateurs qui constatent des perceptions, ce qu’on appelle les protocoles (Protokollsätze), constituent leur matière exclusive. La science aurait pour tâche d’ordonner cette matière de telle sorte que des prévisions soient toujours possibles. H. essaye de montrer que cette description ne vaut que pour une fonction spéciale de la connaissance, qui, il est vrai, a une signification particulière pour l’industrie et la technique. Dans la mesure où la pensée ne se limite pas à ces buts, elle exerce d’autres fonctions. Avant tout, la pensée joue un rôle de premier plan lorsqu’il s’agit d’ordonner les perceptions en une structure qui corresponde à l’ensemble du réel. L’empirisme ignore totalement la pensée, unité de tous les facteurs intellectuels, qui, liés sans doute à certains intérêts pratiques, permettent d’esquisser un tableau vivant de la réalité. Le concept de tendance historique, compréhensible seulement à partir de buts subjectivement déterminés, appartient au nombre de ceux que l’empirisme logique, par sa théorie behavioriste de l’homme, est inévitablement conduit à méconnaître.La logistique, à laquelle l’empirisme moderne s’est uni, n’est au fond que la vieille logique formaliste, enrichie de quelques théories et de quelques procédés symboliques. La distinction de la forme et du contenu de la connaissance, qui se trouve à la base de la logique, apparaît à H. très suspecte. Lorsqu’on arrive à des connaissances complexes, compréhensibles seulement dans leur totalité, elle se révèle impuissante. De plus, la logique entre en conflit avec l’empirisme lui-même. Car, comme la logique a tiré ses propositions d’un matériel très restreint, elle n’a le droit de revendiquer qu’une modalité hypothétique, comme c’est le cas, d’après l’empirisme, pour les autres propositions générales. Mais en s’érigeant en norme vis-à-vis des opinions métaphysiques et en passant à la critique, elle montre qu’elle contredit une doctrine qui ne reconnaît que les faits.Ainsi l’empirisme logique ne dépasse pas la métaphysique. Comme il embrasse sous le terme de métaphysique toute pensée qui va au delà des disciplines spéciales, les illusions romantiques aussi bien que les théories dialectiques, il méconnaît les contradictions décisives de la situation actuelle, et il contribue pour sa bonne part à la confusion générale. Quelque importants que soient, dans des domaines spécialisés, les travaux des partisans de l’empirisme logique, en tout cas, une claire philosophie leur fait défaut*. (shrink)