Are we in a post-feminist era? Has the term, feminist, grown out of its resisted stance? What from today's standpoint is an appropriate concept of feminist philosophy? And is it not the case that all people thinking democratically must share its central concern? In Feminist Philosophy , internationally acclaimed philosopher Herta Nagl-Docekal discusses and critiques the theories of today. Her study ranges across philosophical anthropology, aesthetics, philosophy of science, the critique of reason, political theory, and philosophy of law. (...) Feminist Philosophy confronts the entire field with the problem of the hierarchical relations of the sexes. Throughout her work, Nagl-Docekal affirms the importance of feminist thought as she presses for new approaches to common problems. (shrink)

Seit 2014 erscheinen die Bände der renommierten Wiener Reihe bei De Gruyter. Das äußere Layout der Bände wurde modernisiert, inhaltlich und personell jedoch ist das Profil der seit mehr als zwei Jahrzehnten erscheinenden Buchreihe von Kontinuität geprägt. Die Bände sind jeweils einer aktuellen philosophischen Fragestellung gewidmet. Eine internationale Autorenschaft und die Veröffentlichung fremdsprachiger Beiträge sind Elemente des Programms. Die Reihe will dazu beitragen, dogmatische Abgrenzungen zwischen philosophischen Schulen und Traditionen abzubauen.

es ist eine häufig übersehene These der Hegelschen Ästhetik, dass die künstlerische Arbeit ein Ort der Selbstverständigung einer Gesellschaft ist. Schon in seinem ersten Hauptwerk, der "Phänomenologie des Geistes", sind Hegels Überlegungen zur Kunst eingebunden in den Versuch einer Bestimmung der Moderne, und auch in den später publizierten Texten Hegels sowie in seinen Berliner Vorlesungen zur Philosophie der Kunst ist die Deutung der Geschichte der Kunst integraler Bestandteil seiner Theorie der Moderne. Hat die Standortbestimmung, die Hegel im Blick auf die (...) Kunst seiner Zeit formuliert, auch für das heutige Selbstverständnis noch Relevanz? Im Zeichen dieser Frage wird in den Beiträgen des Buchs die Stellung der Kunst nach dem "Ende der Kunst", die Interrelationen von Kunst, Religion und Philosophie unter Bedingungen radikalisierter subjektiver Freiheit, sowie die Spannung zwischen Individualität und Allgemeinheit am Ort der Kunst und die Bedeutung der ästhetischen Theorie im Kontext der Moderne erörtert. Mit Beiträgen von: István Fehér, Annemarie Gethmann-Siefert, Francesca Iannelli, Ludwig Nagl, Herta Nagl-Docekal, Alain Patrik Oliver, Sándór Radnóti, Erzsébet Rózsa, Alberto L. Siani, Gerrit Steunebrink, Klaus Vieweg, János Weiss und Elisabeth Weisser-Lohmann. (shrink)

Abstract“What we call meaning is bound to vanish”: Under this heading, an interview with Max Horkheimer was published in Der Spiegel (Jan 5, 1970). Revisiting this interview, the article focuses on Horkheimer’s thesis that human beings share the “longing that the injustice which characterizes the world must not be the final word”. It examines the extent to which Horkheimer’s notion of the “desire for the totally other” may be inspired by Kant’s claim that religion is grounded in the “need of (...) practical reason”. A further topic of discussion is Horkheimer’s critical assessment concerning current tendencies toward a “total administration of the world” that may ultimately “reduce thinking to the level of industrial processes”. Relating this critique to Kant’s reflections on the “unbelief of reason (Vernunftunglaube)”, which is based on “the maxim of reason’s independence of its own need”, the article raises the question of Horkheimer’s significance today: What relevance does Horkheimer’s method of casting doubt on any “politics that is not based on theology, metaphysics and, of course, morality” have for today’s discourse on such matters? In this context a brief glance is cast at Jürgen Habermas’s post-metaphysical reading of Horkheimer’s “negative theology”. Die Forschung zu diesem Beitrag wurde durch das Russian Academic Excellence Project at the Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University (Aleksandra Nevskogo Street 14, 236016 Kaliningrad, Russische Föderation) unterstützt. (shrink)

In this essay I distinguish four different modes of feminist critique of reason. Discussing the work of authors such as Keller, Irigaray, and Butler, I point out that the issue of masculine connotations has been addressed with regard to different concepts-or at least different aspects-of reason. In view of a tendency to overdraw the objections, I suggest to reformulate the feminist critique of reason. I also argue that a rediscovery of those philosophical concepts of reason that do not restrict this (...) term to instrumental rationality might be useful for this purpose. (shrink)

Surveys of modern thought usually distinguish between different philosophical positions, for example, “liberalism,” “utilitarianism,” “universalist moral philosophy,” “German Idealism,” “Marxism,” “Critical Theory,” or “communitarianism.” A feminist perspective, however, reveals shared patterns of thinking: certain androcentric conceptions recur regularly, linking otherwise widely disparate philosophical approaches with each other. This article concerns these kinds of patterns. I shall discuss eight concepts that exemplify the masculine features of the philosophical tradition of modernity. At the same time, I aim to show that the feminist (...) critique of the canon does not rely on a unified theory. Although the critics agree largely, if not entirely, on the task of revealing women's exclusion and devaluation, views differ regarding the conclusions to be drawn from this critical reading. While some authors suggest that ideas such as “the individual,” “equality,” or “autonomy” should be discarded entirely, others seek to develop new understandings of these concepts that fully include women. These differences of position are related to the controversies that characterize contemporary philosophy generally, particularly in connection with the objections against universalist conceptions formulated in the context of so‐called “postmodern” thought and communitarianism. Since the feminist critique of the canon as a whole is so diverse, I can discuss only a few examples here. (shrink)

Are we in a post-feminist era? Has the term, feminist, grown out of its resisted stance? What from today's standpoint is an appropriate concept of feminist philosophy? And is it not the case that all people thinking democratically must share its central concern? In Feminist Philosophy, internationally acclaimed philosopher Herta Nagl-Do.

Untersucht wird die Konstellation von ‚öffentlicher Vernunft' und ‚Hintergrundkultur‘ in zeitgenössischen Theorien des liberalen Verfassungsstaats. Gegenüber der These, dass zwischen den ‚umfassenden Doktrinen‘ moralischen und religiösen Zuschnitts unauflösliche Differenzen bestehen, wird – im Rückgriff auf Kant und Hegel – geltend gemacht, dass es auch in genuin moralischen Fragen einen verbindlichen öffentlichen Vernunftgebrauch geben kann und soll, und dass Religion sich nicht als das ‚intransparente Andere der Vernunft‘ darstellt, sondern einer denkenden Aneignung zugänglich ist.

As recent social research demonstrates, the life world is increasingly impacted by a corrosion of social bonds and aggressive habits expressed, for instance, in hate speech in the social media. Significantly, such phenomena have not been prevented from evolving within the framework of constitutional liberal states. In search of an appropriate mode of challenging the current social pathologies, we should examine Kant’s claim that, alongside the “juridico-civil (political) state”, an “ethico-civil state”, uniting human beings “under laws of virtue alone”, needs (...) to be established and cultivated. Kant’s claim is discussed in comparison with “postmetaphysical” conceptions of morality, as maintained by Rawls and Habermas. These prove deficient owing to their contract-based approach. Important in the examination of the key idea of the “state of virtue” is Kant’s thesis that such a state “cannot be realized (by human organization) except in the form of a church”. In view of the fact that, today, in many parts of the world significant segments of the population adhere to agnostic or atheistic convictions, the focus is placed on Kant’s specific conception of “church” that is clearly distinct from “historical” creeds and religious practices, and on the way in which he addresses non-believers, since he insists on the intrinsic relation between morality and the “purely moral religion”. Based on these reflections, the relevance of Kant’s argument that it is “a duty of the entire human race” to establish a community in which people mutually support one another in the cultivation of moral sensitivity is scrutinised. (shrink)

Welche Relevanz hat Leibniz für aktuelle Debatten? Untersucht wird Leibniz’ Konzeption der Individualität (V. Gerhardt) sowie seine These: „Der Ort des Anderen ist der wahre Standpunkt sowohl in der Politik als auch in der Moral.“ (W. Li) Ferner, wie weit Kants Theorie des Subjekts als Explikation Leibnizscher Einsichten zu lesen ist (P. Stekelr-Weithofer) und wie die Monadenlehre Einspruch gegen den Szientismus erhebt (H. Nagl-Docekal). Die Aktualität der Leibnizschen Systematik wird auch im Blick auf Religion dargestellt: hinsichtlich der europäischen Rezeption (...) buddhistischer Traditionen (V.Lysenko) wie auch der Problematik der inter-religiösen Relationen (H.-D. Klein). Untersucht werden ferner Leibniz-Lektüren im nachmetaphysischen Denken, von Ch. S. Peirce über G. Deleuze bis J. Rawls (L. Nagl). Einen weiteren Fokus bildet die Grundidee von Akademien: das Prinzip ‚theoria cum praxi‘ (J. Mittelstraß) und die Forderung, dass die Wissenschaften dem Gemeinwohl verpflichtet sein sollen (E. Knobloch). Die Implementierung dieser Konzeption wird durch die Geschichte der Philosophie an der Russischen Akademie (A. Guseynov) sowie die österreichischen Entwicklungen nach dem letzten Aufenthalt von Leibniz in Wien (T. Wallnig) illustriert. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie Jahrgang: 64 Heft: 2 Seiten: 313-319.

The paper addresses the asymmetrical gender relations which have shaped all spheres of life, arguing that in both the public and private domains just relations cannot be accomplished unless the uniqueness of the individual is duly acknowledged. Examining the background for the persistent discrimination of women, Part I discusses the naturalistic fallacy implied in traditional gender norms, the fatal correlation of ‚women‘ and ‚nature‘, and the ‚feminization of poverty‘. Part II focuses on the ways in which philosophical conceptions such as (...) ‚autonomy‘ and ‚equality‘ have been, and still are, important tools for elaborating legislative measures – on the national as well as the international level – that aim at abolishing gender discrimination. Participatory equality is one case in point. Emphasizing that legislation represents but one element of what is needed in order to achieve fully reciprocal gender relations, Part III argues that the understanding of intimate human relations needs to be re-considered. Hegel’s portrayal of ‚love‘ that is based upon mutual recognition of individuals in their unique personality, and his conception of ‚we‘ prove relevant here. (shrink)