1. Two Approaches to the EarthIn several postwar texts, the earth increasingly receives attention from Carl Schmitt.1 In The Nomos of the Earth, the most important of these texts, he refers to Friedrich Hölderlin, a much earlier, very different author, who also considers the subject of the earth. Even though the positions of both are, ultimately, quite similar, they maintain significant terminological differences. Schmitt and Hölderlin both employ the word “nomos,” but in very different ways. Hölderlin regards “nomos” as “law” (...) in the sense of “positive” norm or “Gesez.”2 This use of “nomos” as “Gesez” differs from a second notion of law as the meaning operating at the basis of what Hölderlin calls the “sphere.” The sphere is a meaningful whole in which man originally exists. Law is here the very relations of the sphere as a meaningful whole. Hölderlin calls it the law in a “negative” sense.3 This second notion of law by Hölderlin (negative law or law as the meaning at the basis of the sphere) coincides precisely with the Schmittian idea of “nomos” as an “order of meaning [Sinnreich],”4 what he also calls the law in an “ontonomous and existential” sense.5 The first use of law as “nomos” or “Gesez” by Hölderlin coincides with Schmitt’s use of “Gesetz”: of law as “positive” law. (shrink)

La libertad tiene un valor sistemático fundamental en la filosofía de Kant. En la filosofía práctica, ella es condición de la acción en sentido eminente. Tanto en la _Fundamentación de la metafísica de las costumbres_, cuanto en la _Crítica de la razón práctica_, Kant intenta probar la libertad. La argumentación en ambas obras es distinta. El presente trabajo hace foco especialmente en la justificación de la segunda _Crítica_. En ella, Kant plantea que de la libertad sabemos gracias al hecho de (...) la consciencia moral o de una ley que vincula al sujeto incondicionadamente. Se intentará mostrar, a partir de una consideración de los textos de Kant, las obras de algunos intérpretes, así como en una reflexión sistemática, que la libertad, y el hecho de la consciencia moral, requieren de un acceso a la espontaneidad práctica por parte del sujeto, asunto que Kant deja sugerido en algunos pasajes. (shrink)

Friedrich Hölderlin argued that consciousness requires division and unity. Consciousness emerges through the fundamental distancing of the subject from its surroundings, without which the subject-object distinction would collapse and both objectivity and consciousness would be lost. Nevertheless, insofar as conscious knowledge is unitary, division demands a ground for unity. Hölderlin calls this ground ‘Being [Seyn].’ However, once Being is affirmed, the question of how it is accessed arises. Hölderlin’s scholars disagreed on this issue. This disagreement gave rise to two camps: (...) those who deny that Hölderlin accepts the idea of direct access to Being and believe that he proves Being through an act of reflection (Henrich); and those who argue that for Hölderlin, ‘Being’ is directly accessed. Those who hold the latter position can be further divided into those who conceive of this direct access as knowledge (Frank) and those who argue that this access does not have a cognoscitive character, but rather an aesthetic one (Waibel). This article considers these positions and shows that the direct apprehension of ‘Being’ is part of Hölderlin’s argument aimed at solving a fundamental problem; an argument that differs both from the postulate of access to Being as knowledge of transcendence and from the affirmation of a purely aesthetic mode of access. (shrink)

Friedrich Schleiermacher is among the philosophers who influenced Karoline von Günderrode's thought. Although this influence is relevant, it has received little attention. Both authors agree on distinguishing “spirit” and “body” or “the inner and the outer” in similar terms. However, there was a significant difference between them. In Schleiermacher's works that Günderrode considered (On Religion and Soliloquies), he conceives of the relationship as one in which the world or outer depends on the spirit or inner. For Günderrode, this relationship is (...) polar, as “spirit” and “world” form part of an original totality. This difference from the philosopher influences the issue that both raised of access to the “primordial ground.” For Schleiermacher, the world depends on spirit; the issue of access to that foundation is circumscribed to access to the spiritual dimension. In contrast, for Günderrode, “spirit” and “body” are poles of a previous original totality. Hence, access to the primordial ground does not coincide with the spirit's access to itself. Instead, access to unity is both spiritual and corporeal. Günderrode's differences from Schleiermacher are based on an argument we attempt to elucidate and evaluate in this article. (shrink)

En el presente trabajo pretendo mostrar que el pensamiento de Carl Schmitt tiene un carácter marcadamente filosófico. Más precisamente: que en la base de él se halla una teoría de la comprensión. Esa teoría de la comprensión tiene la particularidad de que se desarrolla a partir de una teoría de la comprensión jurídica, pero se extiende, en su obra, a la comprensión en general.