In der klassischen Metaphysik war der alle speziellen Aspekte der Wirklichkeit übergreifende Gesichtspunkt der des „Seins". Dem entspricht in Puntels Buch ein Theorierahmen für das uneingeschränkte „universe of discourse". Methodisch angemessen ist ihm ein nicht-fundamentalistisches kohärentiell-reflexives Begreifen, dem sich auch die Sache selbst in eben dieser Struktur darstellt, nämlich als Beziehungseinheit von Begriff und Wirklichkeit, von Semantik und Ontologie, woraus sich sowohl eine an der Sprache orientierte Sicht der Dinge ergibt als auch eine mit dem Ganzen koextensive, also sich selbst (...) einschließende Geist-Strukur als reflexiver Maßstab allen Begreifens. Damit ist eine „prima philosophia" wiedergewonnen, die als methodisch-inhaltlicher Rahmen für das Begreifen der einzelnen Bereiche des Universums geeignet ist, nämlich der Naturphilosophie und Anthropologie, der Ethik und Ästhetik, der Geschichts- und Religionsphilosophie.In classical metaphysics, „Being" constituted the one viewpoint, which encompassed all particular aspects of reality. In Puntel's book, corresponding to this viewpoint is a theoretical framework for the unrestricted „universe of discourse." For him, a non fundamentalist comprehension of reality will be methodologically adequate, insofar as it is both coherent and reflexive. For only in and though the structure of this comprehending can the subject matter present itself as a relational unity of concept and reality, and of semantics and ontology. This structure will yield both a view of things that is linguistically orientated, as well as a mind-structure that is coextensive with the whole of reality, itself included. This mind-structure serves, then, as a reflexive criterion for all acts of comprehension. With this, the book regains a „prima philosophia," understood as a methodological and content-filled framework suitable for the comprehension of individual spheres of the universe, namely, the philosophy of nature and anthropology, ethics an aesthetics, as well as the philosophy of history and religion. (shrink)

The question of whether homeopathy is a science is currently discussed almost exclusively against the background of the modern concept of natural science. This approach, however, fails to notice that homeopathy—in terms of history of science—rests on different roots that can essentially be traced back to two most influential traditions of science: on the one hand, principles and notions of Aristotelism which determined 2,000 years of Western history of science and, on the other hand, the modern concept of natural science (...) that has been dominating the history of medicine for less than 200 years. While Aristotle’s “science of the living” still included ontologic and teleologic dimensions for the sake of comprehending nature in a uniform way, the interest of modern natural science was reduced to functional and causal explanations of all phenomena for the purpose of commanding nature. In order to prevent further ecological catastrophes as well as to regain lost dimensions of our lives, the one-sidedness and theory-loadedness of our modern natural–scientific view of life should henceforth be counterbalanced by lifeworld–practical Aristotelic categories. In this way, the ground would be ready to conceive the scientific character of homeopathy—in a broader, Aristotelian sense. (shrink)

Ponto de partida para a discussãdo do problema do mal entre os autores do Idealismo Alemão é a ideia de Kant acerca do "mal radical". Kant usou este termo para designer a falsificação da liberdade humana. Com efeito, e apesar de a liberdade ser inerente ao ser humano, este carrega sempre consigo a responsabilidade que Ihe corresponde, pois de outra forma não faria qualquer sentidofalar de apelos morals ã mudança Fichte procurou determinor de forma mãs precisa afonte deste "mal radical" (...) no ser humano, identificando-o na letargia ou inercia inerente ao ser humano. Com efeito, é na resistência da natureza sensual do ser humano a toda a actividade intelectual ou espiritual que reside a constante tentacdo de ndo assumir o chamamento para a acção associado com o imperativo categórico. Schelling, por seu lado, encara o problema do mal em conexdo com uma teoria acerca de Deus da Criação. Segundo ele, o ser humano está ainda em processo de devir aquilo mesmo que ele é suposto ser, de onde deriva a sua auto-referencialidade, ou auto-fechamento, as quais no amor de Deus estão já eternamente superadas, mas que no ser humano constituem o da sua "vontade particular". Devido ao temor de perder o seu ser mais próprio (simesmo), o ser humano revela-se incapaz de se auto-transcender e de abdicar dessa "vonta de particular" em favor da "Vontade Universal", como aliás é seu dever. Ora é neste conflito que consiste o drama da Criação, conflito este em que o próprio Deus se permite entrar, já que não ofazer significaria a capitulação do bem em relação ao mal. Para Hegel, finalmente, o problema do mal tern a vercom o problema da independência do espírito. Esta independencia constitui, de facto, a verdadeira determinação do ser humano. Mas isso no preciso momento em que se dá o encontro do ser humano consigo mesmo e o seu vir-a-si-mesmo (Sich-Finden und Zusichkommen), jé que este é o momento em que o ser humano de forma mais completapode efectivamentefalhar o seu alvo. Para Hegel, portanto, é precisament "consciência "- esse espaço em que sed dá maior autonomia e independência do ser humano - onde se verifica o maior perigo de um descaminho para o mal, ou seja, para o mais completo auto-isolamento. A capacidade reflexiva e de auto-relacionamento revela-se dessa forma, uma forqa ambivalente: por um lado, constitui potencial para um auto--fechamento do ser humano na sua propria singularidade; por outro, representa um potencial de ser abertura de si-mesma em ordem a uma integracdo da sua propria singularidade Universal mais elevado. /// German Idealism's discussion of the problem of evil takes Kant's idea of "radical evil" as its departure point. Kant had used this term to designate a falsification of human freedom. Though freedom is inherent in the human being, the human being bears a responsibility for it at the same time; otherwise a moral appeal to change one's ways would have no point. Fichte sought to determine more precisely the source of this "radical evil" in the human being and found it in the human being's inherent lethargy or inertia. In this resistance of the human being's sensual nature to intellectual/spiritual activity lies the constant temptation not to take up the call to action which the categorical imperative demands. Schelling takes up the problem of evil in connection with a theory on God and Creation. The human being is still becoming that which he is meant to be, and thus the self-referentiality, or self-enclosedness, which in God's divine love are already eternally overcome, constitutes in the human being the very power of his particular will". Out of fear of losing his very self the human being is unable to go beyond himself and surrender that particular will" to the "Universal Will" as he should. In this conflict consists the drama of the Creation, a conflict which God allows himself to enter, for not to do so would mean the capitulation of good to evil. For Hegel, the problem of evil is a problem of the independence of the spirit. This independence constitutes indeed the true determination of the human being, but exactly at the very moment of the human being's finding-of-self and coming-into-himself (Sich-Finden undZusichkommen) the human being can completely miss the mark. Thus for Hegel it is precisely the conscience "-that site of greatest human autonomy and independence -which is in danger of veering off into evil, i. e., into utter self-isolation. The capacity for reflection and for self-relationship thus reveals itself as an ambivalent force: in its potential for fatal self-closing-off in its own singularity on the one hand, and in it potential for self-opening and integration of its own singularity into the higher Universal on the other. (shrink)