This introductory chapter summarises key findings of the twenty-two book chapters in terms of five propositions. These propositions, each building on relevant findings linked to forward-looking suggestions for research, policy and practice, reflect the architecture of the book, whose sections proceed from setting the stage to critical issues, followed by a section on methods and tools, to chapters that provide geographic perspectives, and finally to a section that identifies potential policy options. The propositions comprise (1) Risk management can be an (...) effective entry point for aligning perspectives and debates, if framed comprehensively, coupled with climate justice considerations and linked to established risk management and adaptation practice; (2) Attribution science is advancing rapidly and fundamental to informing actions to minimise, avert, and address losses and damages; (3) Climate change research, in addition to identifying physical/hard limits to adaptation, needs to more systematically examine soft limits to adaptation, for which we find some evidence across several geographies globally; (4) Climate risk insurance mechanisms can serve the prevention and cure aspects emphasised in the L&D debate but solidarity and accountability aspects need further attention, for which we find tentative indication in applications around the world; (5) Policy deliberations may need to overcome the perception that L&D constitutes a win-lose negotiation “game” by developing a more inclusive narrative that highlights collective ambition for tackling risks, mutual benefits and the role of transformation. [Open access]. (shrink)

ArgumentThe paper is based on a hitherto unexplored document (audiotape of an interview accompanied by a German transcript) from 1953, located in the Freud Papers at the Library of Congress. It contributes to a better understanding of the impact of Freud and of Psychoanalysis on personalities from the exact sciences, here represented by the noted applied mathematicians Richard von Mises and Hilda Geiringer from Vienna. The detailed discussion of the interview sheds some new light on the different roles of Kraus (...) and Freud in the Vienna culture, on the Vienna Jugendkulturbewegung (youth culture movement) during WWI in which Geiringer was involved, on Freud’s and Siegfried Bernfeld’s standing around 1930 among German philosophers and psychologists, and on Wilhelm Fließ’ theory of periodicity, which von Mises—based on his attitude as an applied mathematician—defended against superficial accusations. Finally, new biographical material is provided for von Mises and the remotely related Freud family, and for Geiringer’s and von Mises’ early lives. The interview, which was taken during the Cold War, also allows conclusions as to how politics influenced the memories and views of the participants. Part of the aim of the paper is historical documentation of unknown material (letters by Karl Kraus and Wolfgang Köhler, one book review by Wilhelm Ostwald, a file on Richard Pfennig), including some correction of erroneous information in the literature. (shrink)

The article discusses the “paradox of the late (around 1940) arrival of academic applied mathematics in the U.S.” as compared to Europe, in particular Germany. A short description of both the indigenous traditions in the U.S. and (in some more detail) of the transfer of scientific ideas, persons, and ideals originating in Europe, particularly in Germany, is given, and some theses, relevant literature, and a tentative solution of the “paradox” are provided.

ZusammenfassungEine Analyse empirisch ausgerichteter Beiträge zu sportsoziologischen Themen und Fragestellungen in der vorliegenden Zeitschrift zeigt, dass gängige sozialwissenschaftliche Erklärungsmodelle bzw. Erklärungsansätze selten zum Einsatz gelangen. Es dominiert meist eine beschreibende und verstehende Methodologie. Dies führt u. a. zu einem Defizit von Erklärungswissen und in Folge wohl auch zu einer verlangsamten Theoriefundierung innerhalb der Sportsoziologie. Um die „erklärende Soziologie“ zu forcieren, werden die aktuell in der Soziologie detailreich und auch kontrovers diskutierten methodischen Erklärungsmodelle und Ansätze einschließlich ihrer Voraussetzungsbedingungen skizzierend dargestellt. Dies (...) geschieht in der Hoffnung, die methodologische Anwendungslücke zu minimieren, da eine auf Erkenntniszuwächse ausgerichtete Sportsoziologie nicht auf eine kriterienorientierte Methodologie verzichten sollte. (shrink)

The debate on “Loss and Damage” (L&D) has gained traction over the last few years. Supported by growing scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change amplifying frequency, intensity and duration of climate-related hazards as well as observed increases in climate-related impacts and risks in many regions, the “Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage” was established in 2013 and further supported through the Paris Agreement in 2015. Despite advances, the debate currently is broad, diffuse and somewhat confusing, while concepts, methods and (...) tools, as well as directions for policy remain vague and often contested. This book, a joint effort of the Loss and Damage Network—a partnership effort by scientists and practitioners from around the globe—provides evidence-based insight into the L&D discourse by highlighting state-of-the-art research conducted across multiple disciplines, by showcasing applications in practice and by providing insight into policy contexts and salient policy options. This introductory chapter summarises key findings of the twenty-two book chapters in terms of five propositions. These propositions, each building on relevant findings linked to forward-looking suggestions for research, policy and practice, reflect the architecture of the book, whose sections proceed from setting the stage to critical issues, followed by a section on methods and tools, to chapters that provide geographic perspectives, and finally to a section that identifies potential policy options. The propositions comprise (1) Risk management can be an effective entry point for aligning perspectives and debates, if framed comprehensively, coupled with climate justice considerations and linked to established risk management and adaptation practice; (2) Attribution science is advancing rapidly and fundamental to informing actions to minimise, avert, and address losses and damages; (3) Climate change research, in addition to identifying physical/hard limits to adaptation, needs to more systematically examine soft limits to adaptation, for which we find some evidence across several geographies globally; (4) Climate risk insurance mechanisms can serve the prevention and cure aspects emphasised in the L&D debate but solidarity and accountability aspects need further attention, for which we find tentative indication in applications around the world; (5) Policy deliberations may need to overcome the perception that L&D constitutes a win-lose negotiation “game” by developing a more inclusive narrative that highlights collective ambition for tackling risks, mutual benefits and the role of transformation. (shrink)

After National Socialism had destroyed any tradition in the history of thought, humanities in post-war Germany answered by criticizing this tradition, initiating a number of projects in the field of the history of concept. Erich Rothacker and Carl Schmitt, both compromised by National Socialism, can be seen here as predecessors of Joachim Ritter and also of Hans-Georg Gadamer. The letters, of which there are only a few, display consensus as well as dissent between the writers.

Hermann Lübbe’s distinctive contribution to conceptual history needs to be seen in the discipline’s wider political context in post-war Germany. This contribution outlines the cultural conditions, intellectual backgrounds and institutional prerequisites of Lübbe’s pertinent work. An additional focus is twofold: On the one hand, the article describes Lübbe’s inimitable rhetoric of presence as a means of keeping philosophy in touch with contemporary real-world problems; on the other, it explores the question of how this philosopher’s style and conceptual productivity translate into (...) the peculiarities of a late work that awaits posterity’s interest and judgement in ever more changing and uncontrollable times. (shrink)

Die Dokumentation ist eine zentrale Quelle zur Geschichte der deutsch-judischen Emigrationsphilosophie. ARthur Liebert (1878-1946) war bis 1933 in Berlin der zentrale Organisator der Kant-Gesellschaft und Kant-Studien; Emil Utitz (1883-1956) profilierte als Ordinarius in Halle die philosophische Asthetik und Charakterologie; Liebert emigrierte 1933 nach Belgrad, 1939 nach England und kehrte 1946 nach Berlin zuruck; Utitz wechselte nach Prag, uberlebte das KZ Theresienstadt und blieb dann nach 1945 in Prag. BEide begrundeten nach 1933 philosophische Gesellschaften, die eng miteinander kooperierten und in der (...) Sicherung des Nachlasses von Edmund Husserl sowie der Herausgabe der Emigrationsfachzeitschrift Philosophia bis 1939 wichtige Aufgaben fanden. Das Buch rekonstruiert ihr Emigrationsschicksal, dokumentiert es durch die erhaltene Korrespondenz zwischen Utitz und Liebert sowie weitere sehr gewichtige Korrespondenzen und macht das Spatwerk der Autoren mit weithin unbekannten Texten zuganglich. Es erganzt die 2015 bei K&N erschienene Edition Ethik nach Theresienstadt. SPate Texte des Prager Philosophen Emil Utitz (1883-1956) historisch-biographisch. (shrink)

This essay points out the great importance of the recently published exchange of letters between Carl Schmitt and his publisher Ludwig Feuchtwanger. Using unknown letters, it also outlines Schmitt's relationship with Jewish intellectuals before 1933, describes the dramatic development of the political-theological controversy, and honors Feuchtwanger as a postassimilationist Jewish intellectual and legal historian.