Arnold Gehlen's use of the term posthistory can be traced back to his writings from the 50s. It occurs also in Zeit-Bilder. Zur Soziologie und Ästhetik der modernen Malerei, where his theory of pictorial racionality in art history is formulated and "peinture conceptuelle" as the key tendency of modern painting is appointed. Focusing on both, Gehlen's aesthetics of modern art and his theorem of posthistory, we try to remind of the conservative thinker's contribution to today's debates of art (...) and art history. (shrink)

Arnold Gehlen's use of the term posthistory can be traced back to his writings from the 50s. It occurs also in Zeit-Bilder. Zur Soziologie und Ästhetik der modernen Malerei, where his theory of pictorial racionality in art history is formulated and "peinture conceptuelle" as the key tendency of modern painting is appointed. Focusing on both, Gehlen's aesthetics of modern art and his theorem of posthistory, we try to remind of the conservative thinker's contribution to today's debates of art (...) and art history. (shrink)

Arnold Gehlen's use of the term posthistory can be traced back to his writings from the 50s. It occurs also in Zeit-Bilder. Zur Soziologie und Ästhetik der modernen Malerei, where his theory of pictorial racionality in art history is formulated and "peinture conceptuelle" as the key tendency of modern painting is appointed. Focusing on both, Gehlen's aesthetics of modern art and his theorem of posthistory, we try to remind of the conservative thinker's contribution to today's debates of art (...) and art history. (shrink)

The use of the term posthistory in Arnold Gehlen’s writings can be traced back to as early as the Fifties. It occurs also in his work Zeit-Bilder. Zur Soziologie und Ästhetik der modernen Malerei, where his theory of the art-historical development of pictorial rationality and his notion of ‘peinture conceptuelle’ are formulated as key tendencies of modern painting. Focusing on both Gehlen’s notion of modern art’s aesthetics and on his ‘theorem’ of posthistory, my attempt in this paper is (...) to highlight the contribution of the so-called “conservative thinker” with regard to contemporary debates in art and art history. (shrink)

Recensione critica, e analitica, del testo di A.Gehlen.

루만은 사회학적 통찰, 정치적 태도, 글쓰기 스타일까지 겔렌과 많은 공통성을 보인다. 그런데도 루만이 자신의 이론에서 겔렌에게 빚진 것으로 인정하는 부분은 매우 적으며, 그나마 거의 초기 저작에 한정되어 있다. 나는 먼저 루만의 사회이론에 남아 있는 겔렌의 사회학의 흔적을 조명하고자 한다. 이 작업은 겔렌의 ‘부담 경감’ 개념과 루만의 ‘복잡성 축소’ 개념의 비교를 통해 수행된다. 나아가 나는 겔렌의 사회학이 루만의 사회학에 비해 가질 수 있는 강점을 부각시키고자 한다. 이 작업은 루만의 ‘기능적 분화’ 이론을 겔렌의 ‘거대구조’ 이론과 비교하는 것을 통해, 그리고 인격 이론에서 두 (...) 사회학자를 비교함으로써 수행된다. 마지막에는 겔렌의 ‘금욕’ 이론이 갖는 실천적 함의가 다뤄진다. (shrink)

Arnold Gehlen is one of the most controversial figures of German intellectual history. Gehlen’s commitment to National Socialism is mostly seen in close connection with his theoretical focus on institutions. According to Gehlen, what mankind requires above all is order and thus the protection of institutions. And yet, by reducing Gehlen’s sociology to the necessity of order one misses the analytical scope of his writings. As this article aims to show, the strength of Gehlen’s sociology (...) lies less in its theory of institutionalization than in its attempt to comprehend change, i.e. the conceptual clarification of the interplay between radical innovation and institutionalization. In order to apprehend Gehlen’s understanding of change we have to look at his sociology of art as it is art which works as ‘a small symbol of society’. To approach Gehlen from this perspective is not to rehabilitate the controversial thinker. Instead, I am trying to show that Gehlen’s theoretical framework is as complex as modern culture itself and should therefore not prematurely be declared a reactionary testimony of the past. (shrink)

Arnold Gehlen is one of the most controversial figures of German intellectual history. Gehlen’s commitment to National Socialism (a commitment he never disavowed) is mostly seen in close connection with his theoretical focus on institutions. According to Gehlen, what mankind requires above all is order and thus the protection of institutions. And yet, by reducing Gehlen’s sociology to the necessity of order one misses the analytical scope of his writings. As this article aims to show, the (...) strength of Gehlen’s sociology lies less in its theory of institutionalization than in its attempt to comprehend change, i.e. the conceptual clarification of the interplay between radical innovation and institutionalization. In order to apprehend Gehlen’s understanding of change we have to look at his sociology of art as it is art which works as ‘a small symbol of society’. To approach Gehlen from this perspective is not to rehabilitate the controversial thinker. Instead, I am trying to show that Gehlen’s theoretical framework is as complex as modern culture itself and should therefore not prematurely be declared a reactionary testimony of the past. (shrink)

The article reconstructs main assumptions and the theoretical context of Arnold Gehlen’s conception of institution. I argue that this conception is mainly a theory of action. At its centre Gehlen sets not so much specific institutions but rather specific forms of human activity that bring to life the over-individual normative structures. He describes them by means of a series of categories which, in his opinion, have a universal character. We do not find any genealogical analyzes here, but only (...) a constellation of concepts deduced a priori, referring to empirical facts. (shrink)

The goal of our article is to review the widespread anthropological figure, according to which we can achieve a better understanding of humans by contrasting them with animals. This originally Herderian approach was elaborated by Arnold Gehlen, who characterized humans as “deficient beings” who become complete through culture. According to Gehlen, humans, who are insufficiently equipped by instincts, indirectly stabilize their existence by creating institutions, i.e., complexes of habitual actions. On the other hand, Maurice Merleau-Ponty shows that corporeal (...) relationship to the world is already indirect because it is based on preestablished and readjusted “standards” or “norms” of interaction with the environment. Merleau-Ponty then calls these norms “institutions” and views culture as readjustment of institutions which operate already on the level of corporeal existence. The anthropological figure of confronting humans and animals thus cannot produce, as in Gehlen, a contrast between an allegedly “direct” relationship to the world in animals and a supposedly “indirect” relationship to the world in humans. The Herderian approach can be meaningfully retained only if interpreted as an invitation to confront the norms of indirect interaction with the world in animals and in people, that is, if viewed as a comparison of their respective institutions. (shrink)

Seit Ende der 40er Jahre setzte sich Wolfgang Harich intensiv mit naturwissenschaftlichen und anthropologischen Fragestellungen auseinander. Dabei ging er der Frage nach, ob der Marxismus eine eigenständige Lehre vom Menschen benötige. Um 1950 entstand dann der Kontakt zu Arnold Gehlen, die Brieffreundschaft der beiden hielt bis zum Tod Gehlens. Über alle weltanschaulichen Diskrepanzen hinweg korrespondierten sie über wissenschaftliche Fragen und in zunehmendem Maße auch über Privates. Der Band enthält nach drei einleitenden Aufsätzen und Manuskripten Harichs dessen erhaltene Briefe an (...) Arnold Gehlen. Außerdem werden seine weiteren Studien zur Anthropologie präsentiert. Abschließend wird dann sein Eintreten für Paul Alsberg vorgestellt. (shrink)

In the past 20 years, the concept of instinct has been discussed in respect to various disciplines such as evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology, linguistics, ethics, aesthetics, and phenomenology, etc. However, the meaning of instinct still remains unclarified in many respects. In order to overcome this situation, it is necessary to elucidate the genuine meaning of instinct so that the discussion of instinct in these disciplines can be carried out systematically. The objective of this paper is to establish the genuine concept (...) of instinct on the basis of a phenomenological criticism of A. Gehlen’s theory of instinct-reduction. Moreover, it seeks to show that this concept is the genetic origin of the embodied consciousness. According to Gehlen, instinct is defined as Instinkthandlung. However, this definition of instinct is problematic in the formal logical sense, since the definiendum is already included in the definiens. Moreover, it faces different kinds of serious material problems. Criticizing Gehlen’s theory of instinct systematically, I will show that instinct should be redefined as “the innate living force that urges a species of living being to pursue a certain kind of object,” and I will attempt to clarify this definition of instinct in a more detailed manner by offering 11 points. Thereafter, I will argue that Gehlen’s theory of instinct-reduction has to be replaced by the theory of instinct-enlargement in human beings. Finally, I will point out that the genuine concept of instinct is nothing other than the genetic origin of the embodied consciousness. (shrink)

In seinem grundlegenden Werk von 1940 Der Mensch. Seine Natur und seine Stellung in Welt thematisiert Arnold Gehlen den Menschen als »Mängelwesen« und baut hierauf seine Anthropologie und seine Institutionenlehre auf. Die Formulierung vom Menschen als Mängelwesen wird sich durch Arnold Gehlens gesamtes weiteres Werk ziehen. Der Ausdruck »Mängelwesen« ist wörtlich genommen eine Prägung Arnold Gehlens. Doch auf die Kultur- und sprachschaffenden Mängel in der Ausstattung des Menschen gegenüber derjenigen der Tiere hat als erster Herder hingewiesen und sie thematisiert (...) in seiner Schrift von 1772 Abhandlung über den Ursprung der Sprache So schrieb Herder. (shrink)

An affirmative post-structural philosophy of organization inspired by Arnold Gehlen's philosophical anthropology, Michel Foucault's history of medicine and Gille Deleuze's early philosophical works. This book offers a deep and detailed analysis of the problems faced and their solutions.

The relation between critical theory of society and philosophical anthropology is a very interesting and exciting but also problematic one. On the one hand, since Hork- heimer’s seminal essay Remarks on Philosophical Anthropology critical theorists have always expressed a clear distaste for anthropological speculation. On the other hand, notwithstanding Adorno’s aim in Negative Dialectics to “vetoe any anthropol- ogy” and criticize “the question of man [as] ideological”, he frequently mentioned the project of a “negative anthropology” or “dialectical anthropology” as an (...) important one. In this context, it is especially noteworthy that Adorno developed a significant philosophical and also human relation during the 1960s with Arnold Gehlen, one of the founders of 20th-century philosophical anthropology. In my contribution I will fo- cus on some aspects of the Adorno/Gehlen relation, mostly approaching this topic at a historical-philosophical level rather than at a strictly theoretical level, and offering some remarks on certain affinities between their aesthetic theories and also on cer- tain philosophical elements that emerge in a powerful and significant way from the public debates between Adorno and Gehlen that took place in the 1960s on radio and TV. (shrink)

[This paper is written in Czech language.] The aim of the article is to re-evaluate the still-surviving anthropological trope which, in reaction to an inquiry into the essence of man, compares humans with animals and points to culture as the means by which humans complete their “deficient” nature. This motif contrasting humans with animals has been extended by A. Gehlen who characterises humans as “beings of deficiencies”. In his view, the morphological-instinctive insufficiency of the human being must be stabilised (...) by cultural institutions, i.e. complexes of habitual actions. Merleau-Ponty, however, demonstrates that bodily beings always relate to their environment in an indirect way, on the basis of certain “standards” and “norms” of interaction, which exist by way of institution. The anthropological trope confronting humans and animals thus cannot produce, as in Gehlen, a contrast between an allegedly “direct” relationship to the world in animals, and a supposedly “indirect” relationship to the world in humans. It can be meaningfully retained only if it is interpreted in a Merleau-Pontyan way, that is, as an invitation to understand the transformation of the norms of indirect interaction with the world found in animals into those found in people, that is, if viewed as a comparison of their respective institutions. (shrink)

La propuesta de Arnold Gehlen ha sido calificada como “antropobiología”. En el presente artículo, se describe la continuidad, establecida por él, entre la biología del hombre y las dimensiones específicamente humanas, como la técnica y la cultura. Dicha continuidad se descubre, desde un punto de vista negativo, en la precariedad biológica del cuerpo humano; desde un punto de vista positivo, en la apertura al mundo mediante la acción. Con su actividad, el hombre compensa su carencia física y construye el (...) mundo en la forma de artefactos técnicos, instituciones y sistemas éticos. Por último, se examina de manera crítica el alcance y los límites de la propuesta gehleniana, principalmente acerca de la unidad del hombre, la comprensión de la acción y la idea de una vida lograda. (shrink)

“Philosophical Anthropology,” which is reconstructed here, does not deal with anthropology as a philosophical subdiscipline but rather as a particular philosophical approach within twentieth-century German philosophy, connected with thinkers such as Max Scheler, Helmuth Plessner and Arnold Gehlen. This paper attempts a more precise description of the core identity of Philosophical Anthropology as a paradigm, observes the differences between the authors within the paradigm, and differentiates the paradigm as a whole from other twentieth-century philosophical approaches, such as transcendental philosophy, (...) evolutionary theory or naturalism, existentialism, and hermeneutic philosophy. In determining the human being as “excentric positionality,” Philosophical Anthropology arrives at unique categorical intertwinings between the biological, social and cultural sciences. (shrink)

Die jüngsten Arbeiten zur wieder verstärkt rezipierten philosophischen Anthropologie haben deren umstrittensten Vertreter, den Philosophen und Soziologen Arnold Gehlen, meist stiefmütterlich behandelt. Auch Untersuchungen zum Einfluss politisch belasteter Autoren auf das intellektuelle Leben der Nachkriegszeit mieden ihn weitgehend. Diese Arbeit schließt eine doppelte Lücke, indem sie - vor allem mit Blick auf überraschend aktuelle handlungstheoretische Einsichten - die analytische Kraft seiner beiden Hauptwerke "Der Mensch" und "Urmensch und Spätkultur" rekonstruiert, ohne deren ideologische Dimensionen zu verschweigen. Daran anschließend wird erstmals (...) die enorme, aber oft verdeckte Wirkung nachgezeichnet, die das so kontroverse Denken Gehlens auf bedeutende Sozialwissenschaftler nach 1945 hatte, unter anderem auf Jürgen Habermas und Niklas Luhmann. (shrink)

This volume examines Arnold Gehlen’s theory of the state from his philosophy of the state in the 1920s via his political and cultural anthropology to his impressive critique of the post-war welfare state. The systematic analyses the book contains by leading scholars in the social sciences and the humanities examine the interplay between the theory and history of the state with reference to the broader context of the history of ideas. Students and researchers as well as other readers interested (...) in this subject will find this book offers an informative overview of how one of the most wide-ranging and profound thinkers of the twentieth century understands the state. With contributions by Oliver Agard, Heike Delitz, Joachim Fischer, Andreas Höntsch, Tim Huyeng, Rastko Jovanov, Frank Kannetzky, Christine Magerski, Zeljko Radinkovic, Karl-Siegbert Rehberg and Christian Steuerwald. (shrink)

In seinem grundlegenden Werk von 1940 Der Mensch. Seine Natur und seine Stellung in Welt thematisiert Arnold Gehlen den Menschen als »Mängelwesen« und baut hierauf seine Anthropologie und seine Institutionenlehre auf. Die Formulierung vom Menschen als Mängelwesen wird sich durch Arnold Gehlens gesamtes weiteres Werk ziehen. Der Ausdruck »Mängelwesen« ist wörtlich genommen eine Prägung Arnold Gehlens. Doch auf die Kultur- und sprachschaffenden Mängel in der Ausstattung des Menschen gegenüber derjenigen der Tiere hat als erster Herder hingewiesen und sie thematisiert (...) in seiner Schrift von 1772 Abhandlung über den Ursprung der Sprache So schrieb Herder. (shrink)

The author distinguishes three main interpretations of the concept, as well as the developmental trends in philosophical anthropology, and reflects on their relationship with critical social philosophy. Consequently, he follows up with an explication of the main assumptions of Arnold Gehlen’s philosophical anthropology and seeks to find out how they influenced the categorical particularity of his critique of postmodern society, labeled as “the crisis of institutions.” The author provides more detailed reflection in references to Gehlen’s Die Seele im (...) technischen Zeitalter, and its analysis of the so-called new subjectivism. The article ends with a critical conclusion, in which the author makes note of certain ideological incongruities in Gehlen’s philosophical standpoint. (shrink)

Istraživanja povijesnog razvoja bioetike rijetko su kao predmet svog interesa imala fenomen bioetičkih institucija.U prvom dijelu rada se iznosi pregled povijesnog razvoja bioetike, nakon čega slijede glavne teze najvažnijih teorija institucija . Središnji dio rada obrađuje teoriju institucija Arnolda Gehlena, prema kojoj su institucije društvene činjenice u kojima se zajednički prihvaćaju i provode životne svrhe, a koje čovjek stvara s ciljem odterećenja od neizvjesnosti vlastite egzistencije, subjektivne motivacije i trajne improvizacije u odlučivanju.U zaključnom dijelu rada analiziraju se mogućnosti i ograničenja (...) aplikacije teorije institucija Arnolda Gehlena u istraživanju razvoja bioetičkih institucija.The research of historical development of bioethics has rarely had the phenomenon of bioethics institutions as the focus of its interest. In the first part of the present paper a historical overview of bioethics is exposed.Subsequently, the major theses of the most important theories of institutions are discussed. The central part of the paper deals with the theory of institutions by Arnold Gehlen. According to that theory, institutions are social constructs in which life purposes are collectively accepted and realized. The man creates those constructs aiming at alleviation from uncertainty of his own existence, subjective motivation, and continuous improvization in decision making.Concluding part of the paper provides an analysis of the potentials and limitations of the application of Arnold Gehlen’s theory of institutions in an attempt of investigating the phenomenon of bioethics institutions. (shrink)

In this article the challenge of a pluralist ethics presented by Arnold Gehlen in his book Moral und Hypermoral [Morality and Hypermorality] is examined by attempting to find out what might still be worth preserving after Jürgen Habermas’s critical objections to the text in his “Arnold Gehlen: Imitation Substantiality” (1970). To this end the basic assumptions of Gehlen’s pluralist ethics are briefly presented (1), before going on to summarizing Habermas’s central, and largely convincing, objections to this ethics (...) (2), in order, finally, to reintroduce Gehlen’s pluralism as a critique of Habermas’s monist discourse ethics (3). The core idea is to defend the pluralistic intuition of Gehlen against his own theoretical consequences and against the monism of discourse ethics. (shrink)

Seit dem 18. Jahrhundert gibt es zahlreiche theoretische Versuche, Asthetik und Kunst als Wesensmerkmale des Menschen auszuweisen. Aber erst mit der Entwicklung der modernen philosophischen Anthropologie im 20. Jahrhundert gelang es, philosophische, soziologische und naturwissenschaftliche Aspekte zu einem uberzeugenden Gesamtkonzept zu verknupfen. Dabei sind erstaunlicherweise die einschlagigen Reflexionen der beiden profiliertesten Vertreter der philosophischen Anthropologie, Arnold Gehlens und Helmuth Plessners, bisher kaum zur Kenntnis genommen worden, obwohl sie sich zeitlebens mit asthetischen und kunstgeschichtlichen Fragen beschaftigt haben. Michael Hog untersucht die (...) beiden Gesamtwerke nach Moglichkeiten und Grenzen einer anthropologischen Asthetik und asthetischen Anthropologie sowie ihren Implikationen fur die moderne Kunst bis zur Gegenwart. (shrink)