Die Arbeit, die das ethische Denken von Levinas im Lichte seiner Auseinandersetzung mit Heidegger zu rekonstruieren und kritisch zu bewerten sucht, ist als Gegenüberstellung der beiden Denkansätze angelegt. Sie gliedert sich in drei Teile, die jeweils eine Grundfrage zum Thema haben (Sein, Zeit, das Gute) und zugleich die Entwicklung von Levinas' Denken nachzeichnen. Ausgehend von einem Heidegger entgegengesetzten Seinsverständnis gelangt Levinas zu seiner spezifischen Auffassung der Transzendenz, die schließlich zur Ethik jenseits des Seins führt. Levinas' Denken zeichnet sich somit durch (...) eine strukturelle Nähe zu Heidegger aus, wenngleich die Distanz zwischen beiden Ansätzen unüberbrückbar bleibt. (shrink)

Although Levinas’ “il y a” does not directly correspond to Heidegger’s conception of being, his criticism of Heidegger’s temporal ontology is nevertheless justified. With the reduction of every meaning (and being) to its temporal constitution, Heidegger excludes any possibility of transcendence beyond time. The problem of overcoming the radical finitude and historicity of meaning, which is ethically motivated, brings Levinas to the age-old question of metaphysics. However, taking Heidegger’s thought seriously, Levinas is forced to look for an entirely new understanding (...) of the metaphysical quest. (shrink)

Although Levinas’ “il y a” does not directly correspond to Heidegger’s conception of being, his criticism of Heidegger’s temporal ontology is nevertheless justified. With the reduction of every meaning (and being) to its temporal constitution, Heidegger excludes any possibility of transcendence beyond time. The problem of overcoming the radical finitude and historicity of meaning, which is ethically motivated, brings Levinas to the age-old question of metaphysics. However, taking Heidegger’s thought seriously, Levinas is forced to look for an entirely new understanding (...) of the metaphysical quest. (shrink)

In contrast to idealistic denial and Heidegger’s absolutization of death Levinas tries to interpret death on the background of the ethical relation towards fellow men. The boundary which death presents to life he interprets as the experience of passivity of subject in front of the absolute otherness of death. The subject also experiences such passivity in ethical relation towards other people whose otherness and difference nevertheless invert into ethical non-indifference and responsibility of the subject. In this ethical relating Levinas finds (...) the source of meaning, which is alienated from Being, and starting from which he tries to derive new meaning for his own death as well as for the death of my fellow man. (shrink)

In contrast to idealistic denial and Heidegger’s absolutization of death Levinas tries to interpret death on the background of the ethical relation towards fellow men. The boundary which death presents to life he interprets as the experience of passivity of subject in front of the absolute otherness of death. The subject also experiences such passivity in ethical relation towards other people whose otherness and difference nevertheless invert into ethical non-indifference and responsibility of the subject. In this ethical relating Levinas finds (...) the source of meaning, which is alienated from Being, and starting from which he tries to derive new meaning for his own death as well as for the death of my fellow man. (shrink)

Heidegger's hermeneutic phenomenology can be seen as a specific reduction of meaning to its temporal constitution . Temporality as the universal horizon of Being makes any transcendence and meaning beyond time impossible. Levinas opposes such reduction of sense to finitude and historicity for ethical reasons. However, in his attempt to overcome Heidegger's primacy of time and transcend its totality, he must look for a completely different conception of significance which goes hand in hand with a new, "diachronic" understanding of time.

Although Levinas’ “il y a” does not directly correspond to Heidegger’s conception of being, his criticism of Heidegger’s temporal ontology is nevertheless justified. With the reduction of every meaning (and being) to its temporal constitution, Heidegger excludes any possibility of transcendence beyond time. The problem of overcoming the radical finitude and historicity of meaning, which is ethically motivated, brings Levinas to the age-old question of metaphysics. However, taking Heidegger’s thought seriously, Levinas is forced to look for an entirely new understanding (...) of the metaphysical quest. (shrink)

Das Werk des französischen Phänomenologen Jean-Luc Marion wird in diesem Buch in systematischer wie kritischer Hinsicht ausgeleuchtet. Schwerpunkte sind 1. eine historisch-kritische Verortung von Marions Denken im Kontext von Descartes, Kant und der Phänomenologie. 2. eine inhaltliche Entfaltung des Programms der „Phänomenologie der Gegebenheit“ und der daraus resultierenden Implikationen für die Grundbegriffe der Phänomenologie (Welt, Subjekt, Zeit, etc.). Der Band enthält zudem zwei Texte Marions in deutscher Erstveröffentlichung. Mit Beiträgen von Thomas Alferi, Jason W. Alvis, Lilian Alweiss, Katharina Bauer, Natalie (...) Depraz, Peter Gaitsch, Branko Klun, Alwin Letzkus, Jean-Luc Marion, Karel Novotný, Marcus Schmücker, Claudia Serban, Emilie Tardivel und László Tengelyi. (shrink)

Die Frage nach Gott war seit Platon – und verstärkt im Denken Augustins – ein Hauptpunkt des philosophischen Fragens überhaupt. Noch Kant zählte sie zu den »Kardinalsätzen der reinen Vernunft«, zu den Fragen, an denen »die Vernunft ihr größtes Interesse hat«. Martin Heidegger, dessen Denken weithin von der Gottesfrage angeregt ist und um sie kreist, hat dagegen erwogen, »von Gott im Bereich des Denkens zu schweigen« – nicht weil er diese Frage für belanglos hielt, sondern weil das Denken sich für (...) diese Frage erst neu öffnen und vorbereiten müsse. In die von Kant und Heidegger bestimmte Situation hinein hat Emmanuel Levinas ein Denken entfaltet, das – im Wissen um die Schwierigkeiten – einen neuen Zugang zur Gottes- frage eröffnet. Der aus einem Symposion entstandene Band enthält Beiträge von Levinas-Interpreten der ›ersten Stunde‹ (Bernhard Casper, Jean Greisch und Ludwig Wenzler), aber auch Beiträge, die Levinas in Verbindung mit Autoren der abendländischen Philosophie sehen (Johannes Brachtendorf, Norbert Fischer und Eduard Zwierlein), und schließlich Beiträge, die sich der immanenten Auslegung von Aspekten seines Werks zuwenden (Sarah Allen, Reinhold Esterbauer, Branko Klun und Jakub Sirovátka). (shrink)

Knjiga, ki ji je posvečena pričujoča recenzija, prinaša prevod dveh krajših Bonaventurovih del, O trojni poti (De triplici via) in Kako se različne umetnosti zvajajo na teologijo (De reductione artium ad theologiam). Prevedla ju je filozofinja in klasična filologinja Nena Bobovnik, ki na KU Leuven pripravlja doktorat iz srednjeveške filozofije. Poleg spremne besede z naslovom »Zaris srednjeveške in skicaBonaventurove filozofije« sta še dva uvoda v piščevo misel. Najprej tri kateheze, ki jih je papež Benedikt XVI. – ki se je na (...) Bonaventurovo teologijo zgodovine osredotočil v habilitacijski nalogi – spomladi leta 2010 posvetil svojemu »prijatelju«, kot se sam izrazi; nato pa še esej »Teološko-filozofska hermenevtika pri sv. Bonaventuru in njen pomen za današnji čas«, ki ga je pripravil Branko Klun s Teološke fakultete UL. (shrink)

In this paper, we discuss Foucault’s formulation of the notions of biopolitics and biopower against the background of the COVID-19 pandemic and the public reaction to it. For this purpose, we first identify his body of work relevant to the issue of biopolitics, since this issue – unlike the subject areas represented in Foucault’s earlier work – has not been the subject of a separate study. We narrow the focus to the period between 1974 and 1976, when he wrote five (...) crucial texts for understanding biopolitics. The final one – “Right of Death and Power over Life”, the only one with biopolitics as the sole subject – provides what could be understood as Foucault’s definitive interpretation of the genesis and position of biopolitics in modern technologies of power. In the second part of the paper, we analyze the conceptual structure of biopower and the position of discipline and biopolitics within this structure. We then turn to Foucault’s final determination of biopolitics as thanatopolitics to raise the question of whether this whole perspective is dystopian. We find that it is not, because this perspective depends on Foucault’s understanding of power relations, according to which resistance is primary and power is derived. Finally, we argue that his conceptualization of biopolitics cannot be used to justify any of today’s antibiopolitical tendencies. (shrink)

Introduction -- Plato -- Aristotle -- The rise of modernity -- Immanuel Kant -- Romanticism and historicism -- Phenomenology and hermeneutics -- Philosophes and philosophers -- Analytic philosophy -- Conclusion.

The work of the Paduan Aristotelian philosopher Iacopo Zabarella (1533–1589) has attracted the attention of historians of philosophy mainly for his contributions to logic, scientific methodology and because of his possible influence on Galileo. At the same time, Zabarella's views on Aristotelian psychology have been little studied so far; even those historians of Renaissance philosophy who have discussed them, have based their analysis mainly on the psychological essays included in Zabarella's De rebus naturalibus , but have avoided Zabarella's commentary on (...) Aristotle's De anima . This has led to an inaccurate, but widespread, understanding of Zabarella's views. The intention of this article is to provide a systematic analysis of Zabarella's arguments about the (im)mortality of the soul in the context of Aristotelian psychology. Zabarella's view that the soul is mortal according to Aristotle is remarkable for his time, while his elaboration of this position is far more comprehensive than that of Pietro Pomponazzi, the other significant Renaissance thinker who shared the same view. (shrink)

U ovom članku daje se prikaz hrvatskih sljedbenika teorije relativnosti iz redova matematičara, fizičara, prirodoslovaca i tehničara. Istraživanje se odnosi na sveučilišna predavanja, seminare, znanstvene i popularne članke, prevedene znanstvene, stručne i popularne knjige i ostale publikacije u svezi s Einsteinovom teorijom relativnosti. Prikaz rezultata istraživanja iznosi se povijesnim redoslijedom s kratkim osvrtom na značenje i osnovne biografske podatke sljedbenikâ teorije relativnosti kod nas.Dieser Artikel gibt einen Űberblick der kroatischen Anhänger der Relativitätstheorie aus denReihen der Mathematiker, Physiker, Naturwissenschaftler und Techniker. (...) Die Untersuchungberichtet über Vorlesungen an Universitäten, wissenschaftliche und populäre Artikel, Übersetzungenwissenschaftlicher und populärerBücher sowie übrige Publikationen in VerbindungmitEinsteinsRelativitätstheorie. Die jeweiligen Veranstaltungenund Publikationen werdenin derReihenfolgeihresgeschichtlichen Erscheinens aufgeführt und sind versehen mit einem kurzenKommentarzu ihrerBedeutung sowie mit wesentlichen biografische Angabenzu den Anhängernder Relativitätstheorie hierzulande. (shrink)

The debate between the individualist and the holist understanding of social items (social entities, events, institutions, phenomena and so on) has a long history and potentially a wide range of political implications. Political positions and political assumptions often play a significant role in the debate and it is not rare that participants in the discussion seek to associate the positions they oppose with unpopular political views, instead of providing actual theoretical arguments. The tendency to associate individualist positions in the social (...) sciences with political libertarianism and neo-liberal economic agendas is particularly common. At the same time, disciplinary politics and concerns about the integrity of the social sciences (especially in the form of fears from their reducibility to psychology) also play an important role in the debate. In this paper I analyze such political assumptions that often motivate, or are stated to motivate, the debate. (shrink)

In recent decades, a number of authors have relied on the multiple realizability argument to reject methodological individualism. In this article, I argue that this strategy results in serious difficulties and makes it impossible to identify social entities and phenomena.

The debate between individualism and holism in the philosophy of history pertains to the nature of the entities relied on in historical explanations. The question is whether explanations of historical items require the assumption that the collective historical entities used in these explanations are conceived of as irreducible to the actions, thoughts, and beliefs of individual human beings. In this paper I analyze two methodological problems that holist explanations face in the writing of intellectual history. The first problem derives from (...) the fact that holist explanations in intellectual history have to rely on the claim that certain beliefs were inconceivable to some individuals because they were members of specific collectives, whereas it is unclear how historical research can justify such claims when made from the holist position. The second problem pertains to the difficulties the holist position faces when it has to account for the novel properties of artifacts studied by intellectual history. (shrink)