No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Geschichte der Philosophie.
... Friedrich List developed his theories in a cultural environment dominated by Idealist 3 philosophy, 'the German Renaissance' (Windelband, (1892(Windelband, ( ) 1893. This strongly shaped his anti-materialist opposition to e.g. ...
... Friedrich List developed his theories in a cultural environment dominated by Idealist 3 philosophy, 'the German Renaissance' (Windelband, (1892(Windelband, ( ) 1893. This strongly shaped his anti-materialist opposition to e.g. ...
... Trade, Trade Policy and the German Customs Union, London: Longman's Green & Co., London 1885 and reprinted 1904, 1977. Reprint: A. M. Kelly Publishers, Fairfield N.J., 1991. ...
Friedrich List was a German-American economist with a broad practical background. He considered economics a science of politics and culture. Being a modernist, he promoted an urban-industrial society, through gradual- and pragmatic policies. He had considerable impact on a geopolitical scale, and his activity contributed to significant changes in the balance of powers.
List criticised Adam Smith for his materialism, and as logical results: reductionism, methodological individualism, social nominalism and -atomism, and generally a gospel of egotistical greed.
In essence, List argues that Smith’s generalisations on a materialistic basis laid the foundation for abstraction, formalisation and irrational ‘monetarism’. This led to a myopic exclusion of immaterial factors of great importance, such as innovation, morality, trust, collaboration, institutions, and the need for public regulation.
For stability and defence against foreign superiority, state intervention is required, e.g. temporary protection of home markets and building infrastructure, thereby elevating the quality of Labour and competitiveness of industry.
List argued that only self-sufficient nations could achieve sovereignty and prosperity. Since most nations have to trade abroad to access raw materials and markets, the requirement thus transforms into having a positive balance of trade: To escape debt servitude nations must produce and export.
Smaller countries need to make treaties and unite, ultimately leading to global free trade and peace. Nevertheless, premature free trade results in monopolies of the strongest. Only nations that regard themselves as called to liberty and progress and act accordingly with discipline, will succeed.
I would condense List’s productive system to the following:
List argues that the human spirit creates culture, and thus wealth:
1) The task of political economy is to perfect global civilisation through gradual moral-, intellectual-, and material progress.
2) Mental capital is the fragile and prime source of the productive forces and wealth. It constitutes the essence of innovation and collaboration.
3) This Confederation of Labour constitutes- and continuously reshapes civic- and public institutions.
4) The Nation is the main vehicle for the individual person’s quest for freedom, security, happiness and wealth.
5) The ultimate Confederation of Labour lies in global free trade, making the selfish colonial system as well as navies obsolete.
With his heterology, the southwest German neo-Kantian Heinrich Rickert developed a doctrine that proved to be groundbreaking not only for neo-Kantianism, but also for the theory of subjectivity in postwar transcendental philosophy in the broad sense. Rickert’s heterology is primarily concerned with the original structure of thought. Since the discussion of Hegel plays an important role for Rickert, heterology simultaneously concerns the relationship between Hegel’s speculative idealism and (advanced) Kantian transcendental philosophy. However, on the whole, the debate has until now been far from unanimous with regard to the validity of Rickert’s critique of Hegel. This study develops a new interpretative perspective, focusing on the issue of formalism as a methodological problem. It turns out that Rickert’s heterology is a case of, in Hegel’s words, mere external reflection. Rickert hastily moves from the beginning of philosophy to the origin of thinking. Thus, unlike Hegel, Rickert provides an insufficient account of the very concepts with which he determines the origin of thought—the Achilles’ heel of transcendental philosophy.
El presente artículo se propone reconstruir el primer encuentro de Hans-Georg Gadamer con la filosofía de Platón a través de su recorrido académico más temprano, la influencia directa e indirecta ejercida por sus célebres mentores en la Universidad de Marburgo y sus primeras publicaciones. Para ello, se recurrirá no sólo a su biografía intelectual, sino a textos poco analizados hasta el momento, como su tesis doctoral de 1922, publicaciones realizadas durante el período, correspondencia, tanto editada como inédita, entrevistas filosóficas, así como a material de archivo. Se buscará demarcar el papel de sus primeros mentores en torno a Platón a través de la evolución de las posturas teóricas de Gadamer para así elucidar sus reelaboraciones críticas. En las conclusiones, se intentará reponer brevemente el proceso de recepción, ruptura y emancipación de Gadamer en torno a las interpretaciones dominantes del neokantismo marburgués sobre el vínculo entre la filosofía de Platón y Aristóteles, así como sobre el carácter transformador de su acercamiento a la fenomenología de Scheler y Heidegger y de su incursión en la filología clásica.
El presente trabajo intenta clarificar la relación entre el pensamiento sistemático y la obra historiográfica del filósofo neokantiano Wilhelm Windelband (1848-1915). Según el juicio de sus sucesores, la obra de Windelband se caracteriza por un déficit sistemático motivado por un énfasis historiográfico. La intención de este estudio, por el contrario, es mostrar cómo la historia de la filosofía se transforma en un verdadero impulso sistemático en el pensamiento de Windelband a través de un análisis de su método para una historia de problemas. En última instancia, se intenta mostrar cómo la obra de Windelband realiza aportes para la elaboración de un concepto de filosofía histórica, es decir, para llevar a cabo la historización del pensamiento filosófico.
Artykuł jest próbą systematyzacji poglądów na temat historii filozofii. Punktem wyjścia analiz są koncepcje występujące w filozofii pokantowskiej, w której ujawniają się znaczące różnice w rozumieniu historii filozofii. Może ona być rozumiana jako doksografia, jako historia pojęć, jako historia idei, jako historia problemów czy wreszcie jako filozoficzna historia filozofii. Autor prezentuje główne założenia każdego z przywołanych ujęć historii filozofii, wskazując jednocześnie na szczególną wartość historii filozofii ujętej jako historia problemów oraz jako filozoficzna historia filozofii. Dodatkowo odwołuje się do polskich badaczy problemu, a mianowicie Kazimierza Twardowskiego, Zbigniewa Kuderowicza czy Mieczysława Gogacza. Osobną pozycję w zaprezentowanych analizach zajmuje hermeneutyka i charakterystyczna dla niej krytyka stanowiska zaprezentowanego przez Wilhelma Diltheya.
Worin liegt es begründet,– so fragt Susanne Guski-Leinwand in ihrem Beitrag „Die Psychologie seit 1900: Von der,friedestiftende(n) Vermittlerin“ zur „hub sience“ –, dass die von Wundt selbst als Friedensstifterin charakterisierte experimentelle Psychologie vonseiten der Philosophie und deren Vertreter um 1900 eher als Unruhestifterin empfunden und entsprechend abgelehnt wurde, obwohl sie hinsichtlich ihrer Methoden bereits Eingang in die Naturwissenschaften gefunden hatte und sich besonders in heutiger Zeit in zahlreichen Bereichen gleichsam als Referenzdisziplin mit hohem integrativen Charakter etabliert hat? Sosehr die experimentelle Psychologie dem Selbstverständnis der Naturwissenschaften auch zu entsprechen vermochte, sosehr widersprach sie doch in ihrer empirischen Orientierung zur Erschließung der Vorgänge des Bewußtseins dem Anspruch philosophischen Selbstverständnisses. Der bekannte Anspruch vonseiten Villas, Wundts und anderen, die Psychologie als Grundwissenschaften der Geistes- und Naturwissenschaften zu etablieren, tat dazu sein Übriges. Dabei sah Wundt selbst keinerlei inhaltlichen Widerspruch hinsichtlich der Forderung, zumal die Psychologie die weit strengere gegenüber den anderen Naturwissenschaften sei. Auch teilte Wundt nicht die Ansicht, dass die psychischen Zustände unzugänglich wären für das menschliche Erkennen, denn die inneren Vorgänge des Bewußtseins bildeten eine den äußeren Vorgängen ähnliche Einheit. Neben einer Skizzierung der Schuppe-Wundt-Debatte, die sich zwischen abstrakter Erkenntnistheorie und der Erkenntnistheorie der positiven Wissenschaften bewegte, und Guski-Leinwand am Weltbegriff exemplifiziert, eröffnet sie einen zeitübergreifenden Ausblick über die Zeit des Nationalsozialismus und dessen Folgen für die damalige Psychologie hinaus bis hin zur hub-science des 21. Jahrhunderts.
In the present essay, I will compare Hegel’s and Husserl’s conceptions of the history of philosophy. I will show how Hegel and Husserl recast Kant’s idea of a philosophizing history of philosophy in two different ways. Both Hegel and Husserl share the conviction that reason unfolds itself in history. Nonetheless, whereas Hegel identifies the history of philosophy with the contingent manifestation of the self-actualization of the Idea, Husserl develops a critical history of ideas. On the one hand, Hegel conceives of the history of philosophy as a complex whole and each determinate philosophy as interpreting a specific articulation of the logical deduction of thought-determinations. On the other hand, perhaps influenced by Windelband, Husserl appropriates the Kantian thesis according to which the objects of the history of reason represent specific constellations of problems.
The article analyzes Wilhelm Windelband’s views on the problem of relation of philosophy to its history. Windelband’s report “History of philosophy” (1905) is putted as a starting point. The main motive of this research is the idea of history of philosophy as an organon and a component of philosophy. The article critically examines Windelband’s interpretation of (1) Hegel’s conception of the history of philosophy, (2) the question about the sources of philosophical community's interest to history of philosophy, (3) the problem of the history of philosophy as a science. The author shows, that Windelband’s role in the development of the history of philosophy as a science is important, despite the some accusations of tendentiousness. The main merit of Windel-band, according to the author, is (1) a critique of Psychologism and Historical Relativism and (2) the justification of the history of philosophy’s main role in the education as whole and in the philosophical education in particular. © 2018 Vinnytsia National Technical University. All Rights Reserved.
This paper investigates in detail about the early years of José Gaos (19001969) and his education in philosophy and literature. Therefore, we know that their studies (academic or not) were not purely “philosophical” in 1915. Literature and philosophy played in Gaos an equally important role. The first real encounter with philosophy happens before he comes to Valencia in 1915; but in this year Gaos also receives a strong education, in aesthetic and literary, through press and philosophical journals, and especially within the group formed with Max Aub, José Medina Echeverría and his brother Carlos Gaos.
The author proves the crucial role of the reform of philosophical education in the context of the socio-economic crisis. Without this reform, it is impossible to form a new mentality. Respectively, without changing the mentality, other reforms are not possible. Criticizing the Soviet command-and-control system, the author argues that its system remains in the very structure of Ukrainian universities. The reform of philosophical education, according to the author, should lie (1) in the democratization of the educational process and (2) in reorienting this process to develop the ability to philosophize. This goal assumes that the basis of philosophical education should be such disciplines as the history of philosophy and the argumentation theory because they provide an understanding of philosophical problems and teach how to think critically and creatively. © 2018 Vinnytsia National Technical University. All rights reserved.
Die Geschichte der Rhetorik beginnt, so die Überlieferung, mit den Sizilianern Korax und Teisias im 5. Jahrhundert vor Christus. Zwar hatte es die praktische Redekunst schon immer gegeben (auch bei Homer spielt sie eine Rolle, so daß einige Rhetoren in ihm den Begründer der Beredsamkeit sehen wollten), die beiden Sizilianer aber waren die ersten, die sich theoretisch mit der überzeugenden Rede und besonders mit dem Wahrscheinlichkeitsschluß[1] befaßten. Cicero (106–43) sah später, Aristoteles (384–322) folgend, den Grund für das aufkommende Interesse an der Beredsamkeit darin, daß »nach Abschaffung der Tyrannen in Sizilien Privatangelegenheiten nach langer Unterbrechung wieder bei den Gerichten angebracht wurden«[2], und er betonte weiter den »scharfen Blick« dieses Volkes bei dem »ihm von Natur innewohnenden Hange zum Streiten«[3].
This paper analyzes the shifts in Wilhelm Windelband?s ?critical philosophy of values? as it developed hand in hand with his understanding of relativism. The paper has two goals. On the one hand, by analyzing the role that relativism played in his philosophical project, it seeks to contribute to a better understanding of Windelband's intellectual development in the context of historicism and Neo-Kantianism. On the other hand, by highlighting Windelband?s contribution to the understanding of relativism, it sheds light on an important episode in the history of that problem. The paper distinguishes between three phases in Windelband?s thinking and shows that his views about relativism changed in close connection with his conception of history. The early Windelband thought that historicism was compatible with absolute validity because he was firmly convinced of historical progress. The mature Windelband rejected progress as a means for justifying validity and put the problem of relativism into sharp relief. In response to the failure of his mature philosophy to fend off relativism, the later Windelband strengthened the role of history again. The paper concludes that Windelband?s significance lies not in his arguments against relativism, but rather in having furthered philosophical understanding of the problems at stake.
Kulturelle Traditionen bilden sich nicht im luftleeren Raum, sie pflanzen sich nicht in einem rein geistigen Medium fort. Ihre Wirksamkeit vollzieht sich vielmehr in der wirklichen Menschenwelt. Hier schaffen sie sich ihre Bedeutungen, hier finden sie immer erneut sichtbaren Ausdruck in realen Zeichensetzungen und Symbolbildungen. An diesen Bildungen hat absichtsvolle menschliche Tätigkeit ebenso ihren Anteil wie blinde historische Zufälligkeit. Begibt man sich heute auf den Weg zum Philosophischen Seminar der Universität Heidelberg, so führt einer der Zugänge über einen kleinen, unscheinbaren Platz mit umso klangvollerem Namen: Der Marsiliusplatz — heute die amtliche Adresse des Philosophischen Seminars — ist nach Marsilius von Inghen benannt, der der Gründungsrektor der Ruprecht-Karls-Universität war. Als einer der angesehensten Lehrer der Philosophie und Repräsentant der nominalistischen Richtung, der via moderna in der Logik, war er von der berühmten Pariser Universität nach Heidelberg gekommen. Auch hier erwarb er sich ein hohes Ansehen. Das Rektorenamt hat er seit 1386 — dem Gründungsjahr der Universität — wiederholt innegehabt. So symbolisiert sein Name die anfängliche Verbindung der Heidelberger Universität mit ihrer Philosophie, den gleichzeitigen Anfang einer gemeinsamen Tradition. Aus dieser wechselvollen Überlieferung soll hier ein kurzer Abschnitt der jüngeren Geschichte zur Sprache kommen.
Basing itself on the available historic testimonies, an attempt is made to reconstruct the thinking of Gorgias and Protagoras the two most prominent Greek Sophists. Presuming that thinking is intentional, the objectives of Sophistical thinking are related to the political aspirations of Sophists. The author of the paper states that Solon's juridical reforms were not sufficient to enhance the political activity of a free citizen as it was still paralysed by the authority of the gods the embodiment of the Greek values. Thus, it is said that Sophists completed the juridical reform. On the one hand, they belittled the sphere of gods; on the other hand, they focused exclusively on the sphere of human activity and thinking and bestowed a man with an absolute authority within it. Both tasks were performed in an ardent polemic with preceding Greek philosophy that in its turn had provided the possibility of a rational approach towards the ontognoseological constitution of the Greek world. The polemic yielded the famous Protagorian man-measure statement that legitimated the political subject in the Greek cosmos. However, even this statement was not sufficient to stimulate the political activity of free citizens. Therefore, Sophists launched an instrument of political activity, namely, the art of eloquence. The art was enabled by the freedom of speech that emerged in the process of isolating it from gods and was implemented by exploiting the outer or material aspect of language. The paper concludes with the implications of the man-measure statement in political science and about the impact made by Sophists on the tradition of philosophy.
The paper provides a reconstruction of the notion of genetic phenomenology while trying to demonstrate that its elaboration leads Husserl to dismiss de facto the main motivation of his idealism—namely the idea that at the basis of constitution is an immanent and formless stuff shaped or animated by subjective acts. Indeed genetic analysis shows that the original stuff of constitution consists of sensuous contents structured according to a material lawfulness grounded on their peculiarity. By affecting the subject, such contents motivate the performing of intentional acts and are the genuine motor of constitution. The genetic ground of apperceptions is thus material content.
This article opens a sequence of publications which consider the theory of proton-hydrogen collisions in the energy range of 0.5–50 keV. In order to provide a basis for later discussions and for the stating of specific problems we have here assembled the body of the existing conventional approach, the so-called parametric or impact parameter method, and adapted it to our investigation.
The scientific acceptance of presentations of proof is largely dependent upon the parts of mathematical logic upon which they
are based. This explains the trend of introducing quantitative methods into tho disciplines which — due to the historical
dimensions of their subjects — have so far followed a qualitative analysis of character coincidences i.e. a typogenetic form
of reasoning. But the application of reductionistic quantification such as was followed in the GMK 25 project foundered because
of the polymorphic structure of the phenomena. It was this that made geomorphological proof so difficult, since an inductive
basis for general lawful relations can only be provided by regionally detailed observations of complexes with developments
of their own. The application of information theory however e.g. in relation to the glacigenetic Type ‘Bortensander’ or ice-marginal
ramps (IMR) now allows the determination of the probability of the coincidental occurrence of characteristics and a measure
of the probability of the causal nexus upon which this is based. By transposing the basis of induction on to an abstract plane
a high degree of proof of typogenetic arguments in geomorphology may be provided. The quantification here does not count the
elements of the proof directly but is related to the occurrence of those indicators which form the empirically based qualitative
units of the inductive key.
In the first half of the eighteenth century, the development of analytical mechanics was dominated by the reception and interpretation
of the legacy of Descartes, Newton and Leibniz culminating in controversial debates on the fundamental principles endorsed
by the adherents of different schools. The challenge and the goal were to clarify the relations between these three competing
paradigms of mechanics. The focal point of the present contribution is the analysis of the scientific programs of Euler and
Du Châtelet that appeared in this context. Both scholars were searching for a solution beyond the competing schools. Euler
initiated a program for mechanics that ends up in an almost complete substitution of the geometrical methods by analysis and
extremal principles. Du Châtelet attempted to synthesize Newtonian and Leibnizian principles. The comparison of Euler’s Mechanics (1736) and Du Châtelet’s Institutions (1740) does not only promote a deeper understanding of their legacy and importance in the eighteenth century science, but
discloses additionally an interesting parallelism to the history of physics between 1900 and 1935, the hour of birth of the
quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.