Written in 1922, the present essay by Baeumler on the aesthetics of Croce belongs to the period of the German philosopher’s thought culminating with Das Irrationalitätproblem in der Ästhetik und Logik des 18. Jahrhunderts bis zur Kritik der Urteilskraft, in which he works on a systematic project about a “logic of individuality”. This concept, which appears in the western world with the birth of modern aesthetics, when the notion of “judgment of taste” established itself in the third Critique by Kant, (...) will find in Croce, during the twentieth century, one of the most attentive Philosophers to the problem it implies. (shrink)

Abt. 1. Die Grunddisziplinen.--Abt. 2. Natur/Geist/Gott.--Abt. 3. Mensch und Charakter.--Abt. 4. Staat und Geschichte.--[Abt.5.] Die Gedankenwelt des chinesischen Kulturkreises, T. 1-3, von A. Forke.

This paper, accompanying Baeumler’s 1922 essay on Croce, illustrates the German philosopher’s thesis that modern thought on beauty does lead to aesthetics only when, with Kant, it acquires a notion of taste, understood as the sensible manifestation of the concrete individuality of man.

Frontmatter -- Vorwort -- Inhaltsverzeichnis -- Nietzsche lesen -- Die neue kritische Gesamtausgabe von Nietzsches Werken -- Nietzsches Kindheitserinnerungen aus den Jahren 1875 bis 1879 -- Nietzsche und Wagner vor hundert Jahren -- Aufklärung und Revolution: Nietzsche und der späte Goethe -- Nietzsches Philosophie als "Leidenschaft der Erkenntnis" -- Zarathustra vor Also sprach Zarathustra -- Nietzsches Nachlaß von 1885 bis 1888 oder Textkritik und Wille zur Macht -- Ein neuer Abschnitt in Nietzsches "Ecce homo" -- Nietzsche zwischen Alfred Baeumler (...) und Georg Lukács -- Abkürzungen -- Nachweise -- Namenregister -- Werk- und Briefregister -- Backmatter. (shrink)

"Incompris ou délibérément réinterprété, le livre Le problème de l'irrationalité dans l'esthétique et la logique du XVIIIe siècle (1923) d'Alfred Baeumler infuse, depuis bientôt un siècle, une vision du monde redoutable dans le discours scientifique. Partant du constat que la victoire militaire sur le national-socialisme en 1945 n'a pas entraîné une dénazification approfondie, cette étude décèle patiemment son véritable propos. Elle propose une approche à la fois scientifique et philosophique de ce phénomène : elle rappelle la réalité d'une conscience (...) individuelle et la capacité de chaque homme à la reconnaître ; et conclut sur ce que la vision du monde völkisch vise à interdire cette prise de conscience." -- [éditeur]. (shrink)

Nationalistische Ideen haben in der gegenwärtigen Politik Konjunktur. Dabei ist auch die Wiederkehr einer völkisch-traditionalistischen Ideologie zu beobachten. Der völkische Nationalismus ist in rechtsextremen Gruppen weit verbreitet. Mittlerweile wirken völkische Ideen jedoch weit in die bürgerliche Mitte hinein, nicht zuletzt aufgrund der erfolgreichen Strategien der sogenannten „Neuen Rechten“. Die Identitäre Bewegung (IB) spielt in dieser Szene eine wesentliche Rolle und wird zumeist als eine „neurechte Jugendbewegung“ (Bruns et al 2017) definiert. Diese Einschätzung möchte ich im Folgenden näher betrachten. Meine Auseinandersetzung (...) mit der Ideologie der IB umfasst drei Schritte: Im ersten Schritt wird mit dem Konzept des Ethnopluralismus, das Grundmotiv der identitären Ideologie, analysiert. Im zweiten Schritt entfalte ich eine genealogische Perspektive. Deshalb wird hier eine bestimmte Variante völkischen Denkens der 20er und 30er Jahre thematisiert. Ausgehend von einer kulturkritischen Zeitdiagnose entwickelten Philosophen wie Alfred Baeumler (1887–1968), Ernst Krieck (1882–1947) oder Erich Rothacker (1888–1965) eine identitätspolitische Antwort auf die Moderne und sahen diese im Nationalsozialismus (NS) verwirklicht. Der völkische Partikularismus war das Grundmotiv dieser politischen Anthropologie. Meine genealogische Analyse wird zeigen, dass die IB keine „neurechte Jugendbewegung“ (Bruns et al 2017; Hervorhebung J.S.) in einem inhaltlichen Sinne ist. Denn die identitäre Ideologie ist keine Erneuerung, sondern eine simple Wiederkehr völkischen Denkens, das bereits vor 1945 weit verbreitet war. Im dritten Schritt präsentiere ich eine Kritik der völkischen Ideologie, die sich auf das Modell der „ethnokulturellen Identität“ konzentriert. (shrink)

Nietzsche versus Schmitt. Agonal versus political thinking This article concerns the reception of Friedrich Nietzsche by Carl Schmitt with regard to the concept of the agon. In the 1933 edition of Der Begriff des Politischen Schmitt states that there is a ‘great metaphysical opposition’ (große metaphysische Gegensatz) between his political thinking and agonal thinking, the latter of which is associated with Nietzscheans like Alfred Baeumler and Ernst Jünger. It is argued that this metaphysical opposition is best explained in light (...) of Schmitt’s intellectual development from decisionist to concrete order thinker. Moreover, it is argued that the reception of Nietzsche’s concept of the agon by Schmitt took place through Baeumler. Nietzsche’s concept of the agon is best described as a measured productive struggle between opponents who are approximately equal to each other. In the reception of Nietzsche’s concept of the agon a shift of focus occurs from a struggle between individuals to a struggle between collectives. At the same time the social character of the agon is lost, which was expressed in the thought that the individual could only develop his talents in a struggle with others. (shrink)

Nietzsche's vision of modern democracy includes an aspect which many tend to neglect given the historical experience with totalitarian systems of the twentieth century. Precisely on account of its triumphant progress, 'irresistible' democracy, according to Nietzsche, tends to instrumentalize the activities of its enemies. This is a claim made by a philosopher whose work Alfred Baeumler and Georg Lukács considered an extreme political archaism. For a long time no serious objection was raised against this absurd verdict. The present article (...) attempts to show how Nietzsche's universalistic approach assigns a definite place to democratic systems and specifies why these systems are of special relevance for the universal-emancipatory development of humankind It argues that by stating the prophylactic character of the democratic system Nietzsche reaches the very core of his philosophy whereby he differs markedly and positively from other political philosophers. The difference lies precisely in the fact that for Nietzsche a given political system is not an ultimate value or objective, but simply an occasion to realize universal human ambitions. Nietzsche's political philosophy, therefore, establishes a distinction between various political systems evaluating them in terms of their prophylactic potential for the purposes of universal-emancipatory development. /// A visão nietzschiana da democracia moderna inclui um aspecto que muitos intérpretes tendem a esquecer devido à experiência histórica do século XX com sistemas totalitários. Para Nietzsche, é devido ao seu triunfante progresso que a democracia 'irresístivel' tende a instrumentalizar as actividades dos seus próprios inimigos. Curiosamente, esta é a pretensão de um filósofo cuja obra Alfred Baeumler e Georg Lukács consideravam como sendo uma forma extrema de arcaísmo politico, veredicto este contra o qual durante muito tempo nenhuma objecção se levantou. Objectivo dopresente artigo, porém, é precisamente mostrar até que ponto a abordagem universalista de Nietzsche atribui aos sistemas democráticos um lugar determinado e ao mesmo tempo especifica a razão pela qual estes sistemas ocupam um lugar privilegiado no que se refere ao desenvolvimento universal-emancipatório da humanidade. A tese do autor, com efeito, é a de que é precisamente ao afirmar o carácter profíláctico do sistema democrático que Nietzsche alcança o verdadeiro núcleo central da sua filosofia, facto esse mediante o qual ele claramente se distingue de outros pensadores polítcos. A diferença está precisamente no facto de para Nietzsche um determinado sistema político nunca constituir em si um valor último ou objectivo, antes encontra o seu valor na ocasião que porporciona para a realização de ambições humanas universais. A filosofia politica de Nietzsche, portanto, estabelece uma distinção entre uma diversidade de sistemas políticos propondo uma avaliação dos mesmos de acordo com o seu potential profiláctico no que se refere aos objectivos de um desenvolvimento universal e emancipatório. (shrink)

In this article I try to answer one central question: how can it be explained that the most intense reception of American pragmatism in Germany took place during the Nazi dictatorship (and not in democratic political environments before – during the Weimar Republic – and afterwards – in the first 20 years of the Federal Republic)? The answer is complicated: it starts with an academic exchange programme between Germany and the USA which brought the young post-doc Eduard Baumgarten in the (...) mid -20ties to America and put him in contact with John Dewey and some of his pupils. After his return in 1929 he hoped to write and teach about pragmatism. This project came to an abrupt end, when Martin Heidegger denied him a promised position at the university of Freiburg. After the Nazi “seizure of power” the situation became worse when a completely negative expert opinion by Heidegger, by then the leading Nazi philosopher, blocked Baumgartens habilitation in Göttingen. Baumgarten fought back and established ties to a rising star in Nazi-philosophy, Alfred Baeumler, a devoted follower of Nietzsche’s “Will to Power.” This move secured in the end the publication of Baumgarten´s two books on American philosophy and especially on pragmatism. But this triumph came at a cost: a “reinterpretation” of the democratic content of pragmatism and an effort to show similarities between it and Nietzsche´s philosophy. (shrink)

Nietzsche's fundamental vision of modern democracy includes an essential aspect which many tend to neglect given the indelible historical experience with totalitarian systems of the twentieth century. "Irresistible" democracy, precisely on account of its triumphant progress, also sets the course for, or, to use another contemporary expression, instrumentalizes the activities of its very enemies. It is, to say the least, quite striking to read such a claim made by a philosopher whose work Alfred Baeumler and Georg Lukäcs have labelled (...) as extreme political archaism, while for a long time no serious objection was raised against this absurd verdict. We can see that Nietzsche's universalistic approach assigns a definite place to democratic systems and also specifies why these systems are of special relevance for the universal-emancipatory development of humankind. By stating the prophylactic character of the democratic system in such a decisive fashion, Nietzsche reaches the very core of his philosophy. By doing so he differs markedly and positively from several other political philosophers. The difference lies in the fact that for Nietzsche a given political system is not an ultimate value or objective, but, as already mentioned, an opportunity to realize universal human ambitions. This is why his political philosophy establishes a principled distinction between various political systems while also evaluating them according to their prophylactic potential to be utilized for the purposes of universal-emancipatory development. (shrink)

This paper raises a pair of objections to the novel libertarian position advanced in Robert Kane's recent book, The Significance of Free Will.The first objection's target is a central element in Kane's intriguing response to what he calls the "Intelligibility" and "Existence" questions about free will. It is argued that this response is undermined by considerations of luck.The second objection is directed at a portion of Kane's answer to what he calls "The Significance Question" about free will: "Why do we, (...) or should we, want to possess a free will that is incompatible with determinism? Is it a kind of freedom 'worth wanting'... and, if so, why?" A desire for "objective worth" has a featured role in his answer. However, a compatibilist can have that desire. (shrink)

In the first section, I will argue that the folk concept of necessary conditions for intentional action needs refinement. In the second and third sections, I will identify some additional issues one would need to explore in con- structing a statement of individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for intentional action. I will conclude with a brief discussion of the conceptual analyst’s task.

My question here is whether there are intentional mental actions that generate special, significant threats to causalism (i.e., threats of a kind not generated by intentional overt actions), or that generate, more poi- gnantly, problems for causalism that some intentional overt actions allegedly generate, as well.

Compatibilists about free will maintain that free will is compatible with determinism, and incompatibilists disagree. Incompatibilist believers in free will have been challenged to solve a problem that luck poses for them—the problem of present luck. This article articulates that challenge and then explores a novel compatibilist view recently proposed by Christian List. It is argued that List’s view, unlike standard compatibilist views, faces a very similar problem about luck.

This article critically examines recent work on free will and moral responsibility by Randolph Clarke, Robert Kane, and Timothy O’Connor in an attempt to clarify issues about control and luck that are central to the debate between libertarians (agent causationists and others) and their critics. It is argued that luck poses an as yet unresolved problem for libertarians.

I start, in Section I, with the case for skepticism about the possibility of self-deception. In Sections II and III, I review attempts to explain how self-deception, conceived on a strict interpersonal model, is possible. Section IV addresses a variety of analyses of self-deception that involve modest departures from these strict models and canvasses associated attacks on the standard paradoxes. The emphasis there is on the static paradoxes, discussion of their dynamic coun terparts being reserved largely for Section V. Section (...) VI takes up Herbert Fingarette's apparently radical departure from the interpersonal models of deception, while Section VII distinguishes among three approaches to the philosophical investigation of self-deception. I conclude, in Section VIII, with a comment on a promising direction for future work on the topic. (shrink)

This collection of essays ranges from phenomenological descriptions of the beautiful in science to analytical explorations of the philosophical conjunction of ...