This introduction to the Common Knowledge symposium titled “Comparative Relativism” outlines a variety of intellectual contexts where placing the unlikely companion terms comparison and relativism in conjunction offers analytical purchase. If comparison, in the most general sense, involves the investigation of discrete contexts in order to elucidate their similarities and differences, then relativism, as a tendency, stance, or working method, usually involves the assumption that contexts exhibit, or may exhibit, radically different, incomparable, or incommensurable traits. Comparative studies are required to (...) treat their objects as alike, at least in some crucial respects; relativism indicates the limits of this practice. Jensen argues that this seeming paradox is productive, as he moves across contexts, from Lévi-Strauss's analysis of comparison as an anthropological method to Peter Galison's history of physics, and on to the anthropological, philosophical, and historical examples offered in symposium contributions by Barbara Herrnstein Smith, Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, Marilyn Strathern, and Isabelle Stengers. Comparative relativism is understood by some to imply that relativism comes in various kinds and that these have multiple uses, functions, and effects, varying widely in different personal, historical, and institutional contexts that can be compared and contrasted. Comparative relativism is taken by others to encourage a “comparison of comparisons,” in order to relativize what different peoples—say, Western academics and Amerindian shamans—compare things “for.” Jensen concludes that what is compared and relativized in this symposium are the methods of comparison and relativization themselves. He ventures that the contributors all hope that treating these terms in juxtaposition may allow for new configurations of inquiry. (shrink)

INTRODUCTION 'Anthropology' does not have quite the same meaning in Germany as it has in English-speaking countries. As the word is used in the latter ...

European Journal of Philosophy, Volume 29, Issue 3, Page 581-591, September 2021.

In the last thirty years of his life Kant was preoccupied with the question of whether or not the "signs of progress" could be elicited from the vale of tears of the historical process. In what follows I am interested in the question of what kind of meaning Kant's historico-philosophical hypothesis of progress can have for us today. In order to provide an answer to this question, I make a distinction between system-conforming and system-bursting, or unorthodox, versions of historical progress. (...) This distinction is made in order to show that only system-bursting versions of progress can prompt us to confer contemporary meaning on Kant's philosophy of history as a learning process that is conflict ridden and without illusions. (shrink)

In what follows, I attempt to reconstruct Fichte’s and Hegel’s reasons for developing at almost the same time two very different conceptions of a rational economic order. Whereas Hegel, on the basis of his objective notion of reason, would recommend that a rational state, founded on the notion of right, should include a strictly confined, socially embedded market economy, Fichte, on the basis of his subjective notion of reason, thought instead that the very same state must adopt an economic order (...) that might well be described as a ‘planned economy’. Throughout the article I discuss whether it is the stark differences in their methodological premisses or their very different ideas about the individual freedom to be institutionalized in the economic sphere that helps us understand their respective notions of a rational economy. (shrink)

An attempt to answer in some detail the questions and criticism brought up in a colloquium on my book on ‘Socialism’.

European Journal of Philosophy, Volume 29, Issue 3, Page 575-580, September 2021.

In my contribution I ask whether the version of secular reason Jürgen Habermas characterises as “post-metaphysical” can really provide us children of modernity with a comprehensive self- and world-understanding. I begin by asking what it means to claim that secular reason is “post-metaphysical” (1). There are various possible ways of understanding this characterisation, some stronger than others; but there needs to be clarity on this issue to address my second question: What would secular reason really have to achieve in order (...) to make good on its claim that it can still provide us with a comprehensive understanding of our relation both to ourselves and to the world? I will split this question along two dimensions: from a theoretical standpoint we should explore how reality has to be understood in order to allow us to attain a consistent understanding of self and world; from a practical standpoint, we need to ask which attitudes we would actually have to adopt towards reality in order to find in it the kind of orientation that Habermas believes his version of secular reason holds in store (2). In a third step, I follow up on these practical considerations by asking whether, at the level of everyday praxis, an orienting conception of self and world in this day and age does not in fact demand more than Habermas seems to have in mind (3). Finally, and returning, albeit indirectly, to the meaning of “post-metaphysical”, I cast some doubt on the Habermasian thesis that secular reason can survive only in the form of a tradition that reaches back either to Kant or to Hume; I want to question whether this division is exhaustive and briefly bring a third alternative into play (4). (shrink)

The article attempts to show that Hegel’s concept of “civil society” is characterised by a deep ambivalence regarding the value of the new market economy. On the one hand, Hegel believed that the economic system represented by “civil society” succeeded like no other in simultaneously giving free reign to the desires of individual subjects and integrating them into a stable structural framework (I). On the other hand, Hegel’s reflections are increasingly overtaken by doubts as to whether, in the light of (...) its self-destructive tendencies, the market system can be as successful in guaranteeing individual freedom as he first envisaged it tobe (II). In the course of this essay, it will ultimately become clear that Hegel’s attempt to redefine “civil society” reveals considerably more conceptual indecision and inner conflict than one might have suspected from the great system builder. (shrink)

Avishai Margalit, The Decent Society (translated by Naomi Goldblum).

The juxtaposition of strong and weak critique, which is so common today, represents the somewhat fruitless attempt to bring to a head a multifaceted discussion. For years now—in fact, since the end of Marxism as an autonomous theory—there has been a question regarding the possibility of finding an appropriate standpoint for a probing critical examination of the underlying assumptions of liberal-democratic society without relying upon a philosophy of history. On the one hand, material questions play a large role in the (...) discussion since it is difficult to envision alternatives to the institutional framework of highly developed societies of the West that are both desirable and efficient. On the other hand, philosophical questions play an eminent role in this debate, and these philosophical questions are often of a methodological nature. Specifically, at the center of the debate stands the problem of how to describe and justify a standpoint from which one can fruitfully critique society and its institutional practices. (shrink)

Este artículo propone la reconstrucción del punto de vista moral sobre la base de una compleja teoría del reconocimiento mutuo. Su punto de partida consiste en la comprensión del Hegel temprano de la lucha por el reconocimiento como el proceso dinámico de establecer distintas formas de afirmación mutua de la propia identidad en las relaciones de amor, respeto legal y moral, y estima social. Su punto de llegada es la afirmación de diferentes tipos de obligaciones en los diferentes contextos sociales, (...) a saber, deberes asimétricos de cuidar de los demás en sus necesidades y deseos individuales, deberes recíprocos de tratar igualitariamente a cada persona, y deberes de demostrar solidaridad y estimar a los demás en su particularidad. (shrink)

This paper pursues two questions derived from psychoanalysis that are central to the theory of recognition: must the image or force of negativity classically derived from Freud necessarily be thought of as an elementary component of human beings equipped with drives? Or, can this image or force of negativity be conceptualised as an unavoidable result of the unfolding processes of internalised socialisation? The first question is pursued in a consideration of its legacy for the older representatives of the Frankfurt School, (...) whilst the second question is pursued for its contribution to the theory of recognition that places the force of negativity within the domain of the social and not in a theory of the drives. (shrink)

(No abstract is available for this citation).

The paper aims at demonstrating that Martin Seel’s aesthetic theory suffers from the same unresolved tension that can be found in Schiller’s ›Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man‹: On the one hand, art is assigned the task of bringing to our attention the undiminished complexity of an object’s qualitative properties; on the other hand, however, art is also given the role of putting us into a state of »active determinability« thanks to its liquefaction of all our well-rehearsed determinations and (...) determinations, thus allowing us the freedom of experimental self-exploration. Both theories fail to make plausible the argumentative transition that could establish a link between these two tasks of art. (shrink)

Anerkennung ist ein Schlüsselbegriff unserer Zeit geworden. Gesellschaftliche Konflikte werden von den Beteiligten als Kämpfe um Anerkennung beschrieben. Unterdrückte und benachteiligte gesellschaftliche Gruppen fordern nicht nur materielle Besserstellung, sondern sie ringen auch um soziale Anerkennung. Indem sie das tun, beziehen sie sich zugleich auf eine normative Ordnung, die regelt, wofür in einer Gesellschaft Anerkennung zugewiesen wird oder wofür man mit Missachtung rechnen muss. Im Band wird die zentrale Gegenwartskategorie vor ihrem historischen Hintergrund erschlossen. Die Autoren beleuchten Veränderungen sozialer Anerkennungsbeziehungen in (...) den Feldern Arbeit und Konsum, Recht, Medien und Familie und fragen nach der normativen Legitimation von Anerkennungsansprüchen. Ein Wandel wird sichtbar: Tradierte Anerkennungsformen geraten unter Druck, während um die Anerkennung neuer Ansprüche gerungen wird. (shrink)

Capitalismo e riconoscimento" presenta, in cinque saggi per la prima volta raccolti insieme e tradotti in italiano, una densa e pregnante analisi di taluni cruciali processi socio-strutturali, morali e normativi delle società capitalistiche contemporanee dalla prospettiva delle dinamiche del reciproco riconoscimento e del disrispetto concernenti la sfera del lavoro. Particolare attenzione è dedicata ai paradossali rovesciamenti delle istanze di autorealizzazione, autonomia e responsabilità personale registratisi negli ultimi decenni nel quadro di un mercato del lavoro sempre più deregolato.