This book examines new concept of evolutionary ontology based on the idea of radically different "ontic orders" - natural and cultural being. It explains how culture evolved out of nature and how it became "anti-natural". The remedy is seen in the global biophilous reconstruction of culture. The value of the "live planet" Earth and the "subject" capable of creative activity and evolution are given fundamental philosophical interpretation.

Der Ausdruck Phänomenologie ist heute höchst vieldeutig geworden. Husserl hat seit 1905 eine immer stärkere Wendung zum Idealismus kantischer Prägung hin vollzogen, durch die er den Boden der Phänomenologie, wie er sie begründet hatte, verlassen hat. Eine ähnliche Abweichung von der ursprünglichen Idee der Phänomenologie findet sich bei vielen anderen "Phänomenologen." Die "realistische Phänomenologie", deren Vorläufer von Platon an und Klassiker von Husserl bis Schwarz in dieser ersten umfangreichen deutschsprachigen Anthologie zu Wort kommen, ist kein System, sondern eine Anwendung der (...) philosophischen Urmethoden, wie sie alle großen Philosophen tatsächlich anwandten, wenn sie ihre entscheidenden Entdeckungen machten. Mögen auch von Philosophen generell andere Methoden bewußt zugrunde gelegt werden, in dem Moment, in dem diese Einsichten gewonnen werden, liegt tatsächlich zu allen Zeiten jener letzte, fruchtbare Kontakt mit "den Sachen selbst" vor, der den Sinn der phänomenologischen Methode ausmacht, wie sie von den Meistern der realistischen Phänomenologie nur bewußter und systematischer angewandt wird als von vielen früheren Denkern. Nichts wäre darum irriger als in der phänomenologischen Betrachtungsweise eine Reduktion der Welt auf bloße "Phänomene" zu erblicken oder gar eine bloße Deskription der "Erscheinung" der Dinge. Zwischen phänomenologischer Betrachtungsweise und metaphysischer Wesensanalyse besteht kein Unterschied oder gar Gegensatz. (shrink)

Tradition und Traditionsbruch gehören zu den entscheidenden Herausforderungen in einer beschleunigt zusammenwachsenden Welt. Sollen beide Seiten nicht in einem unfriedlichen Antagonismus verharren, so ist Prämissentransparenz und Grenzbestimmung der je eigenen und fremden Argumente gefragt. In der Auseinandersetzung mit klassischen Quellen der europäischen und außereuropäischen Philosophiegeschichte soll der vorliegende Band zeigen, daß Selbstkritik und Selbstaffirmation in allen Weltphilosophien nur mehr zwei entgegengesetzte Reaktionen auf eine von innen oder von außen gefährdete Identität zum Ausdruck bringen. Skepsis und Dogmatik betreffen darum nicht allein (...) den Kern der abendländischen Annäherungen, sondern sie treffen den Nerv aller Weltphilosophien gleichermaßen. Skeptisch-kritische Positionen prägen ebenso die buddhistische, taoistische und islamische Philosophie; spekulativ-systematische Ansätze finden ihren Niederschlag in der islamischen, der hinduistischen wie auch der europäischen Philosophie; rationalistische und analytische Strömungen lassen sich in allen genannten philosophischen Traditionen ausfindig machen. Leitend ist darum die gemeinsame Frage: Wie ist Identitätskonstruktion in Traditionen möglich, ohne dogmatisch zu werden, und wie können Relativität und Skepsis ihre produktive Funktion entfalten, ohne auf die Universalität der Werte (wie etwa der Menschenrechte) verzichten zu müssen? (shrink)

A rigorous analysis of Maimonides' and Nahmanides' explanations of the Mosaic commandments that challenges received notions of the relation between these two seminal thinkers.

Bd. 1. Von Kant bis Marx.--Bd. 2. Pädagogik zwischen Ideologie und Wissenschaft.

The principle of reflection in biology and psychology.

One of the great Catholic philosophers of our day reflects on the way language has been abused so that, instead of being a means of communicating the truth and entering more deeply into it, and of the acquisition of wisdom, it is being used to control people and manipulate them to achieve practical ends. Reality becomes intelligible through words. Man speaks so that through naming things, what is real may become intelligible. This mediating character of language, however, is being increasingly (...) corrupted. Tyranny, propaganda, mass-media destroy and distort words. They offer us apparent realities whose fictive character threatens to become opaque. Josef Pieper shows with energetic zeal, but also with ascetical restraint, the path out of this dangerous situation. We are constrained to see things again as they are and from the truth thus grasped, to live and to work. (shrink)

The four essays in this little volume are the essence of a lifetime of thought, lecturing and writing by a leading twentieth century philosopher. Josef Pieper's theory of festivity was forged in dismal wartime Germany. Agreeing with Nietzsche that "the trick is not to arrange a festival but to find people who can enjoy it," he discovers a rage for anti-festival sweeping the earth: "C'est la guerre qui correspond a la fete!" Yet Pieper conveys 'certain tidings' of the divine (...) guarantee of the world and of human salvation. In each of these essays Dr. Pieper surveys twentieth century world views. In "Hope and History" he contrasts Baudelaire's and Dostoevsky's dire warnings of an extreme concentration of evil with the promise of the Apocalypse: victory over death; resurrection; a new heaven and a new earth. "The Unavoidable Dilemma of a Non-Christian Philosophy", he says, "is that while Plato, Pythagoras and Aristotle, the founders of Occidental philosophy, require an unprejudiced openness to theology, the secularized modern European or North American does not even know what 'wisdom in divine affairs' means." Finally, in "Leisure" he points out that in contemporary life utility demands to be the measure of all things, including 'spare time' and even the intellectual life of the university. However, Plato, like the Christians, says that only in celebrating divine worship does man lose the shape of a slave. (shrink)

Pain was one of the issues debated between Julian of Aeclanum and Augustine of Hippo. For Augustine pain was an evil caused by original sin. Julian argued that, in the context of creation as a whole, pain can be treated as a good, since its moderate forms are creational. Only in excess are they evil. This article aims at presenting Julian's position in detail, not only in the context of the debate with Augustine, but in the wider context of late (...) ancient philosophy and early Christian doctrine. Julian is well acquainted with philosophical and medical texts and with the biblical and patristic tradition. He rejects Augustine's attempt to work all these into a universal theological theory of pain and thereby deny, in Julian's view, philosophy and medicine their relative autonomy. Julian's plea—as a theologian—for a rational and empirical approach to pain draws as much upon ancient sources as it anticipates an attitude towards natural science and philosophy usually associated with much later periods in history. (shrink)

“This is a book about politics.” (XV) Bereits der erste Satz des Vorwortes gibt die Zielrichtung vor. Der an der University of California in Santa Barbara lehrende Althistoriker Harold A. Drake (D.) hat es sich auf mehr als 600 Seiten – der Verfasser spricht bescheiden von “a sketch” (XVII) – zum Ziel gesetzt, die facettenreiche Gestalt des spätantiken römischen Kaisers Konstantin (306–337) und seine Religionspolitik primär aus der Perspektive des begabten, auf einen umfassenden gesellschaftlichen Konsens hinarbeitenden Politikers zu beschreiben.

Hildebrand oftentimes said that his disciples—even when they believed they were deeply indebted to him for knowledge, wisdom, and truth—had a duty to criticize and overcome any error they would find in his philosophy, because the sole purpose of his writings was to state the truth. He himself gave some extraordinary examples of self-critique. In the following, I wish to treat such an example: a significant error about the nature of the free volitional response, which Stephen Schwarz was the first (...) to note and which Hildebrand himself later explicitly revoked. Furthermore, I wish to show that Hildebrand’s rejecting this error makes his ethics as a whole much more consistent, and opens the way to bringing his philosophy of love closer to our experience. (shrink)

It is well known that Maimonides rejects the Kalam argument for the existence of God because it assumes the temporal creation of the world, a premise for which he says there is no “cogent demonstration (burhan qat'i) except among those who do not know the difference between demonstration, dialectics, and sophistic argument.”Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, trans. Shlomo Pines (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), I:71:180. All references are to this translation; parenthetic in-text references are to part, chapter, (...) and page. By contrast, he claims to establish belief in the existence of God “through a demonstrative method as to which there is no disagreement in any respect” (I:71:182). Taken at his word, Maimonides’ proofs for the existence of the deity, like Aquinas’s five ways, have traditionally been read as models of medieval natural theology: of the power of human reason to independently establish revealed truth. In recent years, however, the same demonstrations have assumed a second kind of significance. For scholars, like myself, who argue that Maimonides holds severe views about the limitations of human knowledge of divine science and metaphysics, these demonstrations are the strongest conceivable counterevidence.The locus classicus for this view is Shlomo Pines, “The Limitations of Human Knowledge According to Al-Farabi, Ibn Bajja, and Maimonides,” in Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature, ed. I Twersky, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979), I:82–109. See also his “Les Limites de la Métaphysique selon Al-Farabi, ibn Bajja et Maimonide; Sources et Antitheses de ces Doctrines chez Alexandre d’Aphrodise et Chez Themistius,” Miscellanea Mediaevalia 13 (1981): 211–25; “Dieu et L’Etre Selon Maimonide: Exégese d’Exode 3,14 et doctrine connexe,” in Celui qui est: Interprétations juives et chrétiennes d’Exode 3, 14, ed. A. de Libera et E. Zum Brunn (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf [Collection “Patrimoines”], 1986), 15–24; and “The Relation between Maimonides’ Halakhic and non-Halakhic Works,” in Maimonides and Philosophy, ed., S. Pines and Y. Yovel (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1987). Pines concludes, on the basis of the limitations of the intellect with respect to knowledge of metaphysics, that Maimonides, like Kant, gives priority to the practical over the theoretical. For arguments drawing different ‘skeptical’ conclusions, see my “Maimonides in the Skeptical Tradition,” ms.; “Maimonides on the Growth of Knowledge and the Limitations of the Intellect,” to appear in Tony Levy, ed., Maimonide: Traditions philosophiques et scientifiques médievales arabe, hébraique, latine; “Logical Syntax as a Key to a Secret of the Guide of the Perplexed,” (in Heb.), Iyyun 38 (1989): 137–66; “Maimonides on Language and the Science of Language,” in Maimonides and the Sciences, ed., H. Levine and R. Cohen (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2000), pp. 173–226; and The Matter and Form of Maimonides’ Guide (forthcoming). If Maimonides really held that humans cannot apprehend metaphysical truths about the deity, how could he have demonstrated (or even thought he could demonstrate) the existence of God? If he does demonstrate it, then humans evidently do have knowledge of metaphysics. As one distinguished scholar has recently protested, it is nothing less than “perverse” to interpret Maimonides as “meaning that the existence of God is unknowable when he in fact prides himself on having demonstrated the existence of God in four different ways.”Herbert A. Davidson, “Maimonides on Metaphysical Knowledge,” Maimonidean Studies 3 (1992–1993): 49–103, 86. See also Alfred L. Ivry, “The Logical and Scientific Premises of Maimonides’ Thought,” in Perspectives on Jewish Thought and Mysticism, ed. Alfred L. Ivry, Elliot R. Wolfson, and Allan Arkush (Amsterdam: Harwood Publishers, 1998), pp. 63–97, 70. (shrink)

For Pieper, the study of tradition is anything but antiquarian. He begins with a consideration of tradition in a changing world and is well aware of the need to confront the all-too-common perception that "tradition" is nowadays irrelevant. On the basis of his profound knowledge of the Western philosophical tradition from Plato and Aristotle through Augustine, Boethius, Thomas Aquinas, and Descartes, to modern Existentialism and Marxism, Pieper is able to highlight the values established - and challenged - down through the (...) centuries. He sees the need to re-examine these values, to rid them of the false interpretations and misunderstandings that threaten to consign them to oblivion. He attempts to restate them in language which, in fact, not only reflects the clarity of his mind but also expresses his conviction that these values, freshly examined and understood, provide a sound basis for healthy living and for our survival against the dangers that pose a serious threat to the very existence of Western civilization. He illustrates these values by examining the contrast between an exponent of them, like Socrates, and an opportunist, like the Sophist Protagoras; between the man of principle and the nihilistic pragmatist. The book consists of a mixture of articles and speeches, produced by a man who, though often wooed by the academy, was not concerned with achieving personal status as an academic professor. He insisted, for the most part, in combining purely academic teaching with the education of teachers in teacher-training colleges. He would not be removed from close contact with "learners," and he remained a "learner" himself - from tradition. (shrink)