Nicht erst die moderne Philosophie hat die fundamentale Doppelnatur des Körperlichen erkannt, das einerseits diejenigen Gegenstände auszeichnet, die wir mit größtmöglicher Distanz und Objektivität wissenschaftlich untersuchen, das sich uns andererseits und zuallererst aber auch in der Form des jeweils eigenen, in seiner Integrität stets bedrohten und letztlich dem Zerfall ausgelieferten Körpers aufdrängt als Bedingung, an der unsere eigene Existenz durch und durch hängt. Schon die Denker der Antike arbeiten sich an dieser Problematik ab; und es gilt, die gedanklichen Ressourcen nutzbar (...) zu machen, die sie für uns bereithalten. Die in diesem Band versammelten Beiträge spiegeln die antike Auseinandersetzung um den Körper und das Körperliche in all ihren Dimensionen und Schattierungen wieder. Gleichzeitig machen sie deutlich, dass diese Auseinandersetzungen nur geführt werden konnten vor dem Hintergrund einer althergebrachten und für lange Zeit sehr wirkmächtigen Tendenz, Organismen wie die Menschen als paradigmatische körperliche Wesen aufzufassen und dieses Paradigma zum Ausgangspunkt für Reflexionen über das Körperliche als solches zu nehmen. Im ersten Teil des Bandes geht es um das antike Nachdenken über den lebendigen, insbesondere menschlichen Körper. Im Mittelpunkt steht weniger die wissenschaftliche Beschäftigung mit diesem Körper als vielmehr die existenzielle Situation, in der sich der Mensch als ein körperliches Wesen befindet. Der zweite und dritte Teil behandeln die Frage nach den Möglichkeiten, Bedingungen und Grenzen der wissenschaftlichen Beschreibung von Körpern und ihrem Verhalten bei Platon und in der platonischen Tradition sowie bei Aristoteles und in der aristotelischen Tradition. (shrink)

Beziehungen sind nicht gegeben, sie werden gemeinsam gemacht. Der Band untersucht Relationalitäten als prozessuale Aushandlungen zwischen Künsten und Wissenschaften, zwischen gebautem Raum und sozialem Körper, zwischen theoretischem und poetisch-künstlerischem Schreiben und Sprechen, zwischen Form, Material und Handlung. Plädiert wird für eine Wissenspolitik der Künste, die von einer radikalen Verstricktheit theoretischer, ästhetischer, medialer und gesellschaftlicher Praktiken und Techniken ausgeht. Mit Beiträgen von / with contributions by Bini Adamczak, Emily Apter, Alice Chauchat, Beatriz Colomina, Gradinger / Schubot, Annika Haas, Maximilian Haas, Orit (...) Halpern, Tom Holert, Amy Lien & Enzo Camacho, Maurício Liesen, Hanna Magauer, Michaela Ott, Sibylle Peters, Dennis Pohl, Possible Bodies (Helen Pritchard, Jara Rocha, Femke Snelting), Ghassan Salhab, Mirjam Schaub, Melanie Sehgal, Nora Sternfeld, Kathrin Thiele, Jeremy Wade, Brigitte Weingart. (shrink)

Formal epistemologists criticise the Conciliatory View of peer disagreement for being non-commutative with conditionalisation, path dependent and does not preserve the independence between propositions. Failing to commute with conditionalisation, one may switch the order between conciliating and conditionalising and obtain different outcomes. Failing to be path independent, the outcome of conciliation varies with the order of the acquisition of new testimonies. Failing to preserve the independence between propositions, one may suffer from a sure-loss and hence be deemed irrational. The three (...) formal deficiencies urge people to abandon the Conciliatory View. This paper aims to show that one may save the Conciliatory View by conciliating with nonlinear functions. Research in the study of opinion pooling shows that the three deficiencies are not problems of the Conciliatory View, but problems of linear averaging. Hence, one can get rid of these formal deficiencies by making conciliation with nonlinear averaging functions. After showing how the three deficiencies can be avoided, I will explore the features of nonlinear averaging functions and argue that they have properties that correctly capture people’s intuition concerning disagreement. The conclusion, therefore, is to suggest epistemologists develop a more fine-grained taxonomy for cases of disagreement. With a deliberate categorisation of different kinds of disagreement, epistemologists can pick the proper averaging rule to apply in each specific case, and get rid of possible formal deficiencies. (shrink)

Being follower of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, a senior Thai Buddhist monk author narrates his experience and success in business by applying principles and teachings in setting his business ethics.

「人に親切にしろ」「故郷を愛せよ」「社会のマナーは守ろう」。学校の道徳の時間に教えられてきたのは、このような徳育でしかなく、こういった言葉はもう十分、聞き飽きた。では、いまの時代・社会にフィットした道 徳とは何か?また、それをどのようにして、子どもたちに教えたらよいのか?本書では、様々な倫理学の知見を掘り下げながら、哲学的にその本質に迫っていく。ひとりでは生き延びることができない時代に、他者と共に生 きるための道徳が求められる。.

Wenn die Namen Schopenhauer und Hegel zusammen genannt werden, dann stehen in der Regel die Gegensätzlichkeiten im Vordergrund. Der ›Panlogismus‹ Hegels wird dem ›Irrationalismus‹ Schopenhauers gegenübergestellt, die Rolle der Geschichte bei Hegel dem Ahistorismus Schopenhauers, der optimistische Fortschrittsgedanke der pessimistischen Weltverneinung. Infolge der außerordentlichen Wirkung, die beiden Philosophen beschieden war, hatte die Konfrontation philosophiehistorische Dimensionen angenommen.

江戸期国学者たちから1970年代の議論まで、最前線の思想史の実践。近現代の日本を舞台に繰り広げられたさまざまな論争。.

This book focuses on the emergence and development of philosophical historiography as a university discipline in the 18th and 19th centuries. During that period historians of philosophy evaluated medieval philosophical theories through the lenses of modern leitmotifs and assigned to medieval thinkers positions within an imaginary map of cultural identities based on the juxtaposition of 'self' and 'other'. Some medieval philosophers were regarded as 'forerunners' who had constructively paved the way for modern rationality; whereas others, viewed as 'outsiders', had contributed (...) to the same effect by way of their struggle against established forms of philosophy. The contributions gathered in this volume each deal with the creative reception of a particular figure in modern history of philosophy. From the 9th century, with al-Farabi, to the 16th century, these philosophers belong to four historical worlds which have been characterized by European cultural history or have defined themselves as such: the (Jewish-)Arabic world (al-Farabi, Avicenna, Maimonides), Latin scholasticism (Roger Bacon, Henry of Ghent, William of Ockham, Marsilius of Padua), medieval lay philosophy (Ramon Lull, Petrarch), and Humanism in a broader sense (Nicholas of Cusa, Petrus Ramus, Andrea Cesalpino). (shrink)

Legal reasoning settles morally pressing matters through a technique that largely bypasses open-ended moral argument. That technique makes central what certain persons validly decided in the past, for example in creating statutes, judicial resolutions, contracts, or wills. Identifying valid decisions is a lawyerly skill and, echoing legal practice, legal philosophy has paid considerable attention to validity criteria. But it has neglected to explore validity's point: whether, and if so exactly how, the special technique of validity contributes to a legal system's (...) ability to realise justice and human rights. Even the most sensible defences of the moral need for positive law have insufficiently probed this key step in the argument. This book lays bare the workings of legal validity, and shows why, and within what general limits, this technique equips legal systems with privileged tools to foster human well-being. In so doing, the book explains how power-conferring norms setting out validity criteria endow agents' intentions with 'performative' effect ('I hereby.') and can secure the requirement of justice that there be widespread convergence on specific patterns of conduct shaped through a cooperative effort. Legal meaning is accordingly systemic, resulting from the valid acts of multiple agents whose decisions can, by virtue of exercising legal power, also exercise moral power (authority). In short, the book articulates why it is morally necessary that validity does not primarily turn on moral considerations. (shrink)

With the rise of responsible innovation initiatives in firms that commercialize innovation in recent years, experts have argued that in order for RI to succeed, practical issues must be considered. Accordingly, this paper explores RI from the perspective of Korean emerging technology development firms. Although social benefits are expected from RI, which aims to reduce the side effects of innovations for society, the implementation of RI requires changing firms’ existing rules and routines. Therefore, predicting benefits and costs from the firm’s (...) perspective can shed light on the likelihood that RI will succeed. In this study, through an expert survey, the relative weights of RI-related benefit criteria and cost criteria were analyzed. On this basis, trends in priorities for RI levels were evaluated from present and future perspectives. Unexpectedly, firms recognized that even if constraints such as RI impose greater costs, they will eventually bring greater benefits. This finding indicates that innovation induced by RI overcomes obstacles, offsets costs, and then finally increases firms’ competitiveness, and that firms are willing to do good for society through RI. In the long term, a firm’s ethical activities may eventually result in improved performance by its management. Therefore, it can be concluded that, even if RI is enforced in a compulsory manner, it is highly likely that it can be well established and promoted even in firms that consider profit first. (shrink)