Schopenhauer bases morality on the concept of compassion, which he assumes to be the “great mystery of ethics”. He sees it and as a spontaneous action that can neither be taught or planned. However, some elements of his theory of human action allow us to conceive of an ethical-moral action (the compassionate act) as something less mysterious or immediate, rather a mediated and planned action in its social or sociability dimension, or even as one which is suggested. In this paper (...) I propose what may be called a “valorization of the empirical apparatus” of Schopenhauerian thinking on human action (vís-a-vis the metaphysical apparatus) by distinguishing between what I call great ethics and small ethics, a differentiation that I believe can be inferred from some of the philosopher’s elaborations. (shrink)

Dans cet article, nous analysons les bases onto-éthiques du concept jonassien de « solidarité d’intérêts », compris comme un lien unissant tous les êtres vivants en un réseau d’interdépendances existentielles. Cette perspective renforce la critique contemporaine en éthique et en sciences à propos de l’anthropocentrisme qui est, de la même façon, au coeur de la critique que Hans Jonas fait de l’éthique traditionnelle et de la science moderne. Cet article analyse les bases onto-éthiques de ce concept à l’aide du « (...) principe de médiateté » que Jonas comprend comme la capacité d’établir des médiations avec le milieu en vue de la préservation de l’autre, mais aussi de soi-même, de telle façon qu’il s’agirait d’une forme très particulière de solidarité, celle qui, dans le cadre organique, n’exclut pas l’intérêt de la vie pour l’auto-préservation. La solidarité est une condition ontologique d’interdépendance entre les êtres et aussi, selon Jonas, entre les choses, incluant un partage d’identité entre différentes formes de vie et une marque fondamentale de l’Être, car selon cette logique, l’expérience la plus intime de la vie est de résister à la mort – voire c’est cette solidarité qui devient le principal motif de tels rapports. Dans le cadre de l’histoire des réseaux de solidarité, l’être humain occupe une place particulière : c’est chez lui que la précarité assume des versions plus évidentes et c’est chez lui que se développe, comme réponse, des capacités plus favorables à sa subsistance. Ce concept de solidarité devient central pour comprendre les degrés de liberté qui caractérisent la vie au regard de l’obligation éthique de les préserver à travers le principe de responsabilité. En d’autres termes, la solidarité doit fonder également la responsabilité : il s’agit de penser l’affirmation de la vie dans le cadre collectif des garanties portant sur les conditions d’existence au moment présent et surtout celles portant sur l’avenir. (shrink)

Hegel's _Phenomenology_ is considered by many to be the most difficult book in the philosophical canon. While some authors have published excellent essays on various chapters and aspects of the book, few authors have successfully tackled the whole. In _The Unity of Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit_", Jon Stewart interprets Hegel's work as a dialectical transformation of Kantian transcendental philosophy, providing from this unified standpoint a case for Hegel's own conception of philosophy as a system. In restoring them to their larger (...) systematic contexts, Stewart clarifies Hegel's individual analyses, as well as indicating the meaning and significance of the transitions and illustrating the parallelisms between the respective analyses. Many of Hegel's main themes- universal-particular, mediacy-immediacy-are traced through the text, demonstrating Hegel's formal continuity. By examining at the microlevel the particulars of the dialectical movement, and by analyzing at the macrolevel the role of the argument in question in the context of the work as a whole, Stewart provides a detailed analysis of the _Phenomenology_ and a significant scholarly demonstration of Hegel's own conception of the _Phenomenology_ as a part of a systematic philosophy. (shrink)

This paper outlines the history of the distinction between a higher and a lower cognitive function up to Kant. It is argued that Kant initially drew the distinction in Scholastic terms--as a distinction between a capacity to image particulars and a capacity to represent universals. However, features of his project in the Critique led him to reformulate the distinction in terms of immediacy and mediacy. Nonetheless, for certain purposes the older, Scholastic distinction retained its attractiveness, and this is the (...) ground for much of the subsequent difficulty with his account of intuitions and concepts. (shrink)

Two lines of argument with which kant defends the distinction between thought and intuition are examined. It is argued that attempts to establish thought and intuition as separate faculties on the basis of the immediacy and singularity of intuitions and the mediacy and generality of concepts fail. Kant's second way of making out the distinction is a transcendental account of the possibility of an intellect like ours. He argues that it is a fundamental characteristic of the human intellect that (...) it is not intuitive and that we can be brought into relation with objects only through an intuitive faculty distinct from the faculty of conceptual representation. This line of argument is reconstructed from kant's correspondence and the "critique of judgment", And it is argued that it represents "a" plausible kantian response to criticisms of his distinction. (shrink)

TRADITIONALLY, SCHLEIERMACHER’S REDEN ÜBER DIE RELIGION has been considered to emphasize intuition and immediacy as the means by which to understand and relate to the world. This reading was popularized by Wilhelm Dilthey and carried on into the twentieth century by Karl Barth and Hans-Georg Gadamer. Though none of these thinkers is solely interested in the Reden, it forms their starting point and as such informs much of their interpretation of Schleiermacher’s later works. More recently, however, an emphasis on Schleiermacher’s (...) notion of mediacy has appeared, with readings ranging so widely that some call Schleiermacher a “good Kantian,” remaining within the limitations of Kant’s first Kritik, while others claim that Schleiermacher is proto-Hegelian, and still others, that he is a proto-pragmatist. In emphasizing one or the other, immediacy or mediacy, intuition or mediation, these attempts have avoided the complexity of Schleiermacher’s project: the fact that Schleiermacher considers immediacy and mediacy, intuition and mediation, of equal significance and goes so far as to place them side by side in his understanding of experience and of knowledge. (shrink)

This paper reviews the concept of ‘essence’ in Edmund Husserl and Thomas Aquinas as found presented by Edith Stein in her Festschrift article, ‘Husserl’s Phenomenology and the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas: Attempt at a Comparison,’ in the Jahrbuch für Philosophie und Phänomenologische Forschung (1929, 370). The aim of the paper is to perform an analysis of Stein’s understanding of the principal similarities and differences in the understandings of essence found in the writings of Husserl and Aquinas, and primarily in (...) terms of the immediacy of the intuition or cognition of essences. I begin by a basic analysis of this commonality and difference with a focus on the interweaving of the following themes: essence and existence; essence and sensual knowledge; essence and its objective ground; essence as intuited, as actively acquired and as passively received; insight into essence, immediate and mediate knowledge. Despite certain misunderstanding arising between the phenomenological movement and the scholastic tradition in this sphere, Stein recognises a number of points of agreement, namely, 1) the beginnings of all knowledge in sense experience, 2) the intellectual ‘work’ (erarbeiten) that is required to achieve a clear vision of essences, and 3) the finally passive nature of the act of understanding. I critically analyse each of these enumerated points of agreement towards clarifying how Stein conceives of the possibility of using the phenomenological method for achieving an understanding of essences coherent with a Thomistic metaphysical worldview, and how she parses and explains the further disagreements over the question of the mediacy or immediacy of human knowledge of essences of different kinds. (shrink)

Here are presented the essential features of what Mach considered the four important types or ideas of space and time. These are referred to as ‘perceptual,’ ‘geometrical,’ ‘physical space and time’ and ‘mathematical manifolds.’ Although the first is foundational, we consider how in Mach’s view each further type is in a sense a more general abstraction, freed from particular limiting characteristics of the preceding type. What is most significant is his view of the fourth, in which the most fundamental and (...) essential feature of space is as a relation of immediacy and of time as a relation of mediacy. Some of the important implications of this are discussed, along with suggestions regarding their possible relevance to contemporary physics. (shrink)

The topic of this essay is the work of the reflection. After having focused on the «rift» between reflection and its working in Valéry’s thought, Vitiello focuses on the process which Hegel described in The Phenomenology of Spirit, namely the process of the experience of the consciousness, which elevates itself to the consciousness of the experience. The conclusion is strongly critical: Hegel misses the aim at the very point in which he achieves it. Indeed, in the absolute knowledge, in the (...) complete and perfect view of itself, of the light which sees the light, the experience of the consciousness itself fails, its becoming, its «imperfection» fail. The critique of Hegel, passing through Nietzsche, expands to a critique of language, in particular of the language of «being» and of «is», and of the Heideggerian tautologies, such as «das Ereignis ereignet», «das Ding dingt», «die Welt weltet». An important passage of the text concerns the theatrical language, in which the word seems to regain the original bond between voice and gesture, which remains divided nevertheless, because the medium itself which connects them – i.e., the «color» of the word – is «outside» the word and «outside» the gesture. Only the word of the act, of the pragmata, remains. In such a word, doing exhibits its most appropriate modality, namely the immediacy of being-affected: the cry of pain; or the reflexive mediacy of the moral imperative: Handle! The two opposite «colours» of the things. (shrink)

Origen of Alexandria can be credited as the founder of a Christian speculative angelology, in which Christ the Logos is both the creator and the interpreter of the angels. He introduces the angels as the first created rational beings who, in contemplating the divine Word (Logos), freely choose to direct their will as holy angels in service to or wicked demons in antagonism against the love of God. The first created rational beings are divided into three orders: the angels, the (...) demons, and the neutral spirits of human souls. The angels remain closest in contemplation of the Logos, yet, due to their negligence, descend to unfold in the angelic hierarchy. The angels and demons thereafter guide the movements of all spirits, substances, and signs in the created world. The neutral spirits of human souls can choose to follow either the guidance of guardian angels or demons. And yet after the Incarnation, the angels are distinguished from the demons by their choice to follow Christ. Origen’s angelology has often been regarded as an early Christian alternative to Middle Platonic daemonologies. And after Karl Barth, his angelology has come to be dispensed from Christian theology. However, as Jean Daniélou has observed, Origen had previously departed from Platonic daemonology in affirming that angelic mediacy must pass away like the light of the stars before the brilliance of the Logos of Christ. He had, in this way, already assimilated the mediacy of the angels to the absolute mediation of Christ. And, in assimilating angelic to christic mediacy, Origen also attributes the reason with which the world is moved to the divine reason of the divine Word (Logos) of Christ in God. Origen’s angelology can thus be read both before and after Barth as a science of the angels. (shrink)

This paper examines narrativism’s claim that the historical past cannot be known once and for all because it must be continuously re-described from the standpoint of the present. We argue that this claim is based on a non sequitur. We take narrativism’s claim that the past must be re-described continuously from the perspective of the present to be the result of the following train of thought: 1) “all knowledge is conceptually mediated”; 2) “the conceptual framework through which knowledge of reality (...) is mediated changes with every new generation of historians”; therefore (narrativism’s claim) “the historical past changes with every new generation of historians”. The idea of an unchanging past, for the narrativist, requires denying premise 1 (all knowledge is conceptually mediated”) and therefore rests on a problematic commitment to the chimerical notion of the past as it is in-itself, wie es eigentlich gewesen. We argue that the narrativist’s conclusion does not follow unless one adds a further premise, namely 3) “it is not possible to view reality through the categorial framework of historical agents”. If one asserts the possibility of grasping reality through the categorial framework of others, be they contemporary or past agents (as much philosophy of history written in an idealist key does), then one no longer has to accept the narrativist’s inference that since the past cannot be known in-itself or independently of conceptual mediation, then it cannot be known as it always was for the historical agents. Narrativism’s inference that the past cannot be known as it always was does not follow from premises 1 and 2 unless one smuggles in another problematic premise, premise 3. In this paper we defend the claim that the past can be known as it always was (not as it is in-itself) by invoking a different conception of the role of conceptual mediation in historical knowledge, one which assumes the possibility of viewing reality through the categorial framework of others. This notion of the role of conceptual mediation in historical knowledge is prevalent in the idealist tradition but, in the interest of brevity, we will defend this notion of mediacy by specific reference to the idealist philosophy of R.G. Collingwood. (shrink)

In my paper, I consider the holistic thought in Theodor W. Adorno’s Husserl-studies, and the epistemological possibility to know the “non-identical”. First, I discuss the phenomenological antinomy. This is not only the starting point of Adorno’s Husserl-studies, but also has his holistic thought in it. Adorno pointed out Husserl’s assumptions that our consciousness is directly related to objects and that our consciousness is always mediately or indirectly related to the objects. Second, I discuss Adorno’s solution of that antinomy. He tried (...) to carry out the thorough immanent phi-losophy with a gestalt theory. And he pointed out mediacy in the Husserl’s text and to find non-identity between our consciousness and objects. Third, I consider the relations between the thought of “non-identical” by Adorno and his holistic thought. The latter was influenced by Hans Cornelius, Adorno’s teacher. So I show that the thought of Cornelius is very significant for Adorno.En mi ponencia considero el pensamiento holista presente en los estudios sobre Husserl de Theodor W. Adorno y la posibilidad epistemológica de conocer la “no identidad”. En primer lugar, analizo la antinomia fenomenológica. No es solo el punto de arranque de los estudios sobre Husserl de Adorno, sino que también contiene su pensamiento holista. Adorno pone de manifiesto las asunciones de Husserl: de que nuestra conciencia está relacionada directmente con los objetos y de que nuestra conciencia está siempre relacionada de manera mediata o indirecta con los objetos. En segundo lugar, discuto la solución adorniana a esta antinomia. Su intento consistía en crear una filosofía íntegramente immanentista con ayuda de la teoría gestalt. Indica también la mediatez presente en los textos de Husserl, encontrando la no-identidad entre nuestra conciencia y objetos. En tercer lugar, considero la relación entre el pensamiento de la “no identidad” de Adorno y su pensamiento holista. El autor fue influido por Hans Cornelius, el profesor de Adorno. Muestro entonces que el pensamiento de Cornelius ha sido de gran importancia para Adorno. (shrink)

Bergson avait-il prévu dès 1903, dans un article qui annonçait la possibilité de passer par approfondissement de l’intuition du moi à celle d’une "éternité de vie", la suite de son œuvre, et en particulier son grand livre de 1932, Les Deux Sources de la morale et de la religion ? Oui, si rien, dans sa méthode philosophique intuitive, n’a changé en trente ans. A la suite de Jean Nabert (1941), cet article veut montrer que la méthode philosophique bergsonienne subit un (...) changement majeur en 1932, contrainte d’abandonner l’immédiateté qui la caractérisait et découvrant la médiation. (shrink)

During the Nineties, the diffusion of information and communication technologies allowed a dramatic transformation in art practices. Radically new aesthetic experiences, such as tele-presence, immersivity, responsivity, hyper-mediacy and multimediality, emerge in the framework of the digital arts and call into question not only the traditional status of the work of art but also the fundamental relation with the beholder. The aim of this paper is to define a conceptual framework for the ontology of digital arts by identifying some ontological (...) features that are distinctive to digital idioms. Such an analysis tries to outline how aesthetic and technical innovations affect our cognitive and sensorial relationship with technological artifacts. In the first part, the relation between technogenesis and ontology, as well as the key topics of the ontology of digital arts are discussed. The second part deals with the notion of presence. Despite traditional understandings of digital arts, mainly focused on immateriality, simulation and mediation, my analysis demonstrate how the notion of presence can provide an original perspective in order to understand the ontological status of the mediatized artistic practices. In the last three decades the generalisation of information and telecommunication technologies has played a major role in the transformation of the arts, opening the field to important experiments in the domain of computer graphics, digital audio, robotics and motion capture systems… (Dixon 2007). Peculiar forms of aesthetic experience such as tele-presence, immersivity, responsivity, hyper-mediation and multimediality, progressively arise from digital arts and question not only the status of artwork but also, more generally, the foundational relationship between this latter and the recipient. (shrink)

The current debates dealing with empathy, social cognition, and the problem of other minds widely accept the assumption that, whereas we can directly perceive the other’s body, certain additional mental operations are needed in order to access the contents of the other’s mind. Body-perception has, in other words, been understood as something that merely mediates our experience of other minds and requires no philosophical analysis in itself. The available accounts have accordingly seen their main task as pinpointing the operations and (...) mechanisms that enable us to move beyond body-perception—and here acts such as inference, simulation, and projection have usually been the main candidates. This whole setting, however, seems to rely on a somewhat Cartesian assumption, according to which body-perception fundamentally amounts to the perception of a material thing, res extensa, starting from which we then strive to grasp the other as a res cogitans. Insofar as one begins with the question of how we can discover and understand mindedness in things that cannot be directly perceived as minded, the Cartesian setting is already taken for granted—and this is, in fact, exactly what most of the available proposals seem to be doing. From a phenomenological point of view, the Cartesian setting is untenable and seriously misleads the whole debate. The present article reassesses the role and status of body-perception in empathy. Making use of the Husserlian theory of expressivity in particular, the article engages a phenomenological framework of analysis, challenges the above-mentioned assumption concerning the nature of body-perception, and argues for the immediate nature of empathy. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 39.4 (2001) 597-600 [Access article in PDF] Andrew Haas. Hegel and the Problem of Multiplicity. SPEP Studies in Historical Philosophy. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2000. Pp. xxxii + 355. Paper, $29.95. Jon Stewart. The Unity of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit: A Systematic Interpretation. SPEP Studies in Historical Philosophy. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2000. Pp. xv + 556. Cloth, $69.95. In his study, The (...) Unity of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit: A Systematic Interpretation, Jon Stewart not only analyzes Hegel's Phenomenology in chapter-by-chapter fashion but he also provides a compelling argument as to why even individual sections of the book can only be interpreted in the context of the unity of the work as a whole. [End Page 597]Stewart views the Phenomenology as a continuation of Kant's project in the first Critique, claiming that Kant did not go far enough in uncovering and justifying the necessary conditions of understanding. Thus, Stewart sees the Phenomenology as a transcendental argument. Like Kant, Hegel is concerned with truth and objectivity but in each subsequent chapter of the Phenomenology, according to Stewart, Hegel takes the reader through a different determination of objectivity.Perhaps most important is Stewart's view of Hegel's notion of "Absolute Knowing," the last section of the Phenomenology. Eschewing theological or metaphysical interpretations or interpretations according to which history comes to an end or some type of divine knowledge is attained, Stewart impressively argues that, for Hegel, absolute knowing means that self-consciousness has finally arrived at the point at which all of the conditions for cognition have been unpacked and that self-consciousness sees these conditions in their necessary systematic and developmental unity. As such, "Absolute Knowing" is merely backward looking; self-consciousness comes to realize all of the forms that knowledge has taken in the past and how this past relates to the way in which self-consciousness cognizes at present. Thus, the Phenomenology, on Stewart's view, is a ladder from common sense to science; it completes a deduction of the categories of thought—universality, particularity, and individuality—that are present in all forms of human thinking in all time periods.At the beginning of this work, Stewart summarizes Hegel's life and works, as well as discusses the Kantian background of Hegel's project as a whole. The subsequent chapters of his book parallel the major divisions in the Phenomenology. Each chapter and each of the various subsections within the chapters—again always paralleling Hegel's work—begins with a brief overview of what Stewart sees as the goal toward which Hegel is progressing in the particular section of the Phenomenology. He then provides an account of the "Notion" or paradigm of truth that Hegel presently criticizes. Accordingly, the author addresses the dialectic by which the particular Notion is sublated or overcome. It is in this section that Stewart explicitly sets out whenever possible the In-Itself, the For-Itself, and the In-Itself-For-Itself moments of the dialectic. Stewart always makes an explicit attempt at discussing what is at issue in the dialectical moment, say, either an irreconcilable split between immediacy and mediacy or between universal and particular. Finally, he ends each chapter or subsequent section with a review of what Hegel has done and how this, then, leads into the next section of the work.In the course of this study, Stewart admirably argues for why the Phenomenology should not be regarded as a "patchwork," by convincingly demonstrating the intricate unity of Hegel's Phenomenology. He shows how Hegel always returns to a similar structure—using, in fact, the very same categories—even in some of the parts of the book that scholars or certain schools of interpretation have tended to dismiss. In the chapter of his book that addresses the first formal chapter of the Phenomenology, "Consciousness," Stewart argues that each of the three subdivisions in the chapter focuses on, respectively, 1) being, 2) the one and the many, and... (shrink)