Коллективное сознание и моральная ответственность
In the paper, I discuss the question of moral responsibility and dependence of the answer on the existence of collective mind. I argue that collective mind is not a necessary condition for collective moral responsibility. For thesis justification, I take responsibility conditions proposed by Christian List and Philip Pettit. Responsibility conditions are normative significance, judgmental capacity and relevant control. It is shown that not only individuals, but groups as well may satisfy such conditions. The presence of collective mind does not make any difference in satisfying all three conditions together or each one separately. Therefore, the possibility of collective responsibility for groups does not depend on the presence of collective mind.
Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason aims to determine boundaries of reason. Reason is a
faculty of the soul. But Kant does not deal explicitly with the question what a faculty of the soul itself may be. The dissertation construes Kant’s implicit notion of a mental faculty in relation to psychological debates in 17th and 18th century Germany. It can be shown that Kant agreed with Christian August Crusius in that faculties are real properties, an assumption that was denied by Christian Wolff. This poses a problem which is fundamental for understanding Kant’s project: How can we have knowledge of mental faculties at all? If knowledge of faculties was empirical for Kant, it would belong to psychology rather than to epistemology which, according to Kant, must not rely on empirical facts. In order to find out whether there can be knowledge a priori about mental faculties, the book provides a close reading of relevant passages from published texts and other sources (lecture transcripts, Reflexionen). The final result is negative: Kant has no conclusive argument for the real existence of mental faculties. Nevertheless, an awareness of Kant’s unwritten “metaphysics of the mental” is essential for understanding implicit premisses of Kant’s thought.
The collective monograph, «Langage, pensée et esprit» ("Language, mind and spirit") published in French, presents the outcome of an international research project conducted during the years 2012-2015 by an international group of experts in contemporary philosophy of language and Wittgenstein scholars. The co-authors represent the following universities: University of Bergen, Norway; Université Paris-8 Vincennes Saint-Denis, France; National Research University Higher School of Economics, Russia; and Université de Tunis. The monograph examines diverse aspects of L. Wittgenstein's philosophy of language that are of considerable importance for today's philosophy of mind and for the epistemology of contemporary social sciences.
Angesichts der gegenwärtigen Belastungen in den Sozialsystemen, insbesondere in der Kranken- und Rentenversicherung, wird das Solidarprinzip, auf dem diese Systeme beruhen, in den aktuellen politischen Debatten mehr oder weniger radikal in Frage gestellt. Bei den Diskussionen um die Notwendigkeit des Abbaus bzw. des Erhalts der sozialen Solidarsysteme wird nur selten der systematische Stellenwert des rechtlichen wie ethischen Prinzips der Solidarität mit reflektiert. Die Beiträge des vorliegenden Bandes setzen sich teils mit der historischen Herkunft wie mit dem begrifflichen Bedeutungsspektrum von Solidarität , aber auch mit missbräuchlichen Verwendungen des Wortes auseinander. Teils reflektieren sie den Stellenwert, die begrifflichen Bestandteile und die Begründungsformen des Solidaritätsprinzips im Recht und in der Ethik. Und schließlich behandeln sie die Rolle des Solidaritätsprinzips in der Friedensforschung und in der Debatte um die politische Bedeutung der Kunst.
The article considers the Views of L. N. Tolstoy not only as a representative, but also as a accomplisher of the Enlightenment. A comparison of his philosophy with the ideas of Spinoza and Diderot made it possible to clarify some aspects of the transition to the unique Tolstoy’s religious and philosophical doctrine. The comparison of General and specific features of the three philosophers was subjected to a special analysis. Special attention is paid to the way of thinking, the relation to science and the specifics of the worldview by Tolstoy and Diderot. An important aspect is researched the contradiction between the way of thinking and the way of life of the three philosophers.
Tolstoy's transition from rational perception of life to its religious and existential bases is shown. Tolstoy gradually moves away from the idea of a natural man to the idea of a man, who living the commandments of Christ. Starting from the educational worldview, Tolstoy ended by creation of religious and philosophical doctrine, which were relevant for the 20th century.
This important new book offers the first full-length interpretation of the thought of Martin Heidegger with respect to irony. In a radical reading of Heidegger's major works (from Being and Time through the ‘Rector's Address' and the ‘Letter on Humanism' to ‘The Origin of the Work of Art' and the Spiegel interview), Andrew Haas does not claim that Heidegger is simply being ironic. Rather he argues that Heidegger's writings make such an interpretation possible - perhaps even necessary.
Heidegger begins Being and Time with a quote from Plato, a thinker famous for his insistence upon Socratic irony. The Irony of Heidegger takes seriously the apparently curious decision to introduce the threat of irony even as philosophy begins in earnest to raise the question of the meaning of being. Through a detailed and thorough reading of Heidegger's major texts and the fundamental questions they raise, Haas reveals that one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century can be read with as much irony as earnestness. The Irony of Heidegger attempts to show that the essence of this irony lies in uncertainty, and that the entire project of onto-heno-chrono-phenomenology, therefore needs to be called into question.
The article is concerned with the notions of technology in essays of Ernst and Friedrich Georg Jünger. The special problem of the connection between technology and freedom is discussed in the broader context of the criticism of culture and technocracy discussion in the German intellectual history of the first half of the 20th century.