How and Why Philosophy Was First Called a System: Casmann against Hoffmann on Christian Wisdom and Double Truth
How and why did the notion of philosophy as a system evolve in Germany at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries? Otto Casmann’s Modesta Assertio (1601) provides new answers to this question. Casmann, Clemens Timpler’s predecessor as professor in Steinfurt refers to other ‘like-minded philosophers’ (nostrates) who believe that philosophy is a ‘structured system of the liberal arts’. Casmann himself states that philosophy is a ‘structured unity of erudite wisdom’. The text is part of the debate between Daniel Hoffmann and the Reformed philosophers about the relation between philosophy and theology. It can be made plausible that Hoffmann himself was Casmann’s target. The paper shows that a ‘structured unity of erudite wisdom’ presupposes harmony between theological insights and the findings of philosophy. Thus the earliest discussions of philosophy as a system were meant to immunise Reformed philosophy against Hoffmann’s attempt to revive Lutheran anti-philosophy.
Information in the SGEM 2017 Conference Proceedings is subject to change without notice. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, for any purpose, without the express written permission of the International Scientific Council of SGEM.
Russian researchers polemics on Kants essay On a supposed right to tell lies from benevolent motives in which Kant argues that if a malefactor (a murderer) who is going to kill a persons friend asks that person where ones friend is, the morality requires to tell the truth. It is proved in the paper that though Kantians are usually considered as absolutists and their opponents - as relativists, the Kantians perform a large-scale relativization of maxim of truthfulness and exhibit more conformity to lie than the relativisits do. Paradoxes A Precious Friend and Kants Generalized Consequence for Many Friends showing inconsistency and contradictoriness of Kantians point of view are introduced. The confrontation of absolutists and relativists is interpreted as a fundamental opposition of reductionism and holism followers, with understanding that in this case the opposition is many times strengthened by confrontation of moral values.
This contribution to a volume on the“ultimate why-question” discusses ambiguities in Leibniz’s formulation of the question, “[. . . ] pourquoi il y a plus tôt quelque chose que rien”. This formulation poses two problems: Leibniz does not explain how to understand the concepts of “something” and “nothing”. And it is not clear, whether “something” and “nothing” are contradictory opposites, so that there is either nothing or something, or whether both concepts denote principles which are effective in the world at the same time. My analysis rests on the hypothesis that the relevant context for Leibniz’s question is the theology of creation.
Hence, the paper compares eight different approaches to “creation from nothing” (Thomists, Scotists, Taurellus, Lubinus, Timpler, Keckermann, Kircher, Knorr von Rosenroth, van Helmont). Candidates for the nihil the world was created from include absolute non-being, thoughts in God’s mind, unformed matter, imaginary space, or a self-contraction of the Divine spirit. These different approaches can be translated into different versions of the “ultimate why-question”. The paper concludes that Leibniz’s formulation contains a comparison between two Divine acts of creation, because not only “something”, but “nothing” as well owes its subsistence to the Divine will. This rises substantial questions: either God created first an imperfect entity in order to create the world as a whole, or Leibniz subscribes to an emanative understanding of creation that either levels the difference between creation and (natural) generation or is based on misunderstanding God as a material entity.
A macroevolutionary approach and the new field of Big History seek to develop an inclusive view of the Cosmos, Earth, life and humanity by erasing boundaries between disciplines. Big History is a versatile study that brings together constantly updated information from Astronomy, Physics, Geology, Biology, Chemistry, Anthropology, Psychology and other scientific disciplines, and then merges it with the contemplative realms of Philosophy and the Humanities. Big History evolved from the academic need to transcend the straight-jacket of university disciplines in the early 20th century, beginning with subjects like Biochemistry and Astrophysics (Christian and McNeill 2008; Rodrigue and Stasko 2011).
Herausgegeben von Daniel Schubbe, Jens Lemanski und Rico Hauswald. Die Frage "Warum ist überhaupt etwas und nicht vielmehr nichts?" gehört zu den ebenso traditionsreichen wie umstrittenen Problemen der Philosophie. Der vorliegende Band nimmt sich der "Grundfrage" in einer ideengeschichtlichen Perspektive an. Dabei stellt sich heraus, dass sie in ihrer Geschichte von der Antike bis zur gegenwärtigen analytischen Philosophie nicht nur jeweils unterschiedliche Antworten provoziert hat, sondern vor allem auch ganz verschieden gestellt worden ist. Der Band wird durch einen Überblick über die vielschichtige Diskussion der "letzten Warum-Frage" in der Tradition der Analytischen Philosophie sowie einen Antwortversuch aus Sicht der aktuellen Physik und Kosmologie abgerundet.
This article is dedicated to the problem of the origin of economics. The socio-cultural conditions for the emergence of a new science are considered: the accumulated practical knowledge that accompanied the development of trade, industry, and eventually led to the emergence of a market economy; theoretical and practical knowledge from rich literary sources; the Ancient, Medieval and Modern Time philosophers interest in the ongoing economic processes, posing questions about these processes, revealing the problems of meaning and signifi cance of economic events for the society. The article especially focuses on the Scottish philosophers of the 17 and 18th centuries F. Hutcheson, D. Hume and A. Ferguson, the socio-economic views of the latter being of special importance as well as the views of Adam Smith, whose ideas show close affi nity between the thinkers.
In this work the problem of learning and development of creativity with a view to the position of reflexive psychology, akmeology and pedagogics in the context of the human capital analysis in the conditions of modern society globalization is raised. The theme is urgent from the practical point of view in demand of a creative personality under conditions of the economic crisis and at the same time it is actual, because it interprets creativity in a new way according to interdisciplinary approach. The author emphasizes that a reflexively-creative potential is considered to be the backbone factor of professional and innovative activity in modern social space. On basis of philosophical foundations' analysis of psychology of creativity we theoretically build the conceptual model of reflexive creativity and we also examine the precedents of its psychology-pedagogical development in the secondary and high education (in case of reflexive-psycological support).
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.