Daher handelt es sich hier um ein philosophisches System und seine Absicht und Anspruch ist die philosophische Behandlung des Ganzen. Hiermit befindet sich der Autor im Gegensatz zu der sich seit dem Zusammenbruch des Hegelschen Systems auch in der Philosophie immer stärker durchsetzenden Tendenz der Spezialisierung und Fokussierung auf Einzelfragen.
Das Werk steht insgesamt in der Tradition der Transzendentalphilosophie Kants und des Deutschen Idealismus von Fichte, Schelling und Hegel, der Phänomenologie Husserls, der sprachkritischen Philosophie Freges und Wittgensteins und der konstruktiven und methodisch-kulturalistischen Wissenschaftstheorie.
The volumes published in this series are dedicated to the philosophical thought of Karl Marx from a systematic perspective. Based on the currently published Critical Edition Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Gesamtausgabe (MEGA), central philosophical conceptions and questions in Marx's complete works will be explicated and examined for their systematic viability.
In this paper I offer a reconstruction of one of Husserl’s various anti-materialist arguments. Husserl hints at this argument in Ideas II & III where he exposes essential differences between mental and material reality (Realität). At its core, Husserl claims that mental entities by their very essence can never be in the same qualitative condition at different times. By sharp contrast, for purely material or physical entities such a cyclical development is not essentially excluded. Accordingly, I will speak of Husserl’s argument from irreversibility. I argue that this argument is modal in nature, and that it can be used to make a case against materialism based on the necessary supervenience of the mental on the physical. My primary goal is to elucidate this argument, and to offer a logical reconstruction using basic modal logic and contemporary notions of supervenience. I conclude that Husserl’s argument is formally valid, and that it can even held to be sound, although the premise regarding the necessary irreversibility of the mental requires further clarification.
In the Physics, Aristotle says that there is no change associated with the category of relatives. In this paper, I examine a widespread but neglected strategy that medieval thinkers use to understand Aristotle’s claim. According to this strategy, which I label initial presence, if there is no change in the category of relatives, it is because the relation-properties are already present in their subject as soon as the properties on which relation-properties are founded exist. Appreciating the importance of this strategy is crucial not only for understanding medieval theories of relation but also for assessing the credibility of arguments used in the secondary literature to interpret medieval texts, in particular a well-known passage from Thomas Aquinas’s commentary on the Physics.
In this paper, I address the issue of what kind of distinction separates the attributes of Spinoza’s substance. I propose to consider the distinction between attributes neither as a real distinction nor as a pure distinction of reason. Instead, I ventilate the alternative of understanding attributes as distinguished by a hybrid distinction, of which I trace the development during the Medieval and Early Modern eras. With the term hybrid, I capture distinctions which are neither a real distinction between substances or real accidents; nor a pure distinction of reason, produced or fabricated by the intellect. I shall argue that Spinoza’s notion of attribute falls under the scope of a hybrid distinction, thus sidestepping the longstanding debate between objectivism and subjectivism.