Dictionary of Arguments


Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]

Screenshot Tabelle Begriffes

 

Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.

Enhanced Search:
Search term 1: Author or Term Search term 2: Author or Term


together with


The author or concept searched is found in the following 11 entries.
Disputed term/author/ism Author
Entry
Reference
Appearance Searle I 143
Appearance/consciousness/Searle: the consciousness is in the phenomena themselves - Where it comes to the appearance, we can make no distinction between appearance and reality, because the appearance is the reality. ---
III 23
Appearance/Searle: logically earlier than being! To appear to be is a prerequisite for being. >Appearance/Sellars, cf. >appearance/Hegel.

Searle I
John R. Searle
The Rediscovery of the Mind, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1992
German Edition:
Die Wiederentdeckung des Geistes Frankfurt 1996

Searle II
John R. Searle
Intentionality. An essay in the philosophy of mind, Cambridge/MA 1983
German Edition:
Intentionalität Frankfurt 1991

Searle III
John R. Searle
The Construction of Social Reality, New York 1995
German Edition:
Die Konstruktion der gesellschaftlichen Wirklichkeit Hamburg 1997

Searle IV
John R. Searle
Expression and Meaning. Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts, Cambridge/MA 1979
German Edition:
Ausdruck und Bedeutung Frankfurt 1982

Searle V
John R. Searle
Speech Acts, Cambridge/MA 1969
German Edition:
Sprechakte Frankfurt 1983

Searle VII
John R. Searle
Behauptungen und Abweichungen
In
Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995

Searle VIII
John R. Searle
Chomskys Revolution in der Linguistik
In
Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995

Searle IX
John R. Searle
"Animal Minds", in: Midwest Studies in Philosophy 19 (1994) pp. 206-219
In
Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005

Art Hegel Gadamer I 54
Art/Hegel/Gadamer: In itself, the essence of all art is, as Hegel formulated it, that it "brings man before himself"(1). Other objects of nature - not only the human form - can also express moral ideas in artistic representation. All artistic representation, be it of landscape, be it of nature morte, or even every inspiring contemplation of nature has this effect.
KantVsHegel/Gadamer: But in this respect Kant is right: the expression of the moral is then a borrowed one. Man, on the other hand, expresses these ideas in his own being, and because he is what he is. E.g., A tree that atrophies due to unfortunate growing conditions
may seem miserable to us, but this misery is not an expression of the tree feeling miserable, and from the ideal of the tree, atrophy is not miserable. Miserable man, on the other hand, is miserable, measured by the human moral ideal itself (and not in such a way that we expect him to have an ideal of humanity that is not valid for him at all, by which he expressed misery for us without being miserable).
HegelVsVs: Hegel understood this in his lectures
Gadamer I 55
to aesthetics perfectly well, when he uses the expression of the moral as "appearances of spirituality"(2).
Gadamer: Thus the formalism of "dry pleasing" [trockenen Wohlgefallens"] leads to the decisive dissolution not only of rationalism in aesthetics, but of any universal (cosmological) theory of beauty in general. >Art/Kant, >Aesthetics/Hegel.


1. Hegel, Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik, ed. Lasson, S. 57: "It is therefore the general need of the work of art to seek in the mind of man, by being a way of bringing before man what he is.«
2. Ebenda, S. 213.


Gadamer I
Hans-Georg Gadamer
Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik Tübingen 1960/2010

Gadamer II
H. G. Gadamer
The Relevance of the Beautiful, London 1986
German Edition:
Die Aktualität des Schönen: Kunst als Spiel, Symbol und Fest Stuttgart 1977
Beauty Kant Gadamer I 50
Beauty/Kant/Gadamer: Kant's teaching of free and affectionate beauty(1) [is] strange and much disputed.Kant discusses here the difference between "pure" and "intellectual" taste judgement, which corresponds to the opposition of "free" and "attached" beauty (attached to a concept). Pure beauty of pure taste judgement/Kant: For example, the free beauty of nature and - in the field of art - ornament.
"Attached" (conceptually defined) beauty/Kant: e.g. human, animal, building.
Gadamer I 51
Gadamer: (...) this is an indirect description of what an "object under a certain concept" represents and therefore belongs to the conditional, unfree beauty: the whole realm of poetry, the fine arts and architecture, as well as all natural things that we do not look at for their beauty alone like the ornamental flower. >Art Beauty/Kant, >Natural Beauty/Hegel.
Gadamer I 52
Conceptual beauty/Kant/Gadamer: (...) certainly there is no talk of beauty where a certain concept of understanding is schematically sensitized by the imagination, but only where the imagination is in free agreement with the understanding, i.e. where it can be productive. But this productive formation of the imagination is richest not where it is absolutely free, (...) but where it lives in a latitude which the unifying striving of the intellect does not so much erect as a barrier to it as it does to stimulate its play. Ideal of Beauty/Kant: An ideal of beauty exists (...) only of the human form: in the 'expression of morality' "without which the object would not generally be pleasing". Judgement according to an ideal of beauty is then, as Kant says, of course not merely a judgement of taste.
Gadamer I 53
Only of the human form, precisely because it alone is capable of a beauty fixed by a concept of purpose, is there an ideal of beauty! This doctrine, established by Winckelmann and Lessing(2), gains a kind of key position in Kant's foundation of aesthetics. For it is precisely this thesis that shows how little a formal aesthetic of taste (arabesque aesthetics) corresponds to Kant's thought. Normal idea/ Kant: The doctrine of the ideal of beauty is based on the distinction between the normal idea and the idea of reason or ideal of beauty. The aesthetic normal idea can be found in all genres of nature. How a beautiful animal (...) has to look (...), that is a guideline for judging the individual specimen. This normal idea is thus a single view of the imagination as the "image of the genus floating between all individuals". But the representation of such a normal idea does not please by beauty, but only because "it does not contradict any condition under which alone a thing of this genre can be beautiful". It is not the archetype of beauty, but merely of correctness.
Human Gestalt: This also applies to the normal idea of the human figure. But in the
human form, there is a real ideal of beauty in the "expression of the moral". (...) take this, together with the later teaching of aesthetic ideas and beauty, as a symbol of morality. Then one realizes that with the teaching of the ideal of beauty, the place is also prepared for the essence of art.
Gadamer I 54
Gadamer: What Kant obviously wants to say is this: in the depiction of the human Gestalt, the depicted object and that which speaks to us as artistic content in this depiction are one. There can be no other content of this representation than that which is already expressed in the form and appearance of the portrayed person.
Gadamer I 55
Ideals/Kant/Gadamer: It is precisely with this classicist distinction between the normal idea and the ideal of beauty that Kant destroys the basis from which the aesthetic of perfection finds its incomparably unique beauty in the perfect meaningfulness of all being. Only now is "art" able to become an autonomous phenomenon. >Art/Kant, >Art/Hegel.

1. Kant, Kritik der Urteilskraft, § 16ff.
2. Lessing, Entwürfe zum Laokoon Nr. 20 b; in Lessings Sämtl. Schriften ed. Lachmann, 1886ff., Bd. 14, S. 415.
I. Kant
I Günter Schulte Kant Einführung (Campus) Frankfurt 1994
Externe Quellen. ZEIT-Artikel 11/02 (Ludger Heidbrink über Rawls)
Volker Gerhard "Die Frucht der Freiheit" Plädoyer für die Stammzellforschung ZEIT 27.11.03

Gadamer I
Hans-Georg Gadamer
Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik Tübingen 1960/2010

Gadamer II
H. G. Gadamer
The Relevance of the Beautiful, London 1986
German Edition:
Die Aktualität des Schönen: Kunst als Spiel, Symbol und Fest Stuttgart 1977
Dialectic Nietzsche Ries II 100
Dialectic/NietzscheVsDialectic: instead of dialectic there are only "degrees of existence", "stages of apparant things, lighter and darker shadows of appearances" left. (NietzscheVsHegel).

Nie I
Friedrich Nietzsche
Sämtliche Werke: Kritische Studienausgabe Berlin 2009

Nie V
F. Nietzsche
Beyond Good and Evil 2014


Ries II
Wiebrecht Ries
Nietzsche zur Einführung Hamburg 1990
Education Gadamer I 15
Education/"Bildung"/Tradition/Gadamer: The concept of education is the one that most clearly illustrates what kind of It is a profound spiritual change that makes us feel as if we were still living at the same time as Goethe, but on the other hand, we can already reckon with the Baroque era as if it were a prehistoric era. Decisive terms and words with which we are accustomed to work received their imprint at that time, (...). >Education/Herder, >Education/Kant.
I 16
Nature/formation/"Bildung": For the content of the word [formation] we are accustomed to, the first important observation is that the older concept of a natural formation of the outward appearance (the formation of the limbs, the well-formed shape) and in general the shape produced by nature (e.g. "mountain formation") has been completely replaced by the new concept. Classics: Education [formation, "Bildung"] is now closely related to the concept of culture, and is first and foremost the peculiarly human way of developing one's natural abilities and capabilities. Between Kant and Hegel this Herder-induced coinage of our concept is completed.
Kant: does not yet use the word in such a context. He speaks of the "culture" of capability (or "natural disposition"), which as such is an act of freedom of the acting subject. >Education/Humboldt.
The Latin equivalent of education is "formatio" (...) which corresponds to form and formation in other languages, e.g. English (Shaftesbury). Forma has been used since Aristotelianism of the
Renaissance completely detached from its technical meaning and interpreted in a purely dynamic and natural way. Nevertheless, the victory of the word "education" over "form" does not appear to be accidental.
I 17
The transfer is particularly obvious here, because the result of education is not It is not produced for technical purposes, but rather develops from the inner process of formation and training and therefore remains in constant further training and education. It is no coincidence that the word education is similar to the Greek physis. Education knows, as little as nature does, about goals beyond its situated goals. It is precisely in this respect that the concept of education exceeds that of the mere cultivation of predetermined dispositions, from which it is derived. Cultivating a disposition is developing something given, so that the practice and maintenance of it is a mere means to an end. >Education/Hegel, >Generality/Gadamer.

Gadamer I
Hans-Georg Gadamer
Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik Tübingen 1960/2010

Gadamer II
H. G. Gadamer
The Relevance of the Beautiful, London 1986
German Edition:
Die Aktualität des Schönen: Kunst als Spiel, Symbol und Fest Stuttgart 1977

Metaphysics Adorno XIII 160
Metaphysics/Adorno: while the conceptual pair rationalism/empiricism is epistemological, the conceptual pair of materialism/spiritualism is metaphysical in the sense that, according to fundamental determinations, primordial principles are sought before their epistemological reflection. ---
XIII 162
Metaphysics/Adorno: he is not content with what is given in experience, but places the emphasis on the difference between appearance and essence. appearance/Hegel/Adorno: For Hegel the essence must appear. (Hegel, Philosophie der Logik, Vol. II).
Metaphysics/Aristotle/Adorno: Aristotle, from whom the expression metaphysics also comes, addresses the question of how the essence appears.
Metaphysics/Adorno: he opposes the epitome of facts in principle with another, but without asserting that it is as the theologies are concerned with their deities.
AristophanesVsSocrates: calls his philosophy a cloud-cuckoo-land as a realm of utopia, or even clouds, as the concept of a being and a non-being at the same time.
---
XIII 165
Metaphysics/Adorno: the epistemological concepts to which our thinking sees itself constrained to, make up, at the moment when they become independent, since they cease to be mere reflections of our thought, and are posited as if they were principles in themselves, the subject of metaphysics. ---
XIII 166
Metaphysical Questions: For example, the questions about God, about freedom, the immortality of the soul, the true being, the nature of the reason, and the question of why something is at all, and not rather nothing. Metaphysics/Adorno: it cannot be a positive doctrine of any of its being-contents. If it refers to the question of principles or essences, then one should not assume them onself in advance.

A I
Th. W. Adorno
Max Horkheimer
Dialektik der Aufklärung Frankfurt 1978

A II
Theodor W. Adorno
Negative Dialektik Frankfurt/M. 2000

A III
Theodor W. Adorno
Ästhetische Theorie Frankfurt/M. 1973

A IV
Theodor W. Adorno
Minima Moralia Frankfurt/M. 2003

A V
Theodor W. Adorno
Philosophie der neuen Musik Frankfurt/M. 1995

A VI
Theodor W. Adorno
Gesammelte Schriften, Band 5: Zur Metakritik der Erkenntnistheorie. Drei Studien zu Hegel Frankfurt/M. 1071

A VII
Theodor W. Adorno
Noten zur Literatur (I - IV) Frankfurt/M. 2002

A VIII
Theodor W. Adorno
Gesammelte Schriften in 20 Bänden: Band 2: Kierkegaard. Konstruktion des Ästhetischen Frankfurt/M. 2003

A IX
Theodor W. Adorno
Gesammelte Schriften in 20 Bänden: Band 8: Soziologische Schriften I Frankfurt/M. 2003

A XI
Theodor W. Adorno
Über Walter Benjamin Frankfurt/M. 1990

A XII
Theodor W. Adorno
Philosophische Terminologie Bd. 1 Frankfurt/M. 1973

A XIII
Theodor W. Adorno
Philosophische Terminologie Bd. 2 Frankfurt/M. 1974

Morals Rorty V 58
Science/morals/appearance/Kant/Rorty: that modern science describes a world without morals, is so, according to Kant, because it only describes phenomena.
V 69/70
Morality / Ethics / Psychology / Psychoanalysis / Rorty: what metaphysics does not make, also cannot be made by the psychology - also Freud has no explanation of "moral motives".
V 78
Morals/content/Hegel/Rorty: the moral standpoint has no content. >Principles.
V 89
Morality/justice/universality/Rawls/Rorty: a general moral concept can not provide the basis for a public concept of justice - instead: conflicting and incommensurable concepts must be taken into account.

Rorty I
Richard Rorty
Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton/NJ 1979
German Edition:
Der Spiegel der Natur Frankfurt 1997

Rorty II
Richard Rorty
Philosophie & die Zukunft Frankfurt 2000

Rorty II (b)
Richard Rorty
"Habermas, Derrida and the Functions of Philosophy", in: R. Rorty, Truth and Progress. Philosophical Papers III, Cambridge/MA 1998
In
Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000

Rorty II (c)
Richard Rorty
Analytic and Conversational Philosophy Conference fee "Philosophy and the other hgumanities", Stanford Humanities Center 1998
In
Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000

Rorty II (d)
Richard Rorty
Justice as a Larger Loyalty, in: Ronald Bontekoe/Marietta Stepanians (eds.) Justice and Democracy. Cross-cultural Perspectives, University of Hawaii 1997
In
Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000

Rorty II (e)
Richard Rorty
Spinoza, Pragmatismus und die Liebe zur Weisheit, Revised Spinoza Lecture April 1997, University of Amsterdam
In
Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000

Rorty II (f)
Richard Rorty
"Sein, das verstanden werden kann, ist Sprache", keynote lecture for Gadamer’ s 100th birthday, University of Heidelberg
In
Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000

Rorty II (g)
Richard Rorty
"Wild Orchids and Trotzky", in: Wild Orchids and Trotzky: Messages form American Universities ed. Mark Edmundson, New York 1993
In
Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000

Rorty III
Richard Rorty
Contingency, Irony, and solidarity, Chambridge/MA 1989
German Edition:
Kontingenz, Ironie und Solidarität Frankfurt 1992

Rorty IV (a)
Richard Rorty
"is Philosophy a Natural Kind?", in: R. Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Philosophical Papers Vol. I, Cambridge/Ma 1991, pp. 46-62
In
Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993

Rorty IV (b)
Richard Rorty
"Non-Reductive Physicalism" in: R. Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Philosophical Papers Vol. I, Cambridge/Ma 1991, pp. 113-125
In
Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993

Rorty IV (c)
Richard Rorty
"Heidegger, Kundera and Dickens" in: R. Rorty, Essays on Heidegger and Others. Philosophical Papers Vol. 2, Cambridge/MA 1991, pp. 66-82
In
Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993

Rorty IV (d)
Richard Rorty
"Deconstruction and Circumvention" in: R. Rorty, Essays on Heidegger and Others. Philosophical Papers Vol. 2, Cambridge/MA 1991, pp. 85-106
In
Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993

Rorty V (a)
R. Rorty
"Solidarity of Objectivity", Howison Lecture, University of California, Berkeley, January 1983
In
Solidarität oder Objektivität?, Stuttgart 1998

Rorty V (b)
Richard Rorty
"Freud and Moral Reflection", Edith Weigert Lecture, Forum on Psychiatry and the Humanities, Washington School of Psychiatry, Oct. 19th 1984
In
Solidarität oder Objektivität?, Stuttgart 1988

Rorty V (c)
Richard Rorty
The Priority of Democracy to Philosophy, in: John P. Reeder & Gene Outka (eds.), Prospects for a Common Morality. Princeton University Press. pp. 254-278 (1992)
In
Solidarität oder Objektivität?, Stuttgart 1988

Rorty VI
Richard Rorty
Truth and Progress, Cambridge/MA 1998
German Edition:
Wahrheit und Fortschritt Frankfurt 2000

Parmenides Hegel Bubner I 66
Parmenides/Hegel/Bubner: Hegel attributes to Parmenides an almost Spinozistic pantheism. Everything be one and the differences void. Hegel: this is due to the denial of the negative, which he has made in the separation of spheres into truth and opinions of man. Then all the negatives belong to the erroneous opinions. These erroneous opinions are constantly shifting back and forth between being and nothing.
ParmenidesVs: "Which form the negative can also take, it is not."
Hegel: this putting the negative aside leaves only a single truth, namely that being is.
Being/Parmenides/Hegel: "Thinking produces itself, what is produced is the thought, so thinking is identical with its being, for there is nothing but being, this great affirmation".
This is, however, an abstraction from any determinateness which is attributed to the kingdom of Doxa (erroneous opinions).
It makes no sense to speak of yet another being than that which is produced by thought.
Thinking/being/Hegel/Bubner: the strange thing in the production thesis, into which Hegel dissolves the unity of being and thinking (in Parmenides), is questioned in other translations. In this case one can reverse the primary identity of being with itself as a reason for the existence of thought-content, while Hegel traced back the being to the spawning thinking itself.
Being/Parmenides/Hegel: Beginning of Logic: Second Parmenides Exegesis:
---
I 69
Definition being/Parmenides/Hegel: Being is the indefinite immediacy. Bubner: this is not simply a matter of heaven, but the absence of any quality (determinateness) is generated by radical abstraction from all that is defined, which means a denial of all mediation. Thus the immediate is the absolute emptiness in the beginning. This coincides with nothingness. Since there is nothing to permanently refer to, in order to characterize being in its peculiarity, the limit to nothingness has always been blurred.
However, a reflection on the origin would show that the indeterminacy has arisen only by moving away all determinateness.
In reality, therefore, the beginning is not at all the indifference of being and nothing, but in the "movement of the immediate disappearance of the one in the other.
End/beginning/Parmenides/Hegel: the static developmental beginning would be the end. It is therefore necessary to go beyond the position of the absolute, and such a process itself constitutes a "second new beginning."
Finite/infinite/idealism/Hegel/Bubner: the transition from the infinite to the finite (in the early idealistic construction) must then be accomplished in such a way that the infinite does not become finite.
---
I 72
There must be no boundary between the two, because then the infinite is no longer itself, but limited. This boils down to the principle that there is nowhere in heaven and on earth something that does not contain both being and nothing in itself. "
Finite/infinite/boundary/Hegel/Bubner: it has always been passed over. Thus the fixing of one position against another, which made the transition necessary, is already faulty.
Abstraction always comes too late, the process of passing over is always going on. This is the triumph of the "profound Heraclitus" over eleatism.


Bu I
R. Bubner
Antike Themen und ihre moderne Verwandlung Frankfurt 1992
Substance Spinoza Holz I 31
Substance/Spinoza: is with him unique according to its nature, infinite, and indivisible. Substance/HegelVsSpinoza: whoever starts from the thought prerequisite of the substantial unity of the world and the experience prerequisite of the qualitative difference of beings (of manifoldness) can conceive this manifoldness only as manifestations or aspects of the one substance, in which "all that one had taken for true, has perished."
This, however, reveals the actual presupposition of thinking, the difference in the content of thought. Leibniz saw the danger.
---
I 32
Hegel: one must not "let the multiplicity disappear in the unity". If deduction is only possible as a reduction (as in Spinoza), this would be the self-abolition of the world in thought.
---
Holz I 62
Identity Principle/objective cognition/Leibniz: The objective unity of the world can also be shown independently of my perception, it is evident in the way of givenness of every consciousness content in itself. (Everything appears as what it appears). Adequacy does not matter here.
"Tantum est quantum est, tale est quale est". Pre-predictive being a priori.
Problem: then the phenomena are still mere moments of the one and only substance, as in Spinoza.
Substance/Spinoza: no being is to be justified against the universe in its own being. Rather, the reduction of identical sentences would lead to an "ens absolute infinitum" in Spinoza, from which "it follows that there is only one substance and that it is infinite."
However, this reduction can only come to a beginning with a waiver of the substantial existence of the many individuals.
---
I 63
VsSpinoza: if one accepts the existence of the individual, the problem is insoluble for Spinoza. He solves the problem, or it does not come into his field of view, because he conceives the essence of the human only as formed from certain modifications of the attributes of God.
With this, the Cartesian doubt is covered up. The ego cogitans becomes the mere appearance, the annexation of the self-assured unity of God.
Thus Spinoza returns to medieval realism.
Thus the rationality of the factual cannot be justified. ((s) > "What is real, is also reasonable").

Spinoza I
B. Spinoza
Spinoza: Complete Works Indianapolis 2002


Holz I
Hans Heinz Holz
Leibniz Frankfurt 1992

Holz II
Hans Heinz Holz
Descartes Frankfurt/M. 1994
Truth Adorno Grenz I 57
Truth/Adorno/Grenz: the relationship between truth and untruth is linked to the relationship between necessary and superfluous reign in society. ---
Grenz I 61
Truth/Adorno/Grenz: In Adorno's thinking only facts are true, namely a narrowly delimited sector of facts: true would be the state of society in which the full measure of possible freedom of reign would be realized. ---
I 64
Truth/subjective/objective/Hegel/Adorno/Grenz: the residual theory of truth, according to which objective is what is left after striking out the so-called subjective factors, is hit by Hegel's critique into the empty center. The recognition is fruitful not by the elimination of the subject, but by virtue of its supreme effort... (Gesammelte Schriften 5, p. 256). ---
Grenz I 70
Truth/Adorno/Grenz: three spheres of the historicity of truth:
1. Ideology
2. Idea of the possibility of the better to the true 3. Level of rationality or subjectivity.
---
I Grenz 73
Truth/Adorno/Border: Genesis of truth from the false appearance. Truth and appearance are identified openly: the "best dialectical truth" of art... ---
I 74
...and philosophy is that "which exists in appearance." (Adorno: Kierkegaard, Construction of the Aesthetic). ---
Grenz I 94
Hegel/AdornoVsHegel/Grenz: You cannot choose in Hegel what suits you and reject what annoys you. His truth is in the Skandalon. Not renewal, only salvation suits him. To save Hegel, therefore, is to face his philosophy where it evokes the most pain; where its untruth is obvious, to snatch the truth from it. (Gesammelte Schriften Bd 5, p. 320). ---
I 95
Hegel/Truth/AdornoVsHegel/Grenz: The affirmation registers, mirror-inverted, the experience of overpowering compulsion, which is inherent in all beings through its amalgamation under the reign. This is the truth of Hegel's untruth. (Gesammelte Schriften, Vol. 5, p. 324).

A I
Th. W. Adorno
Max Horkheimer
Dialektik der Aufklärung Frankfurt 1978

A II
Theodor W. Adorno
Negative Dialektik Frankfurt/M. 2000

A III
Theodor W. Adorno
Ästhetische Theorie Frankfurt/M. 1973

A IV
Theodor W. Adorno
Minima Moralia Frankfurt/M. 2003

A V
Theodor W. Adorno
Philosophie der neuen Musik Frankfurt/M. 1995

A VI
Theodor W. Adorno
Gesammelte Schriften, Band 5: Zur Metakritik der Erkenntnistheorie. Drei Studien zu Hegel Frankfurt/M. 1071

A VII
Theodor W. Adorno
Noten zur Literatur (I - IV) Frankfurt/M. 2002

A VIII
Theodor W. Adorno
Gesammelte Schriften in 20 Bänden: Band 2: Kierkegaard. Konstruktion des Ästhetischen Frankfurt/M. 2003

A IX
Theodor W. Adorno
Gesammelte Schriften in 20 Bänden: Band 8: Soziologische Schriften I Frankfurt/M. 2003

A XI
Theodor W. Adorno
Über Walter Benjamin Frankfurt/M. 1990

A XII
Theodor W. Adorno
Philosophische Terminologie Bd. 1 Frankfurt/M. 1973

A XIII
Theodor W. Adorno
Philosophische Terminologie Bd. 2 Frankfurt/M. 1974


A X
Friedemann Grenz
Adornos Philosophie in Grundbegriffen. Auflösung einiger Deutungsprobleme Frankfurt/M. 1984
Truth Leibniz Holz I 44
Truth of reason/Truth of facts/Leibniz: Truth of reason: certain simple and original ideas, such as those of identity, are immediately seen as modes or forms of our sense-perception as categories of the givenness of beings.
They are not mediated by perception, but are the determinateness of perception itself.
---
Holz I 54
Definition Truth/Leibniz/Holz: truth appears as a statement relation, in which the identity of different things is determined against each other. Definition Experience/Leibniz/Holz: experience is the return of something different to their connection in such a relation.
Discovery of the truth of different things, namely subject and predicate in synthetic sentences of experience. Truth/Leibniz/Holz: truth is not really in the identity of the subject A = A, but in the return of the predication to the identity of a certain predicate with a certain subject in which it is contained, thereby distinguishing the subject from other subjects.
The truth of a proposition states that it can be traced back to an identical proposition (axiom).
---
I 57
Truth/Leibniz: truth appears only mediated, in the medium of its opposite, of appearance (> Appearance/Hegel). Truth of facts/truth of reason/Leibniz: I gain the certainty of the facts, the vérités de fait only by means of their representation on the level of reason - the vérités de raison.
This can show me the material truth but only as the not wrong. (s)
Double negation: is weaker.
In the reversal of the method of proof in truths of facts, the variety of experience and the unity of reason stand opposite to each other like a mirror image.
---
Holz 63
Truth of facts/Leibniz: the truth of facts must exist, if anything should be said at all about the infinite manifoldness, and knowledge should thus be gained.
Truth of reasons/Leibniz: truth of reasons is necessary, their opposite is impossible.
Truth of facts/Leibniz: truth of facts is contingent, their opposite is possible.
Holz: the difference between the two must not be misunderstood, otherwise Russell would be right:
---
I 64/65
Russell: It is nonsense to say of a true proposition that it is not true in the sense of another, apotictically true proposition. ((s), for example, that a truth of reason contradicts a truth of facts). Holz: the difference lies in the argument.
For the proof of truth of facts, we must examine the preceding chain of connections and because of the infinite divisibility of the bodies an infinite number of sentences. This can only do the infinite mind of God.
Truth of reason/Leibniz: is the generic term for truths of reasons and truths of facts!
The truth attribute of both lies in the fact that in the subject concept all its possible predicates are contained. "Praedicatum inest subiecto".
Inclusion of the predicate in the subject: A is contained in Ax or Ax = A + B + ... X.
---
I 66
This inclusion of the predicate is the foundation of truth. This is, according to structure, a reason of reason. Definition truth/Leibniz/Holz: is then the constitution of that state in which identity comes to a being or a fact when it enters into a distinction between subject/predicate/definiendum/definiens.
This state is where the fact appears as the concept of the fact.
Truth is a reflexion relationship.
---
Holz I 68
"Overarching general"/Leibniz/Holz: the truth of reason is the genre which comprises two (and only two) species, namely the truth of reason itself and its opposite, the truths of facts. For the formal logician, this remains a systematic contradiction: Leibniz makes a distinction between necessary and contingent truths. Nevertheless, he comprehends both of them analytically!
Holz: in fact, the relationship is not a formal logical one, but a dialectical one.
> Josef König: "The Overarching General" as the basic logical figure of Leibniz's metaphysics, is necessary for the inexpressable multiplicity of the world, which can nevertheless be subjected to an order of reason.
---
Holz I 73
Complete concept/Leibniz: the complete concept contains all possible conditions and determinations for the existence of a particular being, is thus identical with the concept of the world as a whole. Only perceptible to an infinite mind.
Overarching general: for the infinite mind, the distinction between truths of reason and truths of facts is again invalid. For him, everything is a truth of reason, or, one can say as well, everything is a truth of facts for him!
For the finite mind, however, the truth of reason is the opposite of the truth of facts.
Overarching general: the one involves its opposite.
Truth/Cognition/Metaphysics/Leibniz/Holz: This again has the astounding consequence that Leibniz can only speak sensibly of two kinds of truth (truths of facts/truths of reason) when he comprehends the idea of the infinite mind (for which the two coincide) only as a metaphysical auxiliary construction.

Lei II
G. W. Leibniz
Philosophical Texts (Oxford Philosophical Texts) Oxford 1998


Holz I
Hans Heinz Holz
Leibniz Frankfurt 1992

Holz II
Hans Heinz Holz
Descartes Frankfurt/M. 1994

The author or concept searched is found in the following 3 controversies.
Disputed term/author/ism Author Vs Author
Entry
Reference
Derrida, J. Rorty Vs Derrida, J. III 222
Deconstruction/RortyVsDerrida: not a new procedure. One can learn deconstruction just as one can learn to discover sexual symbols, bourgeois ideology etc. in texts. Reading did not become easier or harder, just as cycling does not become easier or harder if one makes discoveries about the nature of energy during it. Recontextualisation/RortyVsDerrida: has existed for a long time: Socrates recontextualised Homer, Augustine the pagan virtues, Hegel Socrates and Augustine, Proust himself, and Derrida all.
Why does it sound so frightening when Derrida does it as opposed to Hegel? Because Derrida uses the "accidental" material form of words while Hegel no longer wanted to abidy by the rule that the "opposition" relation applies only to sentences, and not to cconcepts, but nevertheless subjugated to the other rule that no weight has to be attached to the sound and form the words.
Derrida: in communicating with other people one has to comply to these rules, of course, but not when communicating with other philosophers.
IV 9
Metaphysics/RortyVsDerrida: too dramatic s presentation of the role played by metaphysics in our culture. He puts too much emphasis on the particular kind of centripetal thinking that ends in philosophizing that is oriented towards justification.
IV 118
Scripture/Derrida/Rorty: we should "think about a writing without presence and without absence, without history, cause
IV 119
arché telos which deranged the entire dialectic, theology and ontology (sic)." Such scripture would be literature, which no longer would be contradictory to philosophy. Scripture/Text/RortyVsDerrida: dilemma: either he can forget about philosophy
IV 120
and the What of scripture would lose its wit, or he must accept the dependence of the text of philosophy on its edges. When Derrida recounts such tragicomedy he shows himself at his best. His weakest points are the ones where he begins to imitate what he hates and claims he would offer "rigorous analyses".
IV 121
SearleVsDerrida/Rorty: his arguments are simply awful. Rorty: that's right! RortyVsSearle: underestimates Derrida; he does not even seek knowledge bases!
RortyVsSearle: the idea that there were such a thing as an "intellectual content" measurable by general and ahistorical standards links him with Plato and Husserl, but separates him from Derrida. The weakness of his arguments Derrida is that he believes that he would be pursuing amateurish philosophy of language. He did not notice that Derrida poses metaphilosophical questions about the value of such a philosophy.
IV 122
RortyVsDerrida: every new type of scripture that can do without arché and without telos is also left without object!
IV 123
RortyVsDerrida: Dilemma: another meta vocabulary is a) either prudocing a further philosophical seclusiveness or b) more openness than we can handle.
Derrida is aware of that. Therefore, he distances himself from Heidegger who has failed to write about philosophy unphilosophically.
DerridaVsHeidegger: "there will be no unique name, even not of existence".
IV 125
Heidegger never goes beyond a set of metaphors that he shares with Husserl. These metaphors suggest that deep down we all possess the "truth of being"! Calling and listening also do not escape the circle of mutually explicable concepts. (so.).
IV 126
Scripture/dialectic/RortyVsDerrida: "primacy of scripture" not much more than a cricket: not more than the assertion that certain features of discourse are more evident in the case of writing, as in the spoken language.
IV 127
This is no more than a stale dialectic of reversal that Hegel disproved already in his phenomenology and that Kierkegaard called "tricks of a dog".
IV 129
RortyVsDerrida: the distinction between relationships contitioned by conclusion and associations not conditioned by conclusion is just as unclear and blurred as the one between word and sentence or between the metaphorical and the literal.
IV 130
But Derrida has to do something with all these distinctions. He must ensure that they look distinct enough. He is concerned about being the first to turn to this issue, while all previous authors have done nothing more than to build the same old building again and again.
IV 129
sentence/Rorty: the distinction between sentence and non-sentence is blurred. ((s) But supra.
IV 49
World/Rorty: amount of non sentences. - This presupposes a clear distinction.).
IV 131
Text/scripture/RortyVsDerrida: it is simply not true that the text sequence that makes up the canon of tradition is trapped in a metaphor that has remained unchanged since the Greeks. The procedure to speak multiple languages at the same time and to write several texts at the same time is exactly what all important, revolutionary, original thinkers have practiced.
IV 135
Text/RortyVsDerrida: virtually all thinkers have written several texts simultaneously. Also "glass" is not new, but the realistic representation of a site on which we have lived for some time.
IV 136/137
RortyVsDerrida: he can not perform an argumentative confrontation without turning into a metaphysician. Being/DerridaVsHeidegger: Being has always only had "meaning" as something hidden in the being. The "differance" is in a certain and very strange way "older" than the ontological difference or than the truth of being.
IV 138
Trace/Derrida: neither a reason nor a justification nor an origin. (Claimed to have "proven" that. RortyVsDerrida: how can he prove it?
IV 139
"Differance"/Derrida: "neither a word nor a concept". RortyVsDerrida: First of all it was a typo. That it is not anymore is because it has actually become a word. Also, any word that has a use refers to a concept.
IV 140
Concept/Wittgenstein/Rorty: we have learned from Wittgenstein that every word is interwoven with others. RortyVsDerrida: Opposition: Derrida is trying to utilize the explanation of the language game of the concept of meaning and to grant some magic words privileges at the same time.
RortyVsDerrida: does nothing more than to avoid simply neutralizing the binary oppositions of metaphysics.
IV 142
RortyVsDerrida: that all does not mean that the word games are not funny, but only that the accompanying sound of urgency is inappropriate.
VI 475
Order/Searle: a blurred distinction can still be useful. VsDerrida, who makes no distinctions in his opinion.)
VI 476
Sign/RortyVsDerrida: should not depict concepts as quasi People. ((s) that bring concepts mischief). Sign/Derrida: would have given us transcendental pseudo-problems. E.g. how intentionality were possible in a world of atoms and of empty space.
RortyVsDerrida: should not even ask the question "What is the Political?". Just as the "piety" of Euthyphro it presumes sime kind of being of which one would assume that it would only be of interest to Phallogozentristen!
Concept/Derrida: wants to write without concepts as "agents".
VI 477
RortyVsDerrida: one should not write about the adventures of concepts, but about the adventures of people. He should not argue frequently used words stood for incoherent concepts, because there is no better proof for the consistency than the use, that this language game is actually being played.
Derrida is itself quite transcendental, while he criticized others for ot.
VI 480
Shine/to seem/appearance/RortyVsDerrida: in accordance with Wittgenstein and Davidson we can do our work without even mentioning this dubious distinction (Being/appearance)!
VI 500
Text/Concept/RortyVsDerrida: if there really is a world in which concepts live and weave and exist regardless of the language behavior of word users, namely that world which is the transcendental condition of the possibility of transcendental philosophy, the question arises: Why can it also be an empirical fact that a concept is nothing more than the use we miserable existing individuals make of a word. If the world in which a concept is nothing more than this use is real, the question is: How is it possible that that other world is also real?

Rorty I
Richard Rorty
Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton/NJ 1979
German Edition:
Der Spiegel der Natur Frankfurt 1997

Rorty II
Richard Rorty
Philosophie & die Zukunft Frankfurt 2000

Rorty II (b)
Richard Rorty
"Habermas, Derrida and the Functions of Philosophy", in: R. Rorty, Truth and Progress. Philosophical Papers III, Cambridge/MA 1998
In
Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000

Rorty II (c)
Richard Rorty
Analytic and Conversational Philosophy Conference fee "Philosophy and the other hgumanities", Stanford Humanities Center 1998
In
Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000

Rorty II (d)
Richard Rorty
Justice as a Larger Loyalty, in: Ronald Bontekoe/Marietta Stepanians (eds.) Justice and Democracy. Cross-cultural Perspectives, University of Hawaii 1997
In
Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000

Rorty II (e)
Richard Rorty
Spinoza, Pragmatismus und die Liebe zur Weisheit, Revised Spinoza Lecture April 1997, University of Amsterdam
In
Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000

Rorty II (f)
Richard Rorty
"Sein, das verstanden werden kann, ist Sprache", keynote lecture for Gadamer’ s 100th birthday, University of Heidelberg
In
Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000

Rorty II (g)
Richard Rorty
"Wild Orchids and Trotzky", in: Wild Orchids and Trotzky: Messages form American Universities ed. Mark Edmundson, New York 1993
In
Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000

Rorty III
Richard Rorty
Contingency, Irony, and solidarity, Chambridge/MA 1989
German Edition:
Kontingenz, Ironie und Solidarität Frankfurt 1992

Rorty IV (a)
Richard Rorty
"is Philosophy a Natural Kind?", in: R. Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Philosophical Papers Vol. I, Cambridge/Ma 1991, pp. 46-62
In
Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993

Rorty IV (b)
Richard Rorty
"Non-Reductive Physicalism" in: R. Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Philosophical Papers Vol. I, Cambridge/Ma 1991, pp. 113-125
In
Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993

Rorty IV (c)
Richard Rorty
"Heidegger, Kundera and Dickens" in: R. Rorty, Essays on Heidegger and Others. Philosophical Papers Vol. 2, Cambridge/MA 1991, pp. 66-82
In
Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993

Rorty IV (d)
Richard Rorty
"Deconstruction and Circumvention" in: R. Rorty, Essays on Heidegger and Others. Philosophical Papers Vol. 2, Cambridge/MA 1991, pp. 85-106
In
Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993

Rorty V (a)
R. Rorty
"Solidarity of Objectivity", Howison Lecture, University of California, Berkeley, January 1983
In
Solidarität oder Objektivität?, Stuttgart 1998

Rorty V (b)
Richard Rorty
"Freud and Moral Reflection", Edith Weigert Lecture, Forum on Psychiatry and the Humanities, Washington School of Psychiatry, Oct. 19th 1984
In
Solidarität oder Objektivität?, Stuttgart 1988

Rorty V (c)
Richard Rorty
The Priority of Democracy to Philosophy, in: John P. Reeder & Gene Outka (eds.), Prospects for a Common Morality. Princeton University Press. pp. 254-278 (1992)
In
Solidarität oder Objektivität?, Stuttgart 1988

Rorty VI
Richard Rorty
Truth and Progress, Cambridge/MA 1998
German Edition:
Wahrheit und Fortschritt Frankfurt 2000
Kant Leibniz Vs Kant Frege III 31
Numbers/LeibnizVsKant: Has claimed the provability of the numerical formulas. "There is no immediate truth that 2 and 2 are 4. Assuming that 4 indicates 3 ​​and 1, one can prove it, in a way:
  Definitions:
1st 1 and 1 are 2,
2nd 2 and 1 are 3
3rd 3 and 1 are 4
  Axiom: If a similar number is inserted, the equation remains.
  Proof: 2 + 2 = 2 + 1 + 1 = 3 + 1 = 4
  So by axiom: 2 + 2 = 4


Leibniz I 83
Ultimate Justification/LeibnizVsKant: Does not take part in the radical philosophy of subject. Like Spinoza prior to him and Hegel after him, he wanted to find a not subjective reason of being which can be expressed in truths of reason [vérités de raison] since Descartes' indispensable reflection on the subject. For this, two principles are sufficient.
1. Principle of contradiction
2. Principle of sufficient reason (can be traced back to the principle of contradiction).
Additionally,since the principle of identity is perceived through the sensory perception, we can ascribe reason -which is presupposed in our thought (the logicality of reason)- to the principles of the objects themselves (so their ontic reality).
as panlogically as Hegel's system.
I 84
In the universe and its parts, logic is existing and embodied like this. Metaphysics/Logic/Leibniz: This is why all relationships between realities - phenomenal as well as metaphysical ones- can be expressed in a logical form.
Ultimate Justification/LeibnizVsKant: The world does not seem logical because the subject understands it in the logical form of his/her thought; rather, the logical form of thought is imperative because the world shows itself as being logically created.
Leibniz: The world, however, does not show itself as world but as an additive series, i.e. an aggregate.
I 128
Phenomenon/LeibnizVsKant: Kant's idea that it is separated from the being is not to be applied! Rather, the "mundus intelligibilis" forms the basis for the "mundus sensibilis". The latter is also not a duplication but a "translation".
The phenomenal is the substantial itself but with the conditions of the imagination, for which spaciality and temporality are essential.
In-itself [Ansich]/appearance/Leibniz/Josef König: For Leibniz, its relation is dialectical. It corresponds in turn exactly to the schema of the "Übergreifendes Allgemeines":
The in-itself [Ansich] is a category of itself (!), of the in-itself and its opposite, of the appearance. ((s) > „The overarching generality“, >Paradoxes).
I 129
The fact that the appearance is always the appearance of a in-itself (which is the sense of the word) is not meant by it. KantVsLeibniz: Because the appearance could then still differ from the object, for which it is its appearance, and as such knowledge of the object would not be possible. (This is Kant's view of the relationship.)
LeibnizVsKant: Insists that the appearance is the same as the in-itself which shows itself in the appearance.
The world does so in the perception. As such, the world reproduces itself in two ways.
1. as a whole but each time under another perspective
2. the world appears spatially as the disunion of different substances,
3. the world appears temporally as succession of different perceptions.
The system of perceptions is "well-founded" ["wohl begründet"] because it actually is the self-restricting activity of the initial force of the in-itself.
The difference between the in-itself and appearance is the difference of the in-itself itself! This is the totality and the principle of its difference.
I 130
This is why the appearance is not unreal in comparison to the in-itself, but a sort of identical form, and as such quite real. Phenomenology/Leibniz: The way in which what needs to be expressed is comprised in the expressed. Everything that is expressed is a phenomenon.It is well-founded because the in-itself, by expressing itself, is the phenomenon. The in-itself is also identical to the phenomenon, and
constitutes the latter implicitly [Ansichseiendes].
The phenomenon is not reality's opposite (Vs Kant), but actually its specific being which is currently creating its universal representation.
This is why all perceptions in each substance need to correspond to each other.

I 133
Motion/Leibniz: Something takes the place of something else.
I 134
The "space" [Raum] is everything that encompasses all these places. For this, there is also no need to accept an "absolute reality" of the space. Space/Time/LeibnizVsKant: The epitome of possible relationships, not as forms of intuition, but as real ontological structures of the materially implicit relationships.

Lei II
G. W. Leibniz
Philosophical Texts (Oxford Philosophical Texts) Oxford 1998

F I
G. Frege
Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik Stuttgart 1987

F II
G. Frege
Funktion, Begriff, Bedeutung Göttingen 1994

F IV
G. Frege
Logische Untersuchungen Göttingen 1993
Kant Verschiedene Vs Kant Kanitscheider I 434
KantVsNewton: Infinite unimaginable! NewtonVsKant: unimaginable, but conceptually comprehensible!
Kanitscheider I 441
EllisVsKant: (antinomies): the expressions "earlier" and "later" can be related to states before a fixed time t0, without assuming that all these states really existed. Just as one can speak of a temperature of 0 K, even if one knows that this temperature cannot be reached.
Kant I 28
VsKant/Causality: Of course, he does not adhere to this himself! His critique of reason is about more than possible experience (namely about metaphysics through freedom and thus about the absolute value of our existence). Here Kant's concept of causality shows itself to be completely unaffected by Hume. - Intelligent Cause.
I 47
Mind: has its own causality: "spontaneity of concepts". (VsKant: untouched by Hume). Antinomy of Freedom: VsKant: a bluff: we cannot do it with objects, "it will only be possible with concepts and principles that we accept a priori."
I 49
Freedom Antinomy: solution: third cosmological antinomy: theme: the third constitution of the world as a whole: event context. - VsKant: Imposition: the "acting subject", i.e. I, should take myself as an "example" for things! It is not in itself subject to the condition of time. Spontaneous beginning of events.
I 53
Freedom/Kant: The freedom of the other would be uncertain. VsKant: A freedom that could be both mine and that of the other cannot be thought of in this way. - VsKant: he misappropriates the problem of identification with the other. (> intersubjectivity, subject/object).
I 52
For Kant this was not a problem: for him the rescue was not in the world of appearances. Concept: Predicates only have to be consistent.
I 66
SchulteVsKant: this only applies to objects for which it can always be decided, not to chaotic diversity.
I 67
Predicate/Kant: Kant simply omits the negative predicates. I 68
I 69
MarxVsKant: Dissertation from 1841: Kant's reference to the worthlessness of imaginary thalers: the value of money itself consists only of imagination! On the contrary, Kant's example could have confirmed the ontological proof! Real thalers have the same existence as imagined gods".
I 104
Only through this idea does reason a priori agree with nature at all. This prerequisite is the "expediency of nature" for our cognitive faculty. > Merely logical connection. - VsKant: actually relapse into "thinking in agreement". Die ZEIT 11/02 (Ludger Heidbrink: Rawls)
RawlsVsKant: religiously influenced Manichaeism. Because the "good ego" that lives in the intelligent world of understanding is threatened by the "evil ego" of the natural world of the senses, moral action must be anchored in the belief that it is God's will to realize the "supreme good" of existence in accordance with the ideal realm of purposes.
Moral/HegelVsKant: in a well-ordered state with a functioning legal system, the individual does not have to be committed to morality, but acts voluntarily in accordance with the moral constitution of bourgeois society.
Menne I 28
Kant: transcendental reasoning of logic. It must apply a priori. Kant: analytical judgement: so narrowly defined that even the largest part of mathematics and logic falls within the realm of synthetic judgement. MenneVsKant: if he wanted to justify logic from the twelve categories, this would be a circular conclusion.
Vaihinger I 333
Thing in itself/F.A. LangeVsKant/Vaihinger: If the thing itself is fictitious, then also its distinction from the apparitions. ((s)Vs: the distinction is only mental, not empirical).
Vollmer I XIV
World View/Konrad LorenzVsKant: in no organism do we encounter a world view that would contradict what we humans believe from the outside world. Limit/Lorence: The comparison of the world views of different species helps us to expect and recognize the limitations of our own world view apparatus.





Kanitsch I
B. Kanitscheider
Kosmologie Stuttgart 1991

Kanitsch II
B. Kanitscheider
Im Innern der Natur Darmstadt 1996

Me I
A. Menne
Folgerichtig Denken Darmstadt 1997

Vaihinger I
H. Vaihinger
Die Philosophie des Als Ob Leipzig 1924