Dramas of Recognition: Philosophy as Literary History

Offers a critique of the concept of recognition (Honneth, Fraser), arguing that, from a literary-historical perspective, it connstitutes a step back behing modernism toward the agenda of Realism.

Critical Essays on "Causation & Responsibility"

Due to its scope and depth, Moore’s Causation and Responsibility is probably the most important publication in the philosophy of law since the publication of Hart’s and Honoré’s Causation in the Law in 1959. This volume offers, for the first time, a detailed exchange between legal and philosophical scholars over Moore’s most recent work. In particular, it pioneers the dialogue between English-speaking and German philosophy of law on a broad range of pressing foundational questions concerning causation in the law. It thereby fulfills the need for a comprehensive, international and critical discussion of Moore’s influential arguments. The 15 contributors to the proposed volume span the whole interdisciplinary field from law and morals to metaphysics, and the authors include distinguished criminal and tort lawyers, as well as prominent theoretical and practical philosophers from four nations. In addition, young researchers take brand-new approaches in the field. The collection is essential reading for anyone interested in legal and moral theory.

Die Odyssee der Pygmäen. Eine prekäre Figur auf den neuzeitlichen Spieltischen anthropologischer Differenz

Due to the impacts of postcolonialism, social and cultural anthropology has been dealing intensively with the possibilities and limits of representing "other” human beings and their meaningful worlds. Scholars such as George Marcus, James Clifford or Clifford Geertz have discussed ways of improving anthropological methods of representation without, however, fully raising questions about the quality and validity of the objects represented and the very idea, that they could be “represented”. Thus, despite attempts to purify classical anthropological categories, substantialized presences (“Humans”, “Others”, “Pygmies” etc.), various forms of binary oppositions (us–them, culture–nature, human–animal) as well as certain epistemological modes/ logoi (representation, interpretation) have been rehearsed until today. The research aims to dissect and challenge the metaphysical outputs of the “anthropological machine” (Giorgio Agamben). I intended to solve these from their apparent familiarity as representable identities or differences in order to investigate their genealogy. In Derrida’s and Foucault’s understanding, genealogy becomes manifest mainly in the “blind spots” (Derrida) or “anomalies” (Foucault) between differences, at the borders of identities. As an analytical guideline, the research uses on one concrete metonym for the Derridean blind spot, one incorporation of a Foucauldian Other, namely pygmy narratives within early modern and 19th century imaginings. “Pygmies” have been part of both Western mythology and anthropological reflection since the antiquity and finally became “ethnographical facts” within an evolutionary anthropology in the 19th century during the European exploration of Africa. Throughout this veritable Odyssey, they were mostly precarious “category-jammers” (Timothy Beal), occupying the impossible middle grounds within (proto)anthropological classification. Thus, along with the early modern wild men, enfants sauvages or the apes of proto-primatology, the pygmies of the Homeric myth, as a catalyst for the negotiation of categories, played a decisive role in early modern and 19th century conceptions of the human. Through the precarious Pygmies, concrete socio-historical materializations of Identities (human, European), differences (human–animal etc.), as well as the accompanying logoi which vindicate these as pseudo-entities, appear evident. The research aims to read and write the history of early modern and 19th Century anthropology through one of its many classificatory constituting Others. It thus contributes to a discipline that for a long time has examined concrete systems of knowledge and the genealogy of classification in general. One might call it an “anthropologization” of anthropology.

Perfecting Imperfect Duties via Institutionalization

Onora O’Neill’s thesis that, in a world like ours, institutionalization is a necessary condition for the existence of typical universal welfare rights—the “institutionalization thesis” for short—has often been criticized. I believe that most of these criticisms fail to appreciate that the institutionalization thesis is based on her “classical” understanding of rights, which stresses the essential duty-implying character of rights. By and large, O’Neill’s thesis stands and falls with the classical theory of rights. My suggestion is, therefore, that what is really at issue between O’Neill and at least some of her critics is the proper understanding of the concept of a right.

Less than Nihilism

Chapter 2 by Luca Di Blasi (...) gives us an insight into the history of nihilism, specifically by exposing a continuity (or else a cycle or repetition) between the earliest debates on the subject in the turn of the nineteenth century and latest ones in the turn of the twenty-first Di Blasi emphasizes the fact that the struggle between philosophy and religion, reason and faith, was a pertinent motif in Jacobi’s critique of Fichte’s philosophy and in Hegel’s response to this critique. A similar problematic, and similar dynamic, recurs two centuries later, where debates around the concept of nihilism among thinkers like Vattimo, Derrida, Habermas, and Žižek again revolve around the relation between religion, science, secularism, and “post-secularism.” Beginning with Hegel, Di Blasi’s chapter ends with a focus on Žižek as a “neo-Hegelian” showing how, in attacking his contemporaries, Žižek mirrors and revives Hegel’s approach in his critique of Jacobi and Fichte. Suggestively, Žižek informs us that now “the circle is closed” and that “to be a Hegelian today does not mean to assume the superfluous burden of some metaphysical past, but to regain the ability to begin from the beginning...”

The Power of Tolerance. A Debate

We invoke the ideal of tolerance in response to conflict, but what does it mean to answer conflict with a call for tolerance? Is tolerance a way of resolving conflicts or a means of sustaining them? Does it transform conflicts into productive tensions, or does it perpetuate underlying power relations? To what extent does tolerance hide its involvement with power and act as a form of depoliticization? Wendy Brown and Rainer Forst debate the uses and misuses of tolerance, an exchange that highlights the fundamental differences in their critical practice despite a number of political similarities. Both scholars address the normative premises, limits, and political implications of various conceptions of tolerance. Brown offers a genealogical critique of contemporary discourses on tolerance in Western liberal societies, focusing on their inherent ties to colonialism and imperialism, and Forst reconstructs an intellectual history of tolerance that attempts to redeem its political virtue in democratic societies. Brown and Forst work from different perspectives and traditions, yet they each remain wary of the subjection and abnegation embodied in toleration discourses, among other issues. The result is a dialogue rich in critical and conceptual reflections on power, justice, discourse, rationality, and identity.