Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (18) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (18)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Journal article (9)
- Doctoral Thesis (5)
- Review (2)
- Bachelor Thesis (1)
- Book article / Book chapter (1)
Keywords
- Ockham (2)
- double intentionality (2)
- ontology (2)
- phenomenology (2)
- Aquinas (1)
- Avicenna (1)
- Burley (1)
- Christian August Crusius (1)
- Cohen, Hermann (1)
- Dominicus, Gundissalinus (1)
Institute
- Institut für Philosophie (18) (remove)
Wie weit kann ein christlicher Denker Avicenna folgen, wenn er dessen Ontologie zur Erklärung des Verhältnisses von Gott und Welt heranzieht? Dieser zentralen Frage der Avicenna-Rezeption widmet sich die vorliegende Arbeit.
Avicenna (Ibn Sīnā, 980–1037) entwickelt in der Metaphysik (al-Ilāhiyyāt) – dem vierten Teil seiner philosophischen Summe Buch der Heilung (Kitāb al-Šifāʾ) – den Grundgedanken seiner Ontologie: die Distinktion von Sein und Wesen, die zu einem seiner bekanntesten und einflussreichsten Lehrstücke wurde. Nach der lateinischen Übersetzung von Avicennas Metaphysik im zwölften Jahrhundert fand die darin entworfene Ontologie rasche Verbreitung unter den lateinisch-christlichen Gelehrten. Für deren monotheistische Weltanschauung war diese Lehre insofern attraktiv, als sich aus der Sein-Wesen-Distinktion die wichtigsten ontologischen Aspekte der Beziehung von Gott und Welt rein rational ableiten lassen. Vor diesem Hintergrund stellt sich die genannte Frage, wie weit ein christlicher Denker mit Avicenna gehen kann, wenn er dessen Ontologie heranzieht, um das Verhältnis von Gott und Welt zu erklären. Diese Frage untersucht die Autorin für die drei Gelehrten Dominicus Gundisalvi († nach 1190), Wilhelm von Auvergne († 1249) und Heinrich von Gent († 1293). Die Verschränkung von Ontologie, Theologie und Kosmogonie gibt der Autorin die Möglichkeit, für diese drei Bereiche jeweils herauszuarbeiten, an welchen Stellen und aus welchen Motiven Modifikationen an der avicennischen Theorie vorgenommen wurden, um sie eigenen Zwecken oder neuen Kontexten wie der Trinitätstheologie anzupassen. Zugleich zeigt sie auf, an welchen Punkten mit Avicennas Theorie gänzlich gebrochen wurde. Was bedeuten diese Änderungen und Brüche inhaltlich? Und insbesondere: Wie werden sie rational gerechtfertigt?
Metaphors, Dead and Alive
(2023)
This paper examins how the medieval distinction between proper and improper signification can give a plausible explanation of both metaphorical use and the usual transformations a language can undergo. I will show how Thomas Aquinas distinguishes between ordinary ambiguous terms and metaphors, whereas William of Ockham and Walter Burley do not leave room for this distinction. I will argue that Ockham’s conception of transfer of sense through subsequent institution of words is best thought of as an explanation of how ordinary usage can contain ambiguities, whereas Burley’s conception of transfer of sense without new imposition is more plausible when it comes to explaining metaphors. If metaphorical use is lumped together with equivocation, the account of how they work cannot do full justice to either, an insight that we already find in Peter Abelard, if not in Boethius.
In this article, I argue for four theses. First, libertarian and compatibilist accounts of moral responsibility agree that the capability of practical reason is the central feature of moral responsibility. Second, this viewpoint leads to a reasons-focused account of human behavior. Examples of human action discussed in debates about moral responsibility suggest that typical human actions are driven primarily by the agent’s subjective reasons and are sufficiently transparent for the agent. Third, this conception of self-transparent action is a questionable idealization. As shown by psychological research on self-assessment, motivated reasoning, and terror management theory, humans oftentimes have only a limited understanding of their conduct. Self-deception is rather the rule than the exception. Fourth, taking the limited self-transparency of practical reason seriously leads to a socially contextualized conception of moral responsibility.
Whether, and in what sense, research in phenomenology and phenomenological psychopathology has—in addition to its descriptive and hermeneutic value—explanatory power is somewhat controversial. This paper shows why it is legitimate to recognize such explanatory power. To this end, the paper analyzes two central concerns underlying the debate about explanation in phenomenology: (a) the warning against reductionism, which is implicit in a conception of causal explanation exclusively based on models of natural/physical causation; and (b) the warning against top-down generalizations, which neglect the specificity of the individual. While acknowledging that these two caveats express serious concerns regarding the debate on explanatory models, I show that phenomenology has the resources to respond to them. These can be found in analyses of different types of causation relating to different regions of reality and in the structure of explanatory models based on exemplarity. On the basis of these analyses, I defend a pluralist account vis-à-vis explanatory models.
Husserl’s taxonomy of action
(2022)
In the present article I discuss, in confrontation with the most recent studies on Husserl’s phenomenology of acting and willing, the taxonomy of action that is collected in the volume ‘Wille und Handlung’ of the Husserliana edition Studien zur Struktur des Bewussteins. In so doing, I first present Husserl’s universal characterization of action (Handlung) as a volitional process (willentlicher Vorgang). Then, after clarifying what it means for a process to have a character of volitionality (Willentlichkeit), I illustrate the various types of actions, which Husserl distinguishes as ‘straightforward’ (schlicht) or ‘deciding’ (entscheidend), ‘primary’ (primär) or ‘secondary’ (sekundär), ‘inner’ (innere) or ‘outer’ (äußere), ‘immediate’ (unmittelbar) or mediate (mittelbar), ‘simple’ (einfach) or ‘compound’ (zusammengesetzt). Finally, I consider Husserl’s discussion of the direction and foundation of action.
Any account of intentional action has to deal with the problem of how such actions are individuated. Medieval accounts, however, crucially differ from contemporary ones in at least three respects: (i) for medieval authors, individuation is not a matter of description, as it is according to contemporary, ‘Anscombian’ views; rather, it is a metaphysical matter. (ii) Medieval authors discuss intentional action on the basis of faculty psychology, whereas contemporary accounts are not committed to this kind of psychology. Connected to the use of faculty psychology is (iii) the distinction between interior and exterior acts. Roughly, interior acts are mental as opposed to physical acts, whereas exterior acts are acts of physical powers, such as of moving one’s body. Of course, contemporary accounts are not committed to this distinction between two ontologically different kinds of acts. Rather, they might be committed to views consistent with physicalist approaches to the mind. The main interpretative task in this paper is to clarify how Scotus and Ockham explain moral intentional action in terms of the role and involvement of these kinds of acts respectively. I argue that Scotus’s account is close to contemporary, ‘Anscombian’ accounts, whereas Ockham’s account is incompatible with them.
How are fictions given? Conjoining the ‘artifactual theory’ and the ‘imaginary-object theory’
(2021)
According to the so-called ‘artifactual theory’ of fiction, fictional objects are to be considered as abstract artifacts. Within this framework, fictional objects are defined on the basis of their complex dependence on literary works, authors, and readership. This theory is explicitly distinguished from other approaches to fictions, notably from the imaginary-object theory. In this article, I argue that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive but can and should be integrated. In particular, the ontology of fiction can be fruitfully supplemented by a phenomenological analysis, which allows us to clarify the defining modes of givenness of fictional objects. Likewise, based on the results of the artifactual theory, some assumptions in the imaginary-object theory, which are liable to be interpreted as laying the ground to phenomenalism, can be corrected.