100 Philosophie und Psychologie
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (18)
- Review (5)
- Working Paper (5)
- Part of a Book (3)
- Contribution to a Periodical (3)
- Book (1)
- Report (1)
Language
- German (24)
- English (10)
- Portuguese (1)
- Spanish (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (36)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (36)
Keywords
- Freiheit (3)
- Ausnahmezustand (2)
- Rechtsphilosophie (2)
- law (2)
- state of exception (2)
- Adam Smith (1)
- Benefits (1)
- Benjamin, Walter (1)
- Böckenförde (1)
- Böckenfördes Diktum (1)
Institute
- Exzellenzcluster Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen (36) (remove)
Am 18. Juni wird Jürgen Habermas, der die Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften der Goethe-Universität nachhaltig geprägt hat, 95 Jahre alt, und dazu sendet unsere wissenschaftliche Community, der er nach wie vor aktiv angehört, die herzlichsten Glückwünsche. Bis heute ist Habermas’ wissenschaftliche und intellektuelle Stimme national und international eine der meistgehörten, und wir wünschen von Herzen, dass es noch lange so bleiben möge.
Some realists in political theory deny that the notion of feasibility has any place in realist theory, while others claim that feasibility constraints are essential elements of realist normative theorising. But none have so far clarified what exactly they are referring to when thinking of feasibility and political realism together. In this article, we develop a conception of the realist feasibility frontier based on an appraisal of how political realism should be distinguished from non-ideal theories. In this realist framework, political standards are feasible if they meet three requirements: they are (i) politically intelligible, (ii) contextually recognisable as authoritative, and (iii) contestable. We conclude by suggesting that our conception of realist feasibility might be compatible with utopian demands, thereby possibly finding favour with realists who otherwise refuse to resort to the notion of feasibility.
The concept of the political in Carl Schmitt’s works is not only defined by the distinction between friend and enemy, but also by the criterion of breaching the rules in a normatively unbound act of decision. According to Schmitt, this decision is, however, not arbitrary, but provoked by the necessity of a historical situation. This aspect of necessity calls the freedom of the decision into question and leads to tensions within Schmitt’s theory of the political. More explicitly than in Schmitt’s political and legal writings, this conflict between freedom and necessity is exposed in his theory of tragedy. In a reading of his book Hamlet or Hecuba, published in 1956, I will show, in a first step, how the act of breaching the rules is not external to normativity, but occurs from within normativity itself. It is the act of self-breaching – of breaking the rules of its own genre – by which, according to Schmitt, modern tragedy is defined. This breach, however, is compelled by the necessity of a real, i. e. extraliterary, event. In a second step, I will expound on how this idea of self-breaching, which also characterises Schmitt’s understanding of the political, leads to a loss of decision which not only questions his idea of sovereignty, but also topples his concept of the political.
Within democratic orders, it is the declared aim of a state of exception to secure or restore the endangered foundation of democracy. The provided measures are, however, undemocratic insofar they directly affect individual rights as the principle on which democracy is based: By suspending rights, the state of exception treats individuals not as members of a democratic community (demos), but as parts of a population which has to be secured. Whereas individual rights enable individuals to be part of the demos, the state of exception – by restraining rights – enforces a politics of population. In my article, I show in what way individual rights, too, are used as a strategy of governing the population. Referring to the history of individual rights in the early modern period, I describe a specific form of alienation of individual rights. I argue that this alienation consists in the separation of a private from the political component of individual rights. This alienation is the reason for a dialectical shift from demos to population which occurs in an extreme form in the state of exception. Against this background, the question of the state of exception and the question of individual rights appear in an unfamiliar but crucial relation. In order to oppose the dialectical shift and the misuse of exceptional measures, I claim it necessary to insist on the inextricable link between the private and the political component of individual rights – that is to extend the domain of democracy.
Säkularisierung und die Souveränität der Moderne. Ein Kommentar zur Agamben-Lektüre Jürgen Mohns
(2014)
According to Benjamin and Foucault, calling something into question is not just a precondition of critical practice but its very realisation. The effect of critique depends on how a question is asked. An inaccurately posed question supports what it aspired to criticise. Critical practice thus involves a critique of allegedly critical questions. In their critique of power and violence, Foucault and Benjamin expose the moment in which a critical question becomes uncritical and subsequently seek its critical transformation. In Foucault, this movement is identical with "desubjugation", and in Benjamin, with "revolution". A revolutionary resoluteness in raising critical questions, however, can turn out to be decisionistic and uncritical itself. In this paper I reconstruct the struggle for an accurate critical question in Benjamin and Foucault and address how the dialectical turn into uncritical action might be avoided.