Die Herausforderung historisch kontingenter Begriffe für die analytische Philosophie am Beispiel der Menschenwürde

Nils Neuhaus
{"title":"Die Herausforderung historisch kontingenter Begriffe für die analytische Philosophie am Beispiel der Menschenwürde","authors":"Nils Neuhaus","doi":"10.1163/18756735-00000160","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Historically contingent concepts like human dignity do not allow for the exclusion of historical considerations from their analysis. In order to demonstrate this, the present essay compares the positions of Hans-Johann Glock and Hans Blumenberg. While Glock deals with the convergence of analytic philosophy and historical approaches, Blumenberg highlights the importance of historical constants. Glock argues for a pragmatic historicism according to which historical inquiry is useful but not indispensable. Through comparison with Blumenberg’s position, it is shown that this assessment is incomplete. It is then argued that there is a more fitting position, according to which historical inquiry is essential for some, though not all, concepts. This position is illustrated by the concept of human dignity, which cannot be adequately grasped without reference to its genesis. Blumenberg’s approach can thus help precisely where the connection between analytical philosophy and historical investigation in Glock’s sense falters.","PeriodicalId":43873,"journal":{"name":"Grazer Philosophische Studien-International Journal for Analytic Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Grazer Philosophische Studien-International Journal for Analytic Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18756735-00000160","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Historically contingent concepts like human dignity do not allow for the exclusion of historical considerations from their analysis. In order to demonstrate this, the present essay compares the positions of Hans-Johann Glock and Hans Blumenberg. While Glock deals with the convergence of analytic philosophy and historical approaches, Blumenberg highlights the importance of historical constants. Glock argues for a pragmatic historicism according to which historical inquiry is useful but not indispensable. Through comparison with Blumenberg’s position, it is shown that this assessment is incomplete. It is then argued that there is a more fitting position, according to which historical inquiry is essential for some, though not all, concepts. This position is illustrated by the concept of human dignity, which cannot be adequately grasped without reference to its genesis. Blumenberg’s approach can thus help precisely where the connection between analytical philosophy and historical investigation in Glock’s sense falters.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
挑战历史权章性分析哲学,以人类尊严为例
历史上偶然的概念,如人的尊严,不允许将历史因素排除在分析之外。为了证明这一点,本文比较了汉斯·约翰·格洛克和汉斯·布鲁门伯格的立场。格洛克论述了分析哲学和历史方法的融合,而布鲁门伯格则强调了历史常数的重要性。格洛克主张实用主义的历史主义,根据这种历史主义,历史探究是有用的,但不是必不可少的。通过与布鲁门伯格的立场进行比较,表明这种评估是不完整的。然后有人认为,有一个更合适的立场,根据这个立场,历史探究对一些(尽管不是全部)概念至关重要。人的尊严概念说明了这一立场,如果不提及其起源,就无法充分理解这一概念。因此,布鲁门伯格的方法可以准确地帮助格洛克意义上的分析哲学和历史调查之间的联系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊最新文献
When is a Belief Formed in an Epistemically Circular Way? The Epistemology of Reading and Interpretation, written by René van Woudenberg Rational Belief, Reflection, and Undercutting Defeat Warum sich doch sinnvoll über Geschmack streiten lässt Das intentionale Objekt als Unding
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1