Die Frage „Was ist?“ bei Hermann Cohen und Franz Rosenzweig

IF 0.2 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY JOURNAL OF JEWISH THOUGHT & PHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2013-01-01 DOI:10.1163/1477285X-12341242
Luca Bertolino
{"title":"Die Frage „Was ist?“ bei Hermann Cohen und Franz Rosenzweig","authors":"Luca Bertolino","doi":"10.1163/1477285X-12341242","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The philosophical question “what is?” (τί ἐστι;) plays different roles in the work of Cohen and Rosenzweig. According to Cohen, it expresses the authentic meaning of the Socratic concept, which has its methodical-transcendental foundation in the Platonic Idea as answer, since it gives an account of the concept. So Cohen turns the question into an epistemological problem, because it ultimately refers to the necessary condition of knowledge. In contrast, Rosenzweig sees in the “what is?” question grounds to condemn the “old” philosophy founded on the identity of being and thought. In his view, the question is the original sin of the “philosophy of the All,” which has always reduced everything to something completely different by means of the altering word “is” in the “is”-question. Nevertheless, with regard to the “what is?” question, it is possible to detect a kind of agreement between the two philosophers: namely, Rosenzweig opposes a claim of ontological reduction that Cohen also rejects.","PeriodicalId":42022,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF JEWISH THOUGHT & PHILOSOPHY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF JEWISH THOUGHT & PHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1477285X-12341242","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The philosophical question “what is?” (τί ἐστι;) plays different roles in the work of Cohen and Rosenzweig. According to Cohen, it expresses the authentic meaning of the Socratic concept, which has its methodical-transcendental foundation in the Platonic Idea as answer, since it gives an account of the concept. So Cohen turns the question into an epistemological problem, because it ultimately refers to the necessary condition of knowledge. In contrast, Rosenzweig sees in the “what is?” question grounds to condemn the “old” philosophy founded on the identity of being and thought. In his view, the question is the original sin of the “philosophy of the All,” which has always reduced everything to something completely different by means of the altering word “is” in the “is”-question. Nevertheless, with regard to the “what is?” question, it is possible to detect a kind of agreement between the two philosophers: namely, Rosenzweig opposes a claim of ontological reduction that Cohen also rejects.
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
问题是什么柯曼柯汉和弗朗兹魏格主演
哲学问题“是什么?”τί στι在科恩和罗森茨威格的工作中扮演不同的角色。根据科恩的说法,它表达了苏格拉底概念的真正意义,因为它给出了概念的描述,因此在柏拉图理念中有其方法先验的基础作为答案。所以科恩把这个问题变成了认识论问题,因为它最终涉及到知识的必要条件。相反,罗森茨威格在“什么是?”的问题,有理由谴责建立在存在与思想同一性上的“旧”哲学。在他看来,问题是“万有哲学”的原罪,“万有哲学”总是通过在“是”问题中改变“是”这个词,把一切事物简化为完全不同的东西。然而,关于“什么是?”的问题,我们就有可能发现两位哲学家之间的某种共识:也就是说,罗森茨威格反对科恩也拒绝的本体论还原的主张。
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
0.40
自引率
25.00%
发文量
12
期刊最新文献
Farmers versus Technocrats: A Comparative Analysis of A. D. Gordon and Theodor Herzl on Nature and Technology Making Sense of God: Samson Raphael Hirsch and Franz Rosenzweig on Translation and Anthropomorphisms A Hasidic Commentary on the Passover Haggadah for the New World The Double-Mirror Gaze, Transcoded Testimony, and Disqualified Witnesses in the Talmud A Still Small Voice: Psalms and Correlation as Media of Communication in Hermann Cohen’s Philosophy
×
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