@article{Krueger2019,
  author    = {Kr{\"u}ger, Hans-Peter},
  title     = {How is the Human Life-Form of Mind Really Possible in Nature?},
  series = {Human studies},
  volume    = {42},
  journal   = {Human studies},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Dordrecht},
  issn      = {0163-8548},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10746-017-9429-5},
  pages     = {47 -- 64},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {J. Dewey and H. Plessner both and independently of one another treated the central question of what new task philosophy must set itself if the assumption is correct that the life-form of mind, i.e., the mental life-form of humans, arose in nature and must also sustain itself in the future within nature. If nature has to reconceived so as to make the irreducible qualities of life and mind truly possible, then it can no longer be restricted to the role of physical material. Conversely humans cannot no longer take on the role of God outside and independent of nature. Instead these philosophers distinguish between three plateaus (Dewey) or stages (Plessner), between physical (inorganic) nature, psycho-physical (living) nature and the nature that is mental life. This distinction is drawn such that a connection between the plateaus is truly possible. The third level, that of the mental form of life, answers mentally within conduct to the break with the first two levels. Hence it depends in the future as well on the continuously renewed difference (between the precarious and the stable for Dewey, between immediacy and mediation for Plessner) in our experience of nature. Within this difference nature as a whole remains an open unknown, which is why we can credit Dewey with a philosophy of diversified and negative holism, Plessner with a differential philosophy of the negativity of the absolute.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Krueger2016,
  author    = {Kr{\"u}ger, Hans-Peter},
  title     = {Critical Anthropology? To the Relationship between Philosophical Anthropology and Critical Theory},
  series = {Deutsche Zeitschrift f{\~A}¼r Philosophie : Zweimonatsschrift der internationalen philosophischen Forschung},
  volume    = {64},
  journal   = {Deutsche Zeitschrift f{\~A}¼r Philosophie : Zweimonatsschrift der internationalen philosophischen Forschung},
  publisher = {De Gruyter},
  address   = {Berlin},
  issn      = {0012-1045},
  doi       = {10.1515/dzph-2016-0041},
  pages     = {553 -- 580},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {This article compares Max Horkheimer's and Theodor W. Adorno's foundation of the Frankfurt Critical Theory with Helmuth Plessner's foundation of Philosophical Anthropology. While Horkheimer's and Plessner's paradigms are mutually incompatible, Adorno's „negative dialectics" and Plessner's „negative anthropology" (G. Gamm) can be seen as complementing one another. J{\"u}rgen Habermas at one point sketched a complementary relationship between his own publicly communicative theory of modern society and Plessner's philosophy of nature and human expressivity, and though he then came to doubt this, he later reaffirmed it. Faced with the „life power" in „high capitalism" (Plessner), the ambitions for a public democracy in a pluralistic society have to be broadened from an argumentative focus (Habermas) to include the human condition and the expressive modes of our experience as essentially embodied persons. The article discusses some possible aspects of this complementarity under the title of a „critical anthropology" (H. Schn{\"a}delbach).},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{Krueger2021,
  author    = {Kr{\"u}ger, Hans-Peter},
  title     = {Der geistig-kulturelle Umgang mit der Covid-19-Pandemie und ihrer Wirtschaftskrise als Testfall},
  series = {Deutsche Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Philosophie : Zweimonatsschrift der internationalen philosophischen Forschung},
  volume    = {69},
  journal   = {Deutsche Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Philosophie : Zweimonatsschrift der internationalen philosophischen Forschung},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {De Gruyter},
  address   = {Berlin},
  issn      = {0012-1045},
  doi       = {10.1515/dzph-2021-0004},
  pages     = {67 -- 97},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Why has the global West (North America, Europe) handled the covid-19 pandemic and the corresponding economic crisis so much worse than the global East (East Asia)? The crises demonstrate the degree to which the West is shaped by its forms of competition and the East by its forms of cooperation. In the West, we have become habitualised to American neoliberalism over the last two generations. In the East, varieties of neo-Confucianism and neo-Buddhism have been transformed into national cultures. The way humans understand their position in the world intellectually and react to crises according to corresponding habit makes an effective difference. The present comparison between global East and West makes use of Hannah Arendt's conception of politics and the shared world as well as of Helmuth Plessner's conception of mediated immediacy in forms of modern biopower. The pandemic is a catalyst within the decline of the West and the rise of the East.},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{Krueger2017,
  author    = {Kr{\"u}ger, Hans-Peter},
  title     = {Die doppelte Kritik der Philosophischen Anthropologie und die Vieldeutigkeit des theoretischen Anti-Humanismus},
  series = {Das Leben im Menschen oder der Mensch im Leben?},
  journal   = {Das Leben im Menschen oder der Mensch im Leben?},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-382-4},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-395891},
  pages     = {31 -- 58},
  year      = {2017},
  language  = {de}
}