TY - JOUR A1 - Krüger, Hans-Peter T1 - How is the Human Life-Form of Mind Really Possible in Nature? BT - Parallels Between John Dewey and Helmuth Plessner JF - Human studies N2 - 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. KW - Evolution of the human KW - Non-reductive naturalism KW - Open holism KW - Life forms KW - Philosophical anthropology KW - Presuppositions of evolution Y1 - 2019 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-017-9429-5 SN - 0163-8548 SN - 1572-851X VL - 42 IS - 1 SP - 47 EP - 64 PB - Springer CY - Dordrecht ER - TY - THES A1 - Schumann, Michael T1 - Extraterrestrische Ex-zentriker T1 - Extraterrestrial Ec-centrics BT - zur theoriestrukturellen Einarbeitung des Außerirdischen bei Helmuth Plessner als Grundlage einer Philosophischen Anthropologie des Raumfahrtzeitalters BT - about the theoretic-structural inclusion of the Extraterrestrial in Helmuth Plessner, as the basis for a philosophical anthropology of the space age N2 - Seit ihrem Beginn ist die Raumfahrt Untersuchungsgegenstand verschiedenster Disziplinen. Auch die Philosophie hat seither eine kritische Perspektive auf diese Aktivität eingenommen. Und doch fehlt es bislang eines philosophisch-systematischen Zugangs, mit einem genuin ‚anthropologischen‘ Gesichtspunkt. Diese Lücke wird immer offensichtlicher, seitdem sich, nach Entdeckung der ersten Exoplaneten, neue ‚Astro-wissenschaften‘ (z.B. Astrobiologe, Astrokognition, Astrosoziologie) gebildet haben, die explizit Menschen als Raumfahrer voraussetzen bzw. menschliche Eigenschaften auf ihre ‚Ablösbarkeit‘ hin diskutieren. Mit vorliegender Masterarbeit soll der Versuch gemacht werden, die notwendigen Präsuppositionen, für das Verständnis von Menschen als ‚raumfahrende Lebewesen‘, aufzudecken, ohne naturalistische oder kulturalistische Verkürzungen zu betreiben. Zu diesem Zweck wird der systematische Rahmen von Helmuth Plessners Philosophischer Anthropologie gewählt, da dieser eine umfassende ‚spezies-neutrale‘ (d.h. es erlaubt über Menschen, Tiere und Extraterrestriker gleichermaßen nachzudenken, ohne ‚anthropozentrische‘ oder ‚speziesistische‘ Vorurteile zu machen) Untersuchung des infrage stehenden Sachverhaltes bietet. Um diesen Rahmen zu exemplifizieren, und währenddessen den philosophisch-systematischen Ansatz zur Raumfahrt zu elaborieren, der raumfahrende Extraterrestriker ohne Anthropomorphisierung konzeptualisieren, wie auch den Umgang mit Extraterrestrikern in ethischer und politischer Hinsicht berücksichtigen kann, werden die Themenkreise der Astrobiologie, Astroethik und Astropolitik in einzelnen Kapiteln besprochen. Abschließend ist, entgegen aller Erwartung, der gewählte Ansatz als ‚kritisch-posthumanistische‘ Option zu verteidigen. N2 - Since its beginning, space travel is examined by different disciplines. Likewise, philosophy has taken a critical look on this activity ever since. Though, until now a philosophic-systematic approach, with genuine ‘anthropological’ viewpoint, is lacking. This gap is getting obvious, since, after the discovery of the first exoplanets, new ‘astro-sciences’ (e.g. astrobiology, astrocognition, astrosociology) were established, for which ‘the human as space traveler’ is an explicit prerequisite, or for which the ‘detachability’ of human capacities is under discussion. The present master thesis is trying to uncover the necessary presuppositions, for the understanding of the human as a ‘space traveling life form’, without the narrow-minded perspective of naturalistic or culturalistic approaches. For this purpose, the systematic frame of Helmuth Plessners philosophical anthropology is selected, because, it offers a comprehensive ‘species-neutralized’ (i.e. it allows to contemplate about humans, animals and extraterrestrials equally, without ‘anthropocentric’ and ‘speciecist’ prejudices) examination of the matter in question. To exemplify these frame, and to elaborate in the course of this a philosophic-systematic approach to space travel, which is equally able to conceptualize the spacefaring extraterrestrial without anthropomorphization and to problematize the dealings with extraterrestrials in ethical and political regard, the topics of astrobiology, astroethics and astropolitics are discussed in separate chapters. At last, against all the odds, the approach is to defend as a new ‘critical-posthumanist’ option. KW - Philosophische Anthropologie KW - Helmuth Plessner KW - Raumfahrt KW - Extraterrestriker KW - Posthumanismus KW - Philosophical anthropology KW - Helmuth Plessner KW - space travel KW - extraterrestrials KW - posthumanism Y1 - 2019 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-434203 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - van Buuren, Jasper T1 - critique of neuroscience JF - Continental philosophy review N2 - Bennett and Hacker criticize a number of neuroscientists and philosophers for attributing capacities which belong to the human being as a whole, like perceiving or deciding, to a “part” of the human being, viz. the brain. They call this type of mistake the “mereological fallacy”. Interestingly, the authors say that these capacities cannot be ascribed to the mind either. They reject not only materialistic monism but also Cartesian dualism, arguing that many predicates describing human life do not refer to physical or mental properties, nor to the sum of such properties. I agree with this important principle and with the critique of the mereological fallacy which it underpins, but I have two objections to the authors’ view. Firstly, I think that the brain is not literally a part of the human being, as suggested. Secondly, Bennett and Hacker do not offer an account of body and mind which explains in a systematic way how the domain of phenomena which transcends the mental and the physical relates to the mental and the physical. I first argue that Helmuth Plessner’s philosophical anthropology provides the kind of account we need. Then, drawing on Plessner, I present an alternative view of the mereological relationships between brain and human being. My criticism does not undercut Bennett and Hacker’s diagnosis of the mereological fallacy but rather gives it a more solid philosophical–anthropological foundation. KW - Mereological fallacy KW - Neuroscience KW - Philosophical anthropology KW - Body as subject and object KW - Eccentric positionality KW - Personhood KW - Psychophysical neutrality Y1 - 2016 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-015-9318-4 SN - 1387-2842 SN - 1573-1103 VL - 49 SP - 223 EP - 241 PB - Springer CY - Dordrecht ER -