Observing observers in social systems theory.: an interview with Hans-Georg Moeller

On November 4th, 2019, Hans-Georg Moeller delivered a presentation on systems theory at the Law School of the University of São Paulo and was interviewed about Niklas Luhmann’s theory of society, with emphasis on issues such as law, politics, and the history of philosophy. Professor Moeller is the author of important books such as Luhmann explained: From souls to systems (Moeller, 2006) and The radical Luhmann (Moeller, 2011), the latter also translated to Japanese and Italian. He also works on Chinese philosophy and is currently Full Professor at the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies in the Faculty of Arts and Humanities of the University of Macau, China. Throughout the interview, professor Moeller situated Luhmann in the philosophical tradition of German idealism and presented the shift to second-order observation as a crucial aspect of contemporary society, in religion and politics, science, economy and law. The interview was conducted partly in writing and partly in the form of a recorded and transcribed debate.

THE NOTIONS «MECHANISM» AND «ORGANISM» IN THE SOCIAL ONTOLOGY OF S.L. FRANK

Статья посвящена анализу понятий «механизм» и «организм» в социальной философии С.Л. Франка. Социально-философская концепция Франка помещается в широкий контекст философии XIX-начала XX вв. В статье исследуются связи социальной философии Франка и органических теорий государства и общества. Автор статьи приводит обзор органических теорий: демонстрируется их генезис в немецком классическом идеализме и анализируются подходы, наиболее распространенные в XIX в. В статье обосновывается, что органические теории государства исторически связаны с телеологией И. Канта. Именно в философии Канта впервые появляется важное для философии XIX в. противопоставление организма и механизма. В статье указывается, что специфика этого подхода заключается не столько в естественнонаучной аналогии, сколько в интерпретации отношений части и целого. Автор показывает, что оппозиция механизма и организма сыграла важную роль в истории органических представлений об обществе. Русская социально-философская и политологическая мысль рассматривается в контексте общего развития социальных наук XIX в. Русские философы и обществоведы позаимствовали из западной философии идею оппозиции социального механизма и органицизма. На этой основе в России были выработаны аналогичные философско-правовые концепции, которые также можно отнести к традиции органицизма. Автор относит социально-философскую концепцию С.Л. Франка также к указанной традиции социального органицизма. В статье приводится реконструкция социальной философии Франка и отмечается, что его подход близок к идеям, получившим развитие в немецком классической идеализме. Указывается, что Франк критиковал не органическую теорию как таковую, а распространенную в его время натуралистическую концепцию, отождествлявшую общество с организмом. В этой связи автор показывает вклад Франка в историю органических представлений об обществе. The article is devoted to the analysis of the notions «mechanism» and «organism» in S.L. Frank’s social philosophy. The sociophilosophical conception of S.L. Frank is considered in the context of the philosophy of the XIXth - beginning of the XXth centuries. The article deals with the relations of S.L. Frank’s philosophy to the organic theories of society. The author gives an overview of the organic theories: their genesis in the German idealism and analysis of the widespread approaches in the XIXth century philosophy. The article shows that the organic theories were historically connected with the teleology of I. Kant. I. Kant was the first to propose the very opposition of organism and mechanism. The author points out that the speceficity of this approach consists rather in the interpretation of the relations between the part and the whole, than in the scientific analogy. The author shows that this opposition played a significant role in the organic theory of society. Russian social philosophy and political science are considered in the general context of the social sciences of the XIXth century. Russian philosophers and social sciences borrowed the idea of mechanism and organism from the western philosophy. Based on this approach they developed their own conceptions which can also be referred to the organic tradition. The author refers S.L. Frank’s social philosophy to the tradition of social organism. The article reconstructs the Frank’s social philosophy and points out that his approach is derived from the German classical idealism. It is shown that Frank did not criticized the very organic theory, his criticism was directed against naturalistic theories of his time. The author of the article shows the Frank’s contribution to the organic theory of society.

Research of German Classical Philosophy at the Institute of Philosophy

The article analyzes the work of the staff of the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, which relates to the study of German classical philosophy. Ideologically unbiased studies of German idealism at the Institute became possible only after it was headed by Pavlo Kopnin. The Taras Shevchenko University of Kyiv became the center from which all researchers of German idealism emerged in the first half of the 1960’s. At first more attention was paid to Hegel’s philosophical system, which was reflected in the monograph of V. Shinkaruk (1964). In the mid-1970’s, Kant’s critical philosophy came to the fore, various aspects of which were analyzed in the collective monograph “Critical Essays on Kant’s Philosophy” (1975). In the early 1980’s, researchers engaged intensively in Feuerbach’s “anthropological materialism” by publishing the collective monograph “Essays on Feuerbach’s Philosophy” (1982). The works and ideas of Hegel, Kant and Feuerbach were the main subject of attention of researchers at the Institute, which was reflected in numerous publications in the journal “Philosophical Thought”. Instead, Schelling’s philosophical systems, and especially Fichte’s, remained almost neglected until 1991.

Liberalism of the Third Force in Republican China: Carsun Chang and Zhang Dongsun

<p>This study investigates the liberal thought of Carsun Chang and Zhang Dongsun who were core figures of the “Third Force”, those parties who did not align themselves either with the KMT or with the Communists in the 1940s. They developed a distinctive Chinese form of liberalism that contained elements of socialism, German idealism (Hegel and Kant), and the British tradition of liberty (Mill). Though similar in many respects to New Liberalism represented by the British thinker L. T. Hobhouse, this form of liberalism was specifically adapted to Chinese conditions. Like Hobhouse, Chang used German idealism to reconcile liberalism with socialism but he aimed to address Chinese problems including poverty, national sovereignty, and authoritarianism. Zhang subscribed to Chang’s views and agreed that these problems were the obstacles to Chinese democracy and state-building. I use Michael Freeden’s theory of ideological morphology to establish the distinctive character of Chinese liberalism represented by Chang and Zhang. As an alternative to conventional approaches, it centres around the semantic meanings of a cluster of political concepts which constitute liberalism and socialism rather than specific definitions of those ideologies. This approach successfully explains the variations within liberalism, socialism, and their complex relationship in different cultures and regions, but has not yet been used by other scholars to discuss Chinese political thought. In addition, I also discuss specific textual and contextual aspects of the Chinese liberalism of Chang and Zhang. Recognising the liberal tradition Chang and Zhang established helps develop a new understanding of Chinese liberalism and Chinese socialism past and present which are conventionally excluded from the narrative of Chinese political history. The Chinese liberalism identified in my research had an overlap with social democracy. It was not a single concept of liberty but a particular configuration of a few concepts such as liberty, equality, progress, justice, welfare, and limited power. This form of liberalism continues to exist in contemporary China. Chinese thinkers of this liberal tradition were and are actively involved in the debates over socialism, liberalism, and their relationships to Chinese problems such as modernisation, democratisation, and social transformation. In addition, this study reveals an ideological cause of a divided Chinese liberalism in the 1940s. Chang was a new liberal whereas Zhang was a representative of left liberalism. Furthermore, this research enables us to understand the continuing influence of the liberalism of Chang on the constitutional thought in Taiwan and its implications for the relationship between Taiwan and mainland China. Chang drafted the Constitution of the Republic of China. His liberal thought had an impact on this constitution that was initially intended to cover mainland China but was only enforced in Taiwan.</p>

Liberalism of the Third Force in Republican China: Carsun Chang and Zhang Dongsun

<p>This study investigates the liberal thought of Carsun Chang and Zhang Dongsun who were core figures of the “Third Force”, those parties who did not align themselves either with the KMT or with the Communists in the 1940s. They developed a distinctive Chinese form of liberalism that contained elements of socialism, German idealism (Hegel and Kant), and the British tradition of liberty (Mill). Though similar in many respects to New Liberalism represented by the British thinker L. T. Hobhouse, this form of liberalism was specifically adapted to Chinese conditions. Like Hobhouse, Chang used German idealism to reconcile liberalism with socialism but he aimed to address Chinese problems including poverty, national sovereignty, and authoritarianism. Zhang subscribed to Chang’s views and agreed that these problems were the obstacles to Chinese democracy and state-building. I use Michael Freeden’s theory of ideological morphology to establish the distinctive character of Chinese liberalism represented by Chang and Zhang. As an alternative to conventional approaches, it centres around the semantic meanings of a cluster of political concepts which constitute liberalism and socialism rather than specific definitions of those ideologies. This approach successfully explains the variations within liberalism, socialism, and their complex relationship in different cultures and regions, but has not yet been used by other scholars to discuss Chinese political thought. In addition, I also discuss specific textual and contextual aspects of the Chinese liberalism of Chang and Zhang. Recognising the liberal tradition Chang and Zhang established helps develop a new understanding of Chinese liberalism and Chinese socialism past and present which are conventionally excluded from the narrative of Chinese political history. The Chinese liberalism identified in my research had an overlap with social democracy. It was not a single concept of liberty but a particular configuration of a few concepts such as liberty, equality, progress, justice, welfare, and limited power. This form of liberalism continues to exist in contemporary China. Chinese thinkers of this liberal tradition were and are actively involved in the debates over socialism, liberalism, and their relationships to Chinese problems such as modernisation, democratisation, and social transformation. In addition, this study reveals an ideological cause of a divided Chinese liberalism in the 1940s. Chang was a new liberal whereas Zhang was a representative of left liberalism. Furthermore, this research enables us to understand the continuing influence of the liberalism of Chang on the constitutional thought in Taiwan and its implications for the relationship between Taiwan and mainland China. Chang drafted the Constitution of the Republic of China. His liberal thought had an impact on this constitution that was initially intended to cover mainland China but was only enforced in Taiwan.</p>

Walter Benjamin and the Weak Messianic Power

Walter Benjamin (1892-1940) was a German intellectual of Jewish descent, a well-known literary critic, philosopher, sociologist, translator and essayist, and a key figure in continental philosophy. His works on topics such as historical materialism, German idealism, and Jewish mysticism have had a marked influence on contemporary aesthetic theories and the development of Western Marxism, including the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory. These articles will focus on the analysis of the concept of messianism, which Benjamin develops in his work “On the concept of history” or “Theses on the philosophy of history” (1940). Messianism here is neither a theological dogma nor a modern figure of the utopian. Benjamin’s messianic time does not refer to the future, but to the urgency of the “now.” The author contrasts the “weak messianic force” of the tradition of the oppressed, which demands the past with the realization of happiness and liberation in the present, and Jetztzeit – a model of messianic time, open and nonlinear time of rupture, based on modern (contemporary) forms of collective experience past and liberation memory (Eingedenken).

The Transcendental Parameters of “Nature as Universal Organism” in Schelling’s Naturphilosophie

The minutiae of F.W.J. Schelling’s Naturphilosophie have been perennially dismissed due to its allegedly infeasible and indefensible assertions about Nature, such as his designation of Nature as “universal organism.” In the realm of post-Kantian German Idealism, such a dismissive attitude toward Schelling’s so-called objective idealism, more often than not, develops itself along the lines of Hegel’s critique of Schelling’s conception of the Absolute (i.e., as static, fixed, undifferentiated, dull, and so on). In turn, I aim to accomplish two tasks in the following investigation. First, I intend to clarify Schelling’s characterization of Nature as universal organism through a practical or teleological, instead of a theoretical or metaphysical, approach. Second, I seek to undermine the Hegelian-influenced criticisms of Schelling’s “Absolute” by demonstrating the ways in which the practico-teleological characterization of Schelling’s formulation of Nature extends into his later philosophical works (i.e., his Identitätsphilosophie and his Freiheitsschrift). Through these clarifications, I hope to emphasize the uniqueness and richness of Schelling’s configuration of Nature.

The Noumenal Morass: Post-Kantian Representationalism and Its Relationalist Critique in the Light of Strong Disjunctivism

This epistemological essay addresses the issue of representational content’s existence in the case of true direct knowledge. Contrary answers to it are considered as a basis for the distinction between representationalism and relationalism. The first part of the essay contains a critical analysis of the fundamental features of German Idealism as a kind of representationalism, which determined the main epistemological trend of continental philosophy in the form of post-Kantian representationalism. In the second part, after a brief excursion into certain contemporary continental issues, the current discussion between representationalism and relationalism in analytical philosophy is considered. It is concluded that relationalism, while correctly recognizing the nature of direct perception as being without representational content, is incapable of ensuring the unity of direct perception and a perceptual judgment, and a solution is proposed that could lead out of this epistemological impasse.

Hermann Cohen and His Idea of the Logic of Pure Knowledge

Hermann Cohen, as it is well known, criticised the Kantian notion of the thing-in-itself. And before him the Kantian thing-in-itself was criticised by Fichte and other German idealists. Probably for this reason, Hermann Cohen is sometimes regarded as a person who said things similar to Fichte. This gives a completely wrong perspective, making it impossible to understand the philosopher's ideas. The basis for his critique of the Kantian thing-in-itself is quite different from the motives, determining the criticism of Kant in the classical German Idealism. Such interpretation does not allow to see close connection of Cohen's theoretical philosophy with revolution in physics which took place at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The article explains how Cohen's demand that pure thinking must form its own content is connected with transformations taking place in physics and mathematics, and the peculiarity of Cohen's understanding of idealism is demonstrated: for him, correct idealism must realize that autonomous, free thinking should work seriously with sense data. The closeness of Cohen's ideas to the postpositivist thesis of the theory-ladenness of observation is explained. For Cohen, serious work with sense data is opposite to uncritical acceptance of them as given. The origin of scientific thinking is thinking itself. It responds to the challenge of sensory material by creating its own constructs. Mathematized natural science becomes for Cohen both an example and a confirmation of this thesis. For him, what is real is what is described in the language of mathematical analysis, i.e. continuous processes, in spite of the fact that any data are discrete. It is shown that the source of Cohen's assertions on this issue is in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, namely in the doctrine of the Principles of pure natural science and, more specifically, in the Anticipations of Perception. Cohen's conviction of the constructive character of the theories of mathematized natural science is confirmed in the article by references to the authority of A. Einstein.