Der Tod einer Person (ein Ereignis) und ihre Sterblichkeit (eine Eigenschaft) sind nicht dasselbe, hängen aber klarerweise zusammen. Angenommen der Tod einer Person ist schlecht für diese – was bedeutet dies dann für die Bewertung ihrer Sterblichkeit? Um diese Frage zu beantworten muss unterschieden werden zwischen zwei verschiedenen Arten von Sterblichkeit: Die kontingente Sterblichkeit („sterben können“) ist die dispositionale Eigenschaft eines Lebewesens unter bestimmten Umständen zu sterben. Der Tod des Lebewesens ist die Manifestation dieser Disposition. Die notwendige Sterblichkeit andererseits („sterben müssen“) ist die (Meta-)Eigenschaft eines Lebwesens eine begrenzte Lebenserwartung zu haben – das heißt, eine Disposition zu sterben zu haben, die notwendigerweise irgendwann manifestiert wird. Der werttheoretische Zusammenhang zwischen Tod und Sterblichkeit ergibt sich plausiblerweise aus den Rollen, die kontingente und notwendige Sterblichkeit beim Zustandekommen des Todes einer Person spielen: Es zeigt sich, dass die Disposition zu sterben den Tod der Person ermöglicht. Dadurch macht sie einen kausal relevanten Unterschied im Auftreten eines für diese Person schlechten Ereignisses und beeinflusst so ihr Wohlergehen. Deshalb ist die kontingente Sterblichkeit schlecht für die Person – und diese Schlechtigkeit erbt sie von dem Ereignis des Todes. Steht dieses Ereignis allerdings noch nicht fest, erbt die kontingente Sterblichkeit stattdessen einen Teil des erwarteten Unwerts des Todes. Die notwendige Sterblichkeit andererseits erbt einen Teil des generellen Unwerts des Todes (verstanden als Ereignistyp), weil sie das Eintreten eines solchen Ereignisses vorwegnimmt, indem sie garantiert, dass ein Ereignis dieses Typs eintreten muss. Gleichzeitig scheint die notwendige Sterblichkeit ihrerseits die Evaluation des Todes (und somit auch der kontingenten Sterblichkeit) zu beeinflussen: Der Tod einer Person wirkt weniger tragisch, wenn sie notwendig sterblich ist. / The death of a person (an event) and her mortality (a property) are not the same but nevertheless clearly related. Assuming that a person’s death is bad for her, one may ask what this would mean for the evaluation of her mortality. To answer this question, one must distinguish between two different kinds of mortality: Contingent mortality (“being able to die”) is the dispositional property of a living being to die under certain circumstances. The death of the being is the manifestation of this disposition. Necessary mortality on the other hand (“having to die”) is the (meta-)property of a living being to have a limited life-expectancy, that is, to have a disposition to die that is necessarily manifested eventually. The evaluative connection between death and mortality can plausibly be derived from the roles that a person’s contingent and necessary mortality play in the occurrence of her death: It turns out that the disposition to die is an enabling condition for the person’s death. This means that it makes a causally relevant difference in the occurrence of an event that is bad for the person and thereby genuinely and negatively affects her wellbeing. Therefore, her contingent mortality is bad for the person – and this badness is derived from the badness of the event of her death. If this event is not yet settled, the contingent mortality inherits a part of the expected disvalue of the person’s death instead. Her necessary mortality on the other hand inherits part of the general disvalue of the person’s death (understood as a type of event) because it anticipates the occurrence of such an event by guaranteeing that an event of this type must occur. At the same time, the presence of a person’s necessary mortality seems to affect the evaluation of her death (and thereby also her contingent mortality): A person’s death appears less tragic if she is necessarily mortal.

Die Dissertation diskutiert die kantische Metaphysik des Geistes anhand der in der Kritik der reinen Vernunft und den aus dem Nachlass veröffentlichten Vorlesungen zur Metaphysik geleisteten Auseinandersetzung mit der rationalen Psychologie seiner Vorgänger, insbesondere Baumgarten und Wolff. Es wird dafür argumentiert, dass Kant die Meinungen seiner Vorgänger nicht uneingeschränkt zurückweist, sondern die Vorstellung der Seele als Substanz in seine Diskussion der Personalität, mentaler Kräfte, der Möglichkeit einer Körper-Seele Interaktion sowie der Willensfreiheit teilweise beibehält. Ein Verdienst dieser Interpretation ist es, die Kontinuität zwischen Kants vorkritischer Position und seiner kritischen Philosophie aufzuzeigen. Darüber hinaus soll aber auch auf eine wichtige Funktion der kantischen Metaphysik des Geistes für seine praktische Philosophie hingewiesen werden. / This dissertation considers Kant’s discussions of the metaphysics of mind in his critical encounter with the rational psychology of Baumgarten, Wolff, and others in the Critique of Pure Reason and his lectures on metaphysics. In contrast with prevailing interpretations, I argue that Kant does not offer a straightforward rejection of his predecessors but that he retains some commitments to the substantial view of the self and modifies others within the framework of transcendental idealism to provide accounts of the nature of personhood, mental powers, the possibility of mind-body interaction, and the possibility of freedom of the will. This interpretation of Kant reveals continuity between Kant’s pre-critical and critical positions on the metaphysics of mind and points forward to a role for aspects of Kant’s metaphysics of mind in his practical philosophy.

Heideggers Philosophie erweist sich als die Suche nach dem Lebenssinn. Es geht ihm darum, wie der Einzelmensch sein eigenes Leben als ein sinnvolles Ganzes gestalten und führen soll. Es kommt dabei darauf an, ob das Individuum sich von der Masse befreien und mit dem eigenen Tod konfrontieren kann bzw. will. Unter diesen Umständen weist Heidegger auf die Vereinzelung der Person und ihre Erfahrung des Nichts hin. Das Dasein kann sich allein in der Erfahrung des Nichts als Seins vom Seienden als Ganzen abkehren. Sich über das Seiende im Ganzen erheben bedeutet Heidegger zufolge die metaphysische Betrachtungsweise. Die Existenz des Menschen ist für Heidegger genau das metaphysische Phänomen, nämlich unsere Bezugnahme auf die Welt als Ganzes. Diese kontemplative Haltung des Individuums hängt wiederum mit seiner Einstellung zur Gottesauffassung zusammen. Das Verständnis Gottes als eines Seienden führt zum unangemessenen Gottesverhältnis. Gott als das Sein ansehen kann das Gottesverhältnis zurechtsetzen. Die Bedeutung des Lebens erschließt sich erst dann, wenn das Individuum sich seiner Endlichkeit vor Gott als dem Sein bewusst ist. / This dissertation argues that the entire Heidegger’s Philosophy amounts to an exploration of the meaning of human life. For him, it is important in life to form and fulfil our own life as an integral whole. It is thus crucial to explore how we can do so, by freeing ourselves, each in our respective individual ways, from the influence of the masses and face resolutely up to our own individual death, by realising each one’s indiviualization and experiencing nothingness. Dasein our inauthentic being-there is dispersed only in the experience of Nothingness as Being per se. For Heidegger, transcendence beyond all entities/beings is the genuine metaphysical way of envisaging them. Human existence is for Heidegger just a metaphysical phenomenon, namely, our point of reference to the world as a whole. This contemlative attitude of the individual is connected further with his views of God. Understanding God as an entity, a mere being, leads to an inappropriate relationship to God, and should be redressed by regarding God as the Being per se. The meaning of life discloses itself only as an individual becomes aware of his/her finiteness before God as the Supreme Being.

Zugl.: Freiburg, Univ., Diss., 2008

Zugl.: Freiburg, Universiẗat, Diss., 2008.

Resumo não disponível.

A partir da conclusão de que Kant teria usado o método analítico e sintético para desenvolver a Fundamentação da Metafísica dos Costumes, suscitada pela sua declaração, no prefácio, de que iria percorrer analiticamente o caminho que vai do conhecimento vulgar para a determinação do princípio supremo desse conhecimento e, em sentido inverso, sinteticamente, do exame desse princípio e das suas fontes para o conhecimento vulgar onde é aplicado, procurou-se responder algumas questões. Primeiramente, qual era o entendimento de Kant sobre esses dois métodos, discutidos nos textos: “Investigação sobre a evidência dos princípios da teologia natural e da moral” (1763), “Forma e princípios do mundo sensível e do mundo inteligível”, a chamada “Dissertação de 70”, e os Prolegômenos a toda metafísica futura (1782). A seguir, diante da estranheza manifestada por Guido Antônio de Almeida pelo uso dos dois métodos como complementares, buscou-se descobrir se essa complementaridade era apenas uma questão de escolha arbitrária ou uma necessidade. Verificou-se uma diferença de tratamento do método analítico entre os textos “Investigação” e Prolegômenos. A certeza existente no ponto de partida desse método no primeiro texto desaparecia no segundo. Constatou-se que essa diferença foi causada pela alteração do conceito de conhecimento filosófico, ocorrida com o advento da Crítica da Razão Pura. Disso tratou-se no primeiro capítulo da dissertação, que recebeu o título de “O método analítico e o conhecimento filosófico kantiano”. Por outro lado, Kant revela, na “Investigação”, uma profunda admiração pelo método introduzido por Newton na ciência da natureza, chegando mesmo a dizer que o autêntico método da metafísica é, no fundo, idêntico a ele. Ao apresentar o seu método na “Questão 31”, da Óptica, Newton diz que a investigação das coisas difíceis pelo método de análise deve sempre preceder o método da composição. Isso parecia corresponder exatamente ao que Kant dissera no prefácio da Fundamentação sobre o método a ser usado. No segundo capítulo da dissertação, realizou-se um estudo a partir da “Questão 31”, tendo por objetivo entender como Kant traduzira para a filosofia o método ali descrito. Esse capítulo recebeu o título de “A tradução de Kant do método de Newton para a Filosofia”. No terceiro capítulo, procurou-se detectar em que sentido Kant usa o termo “analiticamente” no Prefácio e se a ele corresponde o termo “analítica”, usado para qualificar as duas primeiras seções da Fundamentação como “meramente analíticas”. Também se indagou se o método que Kant identificou como o mais conveniente corresponde ao que entendemos por método analítico e método sintético e como se deu a sua aplicação. Esse capítulo tem o título de “O método analítico na Fundamentação da Metafísica dos Costumes”. Tendo em vista a complexidade do assunto, ao longo da pesquisa, decidiu-se restringir o estudo ao método analítico, o que não impediu de se ter uma ideia clara da razão que levou Kant a usar complementarmente os dois métodos na Fundamentação da Metafísica dos Costumes. / From the Kant’s declaration in the preface of the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals that he wants to proceed of analytically from common knowledge to the determination of its supreme principle and in turn synthetically from the examination of the principle and its sources back to the common knowledge in which we find its application, we can conclude that he used the analytical and synthetic method to develop the text. It raised some questions this work sought to answer. First, what is Kant’s understanding about these methods in the texts: "Inquiry Concerning the Distinctness of the Principles of Natural Theology and Morality" (1763), "On the Form and Principles of the Sensible and Intelligible World"(Inaugural Dissertation) and the Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics (1782). Next, before Guido Antonio de Almeida manifested strangeness by the use of two methods as complementary, this work seeks to answer if this complementarity is necessary or a matter of arbitrary choice. There is a difference in the treatment of the analytical method in the texts "Inquiry" and Prolegomena. The conviction on the starting point of this method in the first text disappeared in the second. The reason this difference is the change of the concept of philosophical knowledge occurred with the advent of the Critique of Pure Reason. It is approached in the first chapter of the dissertation, which received the title "The analytical method and the Kant’s philosophical knowledge". On the other hand, Kant reveals in "Inquiry", a deep admiration for the method introduced by Newton in the science of nature, even saying that the authentic method of metaphysics is basically identical it. At presenting his method on "Question 31" of the Óptica, Newton says that the investigation of difficult things by the method of analysis should always precede the method of composition. This seemed to match exactly to what Kant said in the preface to the Groundwork about the method to be used. The second chapter of the dissertation is a study that seeks to understand how Kant translates to philosophy the method described on the "Question 31”. This chapter was awarded the title of "Kant's translation of Newton's method for philosophy". The third chapter tried to detect the sense of the term “analytically” which is used by Kant in the preface, and if it matches the term "analytic" used to qualify the first two sections of the Groundwork as "merely analytic". Also it inquired whether the method that Kant identified as the most appropriate matches what we mean by analytic method and synthetic method and how it was applied. This chapter has the title "The analytical method in the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals". In view of the complexity of the theme, alongside the research, we restrict our study to the analytical method, which did not prevent us to have a clear idea of the reason which led Kant to use the two methods as complementary in the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.

Resumo não disponível.

A partir da conclusão de que Kant teria usado o método analítico e sintético para desenvolver a Fundamentação da Metafísica dos Costumes, suscitada pela sua declaração, no prefácio, de que iria percorrer analiticamente o caminho que vai do conhecimento vulgar para a determinação do princípio supremo desse conhecimento e, em sentido inverso, sinteticamente, do exame desse princípio e das suas fontes para o conhecimento vulgar onde é aplicado, procurou-se responder algumas questões. Primeiramente, qual era o entendimento de Kant sobre esses dois métodos, discutidos nos textos: “Investigação sobre a evidência dos princípios da teologia natural e da moral” (1763), “Forma e princípios do mundo sensível e do mundo inteligível”, a chamada “Dissertação de 70”, e os Prolegômenos a toda metafísica futura (1782). A seguir, diante da estranheza manifestada por Guido Antônio de Almeida pelo uso dos dois métodos como complementares, buscou-se descobrir se essa complementaridade era apenas uma questão de escolha arbitrária ou uma necessidade. Verificou-se uma diferença de tratamento do método analítico entre os textos “Investigação” e Prolegômenos. A certeza existente no ponto de partida desse método no primeiro texto desaparecia no segundo. Constatou-se que essa diferença foi causada pela alteração do conceito de conhecimento filosófico, ocorrida com o advento da Crítica da Razão Pura. Disso tratou-se no primeiro capítulo da dissertação, que recebeu o título de “O método analítico e o conhecimento filosófico kantiano”. Por outro lado, Kant revela, na “Investigação”, uma profunda admiração pelo método introduzido por Newton na ciência da natureza, chegando mesmo a dizer que o autêntico método da metafísica é, no fundo, idêntico a ele. Ao apresentar o seu método na “Questão 31”, da Óptica, Newton diz que a investigação das coisas difíceis pelo método de análise deve sempre preceder o método da composição. Isso parecia corresponder exatamente ao que Kant dissera no prefácio da Fundamentação sobre o método a ser usado. No segundo capítulo da dissertação, realizou-se um estudo a partir da “Questão 31”, tendo por objetivo entender como Kant traduzira para a filosofia o método ali descrito. Esse capítulo recebeu o título de “A tradução de Kant do método de Newton para a Filosofia”. No terceiro capítulo, procurou-se detectar em que sentido Kant usa o termo “analiticamente” no Prefácio e se a ele corresponde o termo “analítica”, usado para qualificar as duas primeiras seções da Fundamentação como “meramente analíticas”. Também se indagou se o método que Kant identificou como o mais conveniente corresponde ao que entendemos por método analítico e método sintético e como se deu a sua aplicação. Esse capítulo tem o título de “O método analítico na Fundamentação da Metafísica dos Costumes”. Tendo em vista a complexidade do assunto, ao longo da pesquisa, decidiu-se restringir o estudo ao método analítico, o que não impediu de se ter uma ideia clara da razão que levou Kant a usar complementarmente os dois métodos na Fundamentação da Metafísica dos Costumes. / From the Kant’s declaration in the preface of the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals that he wants to proceed of analytically from common knowledge to the determination of its supreme principle and in turn synthetically from the examination of the principle and its sources back to the common knowledge in which we find its application, we can conclude that he used the analytical and synthetic method to develop the text. It raised some questions this work sought to answer. First, what is Kant’s understanding about these methods in the texts: "Inquiry Concerning the Distinctness of the Principles of Natural Theology and Morality" (1763), "On the Form and Principles of the Sensible and Intelligible World"(Inaugural Dissertation) and the Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics (1782). Next, before Guido Antonio de Almeida manifested strangeness by the use of two methods as complementary, this work seeks to answer if this complementarity is necessary or a matter of arbitrary choice. There is a difference in the treatment of the analytical method in the texts "Inquiry" and Prolegomena. The conviction on the starting point of this method in the first text disappeared in the second. The reason this difference is the change of the concept of philosophical knowledge occurred with the advent of the Critique of Pure Reason. It is approached in the first chapter of the dissertation, which received the title "The analytical method and the Kant’s philosophical knowledge". On the other hand, Kant reveals in "Inquiry", a deep admiration for the method introduced by Newton in the science of nature, even saying that the authentic method of metaphysics is basically identical it. At presenting his method on "Question 31" of the Óptica, Newton says that the investigation of difficult things by the method of analysis should always precede the method of composition. This seemed to match exactly to what Kant said in the preface to the Groundwork about the method to be used. The second chapter of the dissertation is a study that seeks to understand how Kant translates to philosophy the method described on the "Question 31”. This chapter was awarded the title of "Kant's translation of Newton's method for philosophy". The third chapter tried to detect the sense of the term “analytically” which is used by Kant in the preface, and if it matches the term "analytic" used to qualify the first two sections of the Groundwork as "merely analytic". Also it inquired whether the method that Kant identified as the most appropriate matches what we mean by analytic method and synthetic method and how it was applied. This chapter has the title "The analytical method in the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals". In view of the complexity of the theme, alongside the research, we restrict our study to the analytical method, which did not prevent us to have a clear idea of the reason which led Kant to use the two methods as complementary in the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.

Resumo não disponível.