Volume 66, Issue 3

The following paper tries to bring Marx’s crisis theory up to date from a sociological and social-philosophy point of view. Crisis, in line with Marx and Kant, is interpreted as a negative sign of history. Marx’s crisis scenario, while founded in an ever pertinent critique of the destruction of egalitarian individualism by the capitalist system must be considered lacking in complexity for today’s world. Marx underestimated the historical role of the state. A revision of his crisis theory leads to a re-evaluation of the latest two large-scale historical attempts to deal with the crises of modern capitalism; the mixed economy of the Keynesian welfare state, the crisis of which prepared the field for the succeeding crisis, the preventive counterrevolution of neoliberalism. This counterrevolution has plunged democracy into a crisis with slim prospects of escape.

John Stuart Mill had strong sympathies with a liberal form of market socialism based on worker-owned and worker-managed firms. He thought that only very few government interventions were needed to trigger a peaceful and spontaneous transition to such an economic system. This article recapitulates his thesis and argument by focusing on his major work Principles of Political Economy , which is rather neglected by philosophers, especially in the German-speaking world. I will argue that Mill was too optimistic in his hope for a spontaneous transition without government intervention. Since it is possible to reconstruct how Mill thought this transition would proceed, it is also possible to identify at what point the transition did not advance in the way envisioned by him, but was blocked by antagonistic forces. I will argue that this insight is not only of historical value, but still poses a serious problem for John Rawls’s theory of justice. Rawls follows Mill closely in his discussion of the proper economic system and he faces the same problem of transition.

In his Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences , Hegel states that the essential characteristic of spirit is to exhibit the structure of manifestation. This paper argues that for Hegel the structure of manifestation is actualized in habituated bodily actions, which sheds light on Hegel’s understanding of the relation between body and soul. Furthermore, the paper shows that there is an intrinsic relation between Hegel’s theory of habit and his aesthetics. Insofar as it exemplifies the structure of manifestation, habit has an expressive dimension for Hegel, and is therefore essentially complemented by its portrayal in classical works of art by virtue of the specific relation between form and content that such works exhibit. According to the interpretation presented here, Hegel’s philosophy of mind and his philosophy of aesthetics mutually complement and illuminate each other.

This contribution traces an aesthetic shift in the concept of second nature that occurs around 1800 and raises the question as to what role art might play in a culture that already conceives of itself in generally aesthetic terms. The paper recalls Kant’s rejection of habit as a proper realization of ethical life and shows that in his third critique, Kant proposes a second nature of a different kind. To realize ethical life as a “second (supersensible) nature”, we cannot confine ourselves to mere habituation but require a different type of second nature that is exemplified by the work of art. The paper asks what role art may adopt in an aestheticised culture arising from the success of such an aesthetic understanding in the wake of Kant, from Schiller through to Nietzsche. It argues that art redefines its role by taking not first nature but the second nature of ethical life as its main point of reference. Art thus reconceives itself as a self - reflection of our second nature . The paper discusses three models of such self-reflection: the aesthetic estrangement, the beautiful completion, and the dialectical renegotiation of our second nature.

The paper argues that the concept of second nature has two aspects that are inherently bound up with one another. Firstly, second nature has to be conceived of as a concept that has a critical force. Secondly, art has to be understood as an essential part of what second nature is. The paper explains these two dimensions of the concept by drawing on Hegel’s and Heidegger’s conceptions of second nature as the nature of essentially incomplete beings. Since the incompleteness in question always has to be reproduced, human beings have to develop and constantly engage in practices of self-criticism. As a practice of self-criticism, art is constitutive of second nature understood in this way. Thus, the specificity of art is to be found in its form of self-criticism as articulated through objects, which for their part give orientation to beings that realize their second nature through their practices. In the end, art prompts them to revise and enliven these practices.