Volume 68, Issue 4

Is it necessary and is it possible to develop and justify a meaningful concept of women’s solidarity? In this contribution, I will answer both of these questions in the affirmative. Starting by developing a concept of solidarity, I then move on to discussing the intricate question of a consistent and meaningful concept of ‘woman’. After suggesting a solution to the semantic as well as ontological problems, I turn to the idea of collective experiences of oppression as a possible basis or at least a starting point for women’s solidarity. The idea of collective experiences has tobe enriched, however, by referring to the idea of political imagination in order to demonstrate a way of providing convincing interpretations of shared experiences. In a last step, I discuss – following Habermas – the relation between solidarity and justice, since it is solely the idea of justice which can motivate as well as justify claims to solidarity. I end by having a brief look at conflicting claims of solidarity and the problem of intersectionality.

The concept of “Heimat” has recently become a subject of lively debate in society and science. In the course of this debate it has become clear that this concept has been endowed with very different, even controversial meanings, the consequences being methodological and political confusion on the issue. The aim of this paper is to clarify the concept using linguistic-hermeneutic analysis. Two terms borrowed from Georg Misch, “discursive” and “evocative” language, allow for the differentiation of two forms of discourse on “Heimat”. In the first case, the word “Heimat” is used as a description and appears to be an objective reality with distinct temporal and spatial qualities. This understanding dominates recent social discourse on the topic. In the second case, “Heimat” has a function of pure meaning and serves as a myth. The hermeneutics of the myth of “Heimat” and its role in human life is the primary focus of this paper.

This paper considers Mendelssohn’s attempt at a definition of Enlightenment in terms of Bildung, comprising the theoretical element of the enlightenment of reason with the practical requirements of culture. To avoid a possible dialectics of enlightenment, where the very methods one uses to enlighten harbour the seeds of new blindness, Mendelssohn advocates considering the lively connections between people, the role of traditions and personal relations in the formation of an individual self, and the connections we should have to our past, present, and future. Thus, his essay from 1784 can be read as an apt defence of a dialogical notion of freedom within the Enlightenment era.

There is widespread agreement in scholarship that Moses Mendelssohn lacked historical thinking, an opinion accepted even among Mendelssohn experts. This misjudgment is based on a remark in his Jerusalem against Lessing’s Education of Humankind and surely ignores Mendelssohn’s historical work. I will question the misjudgment by a detour: first, I will ask for whom Lessing wrote his Education of Humankind . Then I will turn to the usually celebrated origin of historical thinking in Semler and Herder and question the historicity of their views. It is only in the 3rd section that I will focus directly on Mendelssohn’s historical work and his truly historical understanding of religion, in agreement with Lessing.

Two foremost spokesmen for the German Enlightenment, Moses Mendelssohn and Immanuel Kant, continued the defence of the separation of church and state that was at the heart of the Enlightenment in general and advocated by such great predecessors as Roger Williams and John Locke and contemporaries such as James Madison. The difference between Mendelssohn and Kant on which I focus here is that while Mendelssohn argues against his critics that Judaism is the appropriate religion for a specific people without being appropriate for all, thus implying more generally that different religions are appropriate for groups with different histories, Kant argues first that Judaism is not a genuine religion at all, second that Christianity provides the most suitable symbols or aesthetic representations of the core truths of the religion of reason, and finally that in any case all historical religion will ultimately fade away in favour of the pure religion of reason. Kant’s assumptions are tendentious and his conclusion implausible; Mendelssohn’s view that religion and differences of religion are here to stay provides a far stronger basis for genuine toleration and a strict separation of church and state.

We are witnessing a return of the real which philosophy seems illequipped to handle. I argue (1) that this return of the real must be read as a rejection of those philosophical tendencies which were prevalent in the past decades and which I call philosophies of mediation: They supplanted all references to something real by the sole reference to those processes in which reality was supposed to be given or shaped (in interpretations, linguistic structures, historical or social conditions, media…). The current urgency of the question of the real indicates that those philosophies have lost credibility. On the other hand (2), the contemporary attempts to resuscitate philosophical realism cannot be considered satisfactory either. It is curiously the real itself they fail to fully appreciate. All in all (3), the return of the real has to be interpreted as the effect of an event that has little to do with philosophy, namely the return of politics.