Volume 69, Issue 1

This paper argues that Wittgenstein, both early and late, rejects the idea that the logically simpler and more fundamental case is that of “the mere sign” and that what a meaningful symbol is can be explained through the elaboration of an appropriately supplemented conception of the sign: the sign plus something (say, an interpretation or an assignment of meaning). Rather the sign, in the logically fundamental case of its mode of occurrence, is an internal aspect of the symbol. The Tractatus puts this point as follows: “The sign is that in the symbol which is perceptible by the senses.” Conversely, this means that it is essential to a symbol – to what a symbol is – that it have an essentially perceptible aspect. For Wittgenstein there is no privileged direction of explanatory priority between symbol and sign here: without signs there are no symbols (hence without language there is no thought) and without some sort of relation to symbols there are no signs (hence the philosopher’s concept of the supposedly “merely linguistic” presupposes an internal relation to symbols).

The global Covid-19 crisis raises at least three moral questions, which my contribution answers as follows: (1) Which patient should get treatment according to triage criteria? The patient whose treatment has the best prospect of success. (2) How should we resolve the conflict between public health measures and economic needs? Public health should have priority, but reaches its limits where the individual right to stay afloat through one’s own work is violated. (3) How should we resolve the conflict between public health measures and civil liberties? Public health should have priority, but reaches its limits where the restriction of freedom violates the integrity of individual health and personal freedom. The answers and the arguments behind these are developed through the discussion of a wide range of current public health policies, concrete measures, and competing approaches to moral questions in the Covid-19 pandemic.

Why has the global West (North America, Europe) handled the covid-19 pandemic and the corresponding economic crisis so much worse than the global East (East Asia)? The crises demonstrate the degree to which the West is shaped by its forms of competition and the East by its forms of cooperation. In the West, we have become habitualised to American neoliberalism over the last two generations. In the East, varieties of neo-Confucianism and neo-Buddhism have been transformed into national cultures. The way humans understand their position in the world intellectually and react to crises according to corresponding habit makes an effective difference. The present comparison between global East and West makes use of Hannah Arendt’s conception of politics and the shared world as well as of Helmuth Plessner’s conception of mediated immediacy in forms of modern biopower . The pandemic is a catalyst within the decline of the West and the rise of the East.

Can one speak philosophically of a justified limitation of freedom? Hegel’s logically founded definition of free will and his understanding of right and duty can contribute to a clarification of the concept of freedom. Important is a precise differentiation between freedom and caprice (Willkür) – the latter being a necessary but one-sided element of the free will. In caprice, the will is not yet in the form of reason. Rational rights and duties are not a restriction of freedom. Insofar as individual rights can collide (e. g. in emergency situations), there can be a temporary and proportionate restriction of certain rights in favour of higher rights, such as the right to life. Dictatorships are instances of capricious rule which restrict freedom; the rationally designed state, by contrast, restricts only caprice. What is tobe defined are the duties and the rights of the state and the duties and the rights of the citizens.

Many classical philosophical texts contain passages that are to be judged as discriminatory and degrading, and by today’s standards even as racist, sexist or anti-Semitic. How we should deal appropriately with this heritage – be it in teaching or in research – is by no means undisputed. Some researchers are of the opinion that the passages in question are terminological idiosyncrasies of the respective authors related to the time they lived in and therefore philosophically irrelevant: they can be disregarded. Others doubt that such a separation can actually be made. They are of the opinion that the philosophical parts of the respective work are always affected if racist, sexist or anti-Semitic ideas can be detected in passages. In analogy to the current discussion on how to deal with problematic works of art, memorials, street names or linguistic expressions, the question can also be addressed to philosophical works: what should be done with philosophical texts if they contain racist, sexist and anti-Semitic thoughts and their reception preserves so-called racist knowledge in our society? The contributions in the section ‘Philosophie aktuell’ take a stand on these questions from different perspectives and thereby show that one can also deal critically with this topic on the basis of philosophical methods.