Volume 71, Issue 5

The paper examines four key concepts of digital and AI ethics, which make normative (“ought”) claims: “transparency,” “explainability,”“interpretability,” and “trust.” The idea is that with the help of these concepts, digital transformation should be “responsibly” shaped, and there is even an aspiration to establish an independent digital ethics. The analysis in this paper questions approaches of this type. It elaborates differences between the tradition of philosophical appeals to responsibility and the digital-ethical buzzwords. The concept of responsibility may be a vague concept and have traits of a mere moral-ethical signalling. However, its digital-ethical lookalikes are not even normative; they stand for technical quality criteria or product features of a descriptive nature. The phrase “digital ethics” is used misleadingly to suggest the existence of an ethical dimension.

In his last work, Relire le relié , Michel Serres develops a philosophy of religion that circumvents the conventional demarcations of reason and faith, knowledge of the world and knowledge of revelation, or agnosticism and apology. In a structuralistically-informed relecture, he exposes the basic traits of religion. With its narratives and theologoumena, it captures and describes being-in-the-world as an event of universal synthesis. It is – in Serres’ diction – about the basic relatio of energy and information, entropy and negentropy, chaos and order. This relié is described neither as an effort or act of a subject, a system, a language community, nor sufficiently as an emergence effect of evolutionary-natural processes. The recording of this synthesis forbids both any dichotomy of an irresolvable hiatus as well as the construction of a unitary space of any kind.

The contribution offers an interpretation of the last phase of Nietzsche’s production, based on the influence of some economic concepts. In 1887, Nietzsche encountered the work of the proto-marginalist economist Emmanuel Herrmann and his book “Cultur und Natur: Studien im Gebiete der Wirthschaft”. At the time, Nietzsche was working on the attempt – later abandoned – to offer a comprehensive interpretation of Western metaphysics and history. aimed at a “transvaluation of all values” and based on the idea of will to power. Herrmann’s economic theory played a significant role in this project, offering a model capable of articulating all social and natural processes – and particularly life – in terms of purely immanent relations. By linking the ideas of transvaluation and will-to-power to the logic of capitalistic accumulation and of market society, we can gain an understanding of the influence of economical concepts on Nietzsche’s project, which should in turn allow a better evaluation of its historical relevance.

On the occasion of Koselleck’s hundredth birthday, this article examines the history of the reception and impact of the book that established the historian’s fame from 1973 onward. It argues that Koselleck pursues a new-right strategy of cultural hegemony in more than one respect, which has been largely overlooked so far.

The article presents the idea that works of art are technologies for self-transformation and contextualises this idea within the discursive field of “aesthetic thinking”. It takes L. A. Paul’s concept of “transformative experiences” as a reference point and analyses the materiality of music as an example for an artistic medium through which these transformations can be initiated in a paradigmatic way. Contemporary philosophies of art by Alva Noë, Georg Bertram, and Christoph Menke, all dealing with the influence of art on the self, are referenced and tentatively mapped onto one another, followed by a final presentation of twelve theses that subsume the leading ideas.

Recent debates about aesthetics are characterized by a partly intentional, but also partly involuntary, vagueness. Whether it be aestheticisation or anesthetisation, articisation or desartification: what is upheld or deplored under one and the same label in fact designates rather different things. The paper makes a suggestion as to how the field could be reorganized. Taking heed of what political theory discusses as the “political difference” between “politics” and “the political”, the aim is to examine what would be gained by working with an “aesthetic difference” that does not straightforwardly equate “the aesthetic” with “art”, and “the aesthetic” with the totality of sensuous-aisthetic processes. An aesthetic thinking would then amount to a thinking that does justice to these inner polarities and remains faithful to the ambiguity of its objects.

What distinguishes aesthetic thinking from other forms of thinking, such as logical, for instance? In order to clarify this question, the following contribution deals with a reception-aesthetic problem that has been controversially discussed in English-language aesthetics for decades as the ‘paradox of fiction’. It will be shown that the intentional orientation of mind and imagination towards the non-existent, the counterfactual, and the fictive belongs to the decisive peculiarity of aesthetic thinking. Its productivity consists in the process of playing through the possible and imaginable and thereby transcending and thwarting the given and the existing.