Franz Rosenzweig devoted particular attention to the problem of individuality in Hermann Cohen’s philosophy. He writes that, in comparison with the individuality of the man of religion, “the human being about which aesthetics knew [...] fades now in all its aesthetic individuality to a ‘mere type’”. This statement is actually based on Cohen’s writings: in Ästhetik des reinen Gefühls (1912), Cohen explicitly maintains that the human being that is the object of artistic representation is not a type, but rather an individual. Just three years later, however, in his first book about philosophy of religion, Der Begriff der Religion im System der Philosophie (1915), Cohen states that the human being that is represented by art is not really an individual; only the man of religion is really individual; the human being represented by art is merely a type. In this paper my aim is to argue for the thesis that these opposite statements belong to different points of view. From an aesthetic point of view the human being represented by art has to be considered as truly individual, but the systematic overview adopted in Der Begriff der Religion can teach us that the individuality of the human being represented by art can’t be maintained from a different point of view than the aesthetic one.
Jewish monotheism forbids every representation of God. In ancient Greece, on the contrary, great sculptural art was mainly representation of several gods. I wonder whether, according to Hermann Cohen, sculpture and paganism are necessarily bound together. What, then, is the meaning of artistic representation of Jesus Christ? Is he the ideal of an unification of God and Man?
Charles’as Larmore’as trimis teiginiais apibendrina tradicinę filosofijos poziciją savasties (pats) atžvilgiu (konkrečiai remdamasis René Descartes’u ir Johnu Locke’u): 1) savastis negalima be santykio su savimi; 2) savasties santykis su savimi (dėl kurio ji ir yra savastis) yra pažintinis santykis, t. y. savižina; 3) šis savižinos santykis yra tokios pat rūšies pažintinis santykis kaip ir pažintinis santykis, kurį pats užmezga su pasaulio objektais. Larmore’as kritikuoja antrąjį ir trečiąjį teiginius ir tvirtina, kad šis santykis (savasties santykis su savimi), neatsiejamas nuo savasties prigimties, yra ne pažintinis, o praktinis ir normatyvinis: savasties prigimtis – tai tas pats įsipareigojimo santykis, esantis tarp mano įsitikinimų ir veiksmų; kiekvienas mano įsitikinimų įpareigoja mane elgtis tam tikru būdu. Šio straipsnio autorius siekia atmesti Larmore’o pateiktą antrojo teiginio kritiką ir, sekdamas Micheliu Henry, parodyti, kad santykis, neatsiejamas nuo savasties prigimties, iš tikrųjų yra savi-patyrimas. Autoriaus teigimu, galime patvirtinti tradicinės pozicijos antrąjį teiginį apie savastį nebūdami priversti patvirtinti ir trečiąjį.savastis, savižina, savipatyrimas, Charles’as Larmore’as
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.