Published since February 15, 1953

Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie

Zweimonatsschrift der internationalen philosophischen Forschung

ISSN: 2192-1482

Edited by: Christoph Demmerling, Andrea Marlen Esser, Petra Gehring, Christoph Menke

Overview
Latest issue
Issues
Ranking
Editorial

About this journal

Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie

A bimonthly journal of international philosophical research

As an open forum for discussion, the German Journal of Philosophy promotes dialogue and communication between different philosophical cultures, transcending any one school of thought.

The journal primarily publishes studies that are actively engaged in modern international philosophical discourse and that explore new conceptual approaches.

In addition to scholarly papers, essays, interviews, and symposia, the journal publishes discoveries from philosophical archives, discussions, and book critiques.

Current Special Topics:

2022-4: Kant und Rassismus

2022-3: Angstverfassungen. Über die affektiven Untergründe des Rechts

2022-2: Marcel Proust als Philosoph

2022-1: Diskursbeobachtungen – Care, Sorge und Fürsorge

2021-6: Adornos geschichtsphilosophischer Naturbegriff

2021-5: Tun und Lassen. Daoistische Perspektiven

2021-4: Für eine Rehabilitierung des Urteilsbegriffs

Book Series: http://www.degruyter.com/view/serial/234813

Abstracting and Indexing

Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie is covered by the following services:

Baidu Scholar
BDSL Bibliographie der deutschen Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft
BLL Bibliographie Linguistischer Literatur
CNKI Scholar (China National Knowledge Infrastructure)
CNPIEC - cnpLINKer
Dimensions
EBSCO (relevant databases)
EBSCO Discovery Service
ERIH PLUS (European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences)
Genamics JournalSeek
Google Scholar
IBR (International Bibliography of Reviews of Scholarly Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences)
IBZ (International Bibliography of Periodical Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences)
International Philosophical Bibliography - Répertoire bibliographique de la philosophie
J-Gate
JournalGuide
JournalTOCs
KESLI-NDSL (Korean National Discovery for Science Leaders)
Microsoft Academic
MyScienceWork
Naver Academic
Naviga (Softweco)
Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, Series and Publishers
Philosopher's Index
PhilPapers
Primo Central (ExLibris)
ProQuest (relevant databases)
Publons
QOAM (Quality Open Access Market)
ReadCube
SCImago (SJR)
SCOPUS
Semantic Scholar
Sherpa/RoMEO
Summon (ProQuest)
TDNet
Ulrich's Periodicals Directory/ulrichsweb
WanFang Data
Web of Science - Arts & Humanities Citation Index
Web of Science - Current Contents/Arts & Humanities
WorldCat (OCLC)
X-MOL
Yewno Discover

Supplementary Materials

Topics

External Links

Volume 70 Issue 3

June 2022

Publicly Available July 16, 2022

Frontmatter

Page range: i-iii

Download PDF

Publicly Available July 16, 2022

Gattungswesen

Zur Sozialität der menschlichen Lebensform

Thomas Khurana

Page range: 373-399

More Download PDF

Abstract

In which sense can human beings be conceived as social animals? To elucidate this question, the present paper (I) distinguishes the logical sociality of all living beings from the material sociality of social animals and the political sociality of self-conscious social animals. (II) The self-conscious political sociality that characterises the human genus-being requires a complex interplay of first and second person through which alone we can participate in our form of life and determine its content. (III) The human form of life thus constituted is characterised by a particularly open, and at the same time precarious, membership which involves specific forms of vulnerability and power. (IV) Against this background, forms of objective spirit are necessary which grant us a generalized recognition and relieve us from the contingency of each particular second-personal recognition, without abandoning the openness of the sociality of the human form of life. This double requirement has led to paradoxical institutions in modern society which strive to protect and ensure the sociality of the human form of life precisely by naturalising and individualising our access to it.

July 16, 2022

Jenseits von Affektivismus und Intellektualismus

Kants kompatibilistische Theorie der Achtung

Jörg Noller

Page range: 400-424

Abstract

In recent times, Kant’s theory of the moral feeling of respect has increasingly come to the centre of Kant research. His diverse and seemingly contradictory characterisations of this feeling in particular have led to continued controversial discussion. While a number of scholars try to understand the special role of respect in Kant by isolating this feeling from its conceptual context or solely referring to its role as moral motivation, I will concentrate on the systemic position of respect within the framework of Kant’s theory of the autonomy of reason. Furthermore, I will try to elucidate the different characterisations of respect given by Kant, referring not only to his ethics, but also to his general theory of transcendental idealism. Examining the special place of respect within Kant’s transcendental idealism, I will plead for a compatibilist reading of respect, according to which the “intellectualist” as well as the “affectivist” view both hold true. This is motivated by interpreting respect as a volitional structure featuring rational as well as emotional dimensions.

Schwerpunkt: Angstverfassungen. Über die affektiven Untergründe des Rechts (Ino Augsberg, Benno Zabel)

July 16, 2022

Schwerpunkt: Angstverfassungen. Über die affektiven Untergründe des Rechts

Ino Augsberg, Benno Zabel

Page range: 425-429

July 16, 2022

Angstverfassungen

Jochen Bung

Page range: 430-444

Abstract

The connection between fear, law and the state is a topic that is given particular attention in times of social insecurity. Some approximations are explored here under the notion of fear constitutions. We are equal in fear of one another, which is why fear can be understood as a condition of modern constitutions. However, the social contract does not lead to freedom from fear, but rather fear shifts; the legal subjects remain subjects of fear, in relation to one another, but in particular towards that multiple artificial person which the state comes to embody as it takes on a life of its own. The degree of fear varies with the degree of unpredictability and indeterminacy of executive action. State measures against terrorism or against the pandemic are often an unpredictable response to an unknown danger and are therefore at the same time both an expression of fear and its trigger. It would be helpful if there was a clear distinction between sensible and unreasonable, functional and dysfunctional forms of fear. Freud tried to provide criteria with his concept of neurotic fear, a concept that has been taken up in political and legal philosophy. However, the concept is obscure and cannot be used without normative specifications.

July 16, 2022

Das Recht der Angst

Rebekka A. Klein

Page range: 445-456

Abstract

Insofar as the purpose of modern law is to secure the freedom of the individual, meaning that modern law is thus a right of freedom, the question arises as to how this right of freedom relates to fear. The article first refers to the narrative of religion as a regime of fear, which is historically related to the narrative of peace through law. After analysing the religious technique of increasing and escalating the irrational and derailing moment of fear (by referring to Søren Kierkegaard and Rudolf Otto), it contrasts the religious regime of fear with the modern regime of fear in the form of law and interprets the latter as an order of immunization against fear, i.e., as a technique of securing domination by ‘taking in the hostile other’ at the price of its division (Isabell Lorey). In this perspective, law appears as a secularized version of the religiously driven escalation of fear; within the framework of a secular order of immanence it seeks to immobilize the relationship to the indeterminate and extraordinary as cultivated by fear in its abysmal nature. Consequently, fear returns to the realm of religion and superstition assigned to it in enlightened modernity. But, disturbingly, in pandemic society it continues to haunt the belief in the reality-assuring power of the normative legal order in the form of the intensifying fear of the ‘enemy in the body’.

July 16, 2022

Negative Globalität der Angst

Günter Frankenberg

Page range: 457-473

Abstract

The article traces and analyses the negative globality of pandemic fears. It follows them through literary texts, psychological theories of individual and collective fears as well as legal documents. Rather than treating fears as law’s other, notably pandemic fears are included in the controversial discussion on how law protects (or should protect) peoples’ freedom in a pandemic. In closing, the article presents different forms of fear defence and fear denial such as conspiracy myths.

Diskussion: Intellektuelle Redlichkeit als Maßstab fürEinladungen an die Universität

July 16, 2022

Wer muss draußen bleiben?

Romy Jaster, Geert Keil

Page range: 474-491

Abstract

The Special Focus on invitation policy at universities contains a target article by Romy Jaster and Geert Keil, five commentaries, and a response. The question under discussion is what disqualifies a person from being invited to speak at a university. On liberal, Millian approaches, the epistemic benefits of free speech preclude no-platforming policies. More restrictive approaches demand the exclusion of speakers who are considered racist or otherwise hostile against marginalized groups. Jaster and Keil take a virtue-based approach to invitation policy: A person is ineligible as a speaker if she exhibits specific intellectual vices that are detrimental to the pursuit of truth, the university’s raison d’être. The five critics raise various concerns. Birgit Recki deems the virtue-based approach too restrictive: It is prone to exclude some speakers who make intellectually stimulating contributions. Eva von Redecker and Daniel Loick deem the criterion too permissive: It allows for contributions that should have no place on campus. Dieter Schönecker and Maria-Sibylla Lotter object that the approach is silent on all recent actual cases of ‘cancelling’ at universities. In their response, Jaster and Keil address these concerns and clarify their position.

Open Access July 16, 2022

Feine Tischgesellschaft

Replik zum Beitrag „Wer muss draußen bleiben?“ von Romy Jaster und Geert Keil

Daniel Loick

Page range: 492-496

Download PDF

July 16, 2022

Kommentar zu Jaster und Keil

Maria-Sybilla Lotter

Page range: 497-502

July 16, 2022

Kritik zu Romy Jaster und Geert Keil: Wer draußen bleiben muss

Birgit Recki

Page range: 503-508

July 16, 2022

Replik auf Romy Jaster/Geert Keil

Eva von Redecker

Page range: 509-515

July 16, 2022

Was taugt die Tugendposition?

Eine Replik auf Romy Jaster und Geert Keil

Dieter Schönecker

Page range: 516-522

July 16, 2022

Replik: Tugendbezogene Einladungspolitik zwischen allen Stühlen

Romy Jaster, Geert Keil

Page range: 523-539

Buchkritik

July 16, 2022

Von der Relevanz, den akademischen Elfenbeinturm zu verlassen

Neue feministische Literatur

Hilkje Charlotte Hänel

Page range: 540-550

July 16, 2022

Gegen das Würfeln

Luise Müller

Page range: 551-558

July 16, 2022

Färben und Wissen

Wie die Kulturtechnik des Malens weltgestaltend wirkt

Sarah Bianchi

Page range: 559-565

July 16, 2022

Nachruf auf Friedrich Kambartel

Page range: 566-569

Volume 70 (2022)

Volume 69 (2021)

Volume 68 (2020)

Volume 67 (2019)

Volume 66 (2018)

Volume 65 (2017)

Volume 64 (2016)

Volume 63 (2015)

Volume 62 (2014)

Volume 61 (2013)

Volume 60 (2012)

Volume 59 (2011)

Volume 58 (2010)

Volume 57 (2009)

Volume 56 (2008)

Volume 55 (2007)

Volume 54 (2006)

Volume 53 (2005)

Volume 52 (2004)

Volume 51 (2003)

Volume 50 (2002)

Volume 49 (2001)

Volume 48 (2000)

Volume 47 (1999)

Volume 46 (1998)

Volume 45 (1997)

Volume 44 (1996)

Volume 43 (1995)

Volume 42 (1994)

Volume 41 (1993)

Volume 40 (1992)

Volume 39 (1991)

Volume 38 (1990)

Volume 37 (1989)

Volume 36 (1988)

Volume 35 (1987)

Volume 34 (1986)

Volume 33 (1985)

Volume 32 (1984)

Volume 31 (1983)

Volume 30 (1982)

Volume 29 (1981)

Volume 28 (1980)

Volume 27 (1979)

Volume 26 (1978)

Volume 25 (1977)

Volume 24 (1976)

Volume 23 (1975)

Volume 22 (1974)

Volume 21 (1973)

Volume 20 (1972)

Volume 19 (1971)

Volume 18 (1970)

Volume 17 (1969)

Volume 16 (1968)

Volume 15 (1967)

Volume 14 (1966)

Volume 13 (1965)

Volume 12 (1964)

Volume 11 (1963)

Volume 10 (1962)

Volume 9 (1961)

Volume 8 (1960)

Volume 7 (1959)

Volume 6 (1958)

Volume 5 (1957)

Volume 4 (1956)

Volume 3 (1955)

Volume 2 (1954)

Volume 1 (1953)

Cite Score	0.3
European Reference Index for the Humanities
Journal Citation Indicator	0.32
SCImago Journal Rank	0.136
Source Normalized Impact per Paper	0.341

Editorial

Editors-in-Chief:
Christoph Demmerling, Jena
Andrea Esser, Jena
Petra Gehring, Darmstadt
Christoph Menke, Frankfurt/M.

Editors Bookreview:
Georg W. Bertram, Berlin
Robin Celikates, Amsterdam
Stefan Gosepath, Berlin

Editor:
Matthias Warkus, Jena

Editorial Office:
Matthias Warkus
– Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie –
Zwätzengasse 9
07737 Jena
dzphil@degruyter.com

Editorial Board:
Seyla Benhabib, New Haven
Monika Betzler, Bern
Raymond Geuss, Cambridge
Jürgen Habermas, Starnberg
Dieter Henrich, München
Axel Honneth, Frankfurt/M.
Gerd Irrlitz, Berlin
Friedrich Kambartel, Frankfurt/M. †
Charles Larmore, Providence
Christoph Menke, Frankfurt/M.
Jürgen Mittelstraß, Konstanz
Nelly Motrošilova, Moskau †
Herta Nagl-Docekal, Wien
Frederick Neuhouser, New York
Nicholas Rescher, Pittsburgh
Herbert Schnädelbach, Hamburg
Hans Julius Schneider, Berlin
Charles Taylor, Montreal
Dieter Thomä, St. Gallen
Dan Zahavi, Kopenhagen

(Deutsch)

Online ISSN: 2192-1482
Print ISSN: 0012-1045
Type: Journal
Language: German
Publisher: De Gruyter (A)
First published: February 15, 1953
Publication Frequency: 6 Issues per Year
Audience: Academics and Students of Philosophy, Libraries, Institutes
Keywords: Philosophy in Germany; Philosophy/Current Debates