Max Weber famously diagnosed both an excess and a subordination of meaning in modernity when he coined the term disenchantment next to the fragmentation and irreconcilability of value spheres. Unlike Weber, however, who sought to keep the ideological and the rationalist sides of the modern divide together, his immediate followers capitalized either on his decisionism (i.e. Carl Schmitt) or on his universalism (i.e. Jürgen Habermas). In an attempt to develop a constructive perspective on the question of how we can conceive (...) of irreconcilable values within a larger normative horizon, this article introduces Karl Jaspers’s interpretation and refinement of Weber’s work. Most fundamentally, Jaspers’s existentialist philosophy of communication sought to turn Weber’s warring gods into a source of solidarity rather than divisiveness. I argue that Jaspers did so in rooting human freedom not in the decision or the law but in an experiential uncertainty and the knowledge not to know. The article closes with a discussion of some practical and theoretical implications of Jaspers’s thought for our understanding of diversity in unity in post-truth times. (shrink)

In The Crisis of the European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, Husserl argues that the only way to respond to the scientific Krisis of which he speaks is with phenomenological reflections on the history, method, and task of philosophy. On the assumption that an accurate diagnosis of a malady is a necessary condition for an effective remedy, this paper aims to formulate a precise concept of the Krisis of the European sciences with which Husserl operates in this work. Thus it seeks (...) an answer to the question: What exactly, according to Husserl, is “the ‘crisis’ [Krisis] of the European sciences”? There are two different tendencies in the literature on this question. According to the traditional interpretation, the Krisis of the European sciences lies not in the inadequacy of their scientificity but in the loss of their meaningfulness for life. According to an innovative suggestion, the Krisis lies not in the loss of their meaningfulness for life but in the inadequacy of their scientificity. These readings are mutually exclusive because each claims that the other misidentifies the Krisis as something that it is not. The argument of this paper, however, is that, given the many different senses of Krisis in The Crisis, an adequate understanding of the Krisis that Husserl identifies requires not a disjunctive but an inclusive approach. Therefore the paper proposes that Husserl’s Krisis of the European sciences is both a crisis of their scientificity and a crisis of their meaningfulness for life. The relevance of this result to Husserl’s philosophical and historical sense-investigations in The Crisis—as well as to the present critical situation of philosophy—is self-evident. (shrink)

Kako bi odgovorili na ovo pitanje, moramo pojasniti na što se odnosi. Moramo doznati može li se »globalizacija« semantički dovesti u vezu s ideologijom. Ideologija označava cjelokupnost naših osobnih stavova, ideja i nazora temeljenih na znanju, iskustvu i osjećajima kojima percipiramo i interpretiramo svijet, naš položaj u njemu i cijelo društvo. Ako gledamo iz prosvjetiteljske perspektive, ideologiju smatramo vrstom predrasude koja dominira razumom. Zašto je ovo važno u kontekstu globalizacije? Općenito govoreći, globalizacijom se smatra proces stalnog međunarodnog povezivanja i napretka (...) u gotovo svim područjima života kao što su npr. ekonomija, politika, kultura i komunikacija. Ovaj pogled uključuje implicitno iskustvo promjene koja zahvaća ne samo naš okoliš, društvo i njegove institucije nego i nacionalne države i njihove građane. Okoliš i njegovi resursi su preduvjet za globalizaciju. Zbog procesa konstantne liberalizacije tržišta resursi se mijenjaju i, konačno, uništavaju. U članku ćemo razmotriti imaju li političke mjere moć vršenja kontrole nad ovim dijalektičkim mehanizmom. (shrink)