ZusammenfassungDie gegenwärtige Debatte um die normativen Grundlagen kritischer Gesellschaftstheorie weist eine große Bandbreite ethischer Positionen auf: vom ethischen Negativismus, der gänzlich auf einen positiven Kritik-Maßstab verzichtet, über Entfremdungs- und Resonanztheorien, die zumindest eine grobe Vorstellung des guten Lebens vermitteln wollen, bis hin zu deontologischen Ansätzen, die Gesellschaftskritik in intelligibler Freiheit begründet sehen. Der folgende Beitrag zeigt, dass diese drei Grundpositionen sich mit Problemen konfrontiert sehen, die der hegelsche Freiheitsbegriff zu lösen vermag.

While the relation between embodiment and intersubjectivity is often remarked upon in the literature on Fichte, it is not sufficiently acknowledged that for Fichte the two are strongly interdependent. In this paper, by elaborating on his account of the fine structure of the embodied agency, I argue that for Fichte one's relation to one's own body is socially constituted. Further, I show that the usual stricture in the literature, according to which Fichte does not allow for bodily passivity, is misleading. (...) Indeed, as I argue, Fichte's account of embodied agency is sufficiently nuanced as to be able to explain “passive bodily expressions,” that is, those bodily expressions that are not under direct control of the agent. And related to that, contrary to the commonly held view, Fichte does offer a satisfactory account of the more sentient bodily phenomena, such as pain, hunger, and fatigue, which happen to the agent without her being capable of controlling their happening. Indeed, as I will show, for Fichte, these latter phenomena, rather than being simply restrictive of agency, may positively contribute to the exercise of agency. (shrink)