Eine der frühesten Schriften des jungen Karl Marx — die Dissertationsschrift „Differenz der demokritischen und epikureischen Naturphilosophie“ — legt wichtige Fundamente für das gesamte Marx’sche Denken. In der Dissertationsschrift versucht Marx anhand des Vergleichs der antiken Naturphilosophien Demokrits und Epikurs grundlegende Erkenntnisse der theoretischen und praktischen Philosophie in einem komplexen, von Hegel inspirierten ontologischen System zu verbinden. Aus dieser kritischen Synthese antiker Naturphilosophien entsteht so eine auf Hegelschen Begriffen basierende, aber gleichzeitig reformierte Idee der Praxis. Auf diesen Grundlagen sowie mit (...) Hilfe des über die Kritik an Epikur und Hegel gewonnenen Begriffs der Entfremdung entwickelt Marx den dialektischen Materialismus der Naturphilosophie. Dem inhaltlichen Aufbau der Dissertationsschrift folgend wird in dem Aufsatz die Marx’sche Naturphilosophie diskutiert. Dabei werden die wichtigsten Begriffe des Marx‘schen Denkens, wie etwa Materialismus, Dialektik, Entfremdung oder Einheit von Theorie und Praxis in der Dissertationsschrift von Karl Marx ausgearbeitet. (shrink)

Dieser Beitrag macht auf die Krise in den globalen Wertschöpfungsketten, die durch die Covid-19 Pandemie verursacht wurde, aufmerksam und gibt dazu einige Denkanstöße aus normativer Perspektive. Es wird gezeigt, dass die Pandemie ein grelles Schlaglicht auf die strukturellen Probleme der Globalisierung wirft. Zu diesen gehört die Gestaltung der globalen Marktwirtschaft über nationale, supranationale und internationale Institutionen, die in der Regel zur Benachteiligung einiger Länder und zum Vorteil für andere führt. Dies wird zunächst am Beispiel der Textilindustrie von Bangladesch erläutert. Danach (...) wird das Problem der Verteilungsgerechtigkeit aus der Perspektive der strukturellen Ungerechtigkeit betrachtet. Der Beitrag befasst sich in diesem Zusammenhang mit den systematischen Problemen entlang der globalen Lieferketten. (shrink)

Åsa Burman has recently introduced the important notion of telic power and differentiated it from deontic power in an attempt to build a bridge between ideal and non-ideal social ontology. We find Burman’s project promising but we argue that more is to be done to make it entirely successful. First, there is a palpable tension between Burman’s claim that telic power can be ontologically independent of deontic power and her examples, which suggests that these forms of power share the same (...) basis. Second, it is not completely clear how telic power specifically helps non-ideal social ontologists explain oppression. We offer solutions to both problems. First, we question Burman’s arguments for the conclusion that telic power can exist without deontic power. Burman contends that this is possible because some social roles involving telic power can exist independently of institutions as sets of constitutive rules, which are––in her opinion––the source of deontic power. Burman’s arguments are not persuasive because they disregard the possibility that all social roles involve deontic power, whether or not they are institutional. Second, we argue that while the exercise of deontic power requires a collective recognition of the social roles of the interacting agents and, therefore, a recognition of the associated norms, the exercise of telic power does not require recognition of the relevant norms. This is why invoking telic power is particularly useful in explaining how oppression and injustice can arise. Lastly, we suggest that the relation between teleological normativity and telic power has not been fully clarified by Burman and requires a deeper analysis. (shrink)

Social psychology and ideology, which are integral parts of public consciousness, are closely intertwined. While revealing the connection between them, most researchers give preference to ideology, noting that it plays an active role in relation to social psychology, and that social psychology has relative independence in relation to ideology. In the scientific literature devoted to this problem, the preference for the interpretation of ideology over social psychology is due to the complex nature of the latter and the difficulty of studying (...) it. It is also stated that when social psychology is developed spontaneously outside the ideology, without the latter’s influence, its ability to actively influence the ideology wanes. Although social psychology differs from ideology in terms of its history and mechanism of formation, there are a number of commonalities between them. First of all, both social psychology and ideology as a phenomenon of moral life reflect the social interests and needs of people and have a strong impact on the formation of their moral discourse. The interaction of ideology and social psychology is manifetsted in many forms. It is extremely important to identify the internal mechanisms of this interaction. Examples of such internal mechanisms are persuasion, persuasion, imitation, stereotypes, social attitudes, propaganda and other socio-psychological phenomena. Consideration of such socio-psychological events as a means of emotional and volitional influence on people's minds, as well as a mechanism of internal interaction between ideology and social psychology, is of great importance for studying their psychological nature and the possibility of their appropriate use. (shrink)

This book is a selection from the papers of the First International Conference on Superluminal Physics as New Fields of Research held at the University of New Mexico, Gallup Campus, USA, in July 2012. The editor have selected seven papers proposed by the following authors and co co-authors Kaizhe Guo Guo, Chongwu Guo Guo, Chen Jianguojianguo, Dong Jingfeng Jingfeng, Mi Haijiang Haijiang, Changwei Hu Hu, Yang Shijiashijia, Guli, and Fu Yuhua Yuhua.