ABSTRACTS
Emil Angehrn: Historicity and historical reference: Genesis, validity, meaning
The paper aims to complete the epistemological opposition of genesis and validity by discussing two types of their interconnection. On the one hand, it deals with genealogical arguments in the context of practical reasoning. This applies for positive justification (e.g. by tradition) as well as for negative delegitimisation (for instance Nietzsche’s genealogical critique of morality). On the other hand, it is about the hermeneutic explication of signification. Historical reflection offers ways to understand the meaning of an institution, the (perhaps hidden) signification of a thesis or a tradition. An informative paradigm thereof is the self-understanding of philosophy concerning its own issues and definition.
Philipp Stoellger: The genesis of validity and the validity of genesis: What matters when Interpretational Power (»Deutungsmacht«) comes into play
Genesis and validity (Genesis and Geltung) can be distinguished and even separated: genesis would be a historical or empirical question; and validity a question of pure reason. But genealogy in Nietzsche’s tradition has challenged this separation. What is the validity of genesis; and what is the genesis of validity? The constellation of genesis and validity are to be analysed. Therefore the theological background has to be remembered: the »original« identity of genesis and validity (in the narration of creation like in salvation). This imaginary identity is dissociated in history. That is why genesis and validity are given »for us« only in difference. Than the pretention of identity is always a little imaginary: may it be the genealogical idea (the genesis is the validity) or vice versa the idea of pure reasons (validity is indifferent to genesis). Beyond the pretention of identity or separation, it is suggested to look for dialectic and furthermore chiastic relations of validity and genesis. Than the question arises: who is in position to draw the distinction between them? Who is »the souvereign« to define the limits of genesis and validity? Is their difference a question of genesis or a question of pure reasons? I suggest: the difference is made by symbolic power and interpretation, more exactly: the relation of genesis and validity is a question of »Deutungsmacht« (symbolic or interpretational power).
Falko Schmieder: History and the concept of »real experiment«
The essay analyzes the transformation of the metaphor »real experiment« (Realexperiment) as part of a critical theory of modernity into an instrument for empirical research and pragmatic problem solving. This transformation has come at a cost. I argue that in the wake of its systematization the concept of the real experiment has lost the ability to engage with certain types of problems. Given this detrimental shift, it becomes all the more important to rediscover the term’s older layers of meaning and how they might be useful in confronting current experiences of how history tends towards autonomization.
Monika Wulz: »›in der Kontingenz der noch zu vollendenden Tatsachen‹
Genesis, Geltung und Zukunft in der historischen Epistemologie«
The paper discusses the relation of genesis and validity (Genesis and Geltung) within the historical epistemologies of Gaston Bachelard, Louis Althusser, and Michel Foucault. From the perspective of emerging knowledge I examine the co-evolution of discontinuous moments, epistemic practices, and objects of knowledge. Based on this analysis, the paper argues that validity (Geltung) should be understood as situated knowledge.
Philipp Sarasin: The paradoxical setting of Discourse Analysis
How can the friction between genesis and validity be understood? Is it possible to »dissolve« it? This paper argues that the genesis/validity-problem reflects the fundamental epistemological differences between History and Philosophy, and it takes Michel Foucault’s »Archeology« as a model case for this problem. Since Foucault’s »archaeological« methodology, i.e. his discourse analysis, is deeply affected by these tensions, I will show, firstly, that the epistemological model for Foucault’s anti-hermeneutical and genealogical approach was rooted not in philosophy, but in medicine, especially in anatomy. Secondly, I will argue that the »paradoxical«position of discourse analysis, in Foucault’s eyes, is necessarily a political one – i.e. as a position within political struggles.
Elisabeth List: From representation to creation: Intersections of genesis and validity in the Life Sciences
Traditionally, philosophy of science tends to seperate contexts of discovery from those of justification. With regard to modern sciences, however, this distinction proves to be inapt. Modern disciplines of chemistry or of psychology, especially in contemporary life sciences, seem to show that experimental procedures as well as the collection of data form an integral part of a research process which is always al-ready subject to different implicit economical and social biases or premises. In these scientific fields, research remains inseparably intertwined with the presuppositions of its social contexts of genesis. Theses contexts entail both the representation as well as the creation of their very objects of research.
Alfred Nordmann: Feeling the world as a limited whole: On objectivity (»Sachlichkeit«)
It requires objectivity to acquire scientific knowledge of facts, it requires Sachlich¬keit or a feeling for the mechanism to acquire technical knowledge of how things work together in a system or device. Each of these epistemic ideals is normatively charged but only the notion of scientific objectivity considers knowledge production as a historical process. And while scientific objectivity served as an ideal for communicative rationality in an open and democratic society, Sachlichkeit underwrites the search for innovative solutions in contemporary knowledge societies. This article draws on the work of Alexander Kluge and Ludwig Wittgenstein to delineate the normative dimensions and claim to validity of Sachlichkeit.
