Here I try a new synthesis of personalism and materialism leading to new concepts of sense. Beginnig with the analysis of the correlations between matter, personality, language, understanding, cognition, knowledge, and the problem of truth, followed by a critique of pragmatism, personalism and "new realism" as well as by ontological concretisations in different fields of philosophy, i.e. in logical order from cosmology to anthropology, ethics, history and political philosophy (including globalization, digital revolution amd ecocide), aesthetics, and philosophy of religion, leading (...) to new concepts of sense and value. Of immediate political relevance is my new concept of a democratic eco-socialism, drawing conclusions of the failure of the socialist experiences in the world up to nowadays. Not giving up the Marxian vision of a realm of Freedom, Justice and Solidarity, that of a "free association of free individuals". (shrink)

'Ethics of Behavior Control. A new foundation' Do we need a new ethics? Or even an 'ethics of behavior control'? Partly founded by Immanuel Kant, but no longer valid in all its aspects? If there are values and norms, which of them can survive the so called "decay of values"? And if there are limits of ethcis, for example caused by (social) system conditions, arises the question of how to legitimate new ethical challenges and demands. Last not least: Can ethics (...) be absorbed by anthropology and / or philosophy of history? (shrink)

WEGE ZUM SINN WAYS TO SENSE. Generally known seems to be the fact that, somehow, sense and value are involved in purposes, aims and temporality. Less known are the details, the concrete forms of such connections. And even less: the thesis of certain philosophers pretending that values produce sense automatically. Yet: What are 'values'? What is 'sense'? How and why does it happen? Subjectively? Objectively? In situations? By means of Being and Nothing? Due to logics? So many questions!

Do we need a new ethics? And if so: why? Just because Kant's Categorical Imperative (Cat. Imp.) seems to be no longer valid? Are there, nevertheless, values that survive the so-called "decay of values"? And if there are limits of ethics, e.g. in system conditions, one can ask if new legit requests are to be made. Or can ethics even be absorbed (or "abolished") in anthropology and philosophy of history?

The topic may initially suggest that massive reductionism is pursued with it. Why this is not the case, can be explained as follows: 'Dictatorship of the proletariat', 'bureaucracy' and 'bureaucratization' are key terms through which new aspects, facts and connections of the questions about socialism can be opened again and again.

How can we define 'sense'? Which are the connections between sense, values, purposes, aims and time? Even if we presume the sense of Being in Freedom, we must admit that we have no global view of the totality of Being, so we can find sense only in certain aspects, but not in the way of Heidegger who pretended to explain the Being ('das Sein') as a whole, but could only describe some aspects of existence ('Dasein').

The fictitious controversy turns around the question of how to know what Jesus meant by 'Kingdom of God'. Nietzsche pretended this kingdom to be merely interior and to be found only there, whereas elsewhere he declared God to be "dead". For Luther, the Kingdom of God is located in faith and the pure grace of God. On the other hand, Luther, due to his bible literalism, justifies the persecution of Jews and insurgent peasants, and this in flagrant contradiction to Jesus' (...) commandment of Love. The idea of 'Kingdom of God' has been of considerable impact and significance in the history of mind-. (shrink)

Again and again, the problem of time has been declared to be "unsolvable". On the other hand, there are plausible theories of time based on mathematics, science, history, linguistics, psychology or even theology. Worth of discussion are the contributions of thinkers such as Kant, Einstein, Bloch, Heidegger and Lee Smolin. My own proposal: an hypothesis of "original world-time", no "final solution", but a serious suggestion.

Founding or explaining norms by nature seems to be impossible. Kant's Categorical Imperative seems to be "normative", i.e. of absolute validity. In fact, it is not more or less than a value theory, since Kant considers the human person as endowed by unconditional dignity. Norms can be founded on values, not vice versa. And values seem always to lead to sense.

What is Kantian epistemology? How can human beings acquire knowledge? A question still seeming to be controversial. Some theorists consider Kant's epistemology as competely outdated. Nevertheless, the dispute about Kant's theory began already when its author was still alive, arising from terms and categories such as 'the thing in itself' ('Ding an sich'), the Synthesis a priori, Kant's concepts of time, space, truth, discernment and others - so there seems to be and urgent need of clarification pointing out critically Kant's (...) theory as well as the history of its impact and reception. Followed by the analysis and valuation of alternative concepts such as idealism, materialism, evolutionary epistemology, ceritical rationalism, radical conctructivism, AI research, and others. Followed by my own cocept of an up-to-date epistemology. (shrink)

Value is an indispensable category, since persons and things are not only significations, but validities. In order to understand the history of values, the book offers detailed explanations of the philosophical, political and religious traditions behind. New value syntheses can be established by means of concrete analysis of phenomena such as globalization and cultural mixing ("métissage culturel"). Striking is the permanent validity of values such as politeness, responsibility, honesty, helpfulness, allround culture, tolerance, and respect (last not least regarded as ideals (...) of education). (shrink)