About

philohof
Vienna/Austria

Bio: I am a philosophizer. I like to know what I think about things. I do like philosophizing. I do not like philosophy (because philosophy as a discipline is hardened and petrified philosophizing, i.e. it's not philosophizing anymore). My favourite philosophers are José Ortega y Gasset, Fernando Savater, Theodor W. Adorno, and Julián Marías (a disciple of Ortega). I like to do something I call "intercultural philosophy" which is when I, as a philosophizer, study and try to understand academic philosophy. My writings 1. I wrote my thesis for my master's degree on ETHICS ACCORDING TO FERNANDO SAVATER ('Ethik anhand von Fernando Savater'). Fernando Savater is a contemporary Spanish philosopher, specialized in the field of ethics, and from him I learned one important thing: that ethics is about thinking how one should lead one's life. That means that if you start do ethics, like professors in Moral Philosophy like to do it, by formulating a moral dilemma, you already miss the point of ethics - because your life stays outside. Actually, in academic philosophy they mistake ethics for moral philosophy. The consequence of this is that today moral philosophy is done under the title of 'Ethics', and ethics had to emigrate into fields like 'self management', 'time management, 'getting things done', 'how to find friends', and so on. 2. My doctoral thesis is on the topic of SOCIETY AS A POINT OF ORIENTATION FOR THE INDIVIVUAL ('Bezugspunkt Gesellschaft'). The most interesting finding for me when writing this book was that human society does not consist of human beings. This is not a new finding, you can read it in Emile Durkheim or Niklas Luhmann. But the task is to deeply understand it, and afterwards you will look at society with other eyes. Niklas Luhmann said that society is like a house. The individuals are the bricks, but they disappear behind the plasterwork of the walls. What the house really consists of, are the rooms and what is going on in there. And what is going on there? Big companies are doing business, political parties collect their followers, there are the mass media and basic societal institutions, like schools, hospitals, churches, prisons, in these rooms of society. Thus you, as an individual, are not part of society. Try to understand that idea, it's not easy. 3. Afterwards I wrote a book on epistemology. It is called INVITATION TO THE ODYSSEY. The idea is very simple. Up to now all philosophical approaches in epistemology were very demanding: Nothing less than absolutely true knowledge was expected from epistemology. Epistemology had the task of defending human rationality against skepticism. My book says: Life (the life of a human individual) is much too short for such a demanding task. Given the limitations of the human span of life and also of human intelligence and memory, a better approach would be totally contrary to the traditional one. It would start by asking the question: How can the human individual use best all his/her natural resources (senses, capacity for learning, motivation etc.) in order in order to learn as much about the world in as little time as possible. Of course, such knowledge could not be absolutely safe or true - but because I wanted to say: "Even though it's worth trying it that way!", I called the book INVITATION TO THE ODYSSEY. 4. Then I wrote a book on Intercultural Communication. But because there are already many introductions to Intercultural Communication, I wrote an Outroduction (Her-Ausführung aus der Interkulturellen Kommunikation). And not without reason: In a free market system, we do business be offering solutions to other people's problems. In order for us to sell our solution, the others first have to understand that they actually have a problem. Here the famous term of the 'intercultural misunderstanding' comes into play. It seems that this term is used more and more often in order to create a problem by making people afraid of intercultural misunderstandings just for the sake of creating a source of financial income for specialists in intercultural communication. As I think that Intercultural communication should be about trying to understand people from other cultures, and not about being afraid of not understanding them, I think this is a baleful development. 5. I also wrote a book on Theory of Science. It's called WHO HAS HIDDEN KNOWLEDGE IN SCIENCE. The idea is, again, a very simple one: There are already many books on Theory of Science dealing with epistemological problems in science: How do we arrive at knowledge that is absolutely true and safe, and which scientific methods do we need for that aim? My book deals with all the rest of questions which normally are not asked in Theory of Science. For example: Are old scientific findings still scientific, or are only new ones scientific? Does a teacher who teaches scientific knowledge which is already known, teach science? Does he/she work scientifically? The aim of the book is to remind that science is based on many more presuppostions than just the one of arriving at reliable results by using a scientific method. For example, what about the idea that a scientific discipline always has to have the form of a field of knowledge? And that this field has its history?

View complete profile

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s