Christian Illies | Bamberg University (original) (raw)

Papers by Christian Illies

transcript Verlag eBooks, Dec 4, 2023

Oxford University Press eBooks, Jul 24, 2003

Schriften aus der Fakultät Geistes- und Kulturwissenschaften der Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, 2024

Rechtehinweis: Dieses Werk ist durch das Urheberrecht und/oder die Angabe einer Lizenz geschützt.... more Rechtehinweis: Dieses Werk ist durch das Urheberrecht und/oder die Angabe einer Lizenz geschützt. Es steht Ihnen frei, dieses Werk auf jede Art und Weise zu nutzen, die durch die für Sie geltende Gesetzgebung zum Urheberrecht und/oder durch die Lizenz erlaubt ist. Für andere Verwendungszwecke müssen Sie die Erlaubnis der Rechteinhaberinnen und Rechteinhaber einholen. Für dieses Dokument gilt die Creative-Commons-Lizenz CC BY.

Springer eBooks, Dec 20, 2023

J.B. Metzler eBooks, 2021

transcript Verlag eBooks, Dec 31, 2010

Zeitschrift Fur Philosophische Forschung, 2003

Philosophical Inquiries, Aug 1, 2018

Manipulation is a significant feature in human interaction and its study is now of growing import... more Manipulation is a significant feature in human interaction and its study is now of growing importance in areas such as marketing, politics, and policy. Questions concerning the nature of manipulation have become important in recent debates in ethics and political philosophy, referred to in terms such as “nudging” and “choice architecture”. But what precisely is manipulation? How does it operate? Without conceptual analysis, ethics cannot perform any critical evaluation of manipulation. We discuss and reject some recent definitions of manipulation before proposing a new analysis and suggesting a more precise use of the term “manipulation”. Manipulation should be seen as a form of power where the manipulator makes it more likely that the manipulated chooses some end (action, belief etc.) but where the manipulated remains ultimately free to choose or not to choose this end. Manipulation works by actively changing the emotional attraction of certain ends or their realisation. This transformation of emotional bonds makes some options more appealing (or unappealing) to the manipulated, and thus more likely to be chosen. We call this the “Pleasurable-Ends-Model”. We argue for the suggested model against the background of Aristotelian action theory. This theory states that human beings act either for some end which they consider good, or useful, or pleasurable. Consequently, agents can be made to act by influencing them in three fundamentally different ways: giving reasons may affect actions done for the good, economic bargaining influences actions done for utility, and manipulation affects the pleasurable ends. From this starting point, we further develop the Pleasurable-Ends-Model and elucidate its power.

Two contrasting interpretations of the interrelation between politics and anthropology have co-ex... more Two contrasting interpretations of the interrelation between politics and anthropology have co-existed in recent literature. On the one hand, the social sciences have freed themselves almost completely from the idea that there is a basic nature common to all human beings. After the "cultural turn" within these disciplines, they took it for granted that immediate access to facts is methodologically impossible, including facts about the purported nature of human beings. On the other hand, the past century was triumphal procession of evolutionary sciences. These disciplines unquestionably shed light on the biological species homo sapiens. This essay defends neither of these two extreme positions, but looks for possibilities of updating the traditional synthetic view that is based upon an interrelation of natural and political sciences. To do so, it focuses on two questions. What do evolutionary sciences tell us about human beings and about the development of culture? What practical consequences can we draw from this for political philosophy? Answering these questions calls for a discussion of the work of Darwin, Gehlen, von Hayek, Diamond, Burkert and others.

Han'gughag nonjib, Dec 1, 2010

The aim of this paper is to argue that there are particular universally-held attitudes lying behi... more The aim of this paper is to argue that there are particular universally-held attitudes lying behind today’s ecological crisis. They need to be changed and art can help to do so. The thesis is developed in five steps. The paper begins with a short analysis of the ideas and influences which constitute modernity. Secondly, it is argued that our modern worldview has created some specific attitudes which have become at least partly independent of their roots in modernity. These have universal reach. Three of these attitudes which seem to be of crucial importance for the ecological crisis are identified. Fourthly, it is argued that attitudes can be sustained or altered through the use of works of art via the power of the imagination. The paper concludes, fifthly, with architectural examples which demonstrate the possible effect of art on attitudes.

Psychiatrische Praxis, Jul 1, 2023

ZusammenfassungIn der Psychologie/Psychiatrie/Psychotherapie lässt sich ein Verständnis von Manip... more ZusammenfassungIn der Psychologie/Psychiatrie/Psychotherapie lässt sich ein Verständnis von Manipulation finden, das oft einseitig auf die Psychopathologien eines Manipulators blickt und Manipulation als defizitäres, egoistisches Kommunikationsverhalten herausstellt, das die Manipulierte täuscht und unter Druck setzt. In diesem Beitrag wollen wir ein differenziertes Verständnis von Manipulation als Form der Beeinflussung ergründen, das Platz lässt für toxische, aber auch wohlwollende Manipulationen. Als Experimentierfeld dient uns hierfür der Schauplatz der Liebe, der Möglichkeiten für sinnvolle Unterscheidungen bezüglich der Manipulation bereitstellt. Unsere Schlussfolgerung ist, dass Liebe mit einer wohlwollenden Manipulation vereinbar ist.

Bamberger theologische Studien, 2021

Journal of Value Inquiry, Aug 23, 2018

Aristotle bases his ethics on knowledge about human nature; whereby his notion of nature is teleo... more Aristotle bases his ethics on knowledge about human nature; whereby his notion of nature is teleological. A virtuous person is someone who does what a good human being would do, namely, realizing the ends of human nature. These ends provide standards of human goodness for practical reason. Philippa Foot, Rosalind Hursthouse, Michael Thompson, and other Aristotelian naturalists, inspired mainly by Elizabeth Anscombe, aim at actualizing this approach. Philippa Foot remarks in this spirit that "in moral philosophy, I believe, it is useful, to think about plants," 1 and moves on to bees and wolves in her Natural Goodness. Michael Thompson, in similar vein, inspects a biology textbook where ostriches and acorns are described or watches films with bobcats. They link the Aristotelian understanding of good to a modern understanding of types of organisms (i.e. species). A pine tree can then be called good if it has tap roots, because the tree's natural end is to survive and proliferate, and tap roots are the best way to obtain nutrients and water within the natural habitat of pine trees. It is here that our current knowledge of the species Homo sapiens comes into play. Aristotelian Naturalism (= AN) argues that a good, i.e. virtuous, human being characteristically realizes the natural ends of our species through appropriate activity. Thus, a good human being, who is honest is analogous to a good honey-bee, who dances to communicate the whereabouts of sources of food. For philosophy, it is certainly "one of the most attractive features of Aristotelian Naturalism" that it places human beings within the realm of nature and the natural sciences, rather than separating them from their animal nature and other animals in * Christian Illies

V&R unipress eBooks, Apr 29, 2013

Akademie Verlag eBooks, Dec 31, 2011

Springer eBooks, Sep 10, 2010

Vor über siebzig Jahren fand man in einer Höhle nahe Hohlenstein-Stadel, im heutigen Baden-Württe... more Vor über siebzig Jahren fand man in einer Höhle nahe Hohlenstein-Stadel, im heutigen Baden-Württemberg, eine Frau, die keiner bekannten Spezies und nicht einmal eindeutig den Hominiden zugeordnet werden konnte. Wegen ihres Aussehens wurde sie schon bald als „Löwenfrau“ bekannt (unterdessen wird sie als „Löwenmensch“ bezeichnet, da die in solchen Fragen Klarheit schaffenden Geschlechtsteile bei der Figur fehlen und in Zeiten

University of Notre Dame Press eBooks, 2005

Darwinism and Philosophy Eds. Vittoria Hoesle and Christian Illies University of Notre Dame Press... more Darwinism and Philosophy Eds. Vittoria Hoesle and Christian Illies University of Notre Dame Press, Indiana, 2005 Philosophers are people who engage in metaphysical attempts to determine what exactly reality is, and particularly what men and women ought to do. Acordingly, philosophy has historically tended to be little more than the record of the conclusions reached by intelligent thinkers living at different times in different cultures. Certainly there have been some instances where earlier conclusions remained at least partially valid to people living in later eras and in other environments. This is only to be expected in light of the extent to which human beings tend to share certain basic needs and drives. Some philosophers have been &quot;conservative&quot; in that their conclusions have closely reflected the traditional values of their society, while others have been &quot;revolutionary&quot; in the sense that they have developed ethical systems that have conflicted with the views then currently predominant amongst their fellows. In recent decades, however, philosophers trained in the history of past philosophical systems find themselves challenged by advances in the scientific understanding of both nature and the Universe. Because of their claim always to be able to interpret what has been reported by scientists, and indeed to be able to speculate intelligently on what may lie beyond the limits of current science, philosophers are hard pressed today to keep up with the rapid advances of modern science. In addition, so many philosophers have been influenced by the ancient belief that the mind is separate from the body, that there has been a reluctance to face up to the implications of biological evolution and heredity. When the present volume entitled Darwinism and Philosophy came into the hands of this reviewer, it therefore brought with it a sense of excitement. Although the essays of some of the contributors are disappointing, the volume as a whole provides evidence that many philosophers are beginning to realize that if they seek to retain any audience among educated people, they must make at least an honest attempt to accept the relevance of science to their disputations. The editors themselves recognize the importance of Darwinian evolution, and begin their introduction with the statement that: &quot;any reasonable theory about the relation between philosophy and the sciences must avoid two extremes. On the one hand, no philosophy can be convincing if it ignores the results of the sciences of its times...On the other hand, philosophy cannot abdicate in the face of scientific theories-for the interpretation [their italics] of the results of the sciences is something that is not as obvious as the results themselves sometimes are.&quot; (p. 1) This may be taken as meaning that they are willing to listen to scientists, but that they still intend to &quot;protect their turf.&quot; To fulfill their intention to explore the implications of evolution for philosophy, the editors have collected papers from a wide spectrum of philosophers. They have, however, tactfully avoid asking the vital question of whether anyone trained in archaic philosophies, and presumably, therefore, essentially ignorant of the recondite intricacies of modern science, is really able to understand the implications of modern science, which is highly specialized. Although this reviewer leans toward science rather than archaic philosophy, he is quite willing to admit that this limitation applies to himself as well as to the contributors to this compendium. But that does not affect the importance of enquiring into a commentator&#39;s competence. Some of the seventeen philosophers who have contributed to the volume under review have shown that they are indeed aware of the relevance of scientific information. Yet even they fail to make any significant contribution to our understanding of the universe or to advance any convincing new insights into man&#39;s place in the universe. …