Formal,transcendental and dialectical logic as necessary forms of self-interpretation of thought

The research project is part of my post-doctoral lecturing qualification project "Logic and the Notion of Man". It shall be shown that the way thought is dealt with in logic directly relates to the theoretical and practical interpretation of the `self` and the world. The question "what is man?", initially finds itself dealt with in `logic` first and foremost. Thus the first task of my habilitation-project lies in a systematical re-lecture of the notion of logic and the "logical" [des Logischen] in light of the achievements of the philosophical tradition in order to establish that the the meaning of the logical cannot be restricted to formal logic and to trace the question regarding the inner- logical connection of the interpretations of thought in the different forms of logic. The main thesis is: Transcendental Logic is the self-reflection of formal logic and dialectic logic is the self- reflection of transcendental logic. This implies the fact that dialectical logic may not be reached without passing through formal and transcendental logic. It also implies that only within dialectical logic formal and transcendental logic may find their justification. Thus modern formal logic and Kants transcendental logic are to be interpreted from the "Logic of Essence". The goals are: (1) The research project aims to contribute to the understanding of the true meaning of formal logic. Based on the increasing differentiation of modern logic, the opinion prevails that there is no such thing as a common way of thinking regarding formal logic. Opposing this view the following shall be shown that a) there are basic common qualities in the core assumptions; that b) these assumptions can be derived from one point, which claims that formal logic has a technical-practical understanding of logic. (2) A more profound understanding of Kant`s transcendental philosophy and Hegel`s dialectic. In this it will be shown that Kants revolutionary work consists in posing and answering the question surrounding the dignity of formal logic regarding knowledge. Understanding this vantage point adequately will shine new light on current discussions regarding the meaning of transcendental philosophy and the state of transcendental arguments. Regarding Hegel`s dialectic, it shall be shown that the alternative of "Kant or Hegel" does not exist when it comes to the systematic, because the dialectical concept is nothing but the concept brought forward by Kant just consequently thought to its end. Thus the attempt is made to further the differentiated understanding of logic, as well as, to contribute to the repossession of Kant and Hegel in current discourse.

There are three fundamentally important concepts of logic which took shape throughout the history of philosophy: formal logic (covering both the modes of traditional-Aristotelian logic and the modern mathematized logic(s)), transcendental logic (most notably in Kants Critique of Pure Reason) and dialectical logic (Hegels Science of Logic). Each concept of logic is ultimately based upon a certain understanding of logical form. However, the prevailing understanding of logic (ever since the mid-nineteenth century) departs from the unquestioned claim that formal logic (as classical and/or non-classical predicate logic and propositional logic) has to be regarded as the sole scientifically or philosophically relevant way of reflecting and representing logical form. In contrast to this perspective, this project aimed at opening up a broader, encompassing perspective on logical form and its significance, a perspective that has actually been developed in the tradition of European philosophy, but has been neglected or even forgotten. Thus, the endeavour has been to flesh out both the intrinsic connection and the difference between the three above mentioned major modes of conceiving logical form. In doing so, the main goal was to demonstrate that formal logic, transcendental, and dialectical logic have to be conceived as evolutionary stages through which both the knowledge and explication of logical form necessarily and progressively proceeds. The fundamental thesis was that the philosophical significance of logic cannot be restricted to providing a technical device to study, and operate with, functionalized patterns of reason. Rather, logic unveils itself as a self-reflective science of thought or reason, that is systematically reflecting and justifying its presuppositions. It is due to this perspective on logic that the actual philosophical significance of logic can be made intelligible: Logic constitutes the very core of the system of philosophy, for the way in which thought thinks itself principally settles or prefigures the interpretation of the self and the world. The most important results are: An integrative understanding of logic by means of which nothing of the different ways of conceiving logical form gets lost but rather finds its adequate justification, its proper place within the concept of logical form. Logical form has to be thought of as unity of function (relation of thought to the object) and reflexion (relation of thought to itself). Formal, transcendental, and dialectical logic are intelligible as distinct ways in which this unity is being progressively developed and made explicit as such.An encompassing understanding of formal logic as a whole: Formal logic expresses the technical self-interpretation of thought. This is a direct consequence of the immediacy in which the functionality of the logical form is interpreted. It reflects the basis of all technical-practical conduct, which shows the importance and relative necessity of this standpoint. This approach led to two important insights: Firstly, an insight into the precise difference between the (more or less Aristotelian) traditional formal logic and the modern, mathematized understanding. Secondly, I could solve the problem of contemporary Philosophy of Logic that addresses the question as to how the plurality within the modes of modern formal logic (classical/non-classical etc.) has to be grounded. Contributing to a critical enlightenment of the spirit of our age: The prevailing technical understanding of logical form reflects the primacy of the technical-practical conduct in all spheres of mans relation to himself and his world. This primacy, in turn, expresses nihilism, which is the absolutization of the standpoint of utility without being tied back and relativized to ends in themselves. This shows the danger of an absolutization of the technical understanding of thought, which may well be the trait of our age.As the self-interpretation of thought is systematically the central point that sets the course for the interpretation of the self and of the world, both theoretically and practically, these issues are far-reaching in terms of their relevance and they offer a variety of links to other disciplines of philosophy, particularly to practical philosophy.