Text se zaměřuje na při jetí a vnímání darwinismu v českých zemích v 19. století, kdy bylo šíření a interpretace Darwinova učení paradoxně spjato s dvěma profesory estetiky z Karlo-Ferdinandovy un verzity v Praze, Josefem Durdíkem a Otakarem Hostinským. Ačkoliv poněkud zjednodušovali teorii přírodního výběru, Darwinovu teorii chápali jako příchod nového paradigmatu (na rozdíl od tehdejších biologů působících v Čechách). Tento text představuje a srovnává interpretaci darwinismu u obou estetiků, zejména jejich stanoviska k teorii přírodního výběru, možnostem aplikace této teorie v estetice a teorii umění, a také jejich vztah k Darwinově
výkladu estetických jevů v přírodě. Jako dodatek následuje krátké vyzdvižení Darwinova učení v textech dalších českých estetiků (Tyrš, Klácel, Volek)., The text is focused on the acceptance and perception of
Darwinism in 19th-century Bohemia, when the diffusion and interpretation of Darwin’s teachings were paradoxical connected with two professors of aesthetics from Charles-Ferdinand University in Prague, Josef Durdík and Otakar Hostinský. Although they somewhat simplified the theory of natural selection, they understood Darwin’s theory to be the arrival of a new paradigm (in contrast to contemporary biologists working in the Czech lands). This text presents and compares both aestheticians’ interpretations of Darwinism, mainly their stance on the theory of natural selection, the possibilities for applying this theory to aesthetics and art theory, as well as their relationship to Darwin’s interpretation of aesthetic phenomena in nature. As a supplement, a short emphasis on Darwin’s teaching in texts of other Czech aesteticians (Tyrš, Klácel, Vol ek) follows., and Karel Stibral.
This essay aims to describe hitherto unknown notes of aesthetics lectures given by August Gottlieb Meißner (1753-1807) at Prague University. It compares these notes (made by a certain Wagner, and deposited in the Wienbibliothek im Rathaus) with notes deposited in Czech libraries, and seeks to determine their place chronologically amongst notes made by others attending Meißner’s lectures over the years. The most important difference in content between the earlier known notes and Wagner’s is Meißner’s negative attitude towards the Schlegel brothers. This attitude slightly alters our existing notion of his views on the relationship between literature and morality. Taken alone, the collections of notes in Czech libraries had led one to conclude that this Prague ordinarius was an ardent libertine, who dared, even at a conservative Austrian university, to push for the autonomy of art, including a thorough split between art and morality, regarding not only works of art, but also, to a certain extent, the artists themselves. By contrast, the Vienna MS as a matter of priority restricts this split to art, and limits it to the higher, moral aims of the artist as citizen. His approach to questions of morality and to the Schlegel brothers demonstrates that while Meißner considered himself part of the liberally enlightened current of contemporaneous literature, which made moving the emotions the central aim of art, he was no longer an adherent of upandcoming Romanticism with its extreme conviction about unlimited authorial liberty, which stemmed from the philosophical Idealism of the times. This attitude to the Schlegel brothers also suggests that Wagner attended Meißner’s lectures in aesthetics and rhetoric in the winter of 1800/1., Tomáš Hlobil., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy
Studie Tomáše Hlobila se zabývá náplní přednášek estetika Johanna Heinricha Dambecka, které Dambeck přednášel během svého pedagogického působení na pražské univerzitě., This article examines contemporaneous reports about two versions of lectures in aesthetics, which were given at Prague University by Johann Heinrich Dambeck (1774–1820). They were recorded by the publisher Joseph Adolf Hanslik (1785–1859) in a manuscript summary in 1819 and a two-volume book published in 1822 and 1823. The article presents a comparison of the two sources in order to determine which parts of the commentary originate with Dambeck and which with Hanslik. Considering the large scope and the bibliographical nature of the chief part of the appendices to the book, the author of the article concludes that they originated not with Dambeck, but with Hanslik., Tomáš Hlobil., Rubrika: Studie, and Německé resumé na s. 130, anglický abstrakt na s. 123.
Cílem článku je ukázat, že německá raná romantika, která položila
filosofické základy romantického hnutí, nebere příklon k subjektivitě prožívání jako odklon od poznání, nýbrž jako jiný způsob poznání. Romantická niternost nachází svůj protějšek ve zkušenosti světa, jemuž umění dokáže propůjčit hlubší význam než racionální filosofie a věda. Tento nový pohled na poznání je romantiky použit jak na výklad přírody, tak duchovní lidské skutečnosti. Článek upozorňuje na to, že vedle dědictví spinozismu měla romantická epistemologie důležitý zdroj v některých úvahách Kantovy Kritiky soudnosti. Tato vazba je sledována zvláště na příkladu filosofie umění F. W. J. Schellinga. Argumentace článku je rozvinuta v kritické konfrontaci se subjektivistickou interpretací romantiky H.-G. Gadamera, čímž se ozřejmuje její širší epistemologický dosah i aktuálnost. Návaznost německých romantiků na Kantovu Kritiku soudnosti se spíše než tendencí k subjektivizaci estetiky projevovala ve snaze o estetizaci poznání., The aim of the article is to show how German romanticism, which laid the philosophical foundations for the Romantic Movement, understood the shift toward lived subjectivity not as a deviation from knowledge, but as another form of knowledge. Romantic inwardness finds its counterpart in the experience of the world, which is granted deeper meaning by art than it is by rational philosophy or science. This new view of knowledge is applied to both nature and human spiritual reality. The article notes that, besides the legacy of Spinozism, another importance source of romantic epistemology was the thoughts Kant put forth in his Critique of Judgement. This link is traced in particular in the philosophy of art of F. W. J. Schelling. At the same time, the article pursues a line of argument that critically confronts the subjectivistic interpretation of romanticism espoused by H.-G. Gadamer, what unveils the epistemological reach and current relevance of the topic. Th e German romantics’ embrace of Kant’s Critique of Judgement is manifested not so much in a tendency to subjectivize aesthetics as in their attempt to aestheticize the knowledge., and Martin Ďurďovič.