The theme of this article is the concept of community in the writings of Charles Taylor. It treats as its starting point both the significance attributed by him to this concept as well as his reluctance to being labelled a communitarian. The reconstruction of the concept is based on two of Taylor’s major works, Sources of the Self. The Making of the Modern Identity and A Secular Age. In the former the focus is on the notion of moral space which is deployed in a critique of individualist ontology, but which does not lead him to claim that the community has some special status. The reconstruction of the latter book focuses on the description of developments leading to modern forms of sociality that have superseded previous forms of social organization that were based, to a large degree, on local communities. In conclusion, I describe Taylor’s normative concept of community which is an integral part of his vision of “fullness”, which transcends both individualism and the traditional, exclusive communities., Ondřej Štěch., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
Tento diskusní příspěvek odpovídá na nedávné kritiky analytického pojmu mysli nabídnuté Tomášem Machulou a zpochybňuje jeho doporučení, abychom se vrátili k tomistickému pojetí racionální duše. Autor se snaží ukázat, že Machula ve svých kritikách jak Descartova pojmu mysli, tak současné analytické filosofie mysli přehlíží ústřední roli vědomí. Dále upozorňuje, že Machula při svém mapování současných teorií mysli opomíjí přístup teoretiků duálního atributu a že jeho kritice fyzikalismu, jakkoli může být účinně uplatňována proti teorii identity, se nedaří vyrovnat se s funkcionalismem, který je od 60. let 20. století nejrozšířenější formou fyzikalismu. Autor se také pokouší ukázat, že pojetí tomistické racionální duše – o nic méně než pojem karteziánské myslící substance – s sebou přináší závažné obtíže z hlediska vysvětlení lidské evoluce. V této souvislosti autor zpochybňuje Machulovo tvrzení, že tomistický pojem duše může být pochopen a oceněn nezávisle na teologickém rámci, ve kterém vznikl., This discussion piece responds to the recent criticisms of the analytical concept of mind offered by Tomáš Machula and questions his recommendation that we return to the Thomist concept of the rational soul. In particular, it is argued that Machula overlooks the central role of consciousness both in his criticisms of Descartes’ concept of the mind and of recent analytical philosophy of mind. In addition, it is argued that Machula ignores the work of dual-attribute theorists in his mapping of contemporary theories of mind, and that his critique of physicalism, while it may be effective against identity theory, fails to properly address functionalism, the most popular form of physicalism since the 1960s. It is also argued that the Thomist rational soul – no less than the Cartesian mental substance – creates serious difficulties for an account of human evolution. In this latter context doubt is raised about Machula’s claim that the Thomist concept of soul can be understood and appreciated independently of the theological framework in which it was developed., and James Hill.
In this study I devote my attention to the significance of the work of the Marquis de Sade in the field of political philosophy. The first part focuses on the definition of the basic principles of de Sade’s politically-orientated reflexion, examining above all the theory of the moral and affective solitude of the human being, and, derived from this, the relativism of all moral judgement. In the second part I indicate - primarily on the basis of the text Yet Another Effort, Frenchman, If You Would Become Republicans - the consequences that flow for human society from these basic postulates: the impossibility of making a social contract and the arbitrary division between sovereign individuals and victims. In the concluding part of the text I attempt to show the extent to which de Sade’s thought is relevant from a certain kind of contemporary political philosophy: I concentrate here on Balibar’s conception of “the inconvertibility of violence”; on Ogilvie’s concept of “man as a write-off”, and also on the concept of bio-power as it is formulated by Michel Foucault in The History of Sexuality, and later by Giorgio Agamben in Homo sacer., Josef Fulka., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
řednosti recenzované knihy jsou následující. Autor rozvíjí svou vlastní teorii a zaujímá kritický postoj k takovým autoritám politické filosofie, jakými jsou Rawls, Taylor či Honneth. Dále je to systematičnost výkladu. Tato studie se zaměřuje především na sporné body Hrubcova díla. Kritika je příliš vázána na pospolitost. V knize se objevuje komunitaristická tendence vzdálená tradici kritické teorie. Autor nepromýšlí vztah mezi pospolitostí a společností. Zásadním problémem je, že Marek Hrubec sice rozšiřuje zorné pole současné kritické teorie o témata první generace frankfurtské školy, např. o společenské struktury nebo obsahovou normativitu (spravedlivá a svobodná společnost), ale uchopuje je prostřednictvím Honnethovy a Taylorovy teorie uznání, která pro svůj formální charakter běží mimo ně. Tato témata tak zůstávají v teoretickém vakuu., The book under review has the following merits: the author develops his own theory and adopts a critical approach to such authorities in political philosophy as Rawls, Taylor, and Honneth; in addition the account given is systematic. This study concentrates primarily on the controversial points of Hrubec’s work. The critique is overly concerned with solidarity. In the book there are to be found communitarian tendencies that are foreign to the tradition of critical theory. The author has not thought through the relationship between solidarity and society. The basic problem is that Marek Hrubec, though he widens the view of contemporary critical theory so as to address themes in the first generation of the Frankfurt School, such as social structures and content normativity (a just and free society), understands these themes by means of Honneth’s and Taylor’s theory of recognition which, because of its formal character, is not relevant to them. These themes therefore remain in a theoretical vacuum., and Michael Hauser.
Noc ze čtvrtka 16. na pátek 17. června 2016 byla v hlavním městě ČR naprosto výjimečná: byla totiž svědkem první „Noci filozofie/Nuit de la philosophie“ v Praze a ve střední Evropě., From June 16 to 17, 2016, the Night of Philosophy presented a wide audience with a round-the-clock program of short and long lectures, debates, readings, art shows and performances, screenings and concerts gathering 55 leading international philosophers from the Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia who focused on the topic Images, Sciences and Politics. This very first Night of Philosophy in Prague, organized by the CEFRES Platform with the support of the French Institute and under the patronage of the Czech ministers of Culture (MK), Education (MŠMT) and Foreign affairs (MZV), took place in two locations: the Trade Fair Palace of the National Gallery in Prague and the Faculty of Arts of Charles University in Prague., and Jana Olivová.
Předložený článek si na základě rozboru hlavních motivů ve Foucaultově a Canguilhemově pojetí norem klade za cíl vymezit, jaká je vzájemná vazba mezi biologickou a společenskou normativitou a jakým typem moci na nás normy vlastně působí. V souladu s interpretací navrženou Pierrem Macherey se pokusíme sílu norem vystihnout v termínech jejich „imanence a produktivity" a ukázat, proč nelze normy chápat dle modelu zákona, který by ke svému předmětu přistupoval zvnějšku. Poslední část pak přináší odpověď na otázku, jaký typ individualizace či subjektivizace toto pojetí diskvalifikuje a jaké možnosti ponechává pro svébytnou singularitu v rámci normativního pole., The present paper is based on the analysis of Georges Canguilhem's and Michel Foucault's conception of norms and seeks to define the reciprocal relation between biological and social normativity. Both Canguilhem and Foucault are challenging our usual ideas about the manner in which the norms are exercising their power upon us. Following the interpretation proposed by Pierre Macherey, the paper tries to define the power of norms in terms of their "immanence and productivity". Such a conception prevents us from understanding the norm according to the model of Law, which is imposed on its subjects from outside. The final part of the paper seeks to determine, which kind of individualization or subjectivation this new concept of norms disqualifies and which possibilities does it leave open for autonomous singularity within the normative field., and Ondřej Švec.
Cieľom štúdie je vysvetliť motiváciu a podstatu filozofických koncepcií, podľa ktorých je tvrdenie normatívny fenomén. Začnem tým, že zmapujem kľúčové myšlienky k problematike tvrdenia, a lokalizujem typické normatívne prístupy. Potom rozoberiem, čo vlastne znamená povedať, že tvrdenie je normatívnym fenoménom špecifického druhu, a predložím špekulatívno-hypotetickú rekonštrukciu genézy tvrdiacej jazykovej hry - presnejšie, jej protoformy - ktorá by mala vyzdvihnúť jej charakteristické sociálno-normatívne aspekty. Na tomto základe postavím kritické porovnanie dvoch reprezentatívnych normatívnych prístupov k tvrdeniu: pragmatického inferencializmu Roberta Brandoma a Knowledge Account of Assertion Timothyho Williamsona. Budem argumentovať, že Brandomov prístup adekvátnejšie vystihuje sociálnu povahu tvrdenia, esenciálnu pre túto rečovú hru., My aim in this study is to explain both motivation and main ideas of those philosophical accounts of assertion that take it to be a normative phenomenon. I first draw a map of key ideas pertaining to the problem and localize on it typical normative accounts. Then I take up the issue of what it means to say that assertion is a normative phenomenon, putting forward a speculative-hypothetical reconstruction of the genesis of the assertoric game - or, rather, its protoform - to bring to the fore social-normative aspects characteristic of it. This will provide the basis for a critical comparison of two representative normative approaches to assertion: pragmatic inferentialism of Robert Brandom, and Knowledge Account of Assertion of Timothy Williamson. I shall argue that Brandom's normative approach to assertion is superior, as it much better accounts for a social dimension of assertion that is essential to this language game., and Ladislav Koreň.