This article deals with the representation of literary culture in the Bohemian lands in late 18th and early 19th century travelogues as an influential literary genre of the late Enlightenment period. Against the background of their authors’ (mostly North and Central German travellers’) views on the Habsburg monarchy, the Bohemian lands and Prague in particular, as well as their education and art, the article seeks to analyse the variety of perspectives and the clash of external and domestic perspectives, as well as their description strategies. It draws attention both to the ideologisation and interconnection of the travelogue discourse and to the reactions of domestic authors to the travellers’ generalizing criticisms and their forms. To summarize, the article argues that the traditional classification of travelogues as predominantly pro- or anti-Slavic does not exactly hit the mark in this period, for travelogues do reflect the discussion on Czech literary culture in the Bohemian lands in statu(re-)nascendi in the context of local history and the enlightenment of the common folk., Dalibor Dobiáš., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy
Cynismus Hegelovy filosofie je téma, které již dávno, rozhodně od Popperovy Otevřené společnosti, přesahuje úzké hranice odborného žánru. Chvála války jako prostředku utužování státu či obdiv k „světodějným“ osobnostem typu Caesara či Napoleona, to vše shrnuté v šokujícím tvrzení: co je skutečné, je rozumné, jsou čteny jako jasné vyzdvihování statu quo, tedy pruského státu, v němž našly dějiny své vyvrcholení a Hegel kýženou mocenskou pozici. Výrok „Tím hůře pro skutečnost“, který údajně Hegel pronesl v reakci na kritiku své disertace o planetárních drahách, rozšiřuje tento cynický moment i na jeho teoretickou filosofii. V článku nejprve zmíním, proč je tato představa už věcně chybná, v další části se pak zaměřím na pojmovou stránku problému. Má teze je, že Hegelův cynismus je sice reálný, jeho funkce je ale primárně didaktická, manifestující komplikovanou logickou strukturu naší řeči o tom, co „je“., The Open Society and Its Enemies, extended beyond the narrow confines of the specialist genre. The praise of war as a means of strengthening the state or the admiration of “world historical” personalities such as Caesar or Napoleon – all encapsulated in the shocking statement: what is real is rational – are read as a clear exaltation of the status quo, that Prussian state in which history found its culmination and Hegel his coveted position of power. The statement “So much the worse for reality,” with which Hegel allegedly answered a criticism of his dissertation on planetary orbits, extends this cynical moment to his theoretical philosophy as well. In the article, I will first touch on why this topic is, right from the start, factually wrong; in the next part, I will focus on the conceptual side of the problem. My thesis is that Hegel‘s cynicism is real, but its function is primarily didactic, manifesting a complicated logical structure of our speech concerning that which “is.”, and Der Zynismus von Hegels Philosophie ist ein Thema, das schon seit langem, ganz bestimmt seit Poppers Werk Die offene Gesellschaft und ihre Feinde, die engen Grenzen der Fachdiskussion überschreitet. Die Verherrlichung des Krieges als Mittel zur Festigung des Staates bzw. die Bewunderung „weltgeschichtlicher“ Persönlichkeiten wie Cäsar oder Napoleon, dies alles zusammengefasst in der schockierenden Behauptung: was wirklich ist, ist vernünftig, werden als Erhebung des Status quo, d.h. des preußischen Staates, aufgefasst, in dem die Geschichte ihren Höhepunkt fand und Hegel seine ersehnte Machtposition. Das Zitat „Umso schlimmer für die Wirklichkeit“, das angeblich Hegels Antwort auf eine Kritik seiner Dissertation über Planetenbahnen wiedergibt, erweitert dieses zynische Moment auch auf Hegels theoretische Philosophie. Im Artikel wird zunächst dargelegt, warum diese Vorstellung schon von der Sache her falsch ist. Schwerpunkt des folgenden Teils ist der begriffliche Aspekt des Problems. Laut meiner These ist Hegels Zynismus zwar real, seine Funktion besteht jedoch primär in der Didaktik. Sie manifestiert die komplizierte logische Struktur unseres Redens darüber, was „ist“.
The study is focused on the phenomenon of collective violence
that took place in the territory of the Czech lands during the spring and summer 1945. Albeit the war operations had been concluded since the 8th May 1945, general living conditions resembled rather a continuation of the war in the time - at least until the end of the July 1945. Despite the traditional interpretation of the May 1945 as a crucial reversal, the study focuses on the collective violence as a phenomenon overlapping traditional turning points. Remaining high amount of violent interactions is an element connecting the
final war operations with the first weeks and months after. Applying concepts of political sociology (Charles Tilly), social psychology (Philip Zimbardo) and sociology (Randall Collins) the study strives to capture interdependent nature of collective violence between its structural preconditions and situational dynamics. Based on the quantitative evaluation of the acts of collective violence, the first part outlines a macro social topography of collective violence with the main focus on the period between April and August 1945. The main point is an identification of key actors of the politics of collective
violence and their correlation to basic configurations of particular political regimes (i.e. occupational regime of the so called Protectorate and limited democratic regime of Czechoslovakia after May 1945). The second part evaluates social and cultural mechanisms facilitating escalation of violent situations into mass atrocities.The study identifies impulsive acts of collective violence as limited to temporary transitive violent rituals and turns attention
to the important role of the state organised specialists in concrete violent situations. and Článek zahrnuje poznámkový aparát pod čarou
In this interview with documentary filmmaker Apolena Rychlíková, Anna Šabatová, one of the most remarkable figures of modern Czechoslovak history, considers not only the intellectual foundations of Charter 77 and the dissident movement, but also what shaped Šabatová’s personal background. The interview introduces an often-overlooked continuity between dissent and critical approaches to the post-communist era. This continuity is present in the humanistic, left-wing thought of Anna Šabatová, stemming from the tradition of the Czechoslovak democratic left, which permeates her whole life, not only philosophically and intellectually, but above all practically. Anna Šabatová’s lifelong efforts for a more just society have never stopped, connecting the period before 1989 with the period that followed.