Obsahom článku je kritika chápania autority u Hannah Arendtovej, podľa ktorej patrí k charakteristickým rysom moderného sveta kríza a následná strata autority. Simultánne s autoritou v jej chápaní ustupuje aj sloboda, ktorá je od začiatku 20. storočia vážne ohrozovaná totalitarizmom. Dôvod tvrdenia, že autoritu postihla kríza, ktorá spôsobila jej zánik, je skôr filozofický ako politický, je to relativizmus, skepticizmus a pesimizmus, aký sa objavil v západoeurópskom myslení od konca prvej svetovej vojny. Autoritu je však potrebné odvodzovať nie z ideovo-politickej tradície, ale z reálnych spoločenských podmienok. Musíme ju vnímať na pozadí diferencujúcej reality sveta vyznačujúcej sa spoločenskými protikladmi a bojmi, v ktorej snaha zakonzervovať svet tradičnou autoritou a náboženstvom musí nakoniec skončiť neúspechom. Autorita je tak vec relatívna a oblasti jej aplikácie sa menia v rôznych fázach spoločenského vývinu., The aim of the article is to criticise the concept of authority as presented by Hannah Arendt, who claims that crisis in, and subsequent loss of, authority are typical features of the modern world. The weakening of authority goes hand in hand with the retreat of freedom, which has been seriously jeopardised by totalitarianism since the early-20th century. The reason for the claim that authority is afflicted by crisis, causing its demise, is more philosophical than political; this mixture of relativism, scepticism and pessimism began to take shape in Western European thought after World War II. However, authority should be derived not from an ideological or political tradition, but from real social conditions. It must be seen against the background of the diverging reality of the world characterized by social contradictions and struggles, in which an effort to bind the world by traditional authority and religion must ultimately fail. Yet, authority is a relative concept and so its scope of application varies in different stages of social development., and Peter Dinuš.
On the Meaning of the Clarification of Non-reflected Prerequisites from the Viewpoint of Heidegger's Meditative Thinking and Plato's Simile of the Line.
V sociální a politické teorii dnes stojíme před úkolem komplexního uchopení paradigmatu globálních interakcí charakterizovaného pluralitou sociálních aktérů a zájmových konfliktů. Založení kritické teorie globálních interakcí je spojeno s řešením teoreticko-metodologických otázek i věcných problémů analýzy a interpretace. Jde o poměr kritické analýzy reálných procesů a normativněutopické projekce sociální změny. Věcné problémy jsou spojeny s analýzou předpokladů a překážek utváření globální společnosti a politiky a s tím, jak jsou vymezovány ve své komplexitě., In social and political theory today we are presented with the task of arriving at a complex understanding of the paradigm of global interaction in which there is a plurality of social actors and conflicts of interest. The grounding of a critical theory of global interactions is connected with a resolution of theoretico-methodological questions and of detailed problems of analysis and interpretation. At issue is the relation between a critical analysis of realistic processes and normatively-utopian projections of social change. The detailed problems are connected with an analysis of the assumptions and obstacles when creating a global society and global politics, and with the question of how they are to be defined in their complexity., and Oleg Suša.
Příspěvek je zaměřen na otázku z oblasti ekologické etiky, jak stanovit hranici našich morálních ohledů. Ačkoliv antropocentrismus přináší možnosti založení dobře odůvodněné ochrany přírody, autorka si všímá více neantropocentrických přístupů, u nichž existuje předpoklad, že morální ohledy bychom měli brát na mimolidské tvory kvůli nim samým. Mezi neantropocentricky orientovanými filosofy panuje neshoda v otázce, co do těchto ohledů má spadat – zda to, co je schopno trpět (P. Singer), či to, co má zájmy (R. Attfield), dobro nebo vlastní hodnotu (P. Taylor). Tak se hranice morálních ohledů rozšiřuje od člověka přes vyšší druhy zvířat až ke všemu životu. Ve druhé části příspěvku autorka na příkladu posledního člověka (R. Routley a R. Attfield) zpochybňuje vhodnost hledání rozlišujícího kritéria pro morální ohledy. Ekologická etika však představuje určitý základ pro společensko-politickou praxi a pro tyto účely se kritérium života a morální princip úcty ke všemu životu jeví jako nejvhodnější., This article focuses on the question, in the area of ecological ethics, of how to determine the bounds of our moral considerations. Although anthropocentrism does provide possibilities for the proper founding of a justification for the protection of nature, the author finds a greater number of non-anthropocentric approaches which assume that our moral considerations should be extended to non-human creatures for their own sake. Among the non-anthropocentrically oriented philosophers there is no consensus on the question of what should be included in those considerations – whether it is that which is susceptible of suffering (P. Singer), or that which has interests (R. Attfield), or that which has the good or its own value (P. Taylor). Thus the bounds of moral considerations are extended from man, first to the higher forms of animals, then to all life. In the second part of the article the author, using the example of the last man (R. Routley and R. Attfield), calls into question the appropriateness of seeking a distinguishing criterion for moral considerations. Ecological ethics, however, present a certain basis for socio-political praxis and for the aims which the criterion of life and the moral principle of respect to all life reveal as most appropriate., and Marie Skýbová.
In 1963 Karel Kosík, a Czech neomarixt philosopher, published his trailblazing book, Dialectics of the Concrete. Both Marxist and non-Marxist thinkers were impacted in Czechoslovakia and throughout the world. The Institute of Philosophy hosted an international conference to explore Kosik’s seminal work in breadth and depth. In his book, Kosík strove to re-think the basic concepts of the Marxist philosophical tradition and to employ them in analyzing social reality. The wide array of issues he explored are still relevant today. Included are mystification of the "pseudo-concrete"; the social role of art; the conception of reality as a concrete totality; the conception of the human being as an onto-formative being (i.e., one that forms human and extra-human reality in its totality); the systematic connection between labor and temporality; the relationship between praxis and labour and the explanatory power of the dialectical method. This conference took place July 4-6, 2014 at Villa Lanna. and Jan Mervart.
This review study looks at David Clemenson’s book Descartes’ Theory of Ideas from both the historical and systematic points of view. From the historical point of view, the theme of the (late) scholastic influences on Descartes’ theory of ideas is tackled, while from the systematic point of view Descartes’ theory is interpreted dealing with the question of Cartesian representationalism or direct (cognitive) realism. An analysis of the immediate Scholastic texts, written by Jesuits (and taught at the Jesuit college La Flèche, where the young Descartes studied) is used by Clemenson to support his argument for a so-called weak version of direct realism, actually identical with a weak version of representationalism. The author of this review study, despite appreciating the connection of these two levels, making possible a consistent interpretation of some of Descartes’ ostensibly contradictory statements, draws attention to certain deficiencies and obscurities concerning, primarily, the scholastic dimension of the subject-matter., Daniel Heider., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii