This review-study aims to present a critical exposition of the ground-breaking work in the study of secularisation, Charles Taylor's Secular Age. The study points to the links with Taylor's preceding work, Sources of the Self, which consist above all in the contrast between the porous self and the buffered self. It also presents Taylor's conception of secularisation: secularisation is not the retreat of religion from the public sphere, but the widening of the social process that makes it impossible for one world-view to make claim to a privileged status. The study also focuses on Taylor's rejection of modernity which, in the shape of a scientistic world-view and a universalistic morality understood as the hegemony of exclusively-human categories. In the context of this rejection, the article discusses Taylor's attempt to weaken the "hegemony of the human" by a relation to transcendence., Tereza Matějčková., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
This article aims to reconstruct Taylor’s concept of strong evaluation as a model of practical rationality. The concept of strong evaluation offers an attractive alternative to proceduralism, whether of a utilitarian or Kantian type, because it enables specific moral claims to be legitimised in the life of a person, and their justification does not abstract from the motivation of the person who lives in harmony with these standards. The sense of the concept of strong evaluation consists in its ability to highlight the all-transcending nature of values and evaluation in the real life. We will seek a response to the question of whether Taylor’s interpretation of the concept of strong evaluation is sufficiently broad as to cover the three relevant components of ethics: the question of values, moral norms and moral evaluation. With respect to this question we will also give an overview of Laitinen’s reinterpretation of this concept which, on the view of the author, illuminates the inner relations between the subject and morality and, by a treatment of the nature of moral norms in concepts or reasons for actions (as distinguished from the Kantian grounding of morality), points to the complementary nature of values and moral norms., Zuzana Palovičová., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
Moderné individualistické ideológie na čele s neoliberalizmom považujú za zdroj väčšiny problémov štát, spoločnosť a komunitárne hodnoty. Aj totalitné a autoritárne režimy sú podľa klasikov liberalizmu výsledkom kolektivistických ideológií, ktoré si údajne nevážia človeka ako indivíduum. Vo svojom príspevku sa snažím ukázať, že presný opak je pravdou. Po prvé, pokúšam sa dokázať, že totalitné a autoritatívne prejavy sú vo svojej podstate vedľajším produktom individualistických, nie kolektivistických projektov. Atomizovaná masová spoločnosť, v ktorej prevládajú hodnoty individualizmu, inštrumentalizmu a konzumerizmu, vytvára predpoklady pre totalitné myslenie väčšmi než ktorákoľvek totalitná ideológia. Politický systém straníckej demokracie takisto prispieva k negatívnym prejavom autoritativizmu, ako aj ku vzniku rasistických predsudkov a totalitných ideológií, napr. fašizmu. V tejto súvislosti rozvíjam myšlienky vybraných predstaviteľov tzv. frankfurtskej školy (Herbert Marcuse), ale aj analýzy niektorých teoretikov totalitarizmu (Hannah Arendtová) či teoretikov sionizmu (Max Nordau, Nachman Syrkin). Po druhé, pokúšam sa ukázať, že kolektivistické ideológie zďaleka nemožno obviniť z toho, že by si nevážili jednotlivca, slobodu či individuálne ľudské práva. Na filozofickej problematike sociálnej spravodlivosti sa v rámci rawlsiánskeho a neomarxistického diskurzu snažím ukázať, že aj z individualistických východísk možno dospieť k veľmi egalitárskym teóriam a princípom spravodlivosti a dajú sa na nich postaviť aj koncepcie, ktoré by klasici liberalizmu označili za kolektivistické (napr. demokratický socializmus). V tejto časti svojej argumentácie vychádzam zo svojej monografie Späť k Marxovi? a v stručnosti predstavujem svoju antiakcidentálnu teóriu spravodlivosti, aby som preukázal, nakoľko je možné z metodologického individualizmu dospieť k normatívnym záverom, ktoré možno považovať za kolektivistické., Modern individualist ideologies, including neo-Liberalism, consider the state, society and communitarian values to be the source of the majority of political and social problems. According to the classics of Liberalism even totalitarian and authoritarian regimes are the consequence of the collectivist ideologies that do not respect the individual. In my contribution, I attempt to prove the opposite thesis. Firstly, I would like to prove that totalitarian and authoritarian phenomena are, substantially, the by-products of individualist (not collectivist) projects. The atomized mass society, dominated by the values of individualism, instrumentalism and consumerism creates the substratum for totalitarian thinking more than any totalitarian ideology. Even the political system of the partocratic democracy contributes to the negative phenomena of authoritarianism including racial prejudices and totalitarian ideologies, e.g. fascism. In this connection I analyse the ideas of chosen representatives of the Frankfurt School (Herbert Marcuse), the theoreticians of totalitarianism (Hannah Arendt) and the theoreticians of Zionism (Max Nordau, Nachman Syrkin). Secondly, I would like to prove that collectivist ideologies cannot be blamed for lack of respect towards individuals, liberties or human rights. I attempt to present philosophical discourse about social justice and its Rawlsian and neo-Marxist connotations to prove that it is possible to use the methodological individualist presuppositions to establish egalitarian theories and principles of justice, i.e. it is possible to use individualism to establish conceptions that would be labelled “collectivist” by the classics of Liberalism (e.g. democratic socialism). I briefly introduce my anti-accidental theory of justice to demonstrate how we might defend collectivist normative conclusions on the basis of methodological individualism., and Ľuboš Blaha.
Slovenský teolog Inocent-Mária V. Szaniszló se ve svém článku Má človek vo vesmíre zvláštne postavenie medzi inými živočíchmi? pokouší podrobit filosofické kritice etické myšlení Petera Singera. Ve své polemické reakci ukazuji, že autor interpretuje Singera velmi zavádějícím, často zcela chybným způsobem. Určuji, že příčinou je poměrně závažný fakt: slovenský teolog pravděpodobně nečetl hlavní díla kritizovaného autora. Pokouším se některé nejvážnější omyly uvést na správnou míru a v rámci diskuze přiblížit, jak Singer skutečně smýšlí o speciesismu a o svém preferenčním utilitarismu., The Slovak theologian Inocent-Mária V. Szaniszló, in his article Does man have a special status in the world in relation to other animals?, attempts to subject the ethical thought of Peter Singer to a philosophical critique. In this polemical reaction I show that the author interprets Singer in a very misleading, and often quite mistaken, way. I attribute the reason for this to a relatively serious fact: the Slovak theologian has probably not read the main works of the criticised author. I attempt to set forth the most serious mistakes and, in the context of this discussion, to describe in detail how Singer really understands speciesism and his own preference utilitarianism., and David Černý.
The aim of the article is to develop the dialectics and potential of a specific philosophical approach to the problem of epistemological scepticism: Wittgenstein’s ideas about the function of fundamental certainties in our epistemic practices. I begin with an excursion into the problematic of sceptical arguments and explain G. E. Moore’s anti-sceptical strategy, which influenced Wittgenstein’s thoughts in On Certainty. I then offer a reconstruction of the Wittgensteinian approach that I favour. On this basis I argue that although there is a grain of truth in scepticism, the idea of an indefinitely-iterated doubt and request for reasons (driving the Pyrrhonian-style of scepticism), as well as the idea of a hyperbolic doubt (driving Cartesian-style scepticism), are philosophical illusions from the perspective of the rules and standards of our epistemic operating - the would-be sceptic offers us no compelling alternative., Ladislav Koreň., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
Tázání po podstatě fikce a fikčnosti literatury patří k základním otázkám literární teorie a v konečném důsledku souvisí se zkoumáním samotné identity (fikční) literatury. Možných odpovědí na tyto a podobné otázky existuje vícero. Předkládaná studie mapuje konkrétní postup, jistou posloupnost voleb, které je nutné uskutečnit, aby nás dovedly k jedné specifické možnosti takové fikční teorie. Jednotlivé dichotomicky spárované návrhy, mezi nimiž je voleno, pocházejí z nejrůznějších oblastí teoretického bádání (filozofie, logika, sémiotika aj.) a představují konkrétní možnosti ideových a metodologických přístupů na cestě ke konzistentní teorii fikce. Takovou konzistentní teorii fikce splňuje jedinečná teorie fikčních světů, jejíž výsledný tvar získáváme poté, co jsme prošli množinou všech proponovaných voleb., The quest for the basis of fiction and fictional literature belongs to the fundamental questions of literary theory and, ultimately, is connected to the inquiry into the very identity of (fictional) literature. There are multiple possible answers to these and similar questions. This study maps a concrete approach – a certain series of choices which it is necessary to make in order to arrive at one specific possibility of such fictional literature. A particular dichotomous linking of suggestions between which to choose originates from the most various areas of theoretical study (philosophy, logic, semiotics and so on) and presents concrete possibilities of conceptual and methodological approaches on the way to a consistent theory of fiction. One such consistent theory of fiction is the unique theory of fictional worlds whose ultimate form we gain after we have gone through the set of all proposed choices., and Lubomír Doležel.
Autor polemizuje s názorem, který nedávno vyjádřili Tomáš Machula a David Peroutka, že materialismus, převažující v současné filosofii mysli, by měl být nahrazen tomistickým hylemorfismem. Polemika se zaměřuje na dva aspekty Machulova a Peroutkova argumentu. Za prvé, na jejich předpoklad, že současná preference materialismu je výsledkem náhody (neznalosti faktu, že kromě materialismu a dualismu se nabízí i hylemorfismus). Tento předpoklad si ovšem neporadí s faktem, že dualismus byl kritizován již v 17. století, ale materialismus se prosadil až v polovině minulého století. Za druhé, autor souhlasí, že tomistický hylemorfismus lze aktualizovat, a to dokonce úspěšněji, než jak se to podařilo Machulovi s Peroutkou. Této aktualizaci je však třeba obětovat některé metafyzicky neúnosné představy – konkrétně představu duše jako nemateriální substance nezávislé na těle., The author disputes the view, expressed recently by Tomáš Machula a David Peroutka, that materialism, dominant in contemporary philosophy of mind, should be substituted by Thomist hylomorphism. The critique focuses on two aspects of Machula and Peroutka’s argument. Firstly, on their assumption that the contemporary preference for materialism is the result of chance (ignorance of the fact that in addition to materialism and dualism the position of hylomorphism is also available). This assumption fails to take into account the fact that dualism was already the subject of criticism in the 17th century, but materialism only became properly established in the mid-twentieth century. Secondly, the author argues that Thomist hylomorphism can be updated in a more fruitful way than that proposed by Machula and Peroutka. This updating requires us, however, to sacrifice certain metaphysically unsustainable ideas – in particular the idea that the soul is a non-material substance independent of the body., and Tomáš Hříbek.
Mnohorelační teorii soudu Betrand Russell uvedl v roce 1910 jako výsledek kritiky propozičního realismu, který v revoltě proti idealismu přejal od G. E. Moora. Kritizovaná koncepce se zakládá na binární teorii soudu. Binární teorii Russell napadá nepřímo skrze kritiku identitní teorie pravdy, jež jde s tímto pojetím soudu ruku v ruce. V prvním oddílu tuto kritiku vyložím a v tom, který následuje, představím mnohorelační teorii. Ve zbytku práce se budu zamýšlet nad otázkou, k jaké teorii pravdy přijetí mnohorelační teorie vede. Také zodpovím otázku, zda se tato teorie vyhýbá problémům binární teorie soudu. V odpovědi na první z těchto otázek předložím ve třetím oddílu kontextuální teorii pravdy. Tento návrh budu hájit proti tezi, že šlo o korespondenční teorii kongruenčního typu. Jak budu argumentovat ve čtvrtém oddílu, ty pasáže, kde Russell hovoří o korespondenci, je nutno brát s rezervou, ba dokonce je nezbytné tyto pasáže škrtnout. V závěru se vrátím k mnohorelační teorii jako takové a naznačím potíž, která vyvstává tehdy, když máme v této teorii zajistit syntetickou jednotu soudu., The multiple-relation theory of judgement was introduced by Bertrand Russell in 1910 as the upshot of a critique of propositional realism which, in revolt against idealism, he took over from G. E. Moore. The target of the critique is founded on a binary theory of judgement. Russell attacks the binary theory indirectly by a critique of the identity theory of truth which goes hand in hand with this conception of judgement. In the first part I interpret this critique and then, in the part that follows, I present the multiple-relation theory. In the remainder of the piece I will consider the question of which theory of truth adoption of the multiple-relation theory leads us to. I will also address the question of whether this theory avoids the problems of the binary theory of judgement. In answer to the first of these questions I propose, in the third part, the contextual theory of truth. I will defend this proposal against the thesis that it is actually a congruent version of the correspondence theory. As I will argue in the fourth part, those passages where Russell speaks of correspondence should be treated with caution – in fact, these passages should be positively disregarded. In conclusion I return to the multiple-relation theory as such, and I indicate the difficulty which arises when, in the framework of this theory, we seek to make sense of the synthetic unity of judgement., and Milan Soutor.
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
Filozofická analýza procesu idealizácie je rozvíjaná v dvoch nezávislých smeroch. V rámci analytickej filozofie vedy je idealizácia chápaná ako zjednodušenie či deformácia opisu určitého javu či prírodného zákona. V rámci fenomenologickej tradície je idealizácia chápaná ako kvantifikácia určitého fenoménu žitého sveta. Cieľom predkladanej state je obe tieto pojatia idealizácie stručne predstaviť a pokúsiť sa objasniť ich vzájomný vzťah. V závere state je načrtnuté tretie pojatie idealizácie, ktorému zatiaľ v literatúre nebola venovaná pozornosť., The philosophical analysis of the process of idealisation has developed in two independent directions. In the framework of analytical philosophy of science, idealisation is understood as a simplification or deformation of the description of a certain appearance or natural law. In the framework of the phenomenological tradition idealisation is understood as the quantification of a certain phenomenon of the life-world. The aim of this paper is to give an exposition of these two conceptions of idealisation and to attempt to clarify their mutual relation. In conclusion I sketch a third conception of idealisation which has not received attention in the literature., and Ladislav Kvasz.