For Niklas Luhmann modern society is a functionally differentiated society, i. e. it is composed of heterogeneous but equal parts which are relatively independent and are defined as social subsystems. Luhmann’s analysis presents contemporary society as a whole differentiated into functionally dependent yet autonomous sub-systems that constitute neighbouring worlds for each other. This raises the question of the existence or non-existence of potential unifying forces or integration mechanisms. In Luhmann’s view the main problem is the non-existence of means of “metacommunication”. The development of specialised media and codes in the individual sub-systems increases the overall complexity of the social system, but does not entail the metacom¬munication that would make possible the self-observation and self-reference of the social system as a whole. and Jiří Šubrt.
Teorie fikčních světů se ve světovém kontextu rozvíjí od sedmdesátých let minulého století a od svých počátků je inspirována nejrůznějšími logickými a filozofickými koncepty. Dnes její plně ustavená forma nabízí konkrétní nástroje a strategie vhodné pro řešení široké škály literárně teoretických problémů. Samotné založení teorie fikčních světů je spojeno se jménem Lubomíra Doležela, který později její vývoj obohacuje o klíčové rozlišení mezi extensionální a intensionální strukturou fikčních světů. Tato distinkce rozvíjí budoucí instrumentální potenciál celé teorie. Nicméně i díky Doleželovu následnému bádání v oblasti fikčních a historických narativů se jedním ze současných použití této teorie stala její aplikace na otázky identity literatury a podstaty fikce a fikčnosti literárních děl., The theory of fictional worlds has developed, in the world context, since the 1970s and has, from its beginnings, been inspired by various logical and philosophical concepts. Today, in its fully established form, it offers concrete instruments and strategies suited to the solution of a wide range of literary-theoretical problems. The actual founding of the theory of fictional worlds is linked with the name of Lubomír Doležel, who later enriched its development with the key distinction between the extensional and intensional structures of fictional worlds. This distinction has enhanced the future instrumental potential of the whole theory. Nevertheless, due also to Doležel’s subsequent research in the area of fictional and historical narratives, one contemporary use of this theory has become its application to the questions of the identity of literature and the basis of fiction and the fictionality of literary works., and Bohumil Fořt.
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 article concentrates on development of the mutual relations between ethics of technology (taken as a philosophical discipline) and so called technology assessment (as a branch dealing with multi- and transdisciplinary socio-scientific issues). It shows both identical and different signs of the interactions on examples taken from Germany and from the Czech Republic. Discussion on technology in Germany is noted for its strong moral charge - we can find here both enthusiasm for technology as well as very clean cut anti-technology attitudes. As for the Czech environment, there comes to mutual mixing of various attitudes - we can trace here inspiration taken from other countries - for example from France. The original contribution of the Czech way of thinking in the field of philosophy on technology in relation to ethics represents also so called conception of laboretism. Globally said, it appears that disputes over technology have their cause in various ethical attitudes of interested stakeholders. But different conceptions of what is and/or what is not ethical can be and should be analysed by rational means. Various practical objectives of the social technology assessment should not displace ethics in technology as a methodology of discursive management of technology conflicts. Scientific consultancy has to comprise both its descriptive and prescriptive aspects. It gives a new sense to interdisciplinary co-operation among various scientific disciplines and science and technology ethics. and Petr Machleidt.
This article examines Taylor’s approach to the conception of civil society and attempts to interpret the relation of this approach to contemporary debates on the forming of European civil society. By way of introduction, Taylor’s interpretation of the medieval socio-political assumptions for the creation of the extra-political public sphere is presented. Next, there is a discussion of Taylor’s interpretational conception of the two most significant traditions of civil society which take their rise from a confrontation with European enlightenment absolutism - the traditions of Locke and Montesquieu. The author attempts to make sense of the way in which Taylor’s approach resonates with the concept of civil society in discussions about the presuppositions and forms of the creation of the European public sphere and trans-national (European) identities as two key forms of European civil society. In conclusion, the concept of the active border is presented as a key matrix of the conceptual constellation of the public sphere, identity and Europeanisation., Karel B. Müller., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
Článek reflektuje Hayekovy výklady o povaze pravidel. Ukazuje, že jeho pojetí pravidel je extrémně široké a vazba mezi pravidly a pravidelnostmi je nepřijatelně úzká. Následně je nastíněno alternativní - užší - vymezení pojmu pravidla. Nakonec je podrobeno kritice Hayekovo příliš úzké chápání pojmu normativních pravidel a je navrženo jeho širší vymezení., The article reflects on Hayek's expositions concerning the nature of rules. It shows that his conception of rules is extremely wide, and that the bond between rules and regularities is too tight. Subsequently an alternative - narrower - delineation of the concept of rule is proposed. In the last part of the paper Hayek's too narrow a conception of normative rules is subjected to criticism and a broader conception is proposed., and Vladimír Svoboda.
This review study analyses Martin Nitsche’s monograph devoted to Heidegger’s Contributions to philosophy (Beiträge zur Philosophie), primarily addressing the question of whether Nitsche succeeds in displaying the phenomenological character of the Contributions. It identifies a key step in Nitsche’s interpretation; that is, Heidegger’s shift from emphasising the specific entity of Dasein to emphasising the distinctive “phenomenological” or “relational field”, which is understood as an “ontological locality”. The study focuses on the question of whether it is possible, subsequent to this shift, to preserve the phenomenological character of (Heidegger’s) thought, and it arrives at a negative conclusion in this regard: Heidegger does not offer a phenomenological description - nay, he presents a conceptual, or perhaps even narrative, structure, in which he lays claim to the possibility of speaking from a principled position of (the experienced) “enowning”., Martin Ritter., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
Poté co se logika ve dvacátém století podstatným způsobem opřela o matematiku (podobě jako některé další vědy), začala se objevovat i celá řada prací, které pod hlavičkou logika obsahují v podstatě matematiku. Začalo se hovořit o matematické logice (což bylo ovšem interpretováno různým způsobem, někdy právě jako označení jisté čistě matematické disciplíny vzešlé z logiky, jindy jako aplikace na základy matematiky a opět jindy jako logika provozovaná matematickými prostředky). Někteří filosofové, které zajímala logika, ale nijak specificky matematika, proto začalil razit termín filosofická logika, který měl znovu nastolit rovnováhu mezi filosofickým a matrmatickým aspektem logiky. Problém je ovšem v tom, že tento termín velice rychle získal celou plejádu různých významů, které zcela zatemňují to, co by se mělo pod jeho hlavičkou dělat; a v této situaci se navíc zcela na okraj logiky dostává to, co dává logice její raison d´etre a co ji stále ukotvuje v realitě - totiž zkoumání a kritické hodnocení pravidel, kterými se řídí naše argumentace a v jistém smyslu i naše usuzování. Domnívám se, že tuto situaci je třeba řešit tak, že si zopakujeme, co má být cílem logiky a uděláme si pořádek v tom, co z toho, co se dnes pod hlavičkou logika provozuje, je k tomuto cíli schopno nějak skutečně přispět., Since, in the twentieth century, logic has come to essentially rest upon mathematics (just like a lot of other sciences) there began to appear many works which, under the title ´logic´, contained what is basically mathematics. There emerged them term mathematical logic (which was however interpreted in various ways, sometimes precisely to indicate a certain purely mathematical discipline resulting from logic, sometimes as the application of logic to the foundations of mathematics and sometimes also as logic undertaken by mathematical means). Some philosophers interesed in logic, but not specifically in mathematics, therefore began to use the term philosophical logic as a way of reinstating a balance between the philosophical and mathematical aspects of logic. There is a problem however in that this term very quickly acquired a whole range of different meanings which have essentially blurred what should be done under this heading; and, moreover, this situation made the very raison d´etre of logic, which grounds it in reality - viz. examination and critical evaluation of the rules which govern our argumentation nad, in a certain sense, our reasoning -, move to a periphery of logic. This situation should be resolved, I belive, by our revisiting the question of what should be the aim of logic, and by clarifying to what extent that which goes under the title logic can really contribute to this aim., and Jaroslav Peregrin.