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of the latter book focuses on the description of developments leading to modern forms of sociality that have superseded previous forms of social organization that were based, to a large degree, on local communities.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.