The article focuses on the conception of absolute idealism elaborated by Czech Hegelian František Sedlák. First, Max Stirner’s position of egoism is presented, as Sedlák was influenced by his critique of the conceptual vertical, i.e. of the subsumption of the individual under abstractions. Second, it examines how Sedlák employed such critique in resolving the so-called “paradox of authority.” Third, it sketches both Sedlák’s reception and critique of Tolstoyanism, at whose conceptual core he encountered a problem associated with conception of abstract morality, which he criticized at first from the standpoint of Stirnerian egoism, later from the standpoint of Hegelian absolute idealism. Finally, Sedlák’s conception of absolute idealism as a philosophy of existence is reconstructed. and Článek se zabývá koncepcí absolutního idealismu českého hegeliána Františka Sedláka. Nejprve je představeno stanovisko egoismu Maxe Stirnera, neboť Sedláka ovlivnila jeho kritika konceptuální vertikály, tj. podřízenosti individua abstrakcím. Ve druhém kroku autor sleduje, jak Sedlák tuto kritiku využívá při řešení tzv. „paradoxu autority“. Následně je přiblížen Sedlákův příklon k tolstojovství, v jehož jádru však Sedlák záhy naráží na obtíže související s tolstojovským pojetím abstraktní morality. Sedlák s ním polemizuje nejprve ze stanoviska stirnerovského egoismu, později absolutního idealismu a hegeliánství. V závěrečném kroku je nakonec představena Sedlákova koncepce absolutního idealismu jako filosofie existence.
Study analyses public philosophic debate in 1844–48 in which topic of distinctively “Czech philosophy” was first articulated and discussed as a “debate about the being and non-being of German philosophy in Czech lands”. Author acquaints reader with intellectual context of arising Czech philosophy in first half of 19th century, based on conceptual influence of Herder, Hegel and Herbart. Starting point of that discussion was role of philosophy as academic subject at University and as part of literature and culture generally. In an analysis of the debate and of positions of chief participants (K. Havlíček, V. Gabler, F. Čupr, A. Smetana, K. B. Štorch) study shows that as subject of reflection the discussion included prob¬lems of philosophy in Czech language, place and role of philosophy in the Czech lands, of special traits of Czech “national” philosophy, its limits and possibilities, of reception of German classical philosophy and finally even meta-philosophical question of what philosophy is or ought to be in general. Two examples of the way this debate was recalled and updated in the 20th century in quite different situation of the period between the wars (F. Pelikán) and after the wars (K. Kosík) – in the twenties and in the fifties – show subsequently the transformed contexts and problems of modern Czech philosophy. Analysis of the debate and its heritage are placed within the overall discussion of what Czech philosophy is from linguistic, territorial, national and factual viewpoint.