The article interprets the not of "common sense" as presented in the works of Thomas Reid. The focus is not primarily on Reid's epistomology or metaphysics or even on the history of the notion or its influence. Rather, the article is strictly concerned with Reid's use of the term. The notion is considered vague by some interpreters and it is confused with the "principles of common sense". The "principles of common sense" play the role of axioms in the model of the human mind that Reid is aiming at, and thanks to that they play the role of criteria since they are the rules of our thinking. We must only distinguish them from widely-shared prejudices. The "principles of common sense" are propositions believed by every healthy adult who understands the propositions in question, considering them without any prejudice. They are integrated into the structures of different languages, they hold up against explicit criticism, and the acceptance of these propositions does not have any absurd consequences. By the term "common sense", on the other hand, Reid understands the faculty of judgment in the area of sensory experience., Petr Glombíček., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
Slavná kniha Elementární formy náboženského života francouzského sociologa Émile Durkheima je jedním z nejdůležitějších příspěvků k sociologii náboženství. Po řadu let byla vychvalována a citována, stejně jako kritizována a zavrhována. Kniha se stala chartou celé řady sociálně vědních badatelů, zejména těch, kteří se zaměřovali na studium společnosti a náboženství. V roce 1966 však vyšel článek amerického antropologa Clifforda Geertze nazvaný „Náboženství jako kulturní systém“, v němž autor tvrdil, že Durkheimova teorie náboženství, stejně jako teorie náboženství Sigmunda Freuda, Bronislawa Malinowského a Maxe Webera, by měla být překonána dokonalejší teorií náboženství. Touto dokonalejší teorií měla být Geertzova teorie. Porozuměl však Geertz Durkheimove teorii dostatečně, aby nás to opravňovalo k tvrzení, že Durkheim byl na poli teorie náboženství překonán?, Émile Durkheim’s famous book Elementary Forms of Religious Life is one of the most important contributions to the sociology of religion. For years, it had been praised and cited as well as criticised and condemned. The book had become a charter of subsequent generations of social scientists, especially those who studied phenomena of society and religion. However, in 1966, an American cultural anthropologist Clifford Geertz presented his opinion claiming that Durkheim’s theory of religion as well as the theories of religion of Freud, Malinowski and Weber should be substituted with more subtle and superior theory of religion. A superior theory of religion was supposed to be Geertz’s theory presented in a paper entitled “Religion as Cultural System”. Did Geertz understand Durkheim’s theory adequately, so that we can agree with Geertz’s claim of surpassing the classic authors like Durkheim?, and Nikola Balaš.
The basic aim of this study is to draw attention to certain inaccuracies in the recent discussion about evolutionary ontology. After a brief presentation of Šmajs’ theory, the author describes his standing in contemporary environmental thought and he classifies evolutionary ontology as “ecological ecocentrism”. In the second part he attempts to show that evolutionary ontology, in its character and claims, belongs to a different level of scientific knowledge than standard scientific theory pertaining to a limited sphere, and that therefore certain critical remarks pointing to its overly-broad range are misplaced. The conclusion of the study reminds the reader of the main controversial points of evolutionary ontology that give rise to discussion. The first of these is the paradox of unappreciated cultural information, the second is the above-mentioned “frozenness” of evolutionary ontological thought and the third is the attempt at a quick expansion of the ready evolutionary-ontological approach., Bohuslav Binka., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii