Studie je vnitřně soudržnou interpretací Rortyho pojetí poznání, jak je lze rekonstruovat na základě knihy Filosofie a zrcadlo přírody. Ačkoli Rorty kritizuje v podstatě všechny teorie poznání, lze ukázat, že sám pracuje s jistou pozitivní představou nejen o tom, v čem poznání nespočívá, nýbrž také o tom, oč v něm pozitivně jde. Studie popisuje podstatné ohledy Rortyho pojetí poznání (poznání jako praxe zdůvodňování, poznání jako popis, poznání jako upravování teorie, poznání jako zvládání) a předvádí Rortyho kritiku epistemologie s pozitivní oporou v konceptu sebeurčení. Závěr studie tematizuje otázku, jakým způsobem Rorty může zdůvodnit odmítnutí epistemologie a přijetí hermeneutického hlediska., This study is a systematic interpretation of Rorty’s conception of knowledge as it can be reconstructed on the basis of the book Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Although Rorty is sweeping in his criticism of theories of knowledge, it can still be shown that he himself works with a certain positive conception not only of what knowledge does not consist in, but also of what it positively concerns. The study describes the basic points of Rorty’s conception of knowledge (knowledge as the practice of justification, knowledge as description, knowledge as the modification of theory, knowledge as coping), and it presents Rorty’s critique of epistemology in favour of the concept of self-determination. The conclusion of the study looks at the question of how Rorty is able to justify the rejection of epistemology and the acceptance of a hermeneutical viewpoint., and Martin Ritter.
The aim of the article is to interpret Heidegger’s theory of understanding as a specific contribution to the investigation of human action. First, Heidegger’s notion of understanding as practical copying is explained and is distinguished from the analytic theory of action based on the concept of intention. Second, the possibility of grasping intentional action as an answer to the situation of disturbed understanding is analysed against the background of Heidegger’s concept of the worldliness of the world. The article attempts to supplement Heidegger’s conception. The genesis of intentional action may be sought in the notion of the identity of self-understanding that is grounded in Dasein’s elaboration of the overall interpretation of the world and in Dasein’s explicit reflexion of the possibilities of his or her own existence. In this context, the relationship between the analysis of action and the lifeworld concept is outlined and it is stressed that theoretical reflection may play an important role in deliberation over possibilities of action. At the end of the article, Gadamer’s concepts of dialogue and play are employed to highlight some conditions that result from social dimension of action and restrict the formulation of intentions. The article approaches Heidegger’s notion of understanding in an unorthodox way: through a hermeneutical dialogue with different interpretative and philosophical positions., Martin Ďurďovič., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
Schelerova kritika Kanta a jeho pojmu apriori na jedné straně v mnohém navazuje na Husserla, avšak Scheller Husserlovu kritiku ještě doplňuje a prohlubuje. Na druhé straně však Scheler kritizuje i Husserlovo chápání pojmu „apriori“. Materiální apriori jakožto ideální předmět je u Husserla spojeno především s takzvaným „bozanovským obratem“. Schelerova kritika Husserla se prohlubuje spolu s tím, jak stále hlouběji proniká do vztahu mezi Bolzanem a Husserlem. Podle Schelera Husserl nepodléhá bezduchému platonismu, přesto však postupuje vždy „platonisticky“, podléhá totiž „neoplatonismu“, resp. logickému platonismu. Protože fenomenologická redukce není u Husserla podle Schelerova názoru prováděna „čistě“, je Husserlova fenomenologická zkušenost (kategoriální názor) problematická, přesněji řečeno, problematický je vztah mezi kategoriálním názorem a smyslovým názorem. Konečným Schelerovým cílem je zajistit primární postavení pro kategoriální názor a jeho obsahy (materiální apriori), právě tak jako pro mravní náhled a jeho koreláty (materiální hodnoty) a v neposlední řadě pro fenomenologicky materiální hodnotovou etiku., Scheler’s critique of Kant and his concept of a priori does, on the one hand, show a notable debt to Husserl, although Scheler adds to and deepens Husserl’s critique. On the other hand, however, Scheler also criticises Husserl’s own understanding of the concept of a priori. The material a priori as an ideal object in Husserl is, above all, connected with the so-called “Bolzanian turn”. Scheler’s critique of Husserl is rendered more profound as he increasingly penetrates the depth of the relation between Bolzano and Husserl. According to Scheler Husserl does not subscribe to soulless Platonism, allow he always conducts himself in a Platonist way. He subscribes instead to neo-Platonism, or rather to logical Platonism. Because the phenomenological reduction in Husserl is not, according to Scheler, conducted in a “pure” way, Husserl’s phenomenological experience (categorical intuition) is problematic. More exactly the relation between categorical and sensory intuition is problematic. Scheler’s ultimate goal is to ensure a primary status for categorical intuition and its contents (material a priori), as well as for the moral view and its correlates (material values), and last, but not least, for the phenomenologically material value ethics., and Wei Zhang.
The article deals with selected aspects of science and research policy of the EU (R&D policy) relevant to the development of innovation culture. Present changes in this field are related to the changes in production and distribution of knowledge, to the new goals and priorities in science and research of the European knowledge society, and to the new social, economic, and political challenges, presented by the broadening and intensifying global competition. The study points out the role of the central administration of science by the European Commission, the function of the Framework Programs of the EU, and its consequences for the science policy in the Czech Republic. and Adolf Filáček.
Článek popisuje postupnou změnu postoje vůči přístrojům a materiálům ve filosofií a historiografií vědy a konfrontuje současné snahy o přehodnocení materiální kultury vědy s koncepcí experimentálních systémů Hanse-Jörga Rheinbergera a epistemologických strojů Dona Ihde, This article outlines the gradually changing attitude towards instruments and materials in the philosophy and historiography of science and confronts contemporary revaluations of the material culture of science with Hans-Jörg Rheinberger’s concept of an experimental system and Don Ihde’s notion of an epistemology engine, and Tomáš Dvořák.
Fenomén sdílené pozornosti je podle interpretace Tomasellovy evolučně-antropologické školy jedním z hlavních klíčů k pochopení rozdílu mezi člověkem a ostatními živočichy. Tato koncepce nachází silnou odezvu v některých současných filosofických pokusech o reflexi diference mezi člověkem a zvířetem. Článek upozorňuje na radikálně odlišnou empirickou teorii, vycházející z nejnovějších poznatků na poli komparativní psychologie a etologie primátů, podle které lze všechny aspekty fenoménu sdílené pozornosti najít i u našich nejbližších zvířecích příbuzných. Z provedené úvahy vyplývá, že chce-li filosofie smysluplně přispět k aktuální interdisciplinární debatě o povaze vztahu mezi člověkem a zvířetem, měla by tak činit informovaně a s (minimálně) základním přehledem o nejnovějším stavu empirického výzkumu., The phenomenon of joint attention is, on the interpretation of Tomasello’s evolutionary-anthropological school, one of the main keys to the understanding of the distinction between man and other animals. This conception has had a strong influence on some contemporary philosophical attempts to capture the difference between man and animal. The article draws attention to radically different empirical theory that is arising from the latest discoveries in the field of comparative psychology and the ethology of primates which show that all the aspects of joint attention can be found in our closest animal relations. From the considerations presented it follows that if philosophy wishes to meaningfully contribute to actual interdisciplinary debate about the nature of the relation between man and animal, it should conduct itself in an informed way and with, at least, a basic grounding in the latest state of empirical research., Petr Urban., and Obsahuje seznam literatury
The topic of the presented text is an examination of the relationship between the philosophy of individuation, as elaborated by Gilbert Simondon and later Gilles Deleuze, and the traditional philosophical issue of the individual and the world, which is exemplified by Kantian philosophy. Simondon attempts to elaborate a philosophy of the individual and individuation which departs from the idea of a priori forms of knowledge, and makes use of the concept of the “pre-individual” as a “proto-ontic dimension” as the real totalities defining the potentials of the individual. In so doing, Simondon embarks on a path that ushers in the philosophical programme which Deleuze would attempt to fulfil: in contrast to Kant, who attempts to stipulate the conditions of possible experience, Deleuze - following Simondon, but also Bergson - sets as his objective to define the conditions of real experience, above all in the book Difference and Repetition (Différence et répétition). The paper concludes by suggesting what consequences this reformulation of the issue of the individual and experience has for Deleuze’s interpretation of the concept of difference and intensity., Nicolas Dittmar., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
Cieľom tejto štúdie je vyvrátiť časté a stále sa objavujúce kritické námietky voči temer štyri dekády starému Singerovmu antidruhistickému argumentu, ktoré sú založené predovšetkým na jeho nepochopení. Nepochopený je nielen samotný argument, ale aj Singerovo metodologické východisko, ktoré sme nazvali „Singerova etická britva“. V práci ukazujeme, prečo nie je možné zamietnuť Singerov utilitaristický argument len preto, že odmietame utilitarizmus en bloc. Rovnako tak ukazujeme, prečo nie je namieste obviňovať Singera z toho, že nerozšíril svoju etiku aj na rastliny a neživú prírodu. Opak je pravdou, pretože Singer jasne demonštruje, ako môže byť environmentálna etika vzťahujúca sa na ochranu divočiny založena na tom istom princípe rovnakého zvažovania záujmov, vďaka ktorému je druhizmus morálne neprijateľný., The aim of this study is to refute the frequent and repeated critical objections to Singer’s almost four-decades-old argument against speciesism. These objections are based, above all, on misunderstanding. There is misunderstanding not only of the argument itself, but also of Singer’s methodological starting point, which we have termed “Singer’s ethical razor”. In the text we show why it is not possible to reject Singer’s utilitarian argument only by rejecting utilitarianism en bloc. In the same way, we show why it is not appropriate to charge Singer with failing to extend his ethics to include plants and lifeless nature. In fact the opposite is true because Singer clearly demonstrates how environmental ethics relating to the protection of the wild can be based on the same principle of the equal consideration of interests which is the basis for the moral unacceptability of speciesism., and Peter Sýkora.
The interdisciplinary workshops, focused on methodological and philosophical aspects, have helped - and still undoubtedly are helping - in forging links among different members of the academic community or research teams, which are today described as "intellectual networks" or "invisible colleges". Their focus of interest is known to transcend the boundaries of the traditionally divided scientific disciplines or research areas. That is also why the network that was instrumental in shaping the genesis of cybernetics includes, to this day, the names of C.Shannon, the pioneer of the mathematical theory of information, J.von Neumann, the founder of the theory of games and decision-making, linguist R.Jakobson, the above-mentioned specialists in the medicine- and biology-oriented branches, and many other scholars. Similar conceptions and aspirations connected therewith also proved to be conducive to the emergence and expansion of the works and studies devoted to the role of the sign, its creation, significance and function in communication, i.e. semantics and semiotics. Efforts were made to uncover more profound links and subsequently to outline paths leading to a unification of different scientific domains, particularly by integrating the language of science. There was a mounting interest in methodological and epistemological problems and - generally speaking - in finding ways and means of attaining more profound and thorough learning. All these and similar tendencies had and still have one common trait: they kept enhancing respect, weight and significance attached to mathematics, to mathematical methods of expressing and depicting problems, and to mathematical thinking in general.