Cílem textu je na základě poznatků a zjištění sociologů kultury (převážně Pierra Bourdieuho) rekonstruovat a kriticky promyslet základní výhrady vůči filosofické estetice: estetický historismus a estetický skepticismus. Estetický historismus konfrontuje filosofickou estetiku na metodologické rovině, protože zpochybňuje možnost vymezit pojem estetična nezávisle na historicky podmíněné estetické teorii, resp. normativních rozhodnutích, co budeme pokládat za relevantní součást estetické zkušenosti. Estetický skepticismus uvádí v pochybnost tradiční představu o autonomii estetické hodnoty a objektivitě estetického hodnocení. Tato pozice je v textu rozpracována na příkladu sociologické kritiky názorů analytického estetika Franka Sibleyho na logicko-sémantický status estetických pojmů. V závěrečné části textu jsou pojednány důsledky, jež ze sociologické kritiky vyplývají pro estetickou axiologii a uměleckou kritiku., The aim of the text is to reconstruct and critically consider, on the basis of the findings of sociologists of culture (above all Pierre Bourdieu), the fundamental objections to philosophical aesthetics – aesthetic historicism and aesthetic scepticism. Aesthetic historicism confronts philosophical aesthetics at the methodological level by questioning the possibility of defining the concept of the aesthetic independently of a historically-conditioned aesthetic theory, or rather of normative decisions to be treated as a relevant part of aesthetic experience. Aesthetic scepticism calls into doubt the traditional conception of the autonomy of aesthetic values and of the objectivity of aesthetic evaluation. This position is elaborated in the text by reference to the example of the sociological critique of the opinions of the analytical aesthetician Frank Sibley on the logico-semantic status of aesthetic concepts. The concluding part of the text discusses the consequences that follow from the sociological critique for aesthetic axiology and for art criticism., and Pavel Zahrádka.
The aim of this paper is to describe 18th century "language criticism" (Sprachkritik) in the Bohemian Lands and underline its role within the process of establishing of the literary criticism. In the Habsburg monarchy, the language criticism can be traced back to the late 1740s; its origins are linked to the southern German sense of cultural (and thus linguistic), political and economical backwardness and to the efforts to catch up with the mostly protestant countries of Central and Northern Germany. The authors of this article examine not only reflections of used language and style in particular works, but also the position, prestige and function of various languages (German, Latin, Czech) themselves. The trends in language criticism and - in the narrower sense - language cultivation are examined with the use of both expert contributions to learned discussions and publicistic articles in critical journals aiming at a larger audience. In the whole process, several moments that meant a significant impulse for language criticism can be observed. The first one would be the appointment of Karl Heinrich Seibt as university professor of Schöne Wissenschaften (belles lettres), rhetoric, historia litteraria and ethics in 1763, followed by the efforts to establish a learned society, Josephine reforms and foundation of a chair of Czech language and literature at Prague university in 1791. Finally, the tightening of censorship from the second half of 1790s on had a considerable influence on criticism; its subject started to change and it began to focus on a different group of intended readers: while it used to try to educate potential future authors, afterwards it concentrated more and more on educating of the "common reader" and engaging him into critical reflections on belles lettres., Václav Petrbok a Ondřej Podavka., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy