The discussion study takes as its starting point the thinking, which Professor Šmajs and others presented in Filosofický časopis 6, 2013 on evolutionary ontology. The author shows an enduring aspect of evolutionary ontology: ontology as the product of human culture attains to knowledge that has the seeming character of objective truth - it thus expresses the true nature of the ontic order of nature. This is not, however, the usual nonsense of inconsistent philosophy. The author of the text identifies as lying behind the step Kantian and Hegelian strategies which make possible this shift from the order of culture to the order of nature. These strategies are (i) a sign of the grounding of Professor Šmajs´ ideas in early-modern thinking; and (ii) they are the cause of a strongly anthropocentric attitude, which unwittingly influences the system of evolutionary ontology. At the end of the study, the author points to the fact that it would be more appropriate for evolutionary ontology if its proponents were able to give up their early-modern argumentative approach, and thus rid themselves of their strong anthropocentrism. In this way they would be able to avoid the conceptual conflict which makes evolutionary ontology "frozen" from within., Radim Šíp., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
„Silná“ forma hylemorfismu, podle které je živá bytost metafyzicky složena ze substanciální formy a zcela neurčité první látky, je neslučitelná s novověkou přírodovědou: schopnost mít prožitky, subjektivita, v různém stupni základní vlastnost živého, má proti sobě nikoliv neurčitou, ale už samostatně strukturovanou hmotu. „Duše“ nemůže působit jako zdroj makro-struktury organismu, kterým je interakce atomů a molekul chovajících se podle (deterministických) zákonů. Tyto zákony působí stejně uvnitř těla i mimo něj. Ještě méně může být podstatná forma odpovědná za konfiguraci vrstvy atomových jader, která se na životních funkcích jako taková vůbec nepodílí a energeticky tyto funkce velmi podstatně přesahuje. Z těchto a podobných důvodů byla idea hylemorfismu nahrazena polaritou subjektivity (mysli) a těla. Současná „organická“ škola (Varela, Jonas, Thompson, Spahn aj.) se snaží v aristotelském stylu sblížit ducha s přírodou poukazem na strukturní (formovou) jednotu živé bytosti. Je si však zároveň vědoma, že forma poukazuje na specifickou jednotu živé bytosti jen tehdy, je-li viděna „zvnitřku“ bytostí, jako jsme my – vtělené subjektivity s jejich qualii a moralii, která se pomocí „formy“ vyjádřit nedají. „Forma“ svou podstatou spadá do kategorie toho, co je popsatelné ve 3. osobě, a jako taková proto neřeší dnešní „těžký problém“ vztahu mysli a těla., A “strong” form of hylomorphism, according to which a living being is the metaphysical composition of a substantial form and of totally indeterminate first matter, is incompatible with modern natural science: the ability to have experiences, subjectivity, to differing degrees the basic property of the living, encounters not an indeterminate matter, but a matter already independently structured. A “soul” cannot function as the source of the macro-structure of an organism, which source is represented, instead, by the interaction of atoms and molecules that behave according to the same (deterministic) laws to which they are subjected outside the living body. Even less can the substantial form be responsible for the configuration at the level of atomic nuclei which do not take part, as such, in living functions and which, in terms of energy, vastly exceed such functions. For these and similar reasons, the idea of hylomorphism has been replaced by the polarity of subjectivity (mind) and body. The contemporary “organic” school (Varela, Jonas, Thompson, Spahn, and others) attempts, in the Aristotelean way, to bring mind closer to nature by pointing to the structural (formal) unity of a living being. This school is, however, conscious of the fact that a form can point to the specific unity of a living organism only if it is seen from “within” beings such as us – i.e. embodied subjectivities, with their qualia and moralia, which cannot be expressed by means of a “form”. Form, in the end, belongs to a category that is describable only in the third person, and therefore, as such, does not resolve today’s “hard problem” of the relation between mind and body., and Jiří Vácha.