The author defends the idea of the ontological founding of environmental ethics. He recognises the need for a new morality that can foreshadow the biophile transformation of culture, but at the same time he knows that this morality may actually develop during the course of the transformation itself. He presents the view that the relation of man to nature is mediated not only by the relevant culture, but also by its hidden spiritual grounding, which determines the character of culture, both spiritual and material. Today’s culture finds itself in crisis because its predatory spiritual grounding is leading it to its own ruin. A biophile change in this grounding is therefore the condition for the emergence of a more sustained biophile culture. However, even if we recognise the ontological grounding of ethics, this does not necessarily mean that we fully understand the superior subjectivity of nature, nor that we recognise the higher moral principle in the relation of culture to the Earth. The Author therefore, albeit schematically, presents his evolutionarily-ontological concept of man, nature and culture., Josef Šmajs., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
In this article I attempt to reply to the question of whether, in the framework of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, reasons and arguments are given which might plausibly motivate the claim - made by Wittgenstein himself - that atomic propositions and their correlates (states of affairs) are mutually independent. My first step is to make clear that an answer to this question demands a detailed interpretation of Tractarian objects and, specifically, whether they are only particulars, or properties and relations too. After sketching the evidential support for both interpretations, I incline to a reading that takes properties and relations to be objects. In the context of the narrower and broader conceptions of objects, I then give a detailed analysis of the metaphor “the space of states of affairs” and “logical space”, which I consider to be the principal guide in our understanding the reasons for the independence of states of affairs and thus, more generally, of atomic propositions too., Zuzana Daňková., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
Text se věnuje nutnosti jednoznačného vymezení pojmů v souvislosti s eutanazií, zabývá se lékařskou etikou a tradicí, na níž je postavena (tato etika nemůže být vydána zcela na pospas aktuálně panujícím myšlenkovým proudům ve filosofii), rozebírá uvažování některých sekulárních bioetiků, kteří pošlapávají důstojnost člověka. Zdůvodňuje také, proč je třeba právě dnes připomínat akci eutanazie za nacismu, a zdůrazňuje nezbytnost širokého pohledu na celou problematiku, která nemůže být vyřešena pouhým sterilním racionálním uvažováním. Podrobně se zabývá historií holandského modelu eutanazie od jeho počátku až do dnešních dnů a upozorňuje na evidentní kluzký svah. (Jsou zde uvedeny i poznámky k citovanému článku dr. Hříbka v daných souvislostech.), The text focuses on the need for a straightforward defining of concepts in connection with euthanasia; it concerns itself with medical ethics and the tradition on which it is built (such ethics cannot be left to the tender mercies of the dominant currents of thought in contemporary philosophy); it examines the reflections of certain secular bio-ethicists who ride roughshod over the dignity of man; it demonstrates why it is necessary, particularly today, to remind ourselves of the practice of euthanasia during Nazism; and it emphasises the indispensability of a broad view of the whole question, which cannot be resolved by mere sterile rational reflection. It looks in detail at the history of the Dutch model of euthanasia from its beginning to the present, and it draws attention to the self-evident slippery slope. (Remarks are made here on an article by Dr. Hříbek, cited in the given context.), and Marta Munzarová.