Nowa wersja platformy, zawierająca wyłącznie zasoby pełnotekstowe, jest już dostępna.
Przejdź na https://bibliotekanauki.pl
Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników

Znaleziono wyników: 16

Liczba wyników na stronie
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
Wyniki wyszukiwania
Wyszukiwano:
w słowach kluczowych:  PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY
help Sortuj według:

help Ogranicz wyniki do:
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
EN
Patocka's approach to Masaryk's philosophy of history grew out of his own conception of that philosophical discipline. Patocka took the philosophy of history to be a serious philosophical problem. It was for him, on one hand, the problem of the historicity of man from the objective point of view, while on the other hand it was the problem of the categorical understanding of history from the point of view of subjectivity and thought. According to Patocka, it is necessary to take a critical approach to classical conceptions which worked with metaphysics of history based on the linearity of the temporal, historical continuum; based on the rationality and objectivity of the meaningfulness of historical development; based on understanding of mankind as the subject of history; and based on the idea of historical progress. This does not necessarily mean we must completely discard these conceptions, but it does indicate a defining and restricting of their validity. Patocka's reflections on history are connected with his approach to the problem of the natural world. He is in debt here to Heidegger's concept of openness which, in Patocka's view, founds the life of history and without which history could not persist. It is precisely this openness, however, that brings with it the problematicity of human historical being - the permanent possibility of the collapse of the existing meaning of life. Patocka's reflections on history and historicity culminate in his 'Heretical Essays on the Philosophy of History'. His critical objections to Masaryk's conception of history are contained, above all, in the study 'The Attempt at a Czech National Philosophy and its Lack of Success'. Masaryk's conception of the continuity of Czech history had, for Patocka, an instrumental, nationalistic character. Patocka emphasizes the empirical discontinuity of Czech history. But it is where Masaryk meant to make a step towards a real national philosophy and to a truly radical revision of the existing philosophical tradition that, according to Patocka, he succumbed to an objectivistically and naturalistically-orientated Comtian philosophy of history. He arrived at an objective law of development as something eternal, as something which actually has nothing in common with freedom and responsibility, but which is even in contradiction to them. It is for this reason that Masaryk's attempt at a Czech national philosophy, as part of a general philosophy of history, was doomed to failure.
EN
In this paper, the author stresswes some differences between social history and the history of nature. In his considerations, he comes to the conclusion that there are no ontological bases to recognize two kinds of times. One and the same temporary order is characteristic of society and nature. Differences are here of epistemological and not of ontological character.
EN
The paper deals with the impact of Hume's philosophy on Kant's philosophy of history. By comparing the views of the two philosophers the author comes to the conclusion that on some places Kant in his works on his own philosophy of history makes use of Hume's argumentation concerning the connections between the cultivation of humans, production and trade, and the origins of political freedom, as well as the rise of the society controlled by justice and law. The author sees the two thinkers as very close one to another not only in the understanding of the epistemological question, but also in contemplating the history.
EN
The common denominator of the contribution is the considerations of the future, which can be found, in a less or more condensate form, in the works of the several Slovak intellectuals of the 20th century (J. Lajciak, G. Vamos, S. Stur, D. Tatarka). Their views of the future vary heavily; some of them saw philosophy as 'the way and the sense of life in the Universe' (as J. Lajciak did), or as a 'therapist' dismissing errors and injustice. All of them, however, show the necessity of defending one's right to the love of wisdom (as among others D. Tatarka did). It is due to this pathos that they are able to approach even the contemporary reader.
Filozofia (Philosophy)
|
2016
|
tom 71
|
nr 6
514 – 524
EN
Kant’s way of developing anthropology differs from that characteristic of the scientific spirit of the 18th century. Besides omitting the natural determination of humans he composes anthropology as a doctrine with practical intentions. He defines pragmatic anthropology as a reflected self-formation, whose objective is not a theory of a human being (“school anthropology” in Kant’s terminology), but rather a set of practical instructions for approaching oneself as well as the others. Thus, drawing to some extent on Michel Foucault, Kant’s anthropology can be understood as a modern conception of the art of living. Kant’s Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view is not just a purposeless summary of his numerous lectures on anthropology; it is rather a sort of vade-mecum or a prescriptive writing focused on purposeful practice.
EN
In this essay the author attempts to sketch a comparative analysis of the imagination of the ancient Greek worldview in two of the greatest twentieth century thinkers, Georg Lukacs and Hannah Arendt. Actually, Lukacs in his 'The Theory of the Novel' (written during World War I) as well as Arendt in her 'The Human Condition' (inspired by the historical experience of the totalitarian systems in the late fifties) aimed at grasping the essence of modernity. Both of them found freedom as a crucial point in relation to which one can aptly define modernity. However, from this common starting-point their line of thinking went on in a basically different way.
7
Content available remote Kantowskie inspiracje w filozofii Józefa Marii Hoene-Wrońskiego
100%
EN
In the “absolute philosophy” of Hoene Wroński, which he also terms “Messianism” (he is a creator of this notion) we encounter fourfold inspirations resulting from Kant’s works. Two of them originate from the first Critique – dealing with the problem of the dualism of being and thought, and the antinomies of reason. The other originate from the second Critique and concern the question of how practical reason shows the way in which the third antinomy of theoretical reason can be solved. Finally the last inspiration stems from the Kantian philosophy of history in which Wroński found the conception of a goal for the development of humanity, which is civil society governed by universal law and the federation of republican states.
8
Content available remote Natura historyzmu. Główne pojęcia i tezy wykładni Ernsta Troeltscha
100%
Filo-Sofija
|
2012
|
tom 12
|
nr 3(18)
167-184
EN
The article aims to present the main elements of Ernst Troeltsch’s conception of historism. Historism is understood here as a way of thinking (in science or worldview), which is directed to explain things as products of a historical process. In this view, there is no place for any absolute or universal solutions, causes and rules (thus historism is something completely different from historicism in K.R. Popper’s sense). In the first step, the author tries to show the philosophical context of Troeltsch’s thought (Hegel, Dilthey, Neo-Kantianism, Fenomenology) and to present some of the most important ideas connected with historism (like irrationalism, subjectivism, relativism and individuality). The main part of the article discusses Troeltsch’s conception according to the first chapter of his “Historismus und seine Probleme.” This part presents Troeltsch’s opinion about the crisis of historism and his vision of the real philosophy of history, which should be based on a formal logic of history.
Filozofia (Philosophy)
|
2019
|
tom 74
|
nr 6
456 – 471
EN
Globalization and mass migration have raised anew the question of the nature and origin of human rights. There have been a number of works that seek inspiration on this issue from the philosophy of Hegel. Usually, the primary focus of these works has, naturally enough, been the main statement of Hegel’s political philosophy, the Philosophy of Right. Scholars go to this work in search of a principle that can ground human rights in such a way that can be meaningfully used in a political and legal context. This body of literature is important in that it draws attention to this aspect of Hegel’s thought and shows how it is relevant for a problem of some topicality today. However, this approach, I wish to argue, takes up the issue at a fairly advanced stage in Hegel’s thinking and fails to see some much more fundamental elements in his way of understanding the concept of human rights, specifically, that the very idea of human rights presupposes a philosophical anthropology and a theory of history since human rights as a concept did not always exist. These aspects of Hegel’s theory have been generally neglected in the secondary literature on the issue of human rights.
EN
The concept of Europe plays an important role in Patocka's writings of the 1970s. For him Europe was closely related to the Greek idea of 'taking care of the soul' and thus to the very origins of history. In the course of history, which began in ancient Greece and whose end is marked by the 1st World War, however, this idea has lost its strength. Europe in its original sense ceased to exist, being replaced by a new, Post-European period. For Patocka this means the end of history and the beginning of a non-historical era, in which we will have to cope with the European legacy in its positive as well as negative sense.
11
Content available remote Znaczenie historii w refleksji Lwa Karsawina. Prolegomena
88%
EN
The purpose of the article is to present Lev Karsavin’s reflection on history within the metaphysical and epistemological context. The issue is demonstrated in two parts. The first one concentrates on the analysis of two fundamental principles of Karsavin’s philosophy of history: All-Unity and Tri-Unity. Connected with these are the concepts of Godmanhood, eternity, symphonic persons. All-Unity can be defined as a hierarchical structure including every kind of historical being – all “moments” and joining them in a harmonic community without unification or elimination of differences. This “unity in multiplicity” consists of “individual persons” (people) and “collective persons”: families, nations, social groups, churches, culture and finally – humankind. The last one connects all other types of historical being, which are perceived as its individualizations – forms of a lower order. Humankind seems to be the best manifestation of All-Unity and the strongest sign of the Absolute in history. It becomes also the most important component of the historical process. In this process humankind with its individualizations have to achieve their perfect condition and a higher state of consciousness. Karsavin’s model of history is based on the idea of Tri-Unity (cf. the dogma of the Holy Trinity) propagated in the Russian religious philosophy of the 19th and 20th centuries. This principle gives history a dynamic aspect and determines the triadic shape of the world process with its three stages: the primal (perfect) unity – disjoining – reunification. Reunification, in Karsavin’s philosophical system, ensues when historical being finishes its development and becomes God. The second part examines the features of historiosophical narrative in Lev Karsavin’s works. There are two distinct ways of thinking about history, two perspectives: the historical and the universalistic one, which perceive and explain the world differently. The aim of this part is to show how the Russian philosopher understands the past, which perspective he adopts to present his reflection and why.
EN
The author of the article presents in a concise way the history and geology of memoir writing as a documentary writing set between literature, publicity and science. The term of memoir writing, in modern meaning ‘personal document’, has been rooted social consciousness relatively late – in the 40s of the19th century and in the 50s, is commonly used in textbooks. The 17th and 18th century were the best periods for memoir writing but the 19th century was the period of publishing and deepening the reflection on the history of such records. This period is typical of the most remarkable attempts of theoretical presentation of the genre. The author tries to identify the phenomenon of the 19th century editorial boom, discusses the most important publishing centers and private initiatives. She also shows the most important published old memoir writing published at that time and ponders over their impact on the 19th century literature, mostly over historical novel. The reflection concerning the change in the attitude of literary criticism to diary, which took place in the 20th century, appears in the last part of the paper. From the memoir writing, which was one of many, not necessarily the most important sources of knowledge about the author and his times, to the memoir writing, which is equivalent to other works of the author having an additional value of authenticity.
EN
During the last decades, narrativism has been one of the most influential approaches in the philosophy of history. Proponents of this movement argue that historical works are not faithful descriptions of the past reality but rather original constructions or interpretations of historians. The views of narrativists have been criticized for being relativistic. For it seems that on their view historians may shape the same data using various interpretative frameworks or conceptual schemes and this leads to plurality in history. In recent years several authors, including Paul Roth and Jouni-Matti Kuukkanen, developed some of the points and conclusions of narrativism. Although these authors are inspired by narrativism, they significantly change understanding of historical works and that is why their accounts avoid relativism. The aim of this paper is to show that these authors overcome relativism. Dualism of content and form, as Donald Davidson puts it, supports conceptual relativism. Since Roth and Kuukkanen avoid this dualism in their understanding of history, they overcome conceptual relativism in current philosophy of history.
EN
These remarks are chiefly an attempt to introduce the issues and the construction of Hans Blumenberg’s seven-hundred-page philosophical treatise titled The Legitimacy of the Modern Age. It was first published in 1966 by Suhrkamp Publishers. The present article begins with the question of “generalities,” evoking the concepts, language, and interpretive formulae applied in approaches to history. Blumenberg’s point of departure is that the language of history is loaded with premises borrowed from metaphysics, as expressed by the metaphorical concept of “secularization.” This problem involves the categorical premises of metaphors, which here project a legal concept onto the interpretation of the modern age, introducing the notion of the illegitimate appropriation of goods. In order to deny the modern age’s legitimacy by suggesting that it merely transforms by “secularizing” the theological foundations of ideas established already in the Middle Ages, Blumenberg needs to go back to ancient and medieval sources. He finds that during those eras, too, there were epochal transformations in how the world was interpreted. “Secularization” is a pretext to, on the one hand, critique the categories and theories that apply evaluative labels in understanding historical epochs, and, on the other, to put forward a new framework for interpreting the modern age. This framework is based on the premise of differences between epochs, and an analysis of the mechanism for overcoming epochal thresholds, in part through such anthropological impulses as theoretical curiosity. Furthermore, when existing explanations cease to suffice during a given epoch, such as those pertaining to the concept of nature, the position of the Earth, or the number of land masses, everyday necessity forces people to seek alternate ways of explaining reality. In Legitimacy Blumenberg suggests a new interpretive framework for the history of European thought, aided by several different methods, such as the concept of the epochal threshold, theory of reception, and metaphorology, a theory derived from the history of philosophical concepts, which acknowledges the function of metaphors used in philosophical language. After describing the content of Blumenberg’s early works, the methods he used, and the cognitive results, the article outlines selected paths in his later philosophy, as well as his general philosophical approach.
EN
The paper analyses the main theoretical resources of what is called the practical philosophy of A. Gramsci, with an emphasis on the philosophy of history associated with collective will and historicism. Gramsci‘s contribution is updated and compared with the statements made by his predecessors, contemporaries, neo-Marxist followers, ideological opponents as well as contemporary philosophers. The mission of this paper is to recall the message of the neglected and ignored representative of cultural Marxism. According to Gramsci, the human being is a process of his actions, philosophy in human action, the historical process is governed by collective will, which results from wills and deeds and the truth is objectively given, and is independent of where and when it is recognized. The central motif is practical transformation of the world through art and philosophy, that is, through what is named cultural hegemony, which will transform itself from an elitist culture into a culture for all human beings. Gramsci‘ s philosophy is a unique fusion of Croce’s idealistic and spiritual understanding of the philosophy of history with the theory of Marxism.
Filozofia (Philosophy)
|
2018
|
tom 73
|
nr 5
356 – 365
EN
In the course of their discussion of historical explanation, historical narrative etc. philosophers of history repeatedly touched upon the metaphilosophical questions concerning the nature and the role of the philosophy of history. Especially during the last decades, some of the critics of the prescriptive approach advocated the need to focus on describing the actual historical works and the genuine historical practice. According to the advocates of the descriptive or bottom-up approach, philosophers of history should prescribe historians neither what they ought to do nor how their works ought to look like. Philosophers should rather follow the views of historians and describe their outcomes. Although this return to historical works and historical practice looks appealing, the author argues that one should not naively reduce philosophy of history to a mere description. It is important that philosophers of history follow the work of historians but they must anyway interpret what they find in historical discipline. Making use of examples from the writings of Paul Roth, he concludes that philosophy of history should try to fruitfully combine descriptive and prescriptive approaches.
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.