Studia Philosophica

Lze lidskou ruku adekvátně chápat jako orgán či nástroj, nebo je třeba jí rozumět z „gesta“, jak chce ukázat Martin Heidegger v kontextu své otázky tělesnosti? Text interpretačně promýšlí tuto Heideggerovu myšlenku a zkušenost naší existence jako „lidské bytosti“, tj. že jsme znakem, ba ukazatelem. Tím je také implicitně řečeno, že naší ruce nelze adekvátně porozumět bez našeho společného bytí: Otázka lidské ruky se týká nás samých a našeho způsobu vzájemného bytí v otevřenosti světa a vzájemného otevírání odkazu na rozlehlost a hloubku naší existence.

The aim of the study is to present the found explicit references to Plato in the works of authors of modern psychology. In the introductory part, Plato‘s theory of the soul, approaches to the soul in contemporary psychology and the methodology of searching for references are described. The next part provides an overview of the explicit references to Plato found in modern psychology. Furthermore, the most relevant references relating to generativity, the connection of the three-component soul and current personality models, the connection of soul care and therapy and the concept of love are brought closer. In the conclusion, the references found are summarized and the basic finding is presented that most of the authors mentioned in the study perceive Plato as an inspiration for the development of current theories.

The article deals with three physical theories that deny the reality of time, namely the concept of Kurt Gödel, Julian Barbour and Carlo Rovelli. The claim that time does not exist goes beyond the scope of physics and to a large extent also falls into the realm of philosophy, thus opening up space for its philosophical reflection. So what does it mean from a philosophical point of view that time does not exist? Is it possible for change to exist without time? In order to answer the mentioned questions, I will first focus on the concept of existence itself. Next, I will introduce individual authors and their concepts, which I will try to evaluate critically, and at the end I will draw attention to related epistemological and ontological problems.

Researching the history of environmental philosophical thinking in the context of the devel­opment of social conditions in our country (as opposed to abroad) has so far been rather neglected. At the same time, it is an essentially philosophical issue (resolving the relation­ship between man and the world), which is also gaining urgency in the context of the global environmental crisis. The text defends the opinion that original and authentic philosophical work was and remains a very important part of our spiritual culture. Researching the history of domestic philosophical thought makes sense, and in concrete forms it can offer remark­able inspiration even today. The following retrospective seeks to supplement the image of the history of our thinking (philosophy and science) with details and connections not yet revealed. It also seeks an answer to the question of the originality of our authors‘ thinking. Above all, it is a concretization of the historiographical view of some not quite satisfactorily captured stages of the history of our (Czech and Slovak) philosophy. Therefore, we will focus on a brief critical reflection of that dominant (Marxist) philosophy, while we leave the forms of thought of the unofficial (underground, samizdat) aside. As one of the remarkable aspects found, for example, we can consider the predominance of Slovak authors in the first half of the normalisation period (problems of the scientific and technological revolution). This was only subsequently complemented by efforts for a more systematic, generally philosoph­ical view by Czech authors (especially R. Kolářský and J. Šmajs). In the assessment of the stage of “real socialism” (or the period of normalization), we conclude that a simplified idea of complete official silence on environmental issues and denial of real problems and crisis manifestations cannot suffice.

Príspevok sa na vybraných častiach stoickej filozofie (fyzika živlov, psychológia, kauzalita, hierarchizácia príčin) snaží predstaviť stoický koncept deterministického univerza a ústredné postavenie stoického mudrca v ňom. Základnou líniou výkladu je dokazovanie tézy, že sloboda mudrca sa zakladá na autonómii jeho prejavov zdôvodnenej zvrchovane racionálnou dispozíciou jeho duše. Autor príspevku preto argumentuje na podporu tézy, že akrasia ako konanie proti poriadku rozumu a prírody u stoického mudrca nie je možná.

This article attempts to analyse the possible intellectual link between Aristotle’s polis-related thought and Marx’s philosophy in the case of zōon politikon term. In order to clarify this problem, we need to ask two questions: 1) Is it really possible to document that Marx reflected this concept or was inspired by it? 2) Are, in this case, statements of modern scholars well-founded when it comes to Aristotle’s influence on Marx? I will present an affirmative answer to the first question, while the second one will be answered with significant doubts that will be based on an analysis of the primary texts. This will lead to my proposition that some scholars are trying to discover Aristotelian motifs in Marx at any cost, even in cases where it is not unequivocally provable.