Dominik Tatarka, Slovak (Czechoslovak) writer, philosopher, social and political thinker. His literary and philosophical works are firmly linked with his personal experience, combined with socio-political events in Czechoslovakia. They are based on several principles of which the most important is respect for democratic principles and the rule of Christian universalism, which returned in the end of the 70th last century. The article is focused on the modification of the key problems of Slovak author: the freedom of the individual and the freedom of the community. Tatarka in his texts and also in his life always tried to understand an individual, not judging him. That was his moral strength and reason behind the superiority over many opponents. When comparing his views with the ideas of other authors (M. Bátorová, M. Hamada, Vaclav Havel, C. Miłosz, S. Marais ...), this article will highlights the uniqueness of texts, as well as the importance of the interpretation of the concept of freedom in the context of Central Europe marked by two totalitarian ideologies.

Eric Voegelin formulated one of the most challenging theses about the theological foundations of modern progressivist and revolutionary thought: the character of modernity is essentially Gnostic. The aim of this essay is to show why the early version of Voegelin’s Gnosis-thesis, as proposed in his New Science of Politics (1951), is not convincing. I argue that processes of immanentization can be fully explained within the development of Western ecclesiastical thought, without invoking Gnostic sectarianism. From a historical-empirical perspective Gnosticism is, in fact, principally opposed to immanent eschatologies. Joachim of Fiore, who, according to Voegelin, is the originator of modern Gnosticism, aptly illustrates this incompatibility. This essay also aims to show how Voegelin became increasingly aware of this problem and, accordingly, formulated a much more adequate and convincing version of the Gnosis-thesis in The Ecumenic Age (1974). The final section of the essay returns to the question of the relation of Gnosis and revolution.