The author considers work as a way in which man – an element of nature and the sole creator of culture – imposes his will (individual or collective) upon part of his en­vironment. He states that the need to work has its roots in the efforts of our pre-historic ancestors, who lost their homes in the treetops and needed to survive in open savanna. However, current automatization brings the loss of working positions for labourers as well as an unprecedented level of people’s frustration resulting from the loss of direct contact with nature. The need for work, which automatization in a particular work pro­cess replaces, is to a large extent removed, but the amount of work in a wider social con­text does not decrease very much. A demand for a new type of work arises – work that cannot be applied in agriculture, crafts or factories. It is a strange demand that limits the employment of people who are less socialized, that is, less intellectually capable. Peo­ple with an unsuitable structure of mental abilities can only apply for certain positions. Genuine work considered as the unity of physical and mental effort is a phenomenon that modern globalized economy no longer needs, but man does even more. Work has transformed from an economic category into an anthropological and medical one.

This article deals with Martin Buber’s philosophy of dialogue and with the philosophical mo­tifs that the essayist and theorist of communication Vilém Flusser adopted from Buber’s concept of dialogue. The text presents various aspects of Flusser’s conception of dialogue into which Buber´s thoughts projected. The author attempts to show how Flusser’s ap­proach differs from Buber´s, in particular how Flusser deflected from the understanding of the authentic dialogue as a dialogue of two particular people to the concept of dialogue in the framework of mass-communication through media and new technologies. The question of whether and how Flusser’s communication theory relates to Jewish philosophy in general is discussed as well.

The paper recapitulates the life and work of Jiřina Popelová, a major Czech philosopher of the 20th century. Attention is paid to three collections of papers published in her honour – Sborník k šedesátým narozeninám Jiřiny Popelové (A Collection of Papers to Celebrate the 60th birthday of Jiřina Popelová) (1964), Jiřina Popelová, filozofka a učitelka filozofie (Jiřina Popelová, a philosopher and a teacher of philosophy) (1984) and Filosofka Jiřina Popelová (The Philosopher Jiřina Popelová) (2005). Closer attention is paid to the papers by M. So­botka, R. Kalivoda, J. Pešková, P. Floss and J. Gabriel. These focus on J. Popelová’s contribu­tion to the philosophy of history, Comenius studies, ethics, philosophy of culture and the historiography of European and Czech Philosophy.

This short collection of letters by Jiřina Popelová represents a „fourth en­counter“ with that philosopher, certainly the most private one. It reveals the personal life of the philosopher and her professional as well as private relationships.

Populism nowadays is often used concept both in the academic field, as well as on the politi­cal scene itself, in the media and among the general public. The fact is that although almost everybody uses this term in our society, only few know what it really means. This article will therefore deal with a question that has been the subject of many theorists’ analysis, the question what populism means. One of the theorists is Ernesto Laclau (1935–2014) which does not understand populism as ideology, but as some special strategy or way of communication. In the first part of our article we will define the term “populism”, highlight its multiple interpretations as well as its common analytical core. In the following sections of the article, we will focus on the analysis of populism by Ernest Laclau. The aim of our article is therefore to analyze the theory of populism according to E. Laclau in the context of the current situation on the domestic and global political scene.

In the last fifty years, we have repeatedly been confronted with the pressing question of whether our civilization, and perhaps the whole civilization, is coming to an end. G. Li­povetsky and H. Juvin tackle this question in their own ways in the book The Globalized West, which they published together in France in 2010. While Lipovetsky attempts to pro­vide a balanced view of the postmodern world, which results in a picture of a society that does not abandon its (various) traditions, Juvin emphasises the threat of global confronta­tion. Both authors primarily deal with the question of the relationship between economics and politics and both criticize in their own ways the dominance of economics over politics. It must be mentioned that their focus is a bit narrower than that of authors such as Spengler or Toynbee, or authors building on the idea of an ecological catastrophe. However, this pro­vides a convenient material for a comparison with their predecessors’ and contemporaries’ views on a society that is obviously facing great changes. The author of this paper confronts their views with the views of their predecessors and contemporaries (Feyerabend, Fuku­yama, Huntington, Popper, etc.) and attempts to find similarities and differences.

Štúdia sa zameriava na poznámky Judith Butlerovej o chiazmatickom prepojení jazyka a ma­térie. Cieľom je zistiť, čo takéto prepojenie vôbec znamená a odkiaľ pramení. Štúdia ukazuje, že ono prepojenie organicky vyplýva z autorkinej koncepcie performatívnej rodovej identity. Autorka prisudzuje telu úlohu aktívneho participanta v procese konštrukcie identity. Tým sa Butlerová vo svojej koncepcii vyhýba kultúrnemu determinizmu a emergencii voluntaristic­kého subjektu. Po stručnom zhrnutí Butlerovej koncepcie performatívnej rodovej identity sa štúdia ďalej zaoberá rozkladom opozície subjektu a objektu v autorkiných prácach. Následne sa už štúdia usiluje vyrovnať s otázkou chiazmatického prepojenia jazyka a matérie.

This paper is deeply inspired by the penetrating interpretation of Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, called Gibt es eine Welt in Hegels Phänomenologie des Geistes?, written by Tereza Matějčková. The paper starts from the question what the Spirit does, from the viewpoint of timeliness, when it comprehends the Reason as at work in the history and as eternally at work in the history. What the Spirit does is that it inevitably assumes the perspective of the end of history. Nevertheless, this perspective is not interpreted as a step out of the history that denies the timeliness and overlooks the present state of affairs. For the present time is to be comprehended by the Spirit as the very moment into which the eternally active Reason culminates. From the perspective of the end of history or eternality, the Spirit comprehends what is eternally present in the present time (i. e. Reason). For clarification, I briefly contrast Hegel’s perspective with Kant’s and Nietzsche’s view on the end of history and subsequently I suggest that it bears comparison with Benjamin’s famous description of the “angel of his­tory” whose horrified view on the past propels him into the future.