Time has disappeared. It must have been a murder. Who is guilty? The most important figures of the history of philosophy and science are summoned to sing and clearly express their relation to time. The philosophical musical does not end in bloody execution, though. It turns out that no murder was actually committed, as time has never, does not, and will never exist.

The hero of this play – Arthur – introduces to the audience and readers several different worlds that share the fact that they are all possible worlds. The theory of possible worlds is the major theoretical background of the play. The plot is based on the idea that one and the same individual can appear in several possible worlds in a more or less different form. If one finds a way of traveling among the worlds – at least fictionally on the stage – which is accomplished by the Cat, the Schrödinger´s Cat, Arthur can set off for a journey to meet himself or possibly even God.

In dem Kapitel Die Geschichte der Begriffe und Begriffe der Geschichte aus dem Buch Begriffsgeschichten beschreibt der Verfasser wechselseitige, zum Teil auch gegenseitige Prozesse der Begriffsbildung in den historischen Wissenschaften. Er unterscheidet zwischen den sprachlichen Begriffen der Geschichte und aussersprachlichen Geschichte, die bei mangelden Aufmerksamkeit der Wissenschaftler leicht zur Geschichten werden können. Die Begriffsgeschichte beginnen dem Koselleck nach von der Erfahrung, wo die Ereignisse begrifflich zusammengefasst sind; die repetitive Struktur der Sprache, die mit Vorausbedeutungen arbeitet, wird dann zur Voraussetzung, dass man in der Geschichte etwas „Neues“ entdecken oder aber herausbilden kann. So entsteht eine innere Spannung zwischen geschichtlichen Sachverhalten und ihrer sprachlichen Erfassung, die die Entstehung von den Geschichtsbegriffen folgt; es entstehen Begriffe möglicher, nicht aber notwendig realer Geschichte, und Geschichte werden zu Geschichten. In der Philosophie ist das Buch von Kosselleck besonders für die Geschichtsphilosophie wichtig.

The Author refers about the award bestowed to a book on logic and uses this opportunity to say some words: (a) about logic and its role in our life, (b) about mathematical and philosophical logic, (c) about a highly inspiring theory in philosophical logic whose author has been the late Czech logician Pavel Tichý and, finally, (d) about the rewarded book:M. Duží, B. Jespersen, P. Materna, Procedural Semantics for Hyperintensional Logic (Foundations and Applications of Transparent Intensional Logic), Springer 2010 (awarded by Academy of Sciences of Czech Republic for a scientific outcome).A very brief survey of the subject of logic (mathematical as well as philosophical logic) precedes a brief characteristic of some important notions and principles of TIL. The Author tries to convince the Reader that logic in general, philosophical logic in particular and, in the end, TIL need not be as famous as modern physic and Einstein but that all the same their mediate influence on science and ‘mental hygiene’ is arguably great. Some specific features of TIL (as compared with other comparable theories) are referred to and positively evaluated.

The article deals with interpretation of a text from a philosophical perspective. The starting point is conception of interpretation as an art; this conception was formulated by hermeneutics in relation to the specific demands of the methodology of humanities. Interpretation approaches of the 20th century are characterised by elaborating the basic interpretation theories with respect to philosophical styles and main strains of thought. As it is a theme that touches several research fields, significant pieces of knowledge not only from philosophy, but also from literary science or aesthetic areas are briefly presented in the article.

This paper mainly deals with Suárez’s theory of inner sensual knowledge – one of the traditional issues in the works of Aristotle’s disciples, but nowadays hardly reflected. The aim of this paper is also to show the reader how Francisco Suárez deals with the inner sensation problem in his commentary of Aristotle’s De Anima, and also to demonstrate how Suárez criticizes the Aquinas’ analysis of this problem and offers his own simpler solution. Suárez refuses any possibility of plurality of inner senses and also denies any possibility that inner senses can somehow reason about things as well as the intellect.

The Return to TGM of 1945–1948 brought a new reading of Masaryk’s theoretical and political legacy. In that social situation, what was particularly emphasized was Masaryk’s philosophy of democracy and his social philosophy was misinterpreted as socialist with the goal of sustaining and renewing positive values that his work and politics had been associated with. The after-war period initiated further interest in Masaryk and his conceptions of science, philosophy, sociology, religion, philosophy of Czech history, philosophy of politics and philosophical anthropology.

In this work the author focuses on Voltaire’s method of writing history. She presents Voltaire’s critique of earlier historiography, whose scope Voltaire considered to be too narrow both geographically and in its subject. He attempted to remedy these limitations in his work. Methodologically, he takes up the results of the critique of sources of the 17th century and thinks about the ways of reaching the truth or verisimilitude in history. The second part is devoted to Voltaire’s critique of J. B. Bossuet, C. Montesquieue,J.-J. Rousseau and B. Pascal.

Fischer’s pedagogical work in Brno after WWII falls within the years 1945–1951 a 1957–1959. PhDr. Jiří Gabriel, met professor Fischer in person in 1957 after his return to the department in Brno. The majority of the quoted letters and greetings comes from 1969–1973. The last letter was written by J. L. Fischer about a month before his death († 17. 2. 1973). The letters provide evidence of professor Fischer’s diligence as well as his warm relationship to people around him.

Václav Štěpán (1889–1944), a graduate in musicology from the Faculty of Arts of Charles University in Prague is primarily known as a composer, pianist and modern music exponent. This work focuses on his philosophical and aesthetic thoughts. Štěpán was an aesthetician following up Otakar Hostinský and his school. He dealt with symbolism in program music and, more generally, with the communicative aspects of music. Pečman, in this respect, explores his relationship to Otakar Hostinský, Otakar Zich and foreign theories of the role of symbols in music. – This essay commemorates the musicologist and music aesthetician Rudolf Pečman, who would have been 80 years old this year. The essay was presented by Pečman an the conference Czech Philosophical Thought in 1920s–1960s conference, held by the Department of Philosophy of Masaryk University in 1989.

The author of this paper has thoroughly studied the correspondence between I. Kant and J. H. Lambert and deals with the problem of Lambert’s influence on the creation and shape of the transcendental method used in Kant’s central work The Critique of Pure Reason. He points out that the discussion on the method stems from a deeper problem of the a general conception of metaphysics. Both authors as well as several other prominent philosophers of the time advocated differing positions. While Lambert only reformed traditional metaphysics (in dianoiology, alethiology, semiotics and phenomenology), Kant considered the reforms hopeless and created the method of transcendental criticism in his Critique of Pure Reason to serve as a foundation for new metaphysics that could be regarded a science. The study shows in detail the long-term problems that the process went through.

The author analyzes Kant’s Critique of Judgment and the concept of judgment and comes to the conclusion that nature in Kant’s work cannot only be understood as the empirical world (the world of phenomena), but that the empirical world must be taken as a specification of active (creative) nature including both sensory and non-empirical world. It is only that concept of nature which presents us with examples of conduct, which, being examples uniting chance and necessity, lead beyond the sensory world. It is only that concept of nature that can accommodate man. The two worlds – the empirical world of the Critique of Pure Reason and the completely different intelligible world of the Critique of Practical Reason unite in the necessary concept of “one nature”. One specification of the united nature is the world of phenomena in space and time, including the concept of chance; another specification is the imperative moral law, which is the basis of the knowledge of man’s freedom as part of extra-sensory nature.

The author of the essay focuses on the history and sources of Neo-Kantianism. He points out two sources: a negative one and a positive one. The positive source is historicism and a negative relation to Kant. The concept of historicity (Geschichtlichkeit) relates mainly to the way of being of human spirit and its products. This term had appeared in the works of Hegel, Schleiermacher and Nietzsche, but it was only with Dilthey that it received greater publicity. Dilthey meant by the term a basic existential structure of man: namely the fact that man is not just “drawn” into history, but this “draw” is an essential characteristic of human being. The other source is the relation to Kant taken as an attribute differentiating between the individual philosophers. The return to Kant is a basic sign of Neo-Kantianism, since at the time of its emergence the opinion that it is necessary to give up Hegel’s panlogism was widely spread. The author also believes that we should regard the return to Kant as dispensation with the requirement of scientism (exactness) and also as a defense against the attempts to place philosophy outside scientifically regarded culture. The essay ends with a sketch of metaphysical exposition of Kant’s transcendental philosophy.

Obrat k ontologické otázce je pro filosofii trvalým pokušením. Ve 20. století se objevila Heideggerova existenciální analytika „existence“ a „bytí“ jako jeho východiska a zároveň se toto století stalo svědkem Heideggerova obratu („Kehre“) i vzniku dalších tzv. „nových ontologií“ v dílech N. Hartmanna nebo Th. Litta, jež vzbudily dočasnou pozornost. Jistou zvláštnost v tomto vývoji představuje skutečnost, že si různí interpreti zkušenosti s bytím slibovali větší úspěch od básnické imaginace než od samotné filosofie. Již Heidegger se odvolával na Hölderlina, Georga a Trakla. Karl Albert se vztahuje k Hermannu Brochovi a Saint-Johnu Persemu, zatímco oblíbenými autory pro F. Kaufmanna byli Hofmannsthal, Rilke a romanopisec Thomas Mann. Ve své studii vykládá autor dva tematické komplexy z celkové souvislosti „básnické imaginace a ontologické zkušenosti“, a to Heideggerovu interpretaci básně Slovo od St. George, v souvislosti s ontologií amerického filosofa P. Weisse pak báseň Slovo jako meditace od W. Stevense. Oba tyto lyrické útvary jsou literárním zpracováním „mýtu návratu“, a tím odrážejí podle autorova názoru rovněž situaci filosofie.

Ve studii s tematikou kulturní a filosofické antropologie rozlišuje autor mezi třemi obdobími, v kterých se vytvářela specifika člověka jako živočišného rodu. Odlišuje první fázi 7–2,5 milionu let), která začíná oddělením linie hominidů a opolidí. V druhé fázi, kterou označuje jako protokulturní (2,5 mil.–40 tis. let), vstupuje do vývoje člověka prudká dynamika, která ústí v začátku kulturní evoluce. Biologická evoluce je dokončena, genová výbava člověka se nadále nemění, člověk nic nedostává zvenčí, ale vytváří celou svoji kulturu z prostředků vytvořených evolucí. Tím se vyznačuje třetí fáze, která sahá od mladšího paleolitu přes neolitickou revoluci, vznik městských kultur až po současnost. Autor se hlásí k darwinismu a zdůrazňuje, že největší zvláštností člověka je jeho vlastní schopnost, s níž oddělil svůj vývoj od závislosti na genetických změnách a nalezl řešení všech životních úkolů a situací v optimalizaci kulturně evolučních prostředků.

The text is devoted to partial argumentative analysis of Descartes’ Meditations in terms of persuasive schemes of personal argumentatiton. Descartes’ Meditations are used as a source of illustrations for various types of personal reasoning and the corresponding critical questions. Attention is given both to positive and negative form of a personal argumentation, namely to a pattern of ad hominem and ad verecundiam. The analysis presents variations of argumentative scheme and relevant evaluation tool. The text also offers justification for the interpretation of Descartes’ salutation ‘O caro’ as a persuasive move within the meaning of ad hominem argumentation, which is reflected in its controversial Czech translation.

The work deals with Voltaire’s method of writing history. It points out Voltaire’s critique of earlier historical studies. Voltaire criticized them for narrow geographic and subject scope and tried to overcome these drawbacks in his own work. Methodologically he continued the 17th century criticism of sources and considered how to find the truth or at least verisimilitude in historical studies. The second part of the work focuses on Voltaire’s critique of J. B. Bossuet, C. Montesquieu, J.-J. Rousseau and B. Pascal.

The first question relates to Pavel Materna’s career, to the circumstances that have positively formed his professional growth. In the reply to the second question Materna confides what brought him to the determined promotion and development of Transparent Intensional Logic started by his late colleague Pavel Tichý. The motivation for the third question was Materna’s long-term pedagogical work in logic at colleges in Prague and Brno. Finally, a few “logical jokes” document Materna’s famous sense of humor.

A translation of Kant’s work Ende aller Dinge (The End of All Things) from 1794, one of his polemical religious-philosophical works, has been published in Czech for the first time. It enables readers to meet one of the typical expressions of Kant’s post-critical philosophy (besides his works on philosophy of history, anthropology and political philosophy). The work clearly shows Kant’s dissatisfaction with contemporary understanding of the place of religion in society, and shows why the author got into conflict with clerical and political power of the time. The translation is introduced by a brief outline of the historical context of Kant’ s work, its place in the framework of the philosopher’s work and its reflection among Kant’s contemporaries, which resulted in an official ban imposed on Kant’s works and lectures related to religion by Friedrich Wilhelm II .