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 .

Opening speech on the evening dedicated to the life and work ethics and historian of philosophy, associate professor Karel Hlavoň (January 21, 1930 to July 30, 2009).