University of Hradec Králové Journals
Not a member yet
512 research outputs found
Sort by
Negation and indications: Parmenides and Wittgenstein
Get PDFAbstrakt/Abstract Na příkladu dvou myslitelů ze zcela odlišných období dějin filosofie lze předvést otázku nejobecnějších podmínek pravdivé řeči, které se projevují na pomezí sémantiky v užším slova smyslu a utváření širšího pojmu světa jakožto pojmu, k němuž patří vytyčení jasných mezí smysluplného vypovídání o tom, co je. Od této velmi obecné otázky se příspěvek obrací k užšímu tématu negace čili k pravidlům užití řeči, která je sice správná a v některých případech pravdivá, avšak postrádá svůj vlastní a specifický korelát v plné osnově skutečnosti samé. Výchozími texty jsou zlomky Parmenidovy básně O jsoucím a její moderní výklady od čtení Russellova až po tzv. modální interpretaci, kladoucí důraz na motivy nutného jsoucího a nemožného nejsoucího, a dále pasáže z Wittgensteinova Traktátu i Filosofických zkoumání (§ 50). Podrobnější srovnání postoje obou myslitelů k negaci umožňuje prohloubit i rozšířit starší srovnávání Parmenidova argumentu o nemožnosti mluvit o tom, co není, a Wittgensteinova důrazu na nutnou existenci jednoduchých objektů. Choosing two thinkers from two entirely different periods of the history of philosophy, one can fruitfully illustrate the issue of the most general conditions of truthful speech, which take effect on the crossroad of the narrowly conceived semantics and a broadly construed concept of the world as a concept that implies the posting of neat limits of the meaningful linguistic articulation of what there is. From this very general issue, the article turns to the narrower question of negation, and thus of the rules of the use of the correct and sometimes true speech that, nevertheless, lacks its specific referent in the full structure of reality. The texts under scrutiny are the fragments of Parmenides’ poem On Being and its modern exegeses ranging from Russell to the modal interpretation that emphasizes the necessary being and the impossible not-being, plus passages from Wittgenstein’s Tractatus and also his Philosophical Investigation (§ 50). A more detailed comparison of the attitude of both thinkers towards negation helps to both deepen and expand the earlier suggested parallel between Parmenides’ argument about the impossibility to speak about what is not and Wittgenstein’s emphasis on the necessary existence of simple objects.Choosing two thinkers from two entirely different periods of the history of philosophy, one can fruitfully illustrate the issue of the most general conditions of truthful speech, which take effect on the crossroad of the narrowly conceived semantics and a broadly construed concept of the world as a concept that implies the posting of neat limits of the meaningful linguistic articulation of what there is. From this very general issue, the article turns to the narrower question of negation, and thus of the rules of the use of the correct and sometimes true speech that, nevertheless, lacks its specific referent in the full structure of reality. The texts under scrutiny are the fragments of Parmenides’ poem On Being and its modern exegeses ranging from Russell to the modal interpretation that emphasizes the necessary being and the impossible not-being, plus passages from Wittgenstein’s Tractatus and also his Philosophical Investigation (§ 50). A more detailed comparison of the attitude of both thinkers towards negation helps to both deepen and expand the earlier suggested parallel between Parmenides’ argument about the impossibility to speak about what is not and Wittgenstein’s emphasis on the necessary existence of simple objects
Fiction and reality – is mimesis an obsolete construct?
Get PDFZákladní otázkou studie je, zda lze koncept mimésis považovat v současné teorii interpretace za udržitelný, přičemž se zaměřuje na kritiku formulovanou na základě dvou argumentů – tj. buďto se odmítá vztah skutečnosti a uměleckého, resp. literárního díla, nebo se tento vztah připouští, ale odmítá se, že by se vyčerpával pouze vztahem prosté nápodoby. Dále se (v komparativním náhledu) zaměřuje na současné koncepce, které pracují s konceptem mimeze jako s interpretačně funkčním. V závěru se tak ukazuje, že předpoklad vztahu mezi fikcí a skutečností lze v současných teoriích interpretace považovat za přijatelný, a koncept mimésis tak nemusí být překonaným konstruktem (byť za určitých podmínek).The main issue of this study is whether the concept of mimésis can be accepted as a defensible one in a contemporary theory of interpretation. It focuses on the criticism based on the following arguments: either any relation between fiction and reality is rejected or it is claimed that the relation cannot be reduced to mimémis. Further the study focuses on the contemporary theories working succesfully with the concept of mimesis as well. So the study shows that the relation between fiction and reality is an acceptable assumption in a contemporary literary theories, so that the concept of mimesis cannot be considered as an overthrown theoretical construct.The main issue of this study is whether the concept of mimésis can be accepted as a defensible one in a contemporary theory of interpretation. It focuses on the criticism based on the following arguments: either any relation between fiction and reality is rejected or it is claimed that the relation cannot be reduced to mimémis. Further the study focuses on the contemporary theories working succesfully with the concept of mimesis as well. So the study shows that the relation between fiction and reality is an acceptable assumption in a contemporary literary theories, so that the concept of mimesis cannot be considered as an overthrown theoretical construct
European Conference of Analytic Philosophy (ECAP) 7
Get PDFEuropean Conference of Analytic Philosophy (ECAP)
The „hard core“ of logic and semantic paradoxes. A confrontation of scholastic and modern approach.
Get PDFTvrdým jádrem“ logiky je soubor intuitivně uchopitelných fenoménů z oblasti sémantické valuace, který odolává revizím, typicky vynucovaným sémantickými paradoxy. Příspěvek se věnuje revizím logiky vytvořenými Priestem a Swyneshedem. „The hard core“ of logic is a set of intuitively conceivable phenomena regarding semantic evaluation which resists revisions (typically revisions due to semantic paradoxes). The present paper deals with Priest’s and Swyneshed’s revision of logic.„The hard core“ of logic is a set of intuitively conceivable phenomena regarding semantic evaluation which resists revisions (typically revisions due to semantic paradoxes). The present paper deals with Priest’s and Swyneshed’s revision of logic
Husserl\u27s critique of psychologism and its sequel in the work of R. Ingarden
No full textČlánek seznamuje s kritikou psychologismu v logice, která je jedním z hlavních témat Husserlových Prolegomen k čisté logice. Psychologismus v logice spočíval v podstatě v tom, že logika byla chápána jako součást psychologie, příp. že psychologie se považovala za jediný a dostatečný teoretický základ logiky. Pozornost je věnována dvěma hlavním liniím kritiky psychologismu, které se v tomto Husserlově díle objevují. První z nich vychází z analýzy povahy zákonů čisté logiky (zákon sporu, sylogistické figury aj.). Analýza ukazuje, že tyto zákony se nemohou zakládat na empirických psychologických pravidlech, a psychologie (jako empirická věda) tudíž nemůže být základem logiky. Druhá linie Husserlovy kritiky psychologismu v logice směřuje k prokázání vnitřní rozpornosti psychologistického stanoviska, jsou-li z něj vyvozeny jeho nejzazší důsledky. Tato rozpornost spočívá v tom, že psychologismus na jedné straně vystupuje jako vědecká teorie, na straně druhé však svou základní tezí popírá některé z nutných podmínek možnosti každé vědecké teorie vůbec, a tím sám sebe ruší jako teoreticky věrohodnou tezi. Závěrem upozorníme na jedno z pokračování boje proti psychologismu v rané fenomenologické tradici, a to na Ingardenovu kritiku psychologismu v pojetí literárního díla.The article outlines some of the main argumentation-strategies deployed by Husserl in his famous critique of the psychologistic logic in Prolegomena to pure logic. Fundamentally, the psychologism in logic consisted in considering logic to be a part of psychology, resp. in considering psychology as the exclusive and sufficient foundation of logic. The attention is given to the two main lines of argumentation against psychologism appearing in the work of Husserl. The starting point of the first one is an analysis of the laws of pure logic (principle of contradiction, the figures of syllogism etc.). It shows that these laws can not be based on mere empirical rules of psychology, and thus psychology (as an empirical discipline) can not be the foundation of logic. The second line of Husserl’s critique of psychologism aims at showing the contradictions in the psychologistic standpoint that become visible if one uncovers its ultimate implications. The main contradiction consists in that while psychology claims to be a scientific theory it contradicts at the same time by its fundamental claim some of the necessary conditions of a scientific theory as such, and thus it cancels itself as a theoretically credible set of claims. Toward the end of the paper the attention is given to one of the continuations of the fight against psychologism in the phenomenological tradition, namely to R. Ingarden’s critique of the psychologism in the conception of the literary work of art.The article outlines some of the main argumentation-strategies deployed by Husserl in his famous critique of the psychologistic logic in Prolegomena to pure logic. Fundamentally, the psychologism in logic consisted in considering logic to be a part of psychology, resp. in considering psychology as the exclusive and sufficient foundation of logic. The attention is given to the two main lines of argumentation against psychologism appearing in the work of Husserl. The starting point of the first one is an analysis of the laws of pure logic (principle of contradiction, the figures of syllogism etc.). It shows that these laws can not be based on mere empirical rules of psychology, and thus psychology (as an empirical discipline) can not be the foundation of logic. The second line of Husserl’s critique of psychologism aims at showing the contradictions in the psychologistic standpoint that become visible if one uncovers its ultimate implications. The main contradiction consists in that while psychology claims to be a scientific theory it contradicts at the same time by its fundamental claim some of the necessary conditions of a scientific theory as such, and thus it cancels itself as a theoretically credible set of claims. Toward the end of the paper the attention is given to one of the continuations of the fight against psychologism in the phenomenological tradition, namely to R. Ingarden’s critique of the psychologism in the conception of the literary work of art
The world is not enough. Charles Taylor on secularism
Get PDFČlánek se věnuje nejnovější knize Charlese Taylora Secular Age (2007). Poukazuje na její kořeny v hegeliánství a v novějších kritikách modernity a probírá některé námitky vůči Taylorově koncepci včetně Taylorových odpovědí. Taylor představuje dva typy současných etických projektů. Na jedné straně tzv. výlučný humanismus, na druhé straně imanentní antihumanismus. A smyslem jeho genealogie moderního sekularismu je ukázat vzájemnou podmíněnost mezi antihumanismem, humanismem a religiozitou s tím, že bez nějaké formy transcendence se každý západní hodnotový systém vystavuje nepřekonatelným tenzím, aby následně navrhl koncept originality volající k následování jako spojnici hlavního nároku křesťanství ztělesněného v pojmu lásky k bližnímu s moderním uměním jako náhražkovým náboženstvím. Taylorova práce je nejen v tomto ohledu postavena na jeho celoživotním zájmu o Hegelovu filosofii, v níž se hledá takový způsob, jak spojit etiku autenticity se smyslem pro společenství, který by překonal omezení reflektující racionality. Taylorovo obohacení Hegela můžeme chápat jako snahu nahradit tradiční nárok lásky k bližnímu srozumitelnějším pojmem podpory rozmanitosti v jednotě (resp. pojmem kultury). The essay examines Charles Taylor’s latest book The Secular Age (2007) by unveiling its Hegelian roots together with its debt to other critics of modernity and by considering some objections as well as Taylor’s answers. Taylor sketches two types of contemporary ethical projects. On the one hand he considers exclusive humanism, on the other the immanent antihumanism. The moral of Taylor’s story of modern secularism comes to his claim that the anti-humanism is enabled by humanism and humanism again by religiosity. According to him this comes to indispensability of religion: namely, some notion of transcendence is necessary for coherence of any set of values available to western man. Actually the originality inspiring its following is what he understands as the key element that is shared by the central claim of Christianity embodied in the notion of love (agape) overcoming the rigorism of explicit rules on the one hand and modern art as Ersatzreligion.(Not only) this aspect of Taylor’s recent work is rooted in his lifelong interest in Hegel, who looked for such pairing of the ethics of authenticity with a sense for community that could overcome the limits of reflective rationality. We can interpret Taylor’s amendement to Hegel as a substitution of „support for differentiation in unity“ (or simply „culture“) for „love for neighbour“.The essay examines Charles Taylor’s latest book The Secular Age (2007) by unveiling its Hegelian roots together with its debt to other critics of modernity and by considering some objections as well as Taylor’s answers. Taylor sketches two types of contemporary ethical projects. On the one hand he considers exclusive humanism, on the other the immanent antihumanism. The moral of Taylor’s story of modern secularism comes to his claim that the anti-humanism is enabled by humanism and humanism again by religiosity. According to him this comes to indispensability of religion: namely, some notion of transcendence is necessary for coherence of any set of values available to western man. Actually the originality inspiring its following is what he understands as the key element that is shared by the central claim of Christianity embodied in the notion of love (agape) overcoming the rigorism of explicit rules on the one hand and modern art as Ersatzreligion. (Not only) this aspect of Taylor’s recent work is rooted in his lifelong interest in Hegel, who looked for such pairing of the ethics of authenticity with a sense for community that could overcome the limits of reflective rationality. We can interpret Taylor’s amendement to Hegel as a substitution of „support for differentiation in unity“ (or simply „culture“) for „love for neighbour“