4.50 €
Preview
We kindly inform you that, as long as the subject affiliation of our 300.000+ articles is in progress, you might get unsufficient or no results on your third level or second level search. In this case, please broaden your search criteria.
In this work which makes the fourth chapter of his »Weltgeschichte und Heilsgeschehen «, Löwith gives a critical analysis of the idea of unlimited progress of history which in fact represents the secularized version of Christian faith in salvation and completion of history. By interpreting the work of Proudhon and Comte, the author takes note that their reform programme is defined by the Christian idea in spite of the radical denial of the notion of providence. The secularized comprehension of history is in essence an eshatologic expectation of salvation. Therefore, all constructions on historic progress (as well as retrogression) are a late but still powerful result of biblical teachings of decline and salvation.
More...
Ono što Löwithovo filozofsko mišljenje izražava višestruko je. U filozofiji 20. stoljeća to je, čini nam se, bdio u sjeni drugih, značajnijih filozofskih ili društvenih pitanja. U sjeni je pitanja koje otvara filozofski diskurs modeme, koja liiteramokritički, esejistički, kritičko-estetički, filozofsko»antropološki, slavi samo pobjedu jednog principa, jedne logike. Tu logiku danas vidimo u vladavini principa subjektivnosti koja stiče svoju samosvijest u procesu subjektiviranja, potčinjavanja svega što se može potčiniti.
More...
Posle Hegelove smrti 1830. godine svet je postao običniji. Ove Burkhartove reći u doslovnom smislu izražavaju i Levitov program. Samo što on isti problem sagledava znatno radikalnije. Za Levita ovaj prelom, koji se posle Hegelove smrti zbio u mišljenju 19. veka, znači »dovršenje nemačke kulture od strane Hegela i Getea.« »Ove studije iistorije duha, veli Levit, ipak nisu prilog istanji duha u uobičajenom smislu reči. Jer temelji istorije duha, koji potiču iz Hegelove metafizike duha, reducirani su otada na trivijalno. Duh kao subjekt istorije više nije fundament nego, u najboljem slučaju problem. Ono što preostaje od duha samo je još duh vremena«. (S. 8)
More...
Po običaju, treba nešto na ovim našim kolokvijima reći, onako kako to činim svakom prilikom, a ovom prilikom, smatram, i posebno. Djelo izazovnog naslova, enciklopedijsko svojom širinom, ali i prebogato sveopćim-univerzalnim sudovima koji nas dovode, ili nemam pravo reći nas, no mene dovode u teškoće razumijevanja: značenja sadržaja, opsega pojmova, do nedoumica i prijepora.
More...
Podnaslov K. Löwithove knjige glasi: Revolucionarni prijelom u mišljenju devetnaestog stoljeća: Marx i Kierkegaard. Prema tome, podnaslov izričito kaže da su Marx i Kierkegaard napravili prijelom u mišljenju devetnaestog stoljeća. No, taj se prijelom zapravo, prema Löwithu, sastoji u preokretanju i transformiranju Hegelove filozofije. Dakle, Marx je transformirao Hegeiovu filozofiju apsolutnog duha u marksizam, a Kierkegaard u egzistencijalizam. Da bismo vidjeli postoji li zaista obrat između Hegela na jednoj strani, Marxa i Kierkegaarda na drugoj strani, potrebno je navesti kakav položaj zauzima čovjek u filozofiji spomenutih filozofa, jasno slijedeći Löwithovu interpretaciju njihove filozofije.
More...
Jedan od pouzdanih svjedoka Löwithovog života ii njegov savremenik, Hans-Georg Gadamer, u jednoj kratkoj filozofsko-karakterološkoj skici kazuje, između ostalog, kako je Löwithovo mišljenje i osjećanje svijeta obilježeno jedinstvenom sposobnošću za distancu u kojoj je on svijet prihvatao bez iluzija, sposobnost koja je određena kao »prihvatanje stvari onakvima kakve one jesu, priznavanje prirodnosti prirodnog, ali i istrajnost u svemu onome što mu je svagda bilo blisko.« U ovoj opasci kriju se neke indikacije koje premašuju puku karakterizaciju Löwithove osobe. Meni se čine zanimljivim dva akcenta ove karakterizacije.
More...
Tradicija dolazi od tradere, davati dalje. Misli se na tradicijsku spregu, na ono što se nasljeđuje s koljena na koljeno; bit će i na zanatsku predaju. U slici davanja dalje izražava se tjelesna blizina, neposrednost, jedna ruka treba to što se daje dalje primiti od druge. Takva neposrednost je neposrednost manje ili više izvornih odnosa, primjerice, obiteljske vrste. Kategorija tradicije u bitnome je feudalna, kao što je Sombart feudalno gospodarstvo nazvao tradicionalističkim. Tradicija je u suprotnosti s racionalnošću, iako se oblikovala u njoj. Njezin medij nije svijest, nego skrivena, nereflektirana obvezatnost socijalnih formi, sadašnjost prošloga; to se nehotice prenijelo na duhovno. S građanskim društvom tradicija u strogom smislu nije poveziva.
More...
The paper discusses various possibilities of using structuralism in the current historical research. It seems, e.g., that this methodology or mode of reasoning could still be helpful to understand the origins of some historic phenomena. Despite the widely-held belief, the most important thinkers associated with structuralism, such as Jean-Pierre Vernant, Roland Barthes, or Pierre Vidal-Naquet, did not reduce their interests to the study of synchronic relations, but – as Foucault put it – attempted to fashion the instrument for a precise historical analysis. It was also a case of Michel Serres’ reflection on the origins of geometry. This example is closely examined in the paper to indicate some differences between both traditional and structuralist approaches to that question.
More...
This article presents a critique of mechanisms employed by conservative historiography. It is grounded in an analysis of selected discussions in the field of social history which focus on the last period of the Ancien Régime. Furthermore, the article presents a methodological and conceptual analysis of contemporary historical polemics. The aim is to transform problems that are typically considered as strictly historical into philosophical problems and to identify their political stakes. As a result, schemes implicit to conservative narration are sketched, and ideas for an interdisciplinary, emancipatory historiography are discussed. The envisioned perspective would simultaneously draw from the achievements of history from below, leftist macro-history and a philosophical critique of history.
More...
Vrijeme prožimanja filozofije, politike i teologije čini se kao da je odavno minulo. U doba vladavine tehnoznanstvene tvorbe zbilje i umreženih "društava kontrole" mnogi vjeruju da pitanja o ljudskoj prirodi, zlu, strategiji osvajanja drugih teritorija, o onostranome životu i smislu povijesti ostaju iza nas poput zauvijek odigrane tragedije. Teško je i zamisliti da bi neka politika posthumanizma mogla postojati na osnovama ideje prirode i čovjeka bez mogućnosti njihove promjene u stanje stroja i neljudskoga. Fikcije o "zvjezdanim ratovima" nisu, pak, ništa drugo negoli sekularizirana distopija kozmičke budućnosti.
More...
From the viewpoint of conflict sociology, the article analyzes the historiography of Lithuanian from 1990. The insights of Hayden White on the pre-critical and incommensurable character of different ways of historiographical representation are applied here. A. Šliogeris defends the homonomic position that there is only one true interpretation of the philosophical text, independent of historical or cultural context, with a sole ground of its truth – a reality itself. This attitude is confronted with a heteronomic one, which commits itself to a variety of interpretations. Radical formism with anarchistic ideological implications (G. Mažeikis) challenges all the other strategies of explanation. Within contextualism we may distinguish a polemics between R. Plečkaitis (representing the methodology of the history of problems) and philosophical- historical publicist B. Genzelis.
More...
The establishment of the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg gave a great impetus to the development of historiography in Russia, and likewise to the development of other sciences. The idea of establishing the Academy of Sciences in Russia came from Peter the Great. Because there did not exist a system of higher education or a university in Russia at that time, scientists who were to become the first members of the Academy, had to be brought in from abroad. The enlightened ruler did not regret spending effort and money for this purpose. Large sums of money were assigned to the purchase of books and to the salaries and awards of the future members of the Academy. The Academy started its activities in December 1725, and during the first few decades it was led by scientists from abroad, mainly from German countries. That was also the case with the Humanities Section, which, among other things, supposed to deal with Russian history. The bases for work at the Russian Academy in St. Petersburg in the following decades were set by: Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer, Gerhard Friedrich Müller and August Ludwig von Schlözer. On the bases of the Russian historical material that they collected, primarily Nestorov letopis (Nestor’s chronicle) that describes the events of the 9th century, they came to far-reaching conclusions about the origin of the Russian people and the establishment of the Russian state and its institutions. This way was opened the so called Varangian question and formulated Norman theory of the origin of the Russians. In the first half of the 18th century, Russian historian Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev, academician Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov and other Russian scientists opposed to these theories. During the 19th century, these theories were accepted, with certain modifications, by the most distinguished Russian bourgeois historians Karamzin, Soloviev, Pagodin and others. The Bolsheviks mostly rejected these theories or they were simplified and reduced to the social segment that the Russian people were oppressed, and that the majority the oppressor elite was of foreign origin. As is the case with the interpretations of many historical events and processes, the conclusions related to the Varangian question and Norman theory were widely influenced by the time in which the author wrote, and by his political and ideological attitudes. That was perhaps more pronounced in this case, because it was the question of the origin and ethnogenesis of the Russian people and the establishment of the Russian state and its institutions.
More...
Osim somatskih bolesti, koje su prepoznate vjekovima, kao i onih psihičkih, koje su prepoznate tekjedvajedno stoljeće, sigurnoje da postoje i bolesti višeg reda, da kažemo - bolesti duha. Nikakvom neurozom ne možemo objasniti Propovjednikovo beznađe, osjećaj izgnanstva na zemlji ili otuđenja, metafizičku dosadu kao ni osjećaj praznine ili apsurdnosti, hipertrofiju ega kao ni odbijanje svega ili isprazno kontriranje, kao što se nikakvom psihozom ne može objasniti gospodarski ni politički furor, apstraktnu umjetnost, demonsku stranu tehnologije kao ni onu ekstremnog formalizma u kulturi, što danas dovodi do dominacije isprazne egzaktnosti.
More...
Benjamin’s final treatise On the Concept of History has generated significant criticism with its profound yet enigmatic statements on his historical materialism. Its internal references range from the philosopher Hegel to satirist Karl Kraus; these interludes of scientific and poetic language have garnered notable readings through Marxian lenses, as well as ample theological and literary interpretations. Reading against any simplified tradition of unity, I suggest instead an insoluble collection of distinct voices at play in the entanglements of the text. Constellating these ‘Benjamins’ as self-conscious reflective and speculative identities nonetheless actualizing to their human character, this article illustrates a text which is intrinsically in deep conversation with its own medial limitation and consequently transforms that textuality into a locus of power. Structurally, Benjamin’s theses perform a harmonic, musical feat, embedding a true praxis of historical critique within an image from which it unendingly springs forth.
More...
This title is related to the topic of Postmodernism and Religion of the First Issue of the Ελδοςα (Journal of Philosophical and Social Research) whose birth is expected at the end of 2017 in Zenica Polis. The ambiguity of the title of the paper (inspired by work of a philosophical-sociological friend from Munich) is simply an urge to ask about possibility of secular belief or religious secularism.
More...
The paper reviews Sorokin’s cyclical conception of history through relevant literature. The social role of war is analysed, in accordance with Sorokin’s understanding of the three cultural types (sensate, idealistic, and ideational) which alternate through the history of mankind. Due to the fact that war as a social phenomenon depends on the cultural style that is dominant at a given moment in history, its social role changes as well, manifesting as a regress or progress in sociocultural process. Sorokin ascertains that we can notice the decrease in values of the dominant sensate culture in the twentieth century in all aspects of life. By examining Sorokin’s sociology of war, the author concluded that war lost the meaning it had for mankind due to the acceleration of military-technological development and that by being estranged from it, it became its own cause, turning into a conflict that may or may not lead to war. Such a conflict as a surrogate of war, that Sorokin hadn’t predicted, has no social role but leads to a destruction of civilization.
More...
The article aims to explain the connection of Marcuse’s concept of dehistorization with his interpretation and criticism of the Heideggerian concept of historicity. Dehistorization inMarcuse’s philosophy, according to my tentative definition, is the kind of transformation of the creative social forces and human abilities denying an existing reality that makes them elements of the mechanism producing and reproducing the existent reality, and thereby makes them a manner of repression of the human striving for freedom and happiness and a way to perpetuate domination. According to Marcuse, dehistorization is the main form of reproduction of the false totality. The idea of dehistorization is the prevailing critical concept in Marcuse’s philosophy. It appears in the course of his criticism of fascism. The basis of the formation of the dehistorization concept is Marcuse’s criticism and interpretation of Heidegger’s conception of historicity during his “Heideggerian Marxism” period (1928–1933). This Heideggerian conception is the ultimate achievement of contemporary philosophy. The ultimate character of this achievement is given to it,according to Marcuse, that it treats history from the viewpoint of being in contrast to Hegel’s idealistic dialectics and German historicism of the 19th century, which interpreted it from the viewpoint of consciousness or the spirit. There are four main tendencies in Marcuse’s criticism and transformation of Heidegger’s conception of historicity. 1. The deformalization of Heidegger’s treatment of historicity of Dasein. The explanation of the material substance of historicity, i.e. the explanation of the material character of conditions of human existence (Dasein) as the definitive feature of historicity. 2. The concretization of Dasein, its treatment not as an individual, but as a class in view of substantial differences of the environment (Umwelt), material conditions of its existence. 3. Following from both the deformalization of historicity and the concretization of Dasein — the rehabilitation of the “being-with” (Mitsein) and the public sphere (Mitwelt), and,thereby, of the space of political struggle as the sphere of authenticity. 4. The disclosure of the fundamental role of the phenomenologically considered spatiality (Räumlichkeit) in the constitution of concrete historicity, i.e. historicity determined by the material, social and political character of Dasein and the world. Marcuse’s interpretation and criticism of Heidegger’s conception of historicity and his criticism of dehistorization based on it paves the way to his ontological interpretation of Marxist dialectics as the method of the struggle against dehistorization and false totality and as the only truly revolutionary way of thinking.
More...