Search

The ancient concept of the underground is mainly associated with the outdated triadic cosmology. In modernity, some authors such as Dostoevsky and Nietzsche have dialectically referred to the underground as an alternative to the principle of reason or ground. Others—such as Hegel or Heidegger—have more radically linked this dialectic to the abyssal unground, recalling Boehme and Hölderlin. However, all these modern dialectical constellations of ground, underground, or unground have failed to provide a philosophical vision that would overcome the aporetic relationship between metaphysical grounding and phenomenal appearance. They have left aside the reality of the Marian underground, overshadowed by the Spirit and Cross and marked by Christ’s descent into the underground, by which the powers of the ancient underground were apocalyptically drawn into the liturgical celebration of a persecuted Church. In this article, I will link Jan Patočka’s phenomenology of the underground experience and Zdeněk Neubauer’s Marian metaphysics to prove that, in the apocalyptic horizon of suffering and persecution, the Sophianic and Marian revelations spell out the created form of Trinitarian being, that becomes a miraculous rescue of all relations and phenomena as the ground shining from within the underground, and the underground within the ground.

An attempt at an ontological critique of Wilhelm Dilthey's conception of resistance The starting point of the paper is Wilhelm Dilthey's conception of resistance as a pre-reflective experience of separation of the Self and the outer world. This emerges in the very early (prenatal) stages of ontogenesis and forms the basis of our belief in the reality of outer world. We try to explicate Dilthey's insights more precisely by pursuing the interpretation of his conception by other authors, confronting it with a phenomenological approach and reflecting on the possibilities of ontological grounding of the term. Dilthey's analysis of resistance met with explicit responses from Martin Heidegger and Max Scheler, and became one of the main topics of a debate between them, triggered by Scheler's response to Being and Time. Heidegger rejects Dilthey's concept of resistance, claiming that resistance is characteristic of an ontic entity, but it never characterizes the world in the ontological sense. Resistance always presupposes the disclosure of the world, and also disclosed is that which our will or instinct aim for. A key role here is played by the existential structure of Sorge. Scheler revises Dilthey's original concept and purifies it from some untenable ontic characteristics (e.g. resistance as a content...

This article analyses two essays by Jan Patočka on the Great war. According to the Czech philosopher, the conflict must be considered as the consequence of a “revolution” whose content must be identified in the “techno-science” of modern Germany. The Great war, then, takes on a “total” value since it coincides with every tension towards the automation of human existence., Magisterium, V. 1 (2022)

Este trabalho discute a importância da atenção a alguns conceitos esquecidos pelo planejamento urbano, como o da corporeidade, para a efetivação de políticas urbanas que abranjam qualitativamente o espaço da cidade. Tal esquecimento, longe de ser uma falha, é encarado como possibilidade de discussão com o escopo de enriquecer as reflexões sobre os desafios da cidade contemporânea, principalmente, da necessidade de ponderação sobre a dimensão existencial no constructo da urbanidade. Para tanto, utilizou-se das contribuições do campo fenomenológico, mais precisamente, do filósofo tcheco Jan Patočka, no que compete a tematizar este corpo enquanto aporte fenomênico prenhe de exequibilidade de compreensão do outro através dos abalos constantes de seu papel perante si e aos outros. Assim, por este aporte, acredita-se ser possível constatar uma solidariedade entre os resilientes das visões objetificantes da globalização perniciosa através das veredas dos territórios praticados e lugarizados entre os sujeitos.

The article looks at the foundations of Jan Patočka’s philosophy of negative Platonism. On the one hand, it pursues the negative-Platonic question of the essence of metaphysics and, on the other, Patočka’s analysis of the ontic-ontological difference as the fundament of the whole negative-Platonic project. The author points out that the expression of Patočka’s borderline position between metaphysics and philosophy is the ambiguousness of negative Platonism, with which, however, the negative-Platonic requirement of a clear ontic-ontological difference does not correspond. He seeks a possible solution to this problem in Patočka’s study “Nadcivilizace a její vnitřní konflikt” (“Supercivilisation and its Inner Conflict“), especially in the notion of “large distinctions”. He understands this as a historical archetype of the difference from later texts devoted to negative Platonism, interpreted as chorismos.

This article examines the relation between two key, but seemingly opposed concepts in Jan Patočka’s thought: epoché and the concrete institutional polis. In doing so it attempts to elucidate the inextricable relation between phenomenology and politics in the work of the Czech philosopher, and illustrate more broadly the possibilities for approaching the political from a phenomenological perspective. The article provides a phenomenological interpretation of “care for the soul” as closely linked to Patočka’s reformulation of the core phenomenological notion of epoché. It argues that in Patočka’s work, the epoché, traditionally conceived as a radical stepping back from the world must be rendered differently, not only as a negative freedom, but as the foundation of positive politics. Thus, the authors argue that there is a thematic and conceptual continuity between Patočka’s phenomenological studies and his political work.

The studies of the Czech phenomenologist Jan Patočka (1907–1977) has been flourishing recently. Martin Ritter’s book Into the World: The Movement of Patočka’s Phenomenology (Springer 2019) offers an important contribution to the debate and a long-awaited critical presentation of Patočka’s asubjective phenomenology as well as creative re-reading of Patočka's central doctrine of the movements of existence.

Interview

The main subject of the paper is Jan Patočka’s critique of Mircea Eliade’s standpoint on the sacred/profane conceived as the fundamental ontological dichotomy. It is argued that such a critique entails a phenomenological account of the originary space of personhood, the latter being part and parcel of Patočka’s phenomenology of the life-world. By drawing in particular on his essay on space, where Patočka’s reading of Eliade explicitly appears, on the Heretical essays, and on the Supplement to The Natural World, this paper attempts to show how the sacred/profane dichotomy is phenomenologically further founded on the basic structures of the life-world, which are elicited by an analysis of the three movements of human life, namely, rooting, protection-and-preservation, and openness.

The diploma thesis deals with corporeality in Jan Patočka. The key passage of the work is the doctrine of the three movements of human existence - 1) the movement of anchoring, 2) the movement of defense and 3) the movement of truth. Patočka already outlined this problem in his habilitation thesis entitled "The Natural World as a Philosophical Problem" in 1936. It is an original approach, which was later further developed. A deeper analysis of Patočka's conception of corporeality leads to key questions of phenomenology, such as revelation, intersubjectivity or epoch.

En este artículo, se intentan aclarar los conceptos de la política, las políticas y la política no-política, en la vida y obra de Jan Patočka, principalmente, sobre la base de una observación de las tensiones entre sus actividades cívicas y filosóficas. De igual forma, se plantea la pregunta con respecto a cómo conciliar la posición familiar e inquebrantable (la convicción, el “liderazgo”) de la Carta 77 y su postura exterior, sólida como una roca (que Patočka, como su portavoz, no solo mantuvo, sino que también co-creó por medio de sus textos sobre la Carta), con una afirmación de la naturaleza problemática de la vida humana y el conocimiento, que es central en sus obras. La única interpretación que conozco como respuesta a esta pregunta (incluso si no se hace explícitamente) establece de manera más sistemática que la afirmación fundamental de Patočka “contiene una teoría política de la democracia radical y agonista”, y lo identifica con esta. Sin embargo, dado que la acción principal de Patočka (de hecho, considerada a fondo y sostenida de manera consistente) fue la actividad de la política no-política, específicamente en su actividad frente a la iniciativa disidente de la Carta 77, debo preguntar si es posible clasificar este acto como democracia agonista radical y si es en absoluto compatible con esto. Si no es así, luego, ¿cómo vamos a interpretar la naturaleza problemática de la vida dentro del contexto de la postura de la política no-poltica y cómo vamos a mantenerlas juntas? V této stati usiluji o vyjasnění konceptů politična, politiky a nepolitické politiky v životě a díle Jana Patočky, a to především na základě sledování napětí mezi jeho aktivitami občanskými a filosofickými. Kladu si otázku, jak známou nepohnutou pozici (přesvědčení, „vědění“) Charty 77 a s ní spojené skálopevné vystupování navenek (které Patočka nejen jako mluvčí zastával, ale které – i svými texty k Chartě – spolutvořil) sjednotit s přitakáním problematičnosti lidského života a vědění, které je v Patočkových dílech ústřední. Jediná mně známá interpretace, která na tuto otázku (byť si ji explicitně neklade) odpovídá, říká, že ono Patočkovo fundamentální přitakání „obnáší politickou teorii radikální a agonistické demokracie“ a Patočku s tímto radikálním postojem plně identifikuje. Jelikož ale výsadním (ovšem dobře rozmyšleným a konzistentně drženým) „politickým“ činem Patočky byla aktivita nepolitické politiky, respektive Charty 77, musíme se ptát, zda lze tento čin (a s ním spojené texty) řadit k radikální agonistické demokracii a zda je s ní vůbec slučitelná. Pokud nikoliv, vyvstává otázka, jak potom onu problematičnost života vykládat v kontextu postojů nepolitické politiky, jak obé držet pospolu.

At the time of his sudden death in 1977, the Czech philosopher Jan Patočka left a large philosophical legacy with no will and testament. For the last 43 years, the editors of his Collected Works have been reconstructing a unified and thematically articulated oeuvre from the more than 10,000 pages found in his drawers and boxes. It should in the end include not only the texts published during Patočka’s lifetime but also his many unpublished manuscripts, fragments, variations, drafts of unfinished philosophical projects, notebooks and letters. After demonstrating in which sense the death of the author coincides in Patočka’s case with the birth of his oeuvre, the article aims to show that the unity of Patočka’s work is not something given, but rather something to be artificially reconstructed, in an always disputable fashion, since the internal coherence of its various thematic divisions is necessarily itself a matter of ongoing interpretation., Aisthesis. Pratiche, linguaggi e saperi dell’estetico, Vol. 13 No. 2 (2020): Reading Philosophy Through Archives and Manuscripts

In this paper we present Jan Patočka’s phenomenological analyses of pain, developed in the 1940s. There he indicates an interesting position on pain as experience of evil. Thus, pain is for him a form of “negative intentionality”, in which a particular object is given that annihilates every possible object to which human desires aspire. This thesis of the Czech philosopher not only sheds light on the ensemble of his work but also is pertinent for contemporary philosophical and interdisciplinary discussions on pain., Neste artigo apresentamos as análises fenomenológicas sobre a dor que Jan Patočka desenvolveu nos anos 40. Nelas, o filósofo aponta para uma posição interessante sobre a dor como uma experiência do mal. Em particular, a dor é uma intenção negativa, onde existe um objeto peculiar que aniquila todos os objetos possíveis aos quais os desejos humanos aspiram. Esta tese do filósofo checo, além de esclarecer todo o seu trabalho, enquadra-‑se plenamente nos atuais debates filosóficos e interdisciplinares sobre a dor.

espanolEn este articulo presentamos los analisis fenomenologicos sobre el dolor que Jan Patocka realizo en los anos 40. En ellos, apunta a una interesante posicion sobre el dolor como experiencia del mal. En particular, el dolor es una intencionalidad negativa donde viene dado un peculiar objeto que aniquila todo objeto posible a que aspiran los deseos humanos. Esta tesis del filosofo checo, ademas de arrojar luz sobre el conjunto de su obra, encaja de lleno en los actuales debates filosoficos e interdisciplinares sobre el dolor. EnglishIn this paper we present Jan Patocka’s phenomenological analyses of pain, developed in the 1940s. There he indicates an interesting position on pain as experience of evil. Thus, pain is for him a form of “negative intentionality”, in which a particular object is given that annihilates every possible object to which human desires aspire. This thesis of the Czech philosopher not only sheds light on the ensemble of his work but also is pertinent for contemporary philosophical and interdisciplinary discussions on pain.

Jan Patočka, who drew inspiration for his own philosophy not only in the important phenomenologist Hannah Arendt but also in Greek philosophy, at one point in his philosophical development, surprisingly turned away from Socrates and Plato and inclined to Aristotle and his concept of action. As with Arendt, this concept forms the pillar of his thinking, and the aim of this text is to indicate the possible connection of this leaning towards Aristotle with the study of Patočka’s friend and colleague Eugen Finek called PHRONESIS und THEORIA. It is these Aristotelian concepts that prove to be crucial for the further development of Patočka’s thought and his concept of action. In addition, there are similarities, but also differences in Patočka and Fink’s concept of human finitude, which is very closely related to the act.

The topic of this bachelor thesis Truth and Theatre is the study of the truth by connecting the concepts of the phenomenologist Jan Patočka and the theatre director and researcher Jerzy Grotowski. The objective of this thesis is to capture the factual connection between these two concepts. This work reveals how the topic of the truth tied with the ancient abstract meaning of aletheia - "unconcealedness" is being manifested in the theatre, how it is related to the themes of myth, ritual, situation, corporality, education and why is this understanding of truth inseparable from the action, self-awareness and the moral. The aim of this work is also to map the philosophical basis for the master's thesis, which will be created at the Department of Drama in Education on DAMU. KEYWORDS Jan Patočka, Jerzy Grotowski, Martin Heidegger, truth, aletheia, phenomenology, theatre, performer, action, knowledge, myth, dramatic education, care for the soul, paratheatre

The intensive and systematic scholarly interest in the relation of Patočka’s phenomenology to religion and Christianity is recent and has only intensified over the last ten years. Thus far, the topic has mainly been studied from philosophical and theological perspectives, and the extensive body of Patočka’s cultural writings has largely failed to attract the attention of scholars. Moreover, a culturological approach is virtually absent. Therefore, this article suggests focusing on the analysis of cultural archetypes in Patočka’s cultural writings related to the topic of religion and Christianity from this perspective. The cultural archetypes of the Faustian figures of Patočka’s cultural writings, whether Goethe’s Faust, Goethe’s Marguerite, or Mann’s Adrian Leverkühn, are all Socratic-Christic avatars that personify Patočka’s philosophical concept of “care for the soul” in the modern age. The legacy of Plato’s Greek philosophy and that of Western Christianity as presented by Patočka insist on the universally shared existential experience of finitude that should be grasped as a positive challenge in the strife for meaning. Patočka’s “titanism” and the archetypal titanic figures of his cultural writings are Patočkian manifestations of this universal effort. A culturological approach to Patočka’s thinking on religion and Christianity might thus prove most relevant.

Collection : « Le grenier à sel ». Auteur de l'ouvrage : Renaud Barbaras.; International audience

Collection : « Le grenier à sel ». Auteur de l'ouvrage : Renaud Barbaras.; International audience

Collection : "Le grenier à sel". Auteur de l'ouvrage : Renaud Barbaras.; International audience

Collection : « Le grenier à sel ». Auteur de l'ouvrage : Renaud Barbaras.; International audience

This essay analyses Patočka’s philosophy of art in the period before and during the Second World War. Since the philosophy of art in Patočka’s thinking is part of a broader philosophical debate, the first section of this essay introduces the main philosophical problems that Patočka was dealing with at this time. The second part of the essay introduces the place that art has in this broader philosophical context, from the point of view both of the artist and of the viewer. In any case, art for Patočka represents a historical force of spirit, that is, a reflection of a certain form of the lived world. The last two parts of this essay describe specific differences between art and other kinds of spiritual activity like philosophy, science, and religion, as well as the pre-reflexive form of these spiritual forces as represented in mythology. The author concludes that Patočka’s early philosophical thinking creates quite a coherent system in which art plays an important role.

Phenomenology of Political Space is an attempt to provide both a genealogical and a phenomenological account of a subject that philosophy rarely confronts, namely political space. Our analysis thus encompasses all the dimensions of political space - political, historical, geographical, and juridical - without dismissing any of them. It aims at showing the intrinsic connection between phenomenology and modern and contemporary political thought. It does so by identifying the two opposing models of political space, respectively shaped by Machiavelli and Hobbes, which we claim correspond to two opposing systems of visibility: a logic of appearance versus a logic of representation. It then moves to the contemporary phenomenological approach and gives both a phenomenology of movement and a phenomenology of political space. The central idea is the opposition, in modern and contemporary political thought, between appearance and representation, or in other words, between immediacy and mediation, as the terms are used respectively by Machiavelli and Hobbes, as well as by other authors who, in the twentieth century, studied their works (Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jan Patočka, Carl Schmitt). Our current research focuses on both their conceptions of movement, desire and fear; and on their interpretation of political space., Phénoménologie de l'espace politique est une étude à la fois généalogique et phénoménologique d'un sujet auquel la philosophie ne se confronte que rarement, à savoir l'espace politique. Les principaux acteurs en sont Maurice Merleau-Ponty et Jan Patočka. Il s'agit donc d'une thèse de philosophie contemporaine, pour ce qui concerne les auteurs étudiés, tandis que l'objet de notre recherche est politique - comme en témoigne le fait que même l'expression «espace politique» n'est pas utilisée dans le domaine philosophique. Puisque notre objectif est de conduire une recherche à la fois politique et phénoménologique sur l'espace politique, il sera essentiel de l'aborder simultanément de ces deux points de vue. Il s'agira en effet de tracer une généalogie de l'espace politique, précédée par une étude phénoménologique du concept d'espace et de celle de mouvement. Nous en tirerons l'idée centrale de la partie plus proprement politique, à savoir l'opposition, dans la pensée politique moderne, entre apparition et représentation, ou en d'autres termes, entre immédiateté et médiation, que l'on peut trouver respectivement chez Machiavel et Hobbes et chez les auteurs qui, au XXe siècle, ont étudié leurs œuvres, notamment Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jan Patočka et Carl Schmitt. C'est à partir de ces concepts d'apparition et de représentation, et de leur opposition, que nous allons développer une analyse à la fois phénoménologique et politologique de l'espace politique.

The presentation entitled “Jan Patočka’s Concept of Fraternity and its Challenges vis-à-vis the World of Today” discusses the concept of fraternity explored in texts by the Czech philosopher written later in his life. J. Patočka was one of the authors of Charter 77, a dissident document, which called for the protection of human rights (published on January 6.–7., 1977).First, Patočka’s theory of three movements of life (also: movements of the soul) – i.e. the movement of rooting or anchoring, the movement of labour or self-delivery and the movement of breakthrough or finding oneself – will be analysed. Based on the analysis, the role of turning (gr. metanoiésis) from a mere solidarity of interests to actual being through surrendering oneself will be shown. Jan Patočka interpreted life as surrender by referring to the notion of Godman and the way the world relates to him. The phenomenon of sacrifice that Jan Patočka dealt with in the last period of his life (Patočka died on March 13, 1977, following long and exhausting police interrogations) can inspire the field of social ethics, both from the philosophical and theological points of view. It also comes with challenges to education and training in today’s Europe, which faces migration, as it needs to learn new habits of hospitality and fraternity.

In a couple of different works, Jan Patočka discusses the possibility of building a new paradise on earth, relating it to myths of a primeval paradise as well as some works by Dostoevsky. In some of Patočka’s writings, this possibility of a paradise on earth also appears, described as ‘new love’ or ‘universal love’. Unlike the myths of a time before the Fall, the possibility of an earthly paradise would be true to the human condition of finitude, understanding, and freedom. However, what is – or is there – the possibility of heaven on earth? What are the differences between the original paradise and the promise of this one? What is ‘love’, or are there different loves?

The article deals with two Jan Patočka essays, each written to mark the 25th anniversary of the publication of Thomas Mann’s novel Doctor Faustus (1947). In these essays, the writer is defined as an ‘interpreter of myth’. In contrast to his essays ‘The Concern of the Writer’ (1969) and ‘Art and Time’ (1966), Patočka here examines the relationship between modern art and myth in two essays on Faustus. The article presents Patočka’s interpretation of the fundamental subject of Faustus literature in its metamorphosis from the sixteenth century to the twentieth, and points out that Patočka’s Faustus essays manifest an important aspect of his concept of modern art.

This article is concerned with the question of how two obvious but apparently antithetical features of aesthetic experience – distance and immersion – can be integrated into one theory. The author criticizes the contemporary neglect of the first feature (distance or disinterestedness), and argues for a more dialectical notion of aesthetic experience which would include both of them. To this end, the article starts, in section one, by re-examining the main points in the evolution of phenomenological aesthetics, which some authors consider a chief source of this neglect. The presence of two questions is emphasized: (1) the idea of a distinctive perception which we traditionally call aesthetic and can trace back to Kantian roots and (2) the process of breaking with the subject-object model of experience. In the end of this section, the question is raised whether the successful elimination of the latter means the necessary rejection of the former. In section two, the author argues for a negative answer to this question, and a candidate for a ‘new paradigm’ of aesthetics is considered – the idea of the environment. As the conclusion to this section, the compatibility of the idea of the aesthetic mode of perception in the traditional sense, together with the original sense of the idea of environment, is defended. Lastly, in section three, these findings are made more specific and confirmed by turning to Jan Patočka’s analyses of the experience of space.

The article deals with Jan Patočka’s considerations on the mutual relation of science and art as two important ways towards the comprehension of reality. Patočka believes that science provides the tool to reveal objective and binding truth and that modern and contemporary art is able to reveal subjective and individual truth. Art thus functions as a corrective to the dominance of science and technology. However, art as such emerges only in a time of dominant scientific and technical approaches to reality. Along these lines, the article emphasises that the mutual relations of art and science should be conceived as dialectical.

If the objective meaning of philosophy and science is different from the subjective meaning of life as it is expressed by art, the self-creation of the soul can express, through art, a universal objective; philosophy, art, and psychoanalysis create living meanings. Can we think of creation outside the subject? The psyche, which is neither substance nor subject, is self-created, and it is described in Patočka’s theory of the three movements of human existence. My intention in this article is to describe the self-creation of the psyche within the deeproot-movement, the reproduction-movement, and the truth-movement, and examine it from the phenomenological, psychoanalytical, and sociopolitical points of view. The essence of Psyche is creation; its purpose is autonomy. I seek to demonstrate here that creation can be a subject-free process, an asubjective movement.

Después de comentar la situación general de los estudios platónicos y de algunas de las rupturas producidas en las batallas por la interpretación de Platón, se presentan algunos de los últimos desarrollos de la investigación que lleva a cabo el grupo de investigación “Eidos: platonisme i modernitat”. A propósito de la fenomenología platónica de Jan Patocka, se muestra la íntima conexión entre platonismo, fenomenología y teatro en la obra del filósofo checo, así como en su discípulo Vaclav Havel. Se presenta ahora tan solo un desarrollo preliminar que se concentrará posteriormente en una reflexión sobre la dramaticidad del diálogo platónico. After discussing the general situation of the Platonic studies and after some of the ruptures ocurred in the battles for Plato’s interpretation, the paper shows some of the latest developments of the research carried out by the research group “Eidos: platonisme i modernitat”. In connection with the Platonic phenomenology of Jan Patocka, is shown the intimate connection between Platonism, phenomenology and theater in the work of the Czech philosopher, as well as his disciple Vaclav Havel. It presents now only a preliminary development that will focus later on a reflection on the drama of Platonic dialogue.

The article deals with the problem of human rights in the context Jan Patočka’s philosophy. In philosophical discourse this issue usually emerges as the problem of grounding of human rights in Patočka’s later phenomenology and is closely and legitimately connected to a vision of his political involvement that unites philosophical theory with living practice. This article approaches the problem of human rights from a different perspective and finds reasons why Patočka was not only a proponent of human rights, but also a critique of their potentially decadent forms originating in inauthentic understanding of human freedom. For this reason the article focuses on Patočka’s critique of liberalism.

As Karl Löwith suggested, modern philosophy of history secularizes Christian Heilsgeschichte by turning the eschaton into an immanent telos of the historical process. This article agrees with Löwith that there is an essential relation between the modern understanding of history and the Christian model. Yet, in drawing on the philosophy of history of Jan Patočka, it shows that for modern philosophy of history, there is a second option of dealing with the eschaton. Just as the Christian eschaton constitutes history also in urging to make a decision for Christ here and now, modern history constantly calls for making a decision concerning its meaning. According to Patočka, however, the ultimate meaning of history cannot be specified. Rather, meaning realizes itself in the question of meaning. One might speak here of a “crossed-out eschatology” (durchgestrichene Eschatologie) that stands in opposition to the idea of human self-redemption, even if it is thoroughly modern.

This article investigates the political potentialities of Jan Patočka’s philosophy. It begins by situating Patočka’s philosophy in the context of the history of Czechoslovakia, and poses the question of whether Patočka’s late Kantianism and involvement with the Charter 77 initiative constitutes the sole political potentiality of his philosophy. It then argues that Patočka’s status as a political thinker is best understood by demarcating his pre-political philosophical core from its possible political applications. By sketching the essence of his philosophy as a conception of ‘ontological wounding’, the article then investigates how this core of his philosophy can be politicized in certain circumstances. Ultimately, it argues that Patočka should not be considered a political thinker per se, but that his philosophy nevertheless has political potentialities. ispartof: Studies in East European Thought vol:69 issue:1 pages:29-44 status: published

There are questions that are so important that it is a pity to spoil them with answers. No doubt, the question of God is one of them. Contrary to many presuppositions, theology is not capable of providing us with the final answers in this respect. On the contrary, theology professed as fides quaerens intellectum is an ongoing struggle with questions. Modernity interrupted this paradigm of theological questioning. Theology was withdrawn from the realm of understanding and shifted to the realm of explanation. Modernity brought the univocalization of God. Nonetheless, the attempts to tackle the question of God lead to hegemonic narratives about God. Such narratives are rightly criticized in a postmodern context for their totalizing pretensions. The problem of postmodern criticism is its one-sided emphasis on the apophatic dimension of theological discourse. I propose that theology can go a step further beyond postmodernity. In order to do so, I deal with the Czech philosopher Jan Patočka, who provides an opportunity to rethink God from the perspective of questioning in a new way. Patočka’s insistence on problematicity is the main reading key of his work. In this line of though, I interpret Patočka’s student Tomáš Halík and his thesis about the necessity to take the metaphor of an unknown God into account. I argue that theology must avoid the temptation to remove God from the question and make a well-known God of him. The time has come for theologians to turn their answers back into questions and dwell with them. Bůh jako otázka: Tázání jako předpoklad teologie Některé otázky jsou tak důležité, že je škoda kazit je odpověďmi. Není pochyb, že otázka po Bohu je jednou z nich. Navzdory mnoha předpokladům, ani teologie není schopna poskytnout v tomto ohledu konečné odpovědi. Teologie pojatá jako fides quaerens intellectum je nepřetržitý nekončící zápas s otázkami. Moderna narušila toto paradigma teologického myšlení. Modernita učinila z pojmu Boha pojem „univocitní“ a vyjmula jej z oblasti otázek. Teologie napříště náležela do oblasti vysvětlení. Avšak pokusy zodpovědět otázku po Bohu s konečnou platností vedou k hegemonii. Tento způsob myšlení je právem kritizován postmodernou. Problém postmoderní kritiky je však její jednostranný důraz na apofatickou dimenzi teologického diskursu. V tomto článku tvrdím, že teologie může nejen přijmout některé aspekty postmoderní kritiky, ale dokonce postmodernu překonat. S tímto úkolem se vyrovnávám za pomoci myšlení českého filosofa Jana Patočky, který otevírá příležitost k přehodnocení otázky po Bohu. Patočkův důraz na problematičnost je hlavním interpretačním klíčem. V tomto duchu dále interpretuji i Patočkova žáka Tomáše Halíka a jeho návrh metafory o neznámém Bohu jako způsobu, jak se s otázkou po Bohu v dnešním kontextu vyrovnat. V závěru argumentuji ve prospěch teze, že teologie se musí vyhnout pokušení vyjmout Boha z výhně otázek a učinit z něj dobře známého Boha/bůžka. Nadešel čas, aby teologové obrátili své odpovědi zpět v otázky.

In this essay, I argue that there are striking parallels between the later work of the American pragmatist William James and the philosophy of Jan Patočka. Taking the naturalistic approach of existential moods in James as my point of departure, I show how both James and Patočka consider the dynamics of the feeling body to be the key to human selfunderstanding. They both see emotion as a paradigmatic form of embodied consciousness. What has remained an implicit and intuitive view in James gains a pronounced philosophical articulation in Patočka.

Jan Patočka, perhaps more so than any other philosopher in the twentieth century, managed to combine intense philosophical insight with a farsighted analysis of the idea and challenges facing Europe as a historical, cultural and political signifier. As a political dissident in communist Czechoslovakia he also became a moral and political inspiration to a generation of Czechs, including Václav Havel. He accomplished this in a time of intense political repression when not even the hint of a unified Europe seemed visible by showing in exemplary fashion how concrete thought can be without renouncing in any way its depth.Europe as an idea and a political project is a central issue in contemporary political theory. Patočka’s political thought offers many original insights into questions surrounding the European project. Here, for the first time, a group of leading scholars from different disciplines gathers together to discuss the specific political impact of Patočka’s philosophy and its lasting significance.

Summary: This work approaches Patočka's philosophy of art from the perspective of ‚care of the soul'. The first part of work describes evolution of the ‚care of the soul' in context of Patočka's philosophy of history from he 30s up to 70s. Based on this description I recognize experience of the soul as the experience of human freedom as inseparable from the ethical and methaphysical dimensions. The second part approaches art from this perspective.Patočka's intepretations of art show that Patočka saw art not only as a manifestation of human freedom, but as reflection of human position in the world and his relation to aletheia as well. However, art stays half way between myth and philosophy due to the fact, that the movement of freedom is not as absolute in art as it is in philosophy. This is evident in expressions that art takes from the fields of our emotions and experience and thus still remains for Patočka in connection with the world and our everydayness. Therefore art represents for Patočka only limited experience of the soul. It is mostly the momentum of transcendence that is important and interesting for Patočka in art, but not the results that, no matter how deep, are still insights about the things in the world. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Towards the end of one of his last texts, “The Schema of History” (Das Geschichtsschema, written in German between 1975 and 1976), Patočka poses a question that orients much of his late thought on the concepts of “post-Europe,” the “solidarity of the shaken,” and indeed “war” as the unifying theme of the twentieth century (and indeed many of the chapters in this volume). The question is simply: will “man” of “the planetary era” live in a manner that is effectively historical? Other contributions in this book have taken on this question in its positive sense by addressing the concepts of “post-Europe,” “solidarity,” “community,” and “war.” Indeed the question of what it is to live “historically” is the central concern of Patočka’s late work and it is parsed existentially, phenomenologically and also, if sometimes rather obliquely, politically throughout his entire oeuvre. In this chapter I am primarily concerned with the counterpoint to Patočka’s question. If, in the “planetary era,” living historically is a question, a desirable but seemingly rather unlikely possibility, what is the primary impediment? Patočka’s response to this is in the sentences, paragraphs, and pages which surround the question and specifically in one term: biology.

Předkládaná práce se zabývá povahou zkušenosti, kterou vnímající já činís jinými jsoucny, a podmínkami, za jakých je takové setkávání možné.Vyzdvihuje přitom zejména roli prostorovosti, která je určujícím znakemtělesných smyslových jsoucen. Práce se řadí do proudu postfenomenologickéfilosofie. V úvodní části jsou vystižena hlavnímetodologická vodítka fenomenologického přístupu a zároveň jeodstíněna post-fenomenologie jako typ myšlení, které se odklání odegocentrismu typického pro klasickou, zejm. husserlovskoufenomenologii. Vlastní výklad vychází od náčrtu fenomenologické teoriesmyslového vnímání (kap. I) a pokračuje vystižením základníchontologických charakteristik smyslově daných jsoucen, zejména jejichtransempirické povahy (kap. II). V následující kapitole se výklad krátcedotýká otázek spojených s povahou fenomenálního pole, jejžcharakterizuje jako strukturu možných daností jsoucen (kap. III). Následujíkapitoly, které tvoří vlastní jádro práce a týkají se prostorového způsobubytí dávajících se jsoucen (kap. IV) a já, jež činí se jsoucny zkušenost (kap.V). Podtržena je zejména bytostná vazba jsoucna na kontext, přičemžúvaha je vedena až k zasazení jsoucna do prostorového celku světa.V případě prostorovosti já je rozvíjena zejména dvojpólovost vlastníhotěla jako vnímajícího i vnímaného, daného zevnitř i zvenčí, a roleprostorových diferencí pro utváření a rozlišení zkušenosti já se sebousamým a s jinými jsoucny. Závěrečná kapitola naznačuje, žek prostorovosti sdíleného světa patří i možná druhá já, což zakládámožnost intersubjektivní platnosti zkušenosti (kap. VI).Klíčová slova: fenomenologie, ontologie, prostor, prostorovost, MauriceMerleau-Ponty, Jan Patočka., Phenomenological Conception of Space. The thesis focuses on the nature of experience which a perceiving self has with other beings and on the conditions which make such an encounter possible. It emphasises the role of the spatiality, which is seen as a defining characteristic of corporeal sensible beings. Broadly speaking, the work belongs to post-phenomenological philosophy. The Introduction summarises the main methodological principles of a phenomenological approach and presents post-phenomenology as a specific discourse which rejects the egocentrism typical of classical, especially Husserlian phenomenology. The exposition proper starts with an outline of a phenomenological theory of perception (Chapter I) and continues by offering an outline of the basic ontological characteristics of sensibly given entities, especially of their trans-empirical nature (Chapter II). The following chapter briefly treats some issues related to the nature of a phenomenal field, which is described as a structure of possible ways in which beings can manifest themselves (Chapter III). The subsequent chapters form the main core of the thesis. They deal with the spatial manner of being of entities which manifest themselves (Chapter IV) and of the self which experiences them (Chapter V). The main emphasis is on the essential bond which connects the given entities with their context,whereby this idea is generalised to the level of situating them within the spatial unity of the world. Regarding the spatiality of self, the main focusis on investigating the bipolar nature of one’s own body as bothperceiving and perceived, an entity which manifests itself internally andexternally, and the role of spatial distinctions in the formation and differentiation of the experience which a self has with itself and withother beings. The concluding chapter implies that a possible other self may be an integral part of the spatially differentiated shared world, thus establishing an intersubjective validity of sensory experience (Chapter V)., La thèse se préoccupe de la nature d’expérience que le moi percevant fait avec les autres étants et des conditions qui rendent leur rencontre possible. L’attention est centrée sur le rôle de la spatialité qui représente un caractère distinctif des étants sensibles corporels. La thèse s’inscrit dans le courant de la philosophie néo-phénoménologique. Dans les paragraphes d’introduction, les directives méthodiques de l’approche phénoménologique sont formulées, ainsi que la spécificité de la néophénoménologie,caractérisée comme une pensée qui se distancie de l’égocentrisme dominant la phénoménologie classique, notamment husserlienne. L’exposé part de l’esquisse d’une théorie phénoménologique de la perception (chap. I) et saisit les caractéristiques ontologiques élémentaires des étants donnés (chap. II). Le chapitre suivant traite brièvement les questions concernant la nature du champ phénoménal, caractérisé comme structure de donations possibles des étants (chap. III). Les chapitres suivants décrivent le mode spatial de l’être des étants qui se donnent au moi (chap. IV) et la spatialité propre au moi qui fait expérience (chap. V). L’attention est portée notamment à la liaison essentielle entre l’étant et son contexte ; ce motif est suivi jusqu’à l’insertion de l’étant dans le tout spatial du monde. Quant à la spatialité du moi, son corps est caractérisé comme un corps percevant et perçu,donné du dedans et du dehors à la fois. Le rôle des différences spatiales pour la constitution et la distinction de l’expérience du moi et des autres étants est élucidé. Le chapitre final montre que la spatialité du monde partagé implique aussi les autres moi possibles, ce qui fonde la valeur intersubjective de l’expérience sensible (chap. VI).

International audience; Patočka et la dynamisation de la corporéité Following the presentation of the two manners in which Patočka defines the corporeality of the « own body » (namely as a center of orientation only partially rediscovered in the subsequent self-perception and as the grounding point of a force characterized by its advancement towards the world), the article analyses the implications of Maine de Biran's influence on Patočka's views and, by identifying the most radical of the latter's results (specifically Patočka's depiction of the subjective movement as an original and indivisible phenomenon), concludes, against the phenomenological orthodoxy, that the "own" body is not fundamentally different from the rest of the world and that its place as a phenomenal locus of the absence of distinction between the subjective and the objective should instead be held by the movement that we are (which, in its turn, is part of the global movement of the world) .

Jan Patočka, perhaps more so than any other philosopher in the twentieth century, managed to combine intense philosophical insight with a farsighted analysis of the idea and challenges facing Europe as a historical, cultural and political signifier. As a political dissident in communist Czechoslovakia he also became a moral and political inspiration to a generation of Czechs, including Václav Havel. He accomplished this in a time of intense political repression when not even the hint of a unified Europe seemed visible by showing in exemplary fashion how concrete thought can be without renouncing in any way its depth.Europe as an idea and a political project is a central issue in contemporary political theory. Patočka’s political thought offers many original insights into questions surrounding the European project. Here, for the first time, a group of leading scholars from different disciplines gathers together to discuss the specific political impact of Patočka’s philosophy and its lasting significance.

Towards the end of one of his last texts, “The Schema of History” (Das Geschichtsschema, written in German between 1975 and 1976), Patočka poses a question that orients much of his late thought on the concepts of “post-Europe,” the “solidarity of the shaken,” and indeed “war” as the unifying theme of the twentieth century (and indeed many of the chapters in this volume). The question is simply: will “man” of “the planetary era” live in a manner that is effectively historical? Other contributions in this book have taken on this question in its positive sense by addressing the concepts of “post-Europe,” “solidarity,” “community,” and “war.” Indeed the question of what it is to live “historically” is the central concern of Patočka’s late work and it is parsed existentially, phenomenologically and also, if sometimes rather obliquely, politically throughout his entire oeuvre. In this chapter I am primarily concerned with the counterpoint to Patočka’s question. If, in the “planetary era,” living historically is a question, a desirable but seemingly rather unlikely possibility, what is the primary impediment? Patočka’s response to this is in the sentences, paragraphs, and pages which surround the question and specifically in one term: biology.

The main purpose of the doctoral thesis is to show "platonic motive" in Patočka's philosophy as unitary movement of thought, which exists in Patočka's thought since the thiertes to the sixties of the twentieth century. The aim is motivated by general question of relationship between modern thinking and European philosophical tradition. The thesis pursues to display, that Patočka's thinking makes possible to see and overcome an alienation contemporary European man from European philosophicaly tradition. The doctoral thesis has five chapters. First four chapters interpret socratic and platonic motives in Patočka's philosophy in chronological order (Patočka's philosophy in the thierties; philosophy of the Eternity and historicity; negative platonism; care of the soul and Europe). Chapter five contains intepretation of main question of doctoral thesis, it is question of unity of "platonic motive" in Patočka's philosophy. This question proceeds in three interpretative steps. In the first interpretative step are Patočka's all socratic and platonic motives reduced to three leading thoughts, that represent "platonic motive" as such: thoughts chōrismos, transendence and care of the soul. In second interpretative step the opposition "givenness- freedom" is established as a common core of the three thoughts. The...

Patočka and Modernity Jakub Homolka Abstract: This thesis deals with the work of Jan Patočka (1907-1977), probably the most important Czech philosopher of the twentieth century, and with his understanding of modernity. More precisely, the thesis focuses on Patočka's work from the perspective of contemporary civilizational analysis, which leads our attention especially to Patočka's dialogue with the work of the German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920). The thesis is divided into three parts. The first part introduces Patočka's work in general; it summarizes the situation of Patočka's heritage, subsuming existing findings and future challenges. The second part discusses the perspective of civilizational analysis, a subdiscipline of contemporary historical sociology, and explains the link between this field of research and Patočka's work. Finally, the third part presents an interpretation of Patočka's work which emphasizes the very perspective of civilizational analysis: the focus is on Patočka's dialogue with Weber's work, which is most notably expressed in the philosopher's idea of "rational civilization". In this way, the thesis contributes to the existing interpretations of Patočka's work as well as to the discussions of the theoretical concept of civilizational analysis. Key words: Jan Patočka; Max Weber;...

Towards the end of one of his last texts, “The Schema of History” (Das Geschichtsschema, written in German between 1975 and 1976), Patočka poses a question that orients much of his late thought on the concepts of “post-Europe,” the “solidarity of the shaken,” and indeed “war” as the unifying theme of the twentieth century (and indeed many of the chapters in this volume). The question is simply: will “man” of “the planetary era” live in a manner that is effectively historical? Other contributions in this book have taken on this question in its positive sense by addressing the concepts of “post-Europe,” “solidarity,” “community,” and “war.” Indeed the question of what it is to live “historically” is the central concern of Patočka’s late work and it is parsed existentially, phenomenologically and also, if sometimes rather obliquely, politically throughout his entire oeuvre. In this chapter I am primarily concerned with the counterpoint to Patočka’s question. If, in the “planetary era,” living historically is a question, a desirable but seemingly rather unlikely possibility, what is the primary impediment? Patočka’s response to this is in the sentences, paragraphs, and pages which surround the question and specifically in one term: biology.