Search

The article investigates the intrinsic interconnectedness of European culture with philosophy acting as its self-reflexive pillar, the foundations of which many derive from Plato. It is in the philosophical interpretation of Plato’s work that the author uncovers the analogous structures that represented one of the greatest challenges of the philosophical tradition: the implicit polemical relationship to another, different starting point, that precedes the explicit polemos – a war. The author recalls the influential attempts of European thought in the 20th century that tried to break free from a state of total confrontation. In the 1990s, however, he catches up with the Platonic interpretation, as is demonstrated by the detailed description of the “war of methodologies.” If in the background there is a connection with self-reflection in the process of the self-constitution of philosophy and the selfcomprehension of Europe, then according to the author the “Platonic revolution” is an effort to come to terms with the unprocessed implicit epistemological preformative, war. A possible solution is provided by the author‘s distinction between agon and polemos.

In the concluding part of Heretical Essays in the Philosophy of History, Jan Patočka thematizes the 20th century and claims that this entire period is a century of war. This paper identifies the main arguments supporting this thesis and examines Patočka’s reflections on how this essential character of the 20th century can be overcome. The article primarily focuses on revealing the ontological-anthropological framework that underlies Patočka’s argumentation, including the idea that polemos is the law of the world. More concrete analyses then demonstrate the problematic elements of Patočka’s concept.

In this study, the author investigates, analyzes and evaluates the philosophically and politically important, interactive role played by criticism in forming and maintaining the concept of a democratic republic, and which played a fundamental role in the philosophical and political works of T. G. Masaryk, Emanuel Rádl, Jan Patočka, Ladislav Hejdánek and Erazim Kohák. The study first describes Masaryk’s concept of a democratic republic, which originated in his philosophical, social and political criticism of the time, and then continues with Rádl’s criticism of nationalism, also linked to Masaryk; Patočka’s criticism of Masaryk’s and Rádl’s philosophy and politics; and Hejdánek’s and Kohák’s criticism of Patočka’s criticism. Philosophical criticism played an irreplaceable role both in the initial sustaining of Masaryk’s and Rádl’s concept of a democratic republic and in its renewal and modernization. In the conclusion, the critical discourse of the authors discussed in the study is summarized.

The study presented here focuses on the transformation in the 1940s and 1950s of Jan Patočka’s interpretation of the relationship between Socrates and Plato. This shift is tracked in the context of Patočka’s dialogue with the philosophy of existence. While in the lectures from the 1940s and the climactic work from this period, Věčnost a dějinnost (Eternity and Historicity), Socrates – with his emphasis on subjectivity, human freedom and incompleteness – is seen in Patočka’s conception to be close to the main motifs of the philosophy of existence, in Negativní platonismus (Negative Platonism) Patočka’s position is already far from such an “existential Socraticism.” The text of the study shows that Patočka’s critical reception of the philosophy of existence is one of the historically important motives in the transformation of Patočka’s position between Eternity and Historicity and Negative Platonism.

This article discusses the relationship between Jan Patočka's and Václav Havel's political writings. By specifically focusing on Patočka's concepts a "life in the idea" and a "life in problematicity" and Havel's notion of a "life in truth", it seeks to draw out the differences and similarities between their respective understandings of the relationship between truth and politics. The paper argues that Havel reinterpreted Patočka's ideas in a way, which in the final analysis diverged from Patočka's original intentions. Finally, the article argues that Havel's, in many ways productive, reinterpretation gives rise to a highly problematic conception of ideology and politics since the "prepolitical" form of politics that Havel envisions ultimately tends to naturalize both truth and politics.

According to Václav Havel’s famous essay The Power of powerless life within a lie is at the core of the communist regime in Czechoslovakia. Life within a lie is characteristic for the great majority of people and is contrasted with life within the truth which is characteristic of dissent movement. In this paper, I will try to shed some light on the concept of “living within a lie.” I will show that Havel develops not one but two concepts of a lie: on the one hand, lie is deliberate pretence; on the other hand, lie is seduction by consumerist values. The first meaning of a lie is derived from Havel’s analysis of the specifics of the Soviet sphere of influence, namely central role of ideology with omnipresent demands on public support of the regime. The second meaning of a lie is heavily influenced by a critical assessment of modern society from the leading figure of the Czech underground movement Ivan Jirous and leading Czech philosopher Jan Patočka. This double meaning of a lie enables Havel to capture both specific problems of living under the communist regime and general problems of living in modern society anywhere in the world. In the final chapters of this paper, I will show that Havel is not clear about how these two meanings of a lie are connected and that there are problems resulting from these unclarities both for Havel’s analysis of the communism and his proposed solution of the crisis.

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.