Clanek poukazuje na problem, do jake miry je smysluplne rozlisovat přirodni vědy, socialni vědy a humanitni vědy, respektive co maji tyto vědy spolecneho potud, pokud je lze skutecně nazývat vědou. Jde o nasledujici otazky: Jaký je rozdil mezi humanitnimi a socialnimi vědami? Je možne vest ostrou demarkacni linii mezi humanitnimi a přirodnimi vědami a jejich metodami? Co vlastně opravňuje dotycný system výpovědi k tomu nazývat se vědou? Je osudem humanitnich věd kvantitativni smrt ci je naopak možne vedle hi-tech uspěsných exaktnich věd považovat humanitni vědy za nepostradatelne know-how pro přežiti lidske spolecnosti? Odpovědi na tyto otazky se budou opirat o definici socialni vědy Maxe Webera, požadavek autonomie metod humanitnich věd klasicke hermeneutiky, univerzalni hermeneutiku Hans-Georga Gadamera, scientistický navrh novopozitivismu a v neposledni řadě o řeseni problemu hodnotove neutrality vědy Hanse Alberta.

ČlĂĄnek se zabĂ˝vĂĄ Schmittovou kritikou modernity a jejĂ­mi antisemitskĂ˝mi přesahy, a to na pozadĂ­ zpĹŻsobu, jimĹž Schmitt konstruoval centrĂĄlnĂ­ pojem svĂŠ teorie politična  nepřítele. Koncept nepřítele se tak v Schmittově dĂ­le postupně vyvĂ­jĂ­. V předvĂ˝marskĂŠm obdobĂ­, v němĹž vznikajĂ­ předevĹĄĂ­m vĂ˝znamnĂŠ texty Der Wert des Staates und die Bedeutung des Einzelnen a Theodor Däublers "Nordlicht", je nepřítelem předevĹĄĂ­m modernĂ­, individualistickĂ˝ člověk či modernĂ­ duch. V obdobĂ­ vĂ˝marskĂŠm se pak z nepřítele stĂĄvĂĄ jiĹž nepřítel politična, kterĂŠho Schmitt bohuĹžel a velmi odpudivĂ˝m zpĹŻsobem identifikuje v textech nacistickĂŠ diktatury s ĹžidovskĂ˝m myĹĄlenĂ­m příliĹĄ vĂĄzanĂ˝m na abstraktnĂ­ zĂĄkon. ZĂĄvěr člĂĄnku je nĂĄsledujĂ­cĂ­: politickĂĄ teorie Carla Schmitta je zaloĹžena na antiindividualistickĂŠ a tĂŠměř Ăşplně negativnĂ­ antropologii, kterĂĄ je doprovĂĄzenĂĄ teoriĂ­ sekularizace popisujĂ­cĂ­ proces neutralizace a depolitizace lidskĂŠho Ĺživota, kterĂ˝ tak ztrĂĄcĂ­ na vĂĄĹžnosti. Tento zpĹŻsob Ĺživota postrĂĄdajĂ­cĂ­m jakoukoliv transcendenci a utĂĄpějĂ­cĂ­ se pouze v obstarĂĄvĂĄnĂ­ je pak pro Schmitta Ĺživotem velmi bĂ­dnĂ˝m a neautentickĂ˝m. Celou tuto komplexnĂ­ problematiku pak člĂĄnek hodnotĂ­ na pozadĂ­ vĂ˝voje německĂŠho katolicismu v 19. stoletĂ­, do jehoĹž kontextu Schmitt nĂĄleĹžel.

This paper levels two charges against our current, mildly hylomorphic conception of ordinary objects: that it contains a logically faulty understanding of matter and an equally problematic treatment of identity; reification is the kernel of both. With the help of McDaniel and Wittgenstein, I construct a suitable critique of the ordinary object and its respective ontology, laying the groundwork for a new ontology of the ordinary object. The discussion of concepts and McDowell at the conclusion of the project acts as a lynchpin, connecting our subjective understanding of our experience with the objects of our experience.

Plato was a Socrates’ friend and disciple, but he wasn’t the only one. No doubt, Socrates had many followers, however, the majority of their work is lost. Was there any antagonism among his followers? Who succeeded in interpreting Socrates? Who could be considered as his successor? Of course, we don’t know if these questions emerged after the death of Socrates, but the Greek doxography suggests that there was a literary rivalry. As we underlined earlier, most unfortunately, we can’t examine all of them thoroughly due to the lack of their work, but we can scrutinize Xenophon’s and Aristippus’ work. All of them, Plato, Xenophon and Aristippus, presented to a certain extent their ideas concerning education. Furthermore, they have not neglected the matter of gymnastike, but what is exactly the role of physical education in their work? Are there any similarities or any differences between them? Since, Xenophon and Aristippus (as well as Plato) seem to be in favor of gymnastike, it is necessary to understand its role.

Aristotle's naturalistic and rationalistic interpretation of the nature and function of 'sleep' () and 'dreams' () is developed out of his concepts of the various parts () or faculties/powers () of the soul, and especially the functions of cognitive process: (a) sense/sensation (), (b) imagination (), (c) memory (), and (d) mind/intellect (). Sleep "is a sort of privation () of waking ()", and dreams are not metaphysical phenomena.

The following essay introduces the idea of eternal peace as Immanuel Kant conceptualised it and how it relates to the contemporary global society. Kants political philosophy still covers a wide range of current issues. He envisioned, for example, "a center of federative union for other States to attach themselves to" (Kant 1891a, 98) as a precondition for perpetual Peace. We can ask in how far the EU can serve as such a role model. Kant firmly believes that a peace guaranteeing federation should consist of republics. Looking at the present global system, can we identify these republics? Do states have the right to establish a democracy through military interventions?

Human advancement has never been a steady progression from barbarism to civilization, there usually were ups and downs of advancement of Being, values, skills and customs invented and re-invented, abandoned, forgotten and re-invented again and again throughout millennia. Having stepped into the 21st century, when Reason has basically abandoned many of us and encountering barbarism again, it may be useful to re-examine the overall human passage from the stage of savagery to the more advanced stages of existence, trying to obtain the approximate pattern of changes and re-define the meaning of civilization and barbarism. This re-examination involves a second look at the phenomenon of cyclicity and shift, possessing a quasi- biological rhythm. This paper offers a mini transhistoric and cross-cultural analysis of the civilizational shifts.

I argue that Schuyler-one of the most prolific American cultural commentators, white, black, or other, of the middle of the 20th century-is grossly misunderstood by his contemporary critics. Far from being the opportunistic political polemicist who was insensitive to the precarious situation of race relations in America that his detractors make him out to be, Schuyler was a sophisticated thinker well educated in the philosophical tradition known as conservatism. Though not a philosopher by trade, he articulated and defended epistemological, ethical, and political-philosophical suppositions long endorsed by such notable conservative theorists as Edmund Burke and Michael Oakeshott. And like the latter, he advanced conservatism in response to a philosophical orientation-rationalism-that conservatives have always recognized as being diametrically opposed to their own. The specific version of rationalism on which Schuyler set his sights is what I call Blackism-an abstract ideology that, he believed, undermined racial harmony by neglecting the concrete realities of race relations past and present. As an antidote to Blackism, Schuyler advanced his conservatism.

Článek se zabývá kritickým rozborem hlavních metod zkoumání rakouské ekonomické školy. Nejprve je pozornost věnována metodologickému individualismu a subjektivismu a možných problémů, které jsou spojeny s jejich plně konzistentním uplatňováním. Dále je vysvětlena neoprávněnost kritiky ekonomie hlavního proudu rakouskou školou z hlediska praxeologického zákona. Poslední kapitola se věnuje kritice axiomatického chápání racionality jakožto nutného předpokladu pro metodologický individualismus a praxeologii.

Článek se věnuje vzájemnému vlivu kvality společenského zřízení a vědecko-technického pokroku. Je zřejmé, že různé společnosti (od starověku po novověk) měly k dispozici sofistikované technologie, jejichž efektivní využití mohlo vyústit v technologickou, vědeckou a výrobní revoluci. Hypotézou, kterou se snažím obhájit, je, že filozofická východiska dané společnosti ovlivňovala možnost využít známé technologie. Argumenty pro obhajobu hypotézy dokládám příklady z historie, které ukazují, že teprve společenská revoluce mohla umožnit revoluci technickou a vědeckou. Zmiňuji argumenty, které se týkají současných i budoucích technologií.