Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  PHILOSOPHY OF DIALOGUE
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
There can be no doubt that the thinking of Antoni Kępiński was profoundly affected by philosophical thought. The author of the article shows the philosophical foundations fanthropology developed by this prominent Polish psychiatrist. First of all, the paper introduces sources of anthropology developed by Kępiński which should be found in the philosophy of dialogue, phenomenology and existential philosophy. In the light of works of Kępiński one can notice that his philosophical anthropology was saturated with influence of dialogue thought. The essence of Kępiński’s encounters with patients can be summed up in J. Tischner’s line: I know you can understand me, so we exist. Another great inspiration of Kępiński’s anthropological psychiatry was phenomenology which was introduced into European psychiatry by Karl Jaspers as an important tool for psychopathological research. Thanks to descriptive phenomenology and category of “empathy” the psychiatrist could reach the states of consciousness of other man and understand his suffering. For Kępiński, only a specific kind of emotional relationship based on empathy could be the key to complete knowledge of the man fighting with mental illnesses. What is more, the article presents existential philosophy, its impact on psychiatry and Kępiński’s opinion about existential psychotherapy. Finally, the author of the paper stresses the value of Kępiński’s anthropology which maintains many of cognitive qualities important for philosophers.
EN
In this study we pose once more the key question concerning Józef Tischner’s philosophical anthropology Was Józef Tischner – the creator of philosophy of drama – also a philosopher of dialogue? What, in his thought, is the essence of drama? What exactly is the relation between ‘I’ and ‘Thou’? Is drama ultimately about the creation and formation of the ‘Us’? Or is the primary importance to be assigned to the subject in the drama? How, according to Tischner, does the subject of the drama need to be formed so that the ‘encounter’ can occur? To what extent did Tischner remain a phenomenologist in his philosophizing? In his studies on the human condition, did he manage to overcome the vision of master and slave from Hegel’s philosophy? How much did his thought concerning dialogue evolve throughout the phases marked out by his successive works: ‘Philosophy of Drama’, ‘Controversy over the Existence of Man’ and ‘The Other’?
EN
The text shows the relation between German philosophers: Feuerbach and Buber, in the light of not widely known roots of the philosophy of dialogue which was Feuerbach's concept of Me-You. Both authors appreciate the crucial role of religion, even though Feuerbach was consider an atheist and Buber - an eulogist of Hasssids.
EN
The author tries to show similarities and distinctnesses between two conceptions of the 20-th century philosophy of dialogue formulated by Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig. Regardless of common elements in thoughts of both friend-thinkers there are some differents, what provokes into comparison their positions. We can also inquire of reasons, which make level discrepancies impossible. The main subject of Buber's consideration is double-image of reality as a consequence of twofold way of meeting with it. The first type of 'relation' (the proper one (Beziehung)) takes place when man attitude links to fundamental word 'Me-You' (Ich-Du). Second type of relation is called by Buber 'connection' (Verhaeltnis). It implements when man attitude links to word 'Me-It' (Ich-Es). The difference between these words (and similarily - between two attitudes) is evident. The word 'Me-It' makes the subject, involves concepts. By means of them a man builts conceptions of reality, but he doesn't experience its presence. Rosenzweig raises objections to this conception.
EN
Emmanuel Lévinas is often regarded as incomprehensible. The author shows, however, that the core of his perception of reality consists of relatively clear assumptions of the mystical thought of Kabbalists and Hasidic thinkers. Lévinas claims that the only adequate name of the Godhead is that of Creator. Eventually, He can be called “Infinity” or “Nothingness”. The divine Nothingness, however, is not pantheistically present in the world, for this would imply the lack of any ontic separation between creation and the Godhead. This would inevitably imply radical postulates in the area of ethics, for “the Other” is just where man’s connection with Transcendence is to a certain extent possible. This is because according to the mystical views, God created the world inside Himself, by the means of His auto-negation, which justifies the statement that God left the world. And, since the Absolute has left the world, people can count solely on themselves. As a result, they are obliged to act positively or even heroically in the ethical order. Otherwise, their existence would become an unbearable torment.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.