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

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  filozofia egzystencji
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
PL
Artykuł stanowi recenzję książki Krzysztofa Kopczyńskiego zatytułowanej Paradygmat polskiego romantyzmu w uniwersum filmowym (2021). Celem publikacji jest ponowne, aktualizujące odczytanie polskiego paradygmatu romantycznego unikające jego redukcji do wymiaru patriotyczno-narodowego. Autor książki szuka inspiracji w romantyzmie europejskim, by pochylić się nad zagadnieniami właściwymi dla romantyzmu wysokiego, które dotyczą kwestii poznania, wiodącej roli sztuki, indywidualizmu, filozofii egzystencji, epistemologii i historiozofii. Następnie przedstawia stanowiska ujmujące sztukę filmową jako narzędzie wypowiedzi filozoficznej, przytaczając koncepcje m. in. Gillesa Deleuze’a, Stanleya Cavella, Roberta Sinnerbrinka czy Daniela Framptona. Badacze ci stają się rzecznikami tezy, że film jest zdolny do uprawiania refleksji w sposób zbliżony do rozważań filozofów. Idąc za tą tezą, Kopczyński za punkt wyjścia przyjmuje bogactwo myślowe ukrytej części paradygmatu romantycznego, co pozwala mu wniknąć w przesłanie analizowanych filmów, a także wskazać, że kino może prowadzić do przekształcenia wspomnianego wzorca i zmiany jego roli w kulturze.
EN
The article is a review of Krzysztof Kopczyński’s book Paradygmat polskiego romantyzmu w uniwersum filmowym [The Paradigm of Polish Romanticism in the World of Film] (2021). The work aims to offer an updated reading of the Polish Romantic paradigm, avoiding its reduction to patriotic and national dimensions. The author seeks inspiration in European Romanticism in order to inquire into typical issues of High Romanticism, which concern the questions of cognition, the leading role of art, individualism, the philosophy of existence, epistemology, and the philosophy of history. He then presents theoretical positions that view film art as a mode of philosophical expression, citing concepts proposed by Gilles Deleuze, Stanley Cavell, Robert Sinnerbrink, Daniel Frampton, and others. These authors become advocates of the proposition that film can be a means of reflection in a manner akin to the work of philosophers. Following this argument, Kopczyński starts from the abundance of thought contained in the Romantic paradigm’s hidden part, which allows him to penetrate the meaning of the analysed films as well as indicate that cinema can transform this pattern and changing its role in culture.
EN
The aim of this article is to redefine the concept of mindfulness in the context of the philosophy of existence. The discussion starts with recognising the importance of awareness in both concepts and similarity in their intuitive attempts at defining it. Both mindfulness experts and representatives of the philosophy of existence put emphasis on experiencing things directly, being attentive and aware, which they use as a basis for theories of relationships recognised as essential in seeking to define who a person is. The author tries to find a new context for the concept of mindfulness in the tripartite division of human relationships adopted by the philosophers of existence: relationships towards objects, towards other subjects, and towards oneself. It is used to analyse three approaches to mindfulness: being aware of one’s environment, other subjects, and oneself. Consequently, the author seeks not only to redefine and update the classical concepts of the philosophy of existence, but also to analyse the theory of mindfulness in a different philosophical context, and perhaps suggest new ways of interpretation in this area.
EN
The main objective of this paper is to reconstruct Jaspers’ views on philosophical anthropology of the early twentieth century. The text can be divided into three parts. First part tries to reconstruct direct and indirect references which Jaspers makes toward: a) term “anthropology”, b) the representatives of philosophical anthropology. Second part shows Jaspers’ attitude toward Scheler’s anthropology. Third and final part raises a question: Why do we often regard Jaspers’ philosophy as anthropology, can he be considered as philosophical anthropologist? We will show that the main point of his critic is that anthropology sets biological point of view as a starting point for its inquiry on human being. Therefore, human being can not be seen adequately from anthropological perspective. Its specificity is reduced by anthropologists to the specific characteristics of species, a collection of biological, psychological and social conditions that describe the phenomenon of man but do not reach the depths of the human being.
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.