Berlin’s division of liberty into its positive and negative variants is usually mentioned as a point of reference in the debates about freedom. However, I consider as more fundamental the difference between liberal freedom and freedom based on responsible relations with other people and the surrounding world. In other words, I question the meaning of freedom, which - with a reference to the conception of Ladislav Hejdánek, proponent of the Czech practical philosophy – I do not consider to be an elimination of various life bonds, but instead their acceptance, fulfilment, or improvement. However, such binding freedom can also find its “allies” in liberalism – namely in the so-called liberalism of fear (B. Williams, J. Shklar), which is surprisingly close to Hejdánek’s conception and represents at least one of the contemporary currents of liberalism, able to unite with a seemingly opposing tradition. In addition to introducing Hejdánek’s conception of freedom, the aim of the paper is also to outline this connection.
The paper reflects on the concept of modern democracy as we encounter it in Czech philosophy, specifically in the work of Masaryk and his interpreters and critics, i.e. especially Rádl and Patočka, then in critical theory, focusing especially on the work of Habermas, and then in the work of Arnason, where we trace his inspiring political philosophical movement between Czech philosophy (Masaryk, Patočka, Kosík) and critical theory in both its German (Marx, Max Weber, Habermas) and French versions (Lefort, Castoriadis) and his creative critical dialogue with Eisenstadt. Modern democracy is not fundamentally different from liberal democracy, but more emphasizes autonomy, emancipation, its socially imaginary and critically creative dialogical participation.
Jan Patocka outlined the basic principles of his phenomenology in the 60ies, when a possibility appeared for him to publish them in Slovakia. He influenced the Slovak philosophy by his contributions on the history of Czech philosophy, by his critical evaluation of the philosophy of Czech history (especially that of Masaryk), as well as by developing his double concept of nation in Czech tradition (the language-cultural and social-ethical ones). Also in his outlines of Czech philosophy he occasionally reviewed the writings of Slovak philosophers. In the interpreting of philosophy of 'small nations' his concept of 'marginal philosophy' might be inspiring.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.