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

Results found: 7

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Cieszkowski
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Przezwyciężenie romantycznych antynomii w filozofii Augusta Cieszkowskiego

100%
Binek M.
Kultura i Wartości
|
2017
|
issue 23
DE
Die Ideenhistoriker halten den fundamentalen Antinomiecharakter der Wirklichkeit für eines der wichtigsten Merkmale der romantischen Weltanschauung. Im Artikel wird geschildert, wie der Antinomiecharakter in der Philosophie von August Cieszkowski, dem systematischsten Philosophen des polnischen Messianismus, überwunden wird. Die von ihm postulierte Wiederintegration der Welt gründete er auf der Methode der Hegelschen Dialektik, indem er gleichzeitig die Widersprüchlichkeiten im Gedanken des deutschen Philosophen korrigierte. Diese Widersprüchlichkeiten werden am besten in Hegels Betrachtungsweise der Geschichte sichtbar. Im Artikel wird die Argumentationsstrategie rekonstruiert, die Cieszkowski erlaubte, die vorausgesetzten Ziele zu erreichen.
EN
The fundamental antinomy of reality has been recognized by historians of ideas as one of the most important features of the Romanticist worldview. Presented is the way in which this antinomy was overcome in the philosophic thought of August Cieszkowski, the most systematic thinker of Polish Messianism. He based his reintegration of the world which he called for on the Hegelian dialectic method rectifying at the same time the inconsistencies contained in the German philosopher’s thought. These inconsistencies are fullest reflected in Hegel's perspective view of history. The paper reconstructs the argumentative strategy that allowed Cieszkowski to achieve his set goals.
PL
Historycy idei za jedną z najważniejszych cech romantycznego światopoglądu uznają fundamentalną antynomiczność rzeczywistości. W tekście przedstawiony zostaje sposób przezwyciężenia owej antynomiczności w filozofii Augusta Cieszkowskiego – najbardziej systematycznego myśliciela polskiego mesjanizmu. Postulowaną przez siebie reintegrację świata oparł on na metodzie Heglowskiej dialektyki jednocześnie korygując niekonsekwencje zawarte w myśli niemieckiego filozofa. Te niekonsekwencje najlepiej uwidaczniają się w Hegla perspektywie spojrzenia na historię. W artykule zostaje zrekonstruowana strategia argumentacyjna, która pozwoliła Cieszkowskiemu na osiągnięcie założonych celów.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Religion and Philosophy in August Cieszkowski’s ‘Our Father’

87%
Starzyńska–Kościuszko E.
Organon
|
2018
|
vol. 50
123-146
EN
This paper presents and discusses the main ideas of August Cieszkowski set forth in his Ojcze–Nasz [Our Father]. This treatise, presently known only to historians of Polish philosophy and historians of ideas, is one of the best examples worldwide of messianic consciousness and approach and, simultaneously, an original attempt to unite philosophy (social philosophy and the dialectical method) with religion. One of the tasks of historians of Polish philosophy is to disseminate the most significant works of older Polish thinkers and make them known internationally. Such then is the aim of this paper. The final sections additionally present contemporary disputes emerging in Poland as to the interpretation of Our Father and my position in these disputes as one of its active participants.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Sens dziejów i kenoza w myśli Augusta Cieszkowskiego i Włodzimierza Sołowjowa

82%
Sikora M.
IDEA. Studia nad strukturą i rozwojem pojęć filozoficznych
|
2015
|
vol. 27
139-157
EN
August Cieszkowski was one of the brilliant Polish thinkers of the nineteenth century, who combined Hegel’s philosophy with Christian mysticism. The main subject of this text is a presentation of the role of kenosis in a historical perspective and the category of future, which means the union of humanity, end of time and creating The Common’s Church. Additionally, I am going to show the relation between Cieszkowski’s and Vladimir Solovyov’s philosophy (especially the theory of Godmanhood). Both views are similar and search, in their criticism of Hegel’s system, for a way to messianistical redemption. The purpose of the comparison is to indicate the similarities in the philosophy of August Cieszkowski and Vladimir Solovyov, relating to the problem of a sense of history and kenosis.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Przyszłość nauk humanistycznych w perspektywie metafilozoficznej

82%
Cyprian Gawlik C. G.
Człowiek i Społeczeństwo
|
2020
|
vol. 49
EN
The purpose of this paper is to ponder upon the future of the humanities from a metaphilosophical perspective inspired by G.W.F. Hegel’s philosophy of the history of philosophy. The need for this reflection follows from the crisis that the humanities are facing today due to global changes in higher education, caused by the domination of the capitalist economy and the dramatic development of technology. The author assumes that the essence of the humanities is determined by the formation of self-understanding (Bildung) and proposes to consider this issue from a broader historical point of view and apart from the institutional context of human sciences, namely in the light of the history of philosophy, understood according to the Hegelian approach as the development of selfknowledge. The paper extensively discusses Hegel’s philosophy of the history of philosophy, as well as subsequent metaphilosophical positions inspired by Hegel’s thought (especially that of August Cieszkowski and Martin Heidegger). As a result, the question about the future of the humanities is transformed into a postulate of reflection on the primacy of technoscientific thinking in the modern world. In line with the Hegelian view of knowledge development – attributing autoperformative function to self-cognition – this kind of reflection is a potential remedy for the crisis currently diagnosed in the humanities.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Rola Boga i palingenezy w kształtowaniu się poglądów filozoficznych Augusta Cieszkowskiego

82%
Pawlaczyk K.
Przegląd Religioznawczy
|
2019
|
issue 3/273
EN
The aim of the paper is to reflect on the specificity of the evolution of August Cieszkowski’s philosophical views. In the presented research perspective the very essence of this evolution lays in progressive distancing from the Hegelianism and in unorthodox turn towards religious sphere in a broad sense. This point of view underlines the fundamental meaning of God and Palingenesis, Cieszkowski’s work published in 1842 in which he directly formulates accusation towards Hegelian school for its abstractness and one-sided intellectualism. This work also sketches a postulate of creating new, synthetic form of reflection, that avoids limitations of both religious orthodoxy and philosophical speculation. The effort of creating such form delineates the specificity of Cieszkowski’s further output.
6
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Norwid's "tatarski czyn". Between hierarchy and eruption (semantics, contexts, and consequences)

72%
Zehnder C.
Studia Norwidiana
|
2019
|
vol. 37 English Version
17-42
EN
Drawing on a scholarly polemic of the 1930s, this paper differentiates between two ways of understanding and translating Cyprian Norwid’s formula “tatarski czyn,” as ‘Tatar deed’ (from the Polish czyn) or as ‘Tatar rank’ (from the Russian chin according to the Tsarist Table of Ranks). The aim is to show how the eruptive versus the hierarchical readings of “tatarski czyn” have influenced the opinions on Norwid’s dialogic treatise Promethidion (1851) and, more generally, on his criticism of the utopian thought of Polish Romanticism and of Russian po-litics. It was Adam Mickiewicz who in the 1820s and 1830s pointed to the homonymy between czyn and chin and its potential in enacting ambivalences between the seemingly incommensurable imaginaries of eruption and hierarchy. Moreover, Mickiewicz already linked both understandings of czyn with a stereotypical Tatar, or Mongolian, “Asianness.” In this respect, Norwid’s formula is fairly conventional. What is genuinely original, however, is how Norwid turns Mickiewicz’s earlier ideas against those of the later Mickiewicz who, in his Paris Lectures on the Slavs (1840–1844), seems to glorify the “Tatar deed.” In contrast to the “bloody ladder” of Russian bureaucracy and the irrational tendency in Mickiewicz’s activism, Norwid suggests a “gradual labor” culminating in, not erupting with, the deed (Promethidion). This aspect of Norwid’s metaphorical thought is shown in a parallel reading with the philosopher August Cieszkowski who, in his Prolegomena to Historiosophy (1838), conceptualized history as a “texture of deeds” leading to institutions. Similarly, Norwid’s positive notion of the deed, i.e. his revision of Romantic activism, should be situated beyond the alternatives of eruption and hierarchy.
7

„Tatarski czyn” Norwida między hierarchią a erupcją (semantyka, konteksty, konsekwencje)

72%
Zehnder C.
Studia Norwidiana
|
2019
|
vol. 37
17-42
PL
Opierając się na polemice między Stanisławem Cywińskim a Ignacym Fikiem z lat 30. XX w. artykuł rozróżnia dwa sposoby rozumienia norwidowskiego wyrażenia „tatarski czyn”: jako ‘akcja’ lub jako ranga (z rosyjskiego czin według carskiej Tabeli rang). Celem artykułu jest ukazanie, w jaki sposób erupcyjne i hierarchiczne odczytania „tatarskiego czynu” wpłynęły na opinie na temat Promethidiona (1851) i, szerzej, na norwidowską krytykę utopijnej myśli polskiego romantyzmu i rosyjskiej polityki. Adam Mickiewicz w latach dwudziestych i trzydziestych XIX w. wskazywał na homonimię między wyrazami czyn a czin oraz na jej potencjał w tworzeniu ambiwalencji między pozornie nieprzystającymi wyobrażeniami erupcji i hierarchii. Ponadto Mickiewicz powiązał oba rozumienia słowa czyn ze stereotypową tatarską lub mongolską „azjatyckością”. Pod tym względem sformułowanie Norwida jest konwencjonalne. Oryginalne jest jednak to, jak Norwid obraca wcześniejsze idee Mickiewicza przeciwko późniejszym poglądom autora Dziadów, który w swoich prelekcjach paryskich zdaje się gloryfikować „czyn tatarski”. W przeciwieństwie do „krwawej drabiny” rosyjskiej biurokracji i irracjonalnej tendencji w aktywizmie Mickiewicza, Norwid proponuje „stopniową pracę”, której kulminacją, a nie erupcją, jest czyn. Ten aspekt wyobraźni Norwida ukazany jest w równoległej lekturze z myślą filozofa Augusta Cieszkowskiego, który w swoich Prolegomenach do historiozofii określił historię jako „tkaninę czynów” prowadzącą do instytucji. W podobny sposób pozytywne wyobrażenie Norwida o czynie, czyli jego rewizja romantycznego akty-wizmu, powinno sytuować się poza alternatywami erupcji i hierarchii.
EN
Drawing on a scholarly polemic of the 1930s, this paper differentiates between two ways of understanding and translating Cyprian Norwid’s formula “tatarski czyn,” as ‘Tatar deed’ (from the Polish czyn) or as ‘Tatar rank’ (from the Russian chin according to the Tsarist Table of Ranks). The aim is to show how the eruptive versus the hierarchical readings of “tatarski czyn” have influenced the opinions on Norwid’s dialogic treatise Promethidion (1851) and, more generally, on his criticism of the utopian thought of Polish Romanticism and of Russian po-litics. It was Adam Mickiewicz who in the 1820s and 1830s pointed to the homonymy between czyn and chin and its potential in enacting ambivalences between the seemingly incommensurable imaginaries of eruption and hierarchy. Moreover, Mickiewicz already linked both understandings of czyn with a stereotypical Tatar, or Mongolian, “Asianness.” In this respect, Norwid’s formula is fairly conventional. What is genuinely original, however, is how Norwid turns Mickiewicz’s earlier ideas against those of the later Mickiewicz who, in his Paris Lectures on the Slavs (1840–1844), seems to glorify the “Tatar deed.” In contrast to the “bloody ladder” of Russian bureaucracy and the irrational tendency in Mickiewicz’s activism, Norwid suggests a “gradual labor” culminating in, not erupting with, the deed (Promethidion). This aspect of Norwid’s metaphorical thought is shown in a parallel reading with the philosopher August Cieszkowski who, in his Prolegomena to Historiosophy (1838), conceptualized history as a “texture of deeds” leading to institutions. Similarly, Norwid’s positive notion of the deed, i.e. his revision of Romantic activism, should be situated beyond the alternatives of eruption and hierarchy.
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.