Search results

1

Tożsamość i kondycja człowieka

100%

Grochowska I.

Studia Ecologiae et Bioethicae

|

2005

|

vol. 3

|

issue 1

101-108

EN

Human aims for internal integrity and unison at all levels of human are identity and all dimensions of human existence. According to Rull integrity is a gift from God, but also a task for everybody, only possible when a human being is open for autotranscendency. Unity of mankind is based on condition. The key word condition means that a human being is not neutral. The conditions indicates limitations and burdens of human being, although more and more frequently modern man tries to deny it, defining by himself who he wants to be and taking the place of God. Modern individualism is a lonely following of traditional utopia of society. Delsol claims that the most certain thing, which we can say about a man, is the existence of his condition, which acceptance is possible under condition of leaving the theory of ruling. We are not independent from our condition, we can free ourselves from it like we cannot deny the way we look, the condition is like terminal illness. A person’s dignity grows from the wound of finiteness. Greatness of man is about receiving and solving problems, a constant struggle, not owing a panacea for all human problems. A man who rejects reality, wanting to create his own self loses form and falls. To realise about the human condition would mean leaving the possibility of existence, potentiality for act. Human being who does not accept the human condition becomes undefined, he does not know his identity, he is restricted to mass, to biological body, he looks after it, improves it looking for fulfilment. But identity requires defining, one cannot be oneself if one does not know what one should be.

2

FAMILY IN THE CONTEXT OF RELATIONS BETWEEN FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY: CRISIS OR EVOLUTION?

83%

Janicka J.

Forum Teologiczne

|

2021

|

vol. 22

51-60

EN

At the beginning of the twenty first century, Chantal Delsol wrote that the man of late modernity is characterized by his attempt to regress to a period in history before his attainment of autonomy and subjectivity, both of which Delsol associates, among other things, with the essential and formative role of the family. Turning to a society or a group with which he could identify, man – in her opinion – takes a step back towards a tribal form of existence, which deprives him of the right to self-government. Demographic data seem to confirm the tendencies which Delsol has described: the rising number of divorces, the dropping number of marriages, and the increasing presence of the welfare state in the life of an individual. We might tend to think that reality bears out the pessimistic vision of the man of late modernity Delsol puts forth. Yet it is the role of philosophy to call into doubt all that seems obvious and to ask questions where to all appearances there is no room for doubt. This article proposes this kind of undertaking as an attempt to examine Delsol’s diagnosis through the lens of Kołakowski’s philosophy. With the help of Kołakowski’s treatment of the relationship between freedom and responsibility, and by applying his thoughts on the irremovable tension between the individual and the collective man, a motif distinctly present in his considerations, this article poses anew the question of whether we indeed are facing a crisis or an evolution of the family. Are the changes which we are observing a threat to our culture and civilization, or evidence of progress?

3

The Unavoidability of Nature - the Struggle of Erich Przywara and Chantal Delsol to Reintroduce the Concept

71%

Raczyński-Rożek M.

Verbum Vitae

|

2020

|

vol. 38

|

issue 2

PL

The history of modern philosophy has been marked by a retreat from traditional metaphysical concepts, including the notion of nature, which is central to theological considerations. It allows us to recognize a direct connection between the ordered world of nature and the existence of God. Still, some theologians paradoxically welcomed the downfall of metaphysics. Acknowledging the irreversibility of changes in the intellectual landscape of contemporary culture, and following Heidegger’s critique of the so-called ontotheology, they stated that one can and should “do” theology without resorting to metaphysical concepts, like the concept of nature. In this paper I am revisiting the work of two thinkers that defended the concept of nature. They represent two generations of 20th and 21st century Christian theologians (Erich Przywara) and philosophers (Chantal Delsol) who assiduously sought to reintroduce the concept of nature to the mainstream of intellectual discourse. Tracing their footsteps, we shall see that intellectual systems inspired by Christianity actually need the concept of nature, or its equivalent. What is common to both scholars is that they try to achieve this goal indirectly, by substituting the concepts of classical metaphysics. As mentioned, modern critique left metaphysical notions with a bad reputation (undeservedly, in our opinion), but Przywara and Delsol replace them with related concepts that latter-day thinkers find easier to accept.

4

Między podmiotem absolutnym a bytową nieokreślonością. O antyhumanistycznych źródłach współczesnej kultury

52%

Warzyński S.

Studia Philosophiae Christianae

|

2020

|

vol. 56

|

issue 1

103-134

EN

This paper is an attempt to identify the sources of contemporary culture. The author argues that at its bottom we can find a form of antihuman thinking. Such thinking derives from the perspective of „the death of a man”, his indefinite being, but also from the perspective of the modern cogito, the absolutized subject who becomes a special kind of foundation, the ultimate subject of reality. In the first part of the paper, the author describes in detail the contemporary understanding of human being, according to which man as a thinking, cognizing, self-aware, and rational subject assigns himself the role of a modern sovereign, a Demiurge, the only legislator and architect of a new, truly human world. In accordance with the meaning of the word „subject”, man thus becomes the „ultimate foundation” of reality. In the second part of the paper, however, the author argues that the absolutization of the subject, which assigns him more and more powers, leads to his undermining and negation. Taking into account the views of philosophers such as Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, Foucault, and Derrida, he shows that the negation of the Cartesian cogito, or the „death” of a specific vision of man as a subject, leads to the thought that man becomes an indefinite being. In the third part of the paper, the author explains that both modern and post-modern thinking are influenced by antihuman thinking, which in both cases results in an unrealistic view of human beings. The author speaks of the „antihumanism of Lord and master”, and „antihumanism of the loosened up” and argues that these are the bedrock of modern humanism.Lastly, the author shows that the understanding of the role of the subject during the last centuries was built on a very simple opposition - everything or nothing. Since it is not true that the subject is completely rational, transparent, and that he is an autonomous master of himself, he must disappear, he must be forgotten. Hence, the idea of „man’s death”. In this context, taking into account the intuition of the French philosopher Chantal Delsol, the author attempts to break out the aporia between a modern, absolute, and self-sufficient subject, and a postmodern subject that does not actually exist. The author expresses the need for a realistic view of man as the only way to establish a truly humanistic culture. ------------- Received: 08/11/2019. Reviewed: 14/12/2019. Accepted: 11/01/2020

PL

Artykuł jest próbą ukazania źródeł współczesnej kultury. Autor stawia w nim tezę, że u jej podstaw znajduje się dziś myślenie w gruncie rzeczy antyhumanistyczne – myślenie spod znaku „śmierci człowieka”, jego bytowej nieokreśloności, ale również spod znaku nowożytnego cogito, podmiotu zabsolutyzowanego, który staje się szczególnego rodzaju fundamentem, ostatecznym podłożem rzeczywistości. W pierwszej części autor przedstawia specyfikę nowożytnego rozumienia bytu ludzkiego, zgodnie z którą człowiek – jako podmiot myślący, poznający, samoświadomy, racjonalny – przypisuje sobie rolę nowożytnego suwerena, Demiurga, jedynego ustawodawcy i architekta nowego, prawdziwie ludzkiego świata. W ten sposób – zgodnie ze znaczeniem słowa „podmiot” – człowiek staje się „ostatecznym podłożem” rzeczywistości. Dalej autor wykazuje, że absolutyzowanie podmiotu, przypisywanie mu coraz to większych kompetencji, doprowadza ostatecznie do jego podważenia i zanegowania. Odwołując się do koncepcji takich filozofów jak Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, Foucault, Derrida twierdzi, że negacja kartezjańskiego cogito, „śmierć” pewnej określonej wizji człowieka jako podmiotu rodzi myślenie, zgodnie z którym człowiek staje się bytowo nieokreślony.Zarówno nowoczesne jak i ponowoczesne spojrzenie zostały w pewien sposób naznaczone myśleniem antyhumanistycznym. W jednym i drugim przypadku mamy bowiem do czynienia z nierealistycznym spojrzeniem na człowieka. Autor mówi o „antyhumanizmie pana i władcy” oraz „antyhumanizmie zluzowanego” i wskazuje, że właśnie one stanowią swego rodzaju podglebie współczesnego humanizmu. W punkcie ostatnim pokazano, że sposób rozumienia roli podmiotu na przestrzeni ostatnich kilku wieków, został zbudowany na niezwykle prostej opozycji – wszystko albo nic. Ponieważ nieprawdą jest, że podmiot jest dla siebie całkowicie racjonalny, przejrzysty, że jest autonomicznym panem samego siebie, musi zniknąć, trzeba o nim zapomnieć, stąd idea „śmierci człowieka”. W tym kontekście, odwołując się do intuicji francuskiej profesor filozofii Chantal Delsol, autor przedstawia próbę wyjścia z aporii między nowoczesnym podmiotem absolutnym, samowystarczalnym, a ponowoczesnym podmiotem, którego właściwie nie ma. Wskazuje na konieczność realistycznego spojrzenia na człowieka, gdyż tylko na takim spojrzeniu można zbudować prawdziwie humanistyczną kulturę. ------------- Zgłoszono: 08/11/2019. Zrecenzowano: 14/12/2019. Zaakceptowano do publikacji: 11/01/2020

Refine search results

1 Forum Teologiczne

1 Studia Ecologiae et Bioethicae

1 Studia Philosophiae Christianae

1 Verbum Vitae

1 2021

2 2020

1 2005

1 Grochowska I.

1 Janicka J.

1 Raczyński-Rożek M.

1 Warzyński S.

Tożsamość i kondycja człowieka

FAMILY IN THE CONTEXT OF RELATIONS BETWEEN FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY: CRISIS OR EVOLUTION?

The Unavoidability of Nature - the Struggle of Erich Przywara and Chantal Delsol to Reintroduce the Concept

Między podmiotem absolutnym a bytową nieokreślonością. O antyhumanistycznych źródłach współczesnej kultury