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:  J. G. Fichte
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The subject of the article is a work of analysis M. J. Siemek, The Idea of Transcendetalism in Fichte and Kant, Warsaw 1977. The main issue of this text is the relation: Kant – Fichte. Kant´s thought arose in opposition to cogito. Kant describes this position as the world of a „dark eyes”. For Kant cognition is the unity of „knowledge” and „being”. This is his transcendentalism. Fichte starts from Kant´s position. However, according to him, Kant stopped halfway. According to Fichte man realizes his „vocation”. This is culture. This is his transcendetalism; the concept of a „closed” state. According to M. J. Siemek Kant´s thought should be read through the prism of Fichte´s thought. And this means that in the context of modern times and the threats to democracy, the question about Kant is an opened question.
EN
This study is concerned with the conception of the soul and its relation to the world in Hegel’s Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences. The mediator between soul and world is the phenomenon of custom, which serves to illustrate Hegel’s divergence from “subjective idealism”. While custom at the subjective and objective levels is considered, not only by Kant and Fichte but also by enlightenment philosophers in general, as a reduction of spontaneity, Hegel shows that custom is in fact of fundamental importance for the human self and its freedom. Freedom is not, according to this view, pure spontaneity, but is referred to the given, or in Hegel’s words, to substantiality. It is precisely custom which constitutes a certain substantiality in the midst of subjectivity, providing support to the subject so that it may be present to the world and not reduced by it to the sphere of unreal inwardness.
3
Content available remote

Proti existencialistickému monopolu na děravost

94%
EN
Hegel formulated the concept of lack as being essential for consciousness long before the existentialists did. Before Sartre, he stated that consciousness is essentially what it is not. This is important from the point of view of the philosophy of history. From a systematic perspective, the author shows that Hegel draws different conclusions from this insight than those suggested by the romantics and existentialists. The essential difference is that Hegel emphasizes the concept of the whole as something positive without denigrating the individual. Rather he shows that the whole needs to be conceived in order to understand the individual. The concept of the whole is not therefore “totalitarian,” as is often suggested. Quite to the contrary, it enables the individual to formulate his or her own position in the midst of a “bacchantian revel whose no member remains sober”.
CS
Hegel formuloval problém neúplnosti vědomí dlouho před existencialisty. Již před Sartrem si všiml, že vědomí je tím, čím není, a není tím, čím je. Sama tato okolnost by mohla být zajímavá jen z filosoficko-historického hlediska. Touto perspektivou se však autorka nespokojuje a ukazuje, že nahlíženo ze systémového hlediska vyplývají pro Hegela z této skutečnosti i jiné poznatky, jiný vztah k sobě jakožto ke konečnému jsoucnu a jiný vztah ke světu než pro existencialisty a romantiky. K rozdílnému vyhodnocení dospívá Hegel především díky tomu, že je schopen pozitivně formulovat pojem celku. Tento pojem však neústí v dogmatické či totalitní určení vědomí a jeho odcizení, ale umožňuje mu formulovat vlastní postoj a status uprostřed celku. Ten ovšem Hegel nechápe staticky, tedy jako „metafyzický koláč“, ale naopak jako „bakchantický rej“, „jehož žádný úd není střízlivý“.
DE
Hegel konzipierte den Begriff des Unvollendeten lange vor den Existentialisten. Vor Sartre wies er darauf hin, dass das Bewusstsein im wesentlichen das ist, was es nicht ist. Dies ist aus philosophisch-historischer Sicht wesentlich. Die Verfasserin zeigt in ihrem Artikel darüber hinaus, dass Hegel hieraus andere Schlussfolgerungen zieht, als jene, die Romantiker, aber vor allem Existentialisten vorlegen. Der wesentliche Unterschied besteht darin, dass Hegel den Begriff des Ganzen hervorhebt und positiv besetzt, ohne dabei den Begriff des Einzelnen abzuwerten. Stattdessen versucht er, dem Umstand gerecht zu werden, dass das Ganze eben deshalb konzipiert werden muss, um dem Einzelnen Rechnung zu tragen. Der Begriff des Ganzen ist also kein „totalitärer“, wie Hegel oft vorgeworfen wurde, sondern einer, der dem Einzelnen ermöglicht, den eigenen Standpunkt zu formulieren, und zwar inmitten eines „bacchantischen Ganzen“, dessen „kein Glied nicht trunken wäre“.
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.