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

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Karol Libelt
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
PL
Esej porusza tematykę zależności doświadczenia religijnego od doświadczenia estetycznego w refleksji Karola Libelta. W pierwszej części omówiono koncepcję samowładztwa rozumu jako diagnozy stanu mentalnego człowieka Zachodu, nieuchronnie prowadzącego do naturalistycznej wizji świata. W drugiej części zrekonstruowano system umnictwa, czyli filozofię wyobraźni Libelta. Szczególną uwagę poświęcono pojęciu form pierwotnych i ich relacji do form pochodnych. W trzeciej części przełożono dotychczasowe wnioski na zagadnienie religii i podkreślono jej apologetyczną rolę wobec wiary ludowej. Rozważania doprowadziły do wniosku, że Libelt okazuje się filozofem proponującym świat otwarty na wymiar nadprzyrodzony.
EN
This essay deals with the subject of the dependence of religious experience on aesthetic experience in the reflections of Karol Libelt. The first part discusses the concept of the autocracy of reason as a diagnosis of the state of Western mentality, inevitably leading to a naturalistic view about the world. In the second part, the notion of the system umnictwa, i.e. the philosophy of the imagination of Karol Libelt, was reconstructed. Particular attention was paid to the notion of primary forms and their relation to derived forms. In the third part, the initial conclusions are postponed into the issue of religion, and its apologetic role in folk faith is emphasized. Consequently, Karol Libelt turns out to be a philosopher who proposes a world open to the supernatural.
EN
Prehistoric archaeology constituted an important topic in the writings of Karol Libelt during the final stage of his work. As a result of several years’ research and bringing up this subject in his texts, Libelt made notable achievements in the field of prehistoric archaeology. The most important of them are: description of archaeological discoveries in Czeszewo, participation in a dispute over prehistoric chronology with Stefan Pawlicki in 1871, and also one of the first descriptions of the Stone Age in the Polish literature. Thus Libelt should be considered as a pioneer in prehistoric research, particularly the Stone Age, in Poland. Apart from that, among his undoubted achievements was propagation of the theory of evolution, although with reservations, during the earliest stage of Darwinism’s reception in Poland.
EN
The Polish philosophy of mathematics in the 19th century is not a well-researched topic. For this period, only five philosophers are usually mentioned, namely Jan Śniadecki (1756–1830), Józef Maria Hoene-Wroński (1776–1853), Henryk Struve (1840–1912), Samuel Dickstein (1851–1939), and Edward Stamm (1886–1940). This limited and incomplete perspective does not allow us to develop a well-balanced picture of the Polish philosophy of mathematics and gauge its influence on 19th- and 20th-century Polish philosophy in general. To somewhat complete our picture of the history of the Polish philosophy of mathematics in those times, we here present the profiles of some lesser-known Polish Romantic philosophers of the 19th century, namely Karol Libelt, Bronisław Trentowski, and Józef Kremer. We discuss their contributions to the philosophy of mathematics and their metaphysical perspectives, and we also show how their metaphysical ideas have found some continuity in the studies of some Catholic philosophers.
EN
The article presents the nineteenth-century philosophical dispute between Karol Libelt and Stefan Pawlicki on the subject of anthropogenesis. This was initiated by the archaeological discoveries in Lake Czeszewskie, a part of Libelt’s estate. In fact, the controversy concerned the problem of whether the chronology of human history set out in the Bible could be questioned, or was still relevant. Libelt advocated the overriding importance of empirical evidence, while the conservative position was pursued by Pawlicki. Thus, it was a controversy pitting two worldviews against each other, in which - for both polemicists - archaeology was only a tool to justify their own beliefs. The article discusses the arguments used by both philosophers to defend their positions, and considers how they sought to interpret archaeological discoveries. In conclusion, it assesses the impact that this dispute had both on the philosophers themselves and on Polish science.
PL
Artykuł przedstawia dziewiętnastowieczny spór filozoficzny, jaki na temat antropogenezy toczyli ze sobą Karol Libelt i Stefan Pawlicki. Powodem rozpoczęcia sporu były znaleziska archeologiczne na Jeziorze Czeszewskim należącym do posiadłości Libelta. Spór w istocie dotyczył tego, czy chronologia dziejów ludzkości zawarta w Biblii jest możliwa do podważenia, czy też nadal zachowuje swoją aktualność. Stanowisko o nadrzędności świadectw empirycznych reprezentował Libelt, a stanowisko zachowawcze zajął Pawlicki. Tym samym był to w istocie spór dwóch światopoglądów, w którym dla obu polemistów archeologia była tylko narzędziem uzasadniającym własne przekonania. W artykule została omówiona argumentacja, jaką posługiwali się obaj filozofowie, broniąc swych stanowisk, oraz jak interpretowali odkrycia archeologiczne. W konkluzji został oceniony wpływ, jaki ten spór wywarł na samych filozofów oraz na polską naukę.
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.