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

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

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

Wspólnotowi, choć samotni. Paradoksy Ortegowskiej filozofii życia

100%
Domeracki P.
Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska, sectio I – Philosophia-Sociologia
|
2015
|
vol. 40
|
issue 1
EN
José Ortega y Gasset’s philosophy, regardless of its actual specific weight and a diversity of opinions which are delivered about it, does not stop occupying the following generations of researchers’ attention, not losing in attractiveness and seeming to be very current as well, and also universally important and significant. The vitalism of this philosophy, thanks to combining it with ratio, stands above a mediocrity of overview, protecting successfully against a superficial judgement and melting into impressive aphoristics. Life – both object and subject of Ortega’s philosophy, marked by ambivalence and complexity, with necessity makes the same as it the philosophy distilled from it. To the substantial attributes of life at Ortega belong communality, on the one hand, and loneliness on the other. There is a numerous of premises which are a sign of the communion dimension of life. There are so many arguments, however, for the lonely character of it. The main issue the article is concentrated on is a thesis that Ortega y Gasset belongs to the biggest-ever and the most interesting philosophers of loneliness, developing or even more – bringing to a culmination of the centuries-old tradition of struggling with existential determination of the essence of loneliness, that leads to acknowledgment of loneliness as an essential attribute of the human life.
PL
Filozofia José Ortegi y Gasseta, niezależnie od jej rzeczywistego ciężaru gatunkowego i opinii, jakie na jej temat krążą, nie przestaje zajmować uwagi kolejnych pokoleń badaczy, nie tracąc na atrakcyjności i wydając się przy tym niezwykle aktualną, a do tego uniwersalnie ważną i doniosłą. Witalizm tej filozofii, dzięki pożenieniu go z ratio, wybija ją ponad przeciętność oglądu, chroniąc udanie przed powierzchownym sądem i rozpływaniem się w efektownej aforystyce. Życie – zarazem przedmiot i podmiot Ortegowskiej filozofii, naznaczony ambiwalencją i złożonością – z konieczności taką samą czyni destylowaną z niego filozofię. Do zasadniczych określników życia należą u Ortegi wspólnotowość z jednej i samotność z drugiej strony. Istnieje wiele przesłanek świadczących o wspólnotowym wymiarze życia. Równie wiele jest jednak argumentów za tym, że ma ono raczej samotnościowy charakter. Tym, na czym przede wszystkim koncentruje się artykuł, jest teza, że Ortega y Gasset należy do największych w dziejach i najciekawszych filozofów samotności, rozwijających – a nawet więcej, i to znacznie – i doprowadzających do kulminacji wielowiekową tradycję zmagań z egzystencjalnym określaniem istoty samotności prowadzącej do uznania samotności za istotowy określnik egzystencji.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Miłość i samotność - konfrontacje

100%
Domeracki P.
Filozofia Chrześcijańska
|
2014
|
vol. 11
43-68
EN
The article raises an issue of love and loneliness confronted with opinion, that love is the only antidote for loneliness. Its author is submitting this thesis to a precise research. The source wish of love is motivated by aiming at avoiding loneliness. The loneliness seems to be more primary phenomenon to love. This does not necessarily mean that it is not true that love can overcome loneliness. Loneliness can only give way under the pressure of perfect love. It is an attribute of God. A man authentically immersed in that Love has a capacity for overcoming of his   loneliness.
PL
The article raises an issue of love and loneliness confronted with opinion, that love is the only antidote for loneliness. Its author is submitting this thesis to a precise research. The source wish of love is motivated by aiming at avoiding loneliness. The loneliness seems to be more primary phenomenon to love. This does not necessarily mean that it is not true that love can overcome loneliness. Loneliness can only give way under the pressure of perfect love. It is an attribute of God. A man authentically immersed in that Love has a capacity for overcoming of his loneliness.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Błahe horyzonty Vattimowskiej etyki interpretacji.

100%
Domeracki P.
Filozofia Chrześcijańska
|
2009
|
vol. 6
137-155
EN
Vattimo is an author of so-called radicalized hermeneutics. In it he refers creatively to the counter-metaphysical nihilism of Nietzsche and Heidegger. He is accompanied by an intention of radicalization (weakening) both these positions with hope for clearing them of the remains of metaphysical thinking. The nihilistic accomplishment of hermeneutics Vattimo combines with its transition to the ethical position. However he polemizes with approaches, which develop “an ethical vocation” of hermeneutics either in the direction of the ethics of communication (like Habermas), or in the direction of the ethics of redescription (like Rorty), or in the direction of the ethics of continuation (like Gadamer). In their place Vattimo suggests the ethics of interpretation, which is rather ethics of goods than ethics of obligations. It is a kind of a retrospective (historical), pluralistic, relativistic ethics with a preference for the value of freedom.  
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Pedagogika czy antypedagogika? Wokół kryzysu współczesnej edukacji z perspektywy filozoficznej

100%
Domeracki P.
Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska, sectio I – Philosophia-Sociologia
|
2016
|
vol. 41
|
issue 1
EN
The article is an attempt of a diagnosis and criticism of the state of the contemporary education, in particular in Poland but not only, as at the level of the lower education as – but to a lesser extent – higher education. It is made in view of the declined through all the cases in the public sphere crisis, with whom a native system of education is today faced. The author of this text collects and enumerates some key, in his opinion, reasons of that crisis, trying to avoid in its description easy labelling, radicalism or utopianism. The author’s criticism is raised in particular by: lack of a far-reaching, non-particularist and nonpoliticized vision of the educational system in Poland; permanent, experimentative, ad hoc and superficial reformism as well as following from it instability and – as a consequence of it – disfunctionality of the system and bodies responsible for education; paralysing and thus patologizing the education, uncritical (or [too] less reflective) attitude towards bureaucratization, standardization and some different control systems. The article puts also a question if the crisis of the contemporary education that also consists of the crisis of the contemporary pedagogy as science. Consequently it culminates in a question if the solutions and strategies applied to the contemporary education, infected by the crisis, do not transmute into their antipedagogic opposite.
PL
Prezentowany artykuł ma charakter diagnozy i krytyki stanu współczesnej edukacji, szczególnie w Polsce, tak na poziomie szkolnictwa niższego, jak i – choć w mniejszym zakresie – szkolnictwa wyższego. Czyni się to w kontekście odmienianego przez wszystkie przypadki w domenie publicznej kryzysu, z jakim boryka się współcześnie rodzimy system oświaty. Autor tekstu zbiera i enumeruje newralgiczne, jego zdaniem, motywy owego kryzysu, starając się w jego opisie unikać łatwego etykietowania, radykalizmu czy utopijności. Jego krytykę budzą zwłaszcza: brak dalekosiężnej, niepartykularystycznej i niespolityzowanej wizji systemu edukacji w Polsce; ciągłe, eksperymentatorskie, doraźne i powierzchowne reformatorstwo i wynikająca z niego niestabilność, a w konsekwencji dysfunkcjonalność systemu i organów odpowiadających za oświatę; paraliżujące, a w efekcie patologizujące edukację bezkrytyczne (lub [za] mało refleksyjne) nastawienie na jej biurokratyzację, standaryzację i systemy kontroli. Artykuł stawia też pytanie, czy na kryzys współczesnej edukacji nie składa się również kryzys współczesnej pedagogiki jako nauki. W rezultacie kulminuje on w pytaniu, czy rozwiązania i strategie stosowane we współczesnej edukacji, zakażone kryzysem, nie przeobrażają się przypadkiem w swoje antypedagogiczne przeciwieństwo.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Paradygmatyczne konceptualizacje samotności i wspólnotowości w dyskursie monoseologicznym

100%
Domeracki P.
Filozofia Chrześcijańska
|
2015
|
vol. 12
33-55
PL
The author of this paper is concentrated on a controversial and having not only one and satisfactory for different discussing it parts solution problem of the limits of the phenomena of loneliness and communitiveness. It is placed on a ground of the monoseological discourse as being intrinsic to it. The term ‘monoseology’ is derived from two combined ancient Greek words – ‘monosé’, which means ‘loneliness’, and ‘logos’ – translated as ‘science’. Hence monoseology, in its wider meaning, is used to designate all sciences interested in analyzing and conducting systematic research on loneliness; in a narrower sense the term ‘monoseology’ means simply just the philosophy of loneliness. It is quite commonly agreed that loneliness has only got bad sides in itself but communitiveness on the contrary has got only bright ones. Therefore loneliness deserves on clear and firm criticism while communitiveness is assessed in a univocally positive way. This, in turn, translates to an unquestionable preference to ideas, feelings, motives and acts which are of community character and use. On the other hand, loneliness is recognized as a reason of our pain, suffering, fears, sadness and horrible despair. It results that our key ambition, need and aim should be avoiding and preventing each form of loneliness in our private and social life at all costs. But, as it occurs, this causes a lot of further – not only theoretical but unfortunately also practical – problems, which some researchers and ordinary people must face. This kind of unilateral and unambiguous interpretation both loneliness and communitiveness is called in the article “monolectical”. In addition, it is shown in it that ‘monolectics’ of communitiveness or loneliness is insufficient for possibly objective and complete picture of this two. In consequence it is argued that monoseological discourse is able to gain it and to develop itself only by turning to the dialectical method of explaining. The fundamental thesis and belief as well, expressed on the ground of the dialectics of loneliness and communitiveness, is that loneliness and communitiveness are not at all isolated but strongly complementary. A practical conclusion arises from this statement according to which each of us should intertwine in his or her life some periods of communitiveness and then some periods of loneliness.
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.