The article discusses the place of leisure in Hans Blumenberg’s philoso- phical anthropology, focusing on “Theorie der Unbegrifflichkeit” (2007). According to Blumenberg, the tradition of philosophical anthropology unjustly reduces human rationality to the attempt of self-preservation. Not only is the actual process of anthropogenesis better described as led by a logic of prevention, not of preservation. Sedentary life, product of preventive behavior, not only secures survival but grants leisure as the condition of culture. Yet cultural practices, although an eminent product (...) of human rationality, cannot be explained by the logic of either self- preservation or prevention. Blumenberg thus argues that within philosophical anthropology, rationality can best be explained in is orientation towards happiness, an orientation encompassing not only preventive, conceptual forms of reason, but also contemplative, non-conceptual uses, such as in myth and mysticism. As the condition for articulating a self-understanding more adequate than self-preservation or prevention, leisure thus assumes a central place in determining human nature. It is in leisure that rationality is experienced as a source of happiness. (shrink)

Chciałem Go pożegnać. Kilkakrotnie próbowałem napisać choć parę słów. O Nim samym. Okazało się, że nie potrafię. Udało mi się tylko przedstawić Jego poglądy na reizm Tadeusza Kotarbińskiego, ale uczyniłem to gdzie indziej. Muszę tu poprzestać na ofiarowaniu Mu tego, co napisałem na Jego dziewięćdziesiąte urodziny, w osiemdziesięciolecie naszej przyjaźni.

Heideggers »Schwarze Hefte« enthalten antisemitische Ressentiments von einer bisher nicht bekannten Schärfe. Sie erlauben, Heideggers politische Position genauer zu bestimmen als bisher, und geben darüber hinaus Aufschluss über dessen Geschichts-, Philosophie- und Selbstbild. Die Beiträge dieses Bandes bieten eine fundierte philosophische Kontextualisierung und Bewertung.

The article is an analysis of various versions of the correspondence theory of truth and shows that this theory - in all of its versions - rests on two irreconcilable assumptions. First, according to the theory, the relation between the truth bearer and the truth maker - i.e. the portion of reality which makes the bearer true - is a grounded relation, which means that it holds whenever the elements grounding the relation exist, and that each of the elements may (...) exist independently of the other. Secondly, the correspondence theory of truth explicitly or implicitly presupposes that the truth maker always - i.e. necessarily - makes the truth bearer true. The first assumption implies that truth as a feature of convictions, assertions, judgments, etc. is either impossible or by nature unrecognizable. The second assumption is fulfilled only when the alleged "grounded" relation is replaced by an internal relation of identity between the truth bearer and its truth maker. The thesis that the so-called relation of correspondence between thought and reality is essentially their identity follows - contrary to what is commonly believed - from every version of the correspondence theory of truth that does not lead to either nihilism or scepticism. The author illustrates this fact by means of an analysis of the theories of G. E. Moore, B. Russell, H. Field, B. Smith and A. Newman. All of this paves the way for the identity theory of truth, which nevertheless faces its own difficulties in providing a satisfactory explanation of the existence of falsity. (shrink)

In the article I subject to criticism Field's argument, according to which field theory takes space-time to be a substance, since it ascribes field properties to space-time points. The fundamental flaw of this argument, I suggest, is the incompatibility of Field's interpretation of field theory with the way this theory is understood and utilized by its users, namely scientists. My criticism is based on the assumption that one cannot propose an ontology of a given scientific theory and at the same (...) time imposing on it an interpretation which clashes with the interpretation current among its users. I also suggest that in order to establish the ontology of a scientific theory one should take into account not only the way it functions but also the way it has been constructed. According to this criterion, field theory does indeed take space-time to be a substance. (shrink)

The author looks for ideological reasons for which the Poles joined the military organizations. On the basis of his own experience, he attempts to establish a relation between the political attitudes of the Poles and their decision to join respective military units that fought during the war. He states that in many cases the main factor in the decision to defend the country was the heart and not the reason. Political preferences of the young and politically inexperienced soldiers were of (...) little importance in the process of deciding under which banner to fight. (shrink)

On May 18, 1958, Martin Heidegger led a one-day colloquium in Freiburg on the topic of “Art and Thinking” together with Shin’ichi Hisamatsu, the Japanese philosopher and Buddhist scholar. The protocol of the colloquium, published in volume 16 of Heidegger’s Gesamtausgabe, presents a conversation among the colloquium participants about art in the East Asian world. In this conversation, Heidegger is particularly interested in hearing from Hisamatsu about the conception of art present in the East Asian world prior to the introduction (...) of Western aesthetic concepts and about the relationship between form and formlessness in East Asian aesthetics. The conversation allows Hisamatsu to clarify for the participants what he takes to be the most essential features of Zen art and how these features compare with those found in modern Western abstract art. (shrink)

Heideggers Der Ursprung des Kunstwerks ist einer der wichtigsten Beiträge zur philosophischen Ästhetik, zudem ein Schlüsseltext für Heideggers gesamtes Denken. Aber nicht ganz zu Unrecht gilt die Lektüre bei Studierenden und Anfängern im Denken Heideggers als schwierig. Dieser Band soll das Verständnis des Kunstwerkaufsatzes anleiten und erleichtern: In 18 Beiträgen stellen die Autoren in ihren Interpretationen die Grundgedanken und philosophischen sowie literarischen Quellen des Textes vor, verorten ihn in Heideggers Werk und und skizzieren seine philosophische Wirkung. Dieser erste kooperative Kommentar (...) zum Kunstwerkaufsatz schließt an das Vorwissen und die Interessen seiner Leser in vielerlei Hinsichten an, ermöglicht so einen leichteren Einstieg in die Lektüre und erschließt den Text aus verschiedenen Perspektiven der Philosophie und der Kunstwissenschaft. -/- Einen ersten Schwerpunkt bilden dabei thematische Einführungen, die das Verhältnis von Kunstwerken zu anderen Dingen, zur Technik, zur Natur, zu Wahrheit und Geschichte bestimmen. So erläutern die Beiträge Heideggers Bestimmung der Gestalt von Kunstwerken und seine These vom Vorrang der Dichtung. Ein zweiter Teil geht den Quellen des Kunstwerkaufsatzes in der Philosophie (Aristoteles, Heraklit, Hegel) und in der Literatur (Hölderlin, Meyer, Rilke) nach. Ein dritter Teil erläutert, wie Der Ursprung des Kunstwerks Heideggers eigenes Denken beeinflusst: seine Auseinandersetzung mit Nietzsche, seine Faszination für Paul Klee, sein nachdenken über Phänomenologie und über Sprache. Ein vierter Teil schließlich ist der Wirkung von Heideggers Text auf andere Autoren gewidmet: Adorno, die französische Phänomenologie (Lévinas, Derrida u.a.) sowie Gadamer und andere Autoren der hermeneutischen Tradition (Sallis, Figal). (shrink)