Cilj rada je iznijeti pregled najvažnijih ideja o utopijama, potom analizirati i usporediti njihove najvažnije značajke, odnosno ukazati na što pojedini autori stavljaju naglasak u svojim idejama te ...naposljetku izraditi jednu komparativnu shemu iz uočenoga. Želi se također razmotriti što je to od ideje utopije ostalo danas. Prvo se poglavlje usredotočuje na antičke utopije, poglavito na Platona kao začetnika utopijske misli. Sljedeće poglavlje prati renesansne autore koji su pisali o idealnom društvu, počevši od Thomasa Morea, tvorca riječi utopija do Campanelle i Grada Sunca te naposljetku Bacona i Nove Atlantide. Potom slijedi poglavlje o idejama socijalnih utopista Saint-Simona, Owena te Fouriera. U posljednjem poglavlju razmatraju se i neke ideje suvremenih autora, poput Rawlsa i Bregmana. Na kraju je u zaključku prikazana shema koja na sinoptički način prikazuje temeljne elemente i najvažnije značajke utopija svakog od razmatranih autora te njihove sličnosti i razlike.
The aim of this paper is to review the most important ideas about utopias, analyze and compare their most important features that authors emphasize in their ideas, and at the end create a comparative scheme from the observed. We also want to consider what has remained of the idea of utopia today. The first chapter focuses on ancient utopias, primarily Plato as the originator of utopian thought. The next chapter follows the Renaissance authors who wrote about the ideal society, starting with Thomas More, the creator of the word utopia, Campanella's City of the Sun, and ending with Bacon's New Atlantis. Then follows the chapter on the ideas of social utopians Saint-Simone, Owen and Fourier. In the last chapter, some ideas of contemporary authors John Rawls and Rutger Bregman are considered. Finally, in the conclusion, a scheme is presented that shows the basic elements and most important features of the utopias of each of the considered authors, as well as their similarities and differences.
U radu se istražuje odnos Bonifacija Perovića prema liberalizmu, komunizmu i znanstveno-tehnološkoj revoluciji. Pripadajući personalističkom krugu hrvatskih katoličkih intelektualaca, Perović je ...prije i nakon Drugoga svjetskoga rata, na što ćemo staviti težište, napisao nekoliko rasprava i studija iz političke i socijalne filozofije, u kojima je podvrgnuo kritici temeljne idejne postavke i ciljeve i komunizma i liberalizma, odnosno i kapitalizma, zaključivši da, iako prividno različite, obje političko-socijalne ideologije konvergiraju i materijalizmu i otporu kršćanskom svjetonazoru, što, kao krajnju posljedicu, ima degradaciju čovjeka. Toj kritici nakon Drugog svjetskog rata pridružio je kritiku znanstveno-tehnološke revolucije, koja postaje ideologija per se, te s prvim dvjema ideologijama čini svojevrstan materijalistički trokut.
The paper investigates the attitude of Bonifacije Perović towards liberalism, communism and the scientific and technological revolution. Belonging to the personalist circle of Croatian Catholic intellectuals, Perović wrote several treatises and studies in political and social philosophy before and after the Second World War, in which he criticized the basic ideological setting and goals of both communism and liberalism and capitalism, respectively. concluding that, although seemingly different, both political-social ideologies converge on both materialism and resistance to the Christian worldview, which, as a final consequence, degrades man. He joined this critique after the Second World War with the critique of the scientific and technological revolution, which became an ideology per se, and with the first two ideologies formed a kind of a materialist triangle.
The paper studies and analyzes the reception of the French Catholic philosopher and the initiator of personalism Emmanuel Mounier (1905-1950), in Croatia and the former Yugoslavia from the ...mid-sixties to the end of the 20th century. The paper examines articles on Mounier and his personalism, his works and the influence of some of his ideas. Since the mid-sixties, the personalism of Emmanuel Mounier, as well as personalism as a philosophical direction in general, has largely been perceived as an attempt to synthesize Marxism and existentialism, or as an addition to Marxism. Such an approach was particularly highlighted in the works of Franjo Zenko and Zagorka Pešić-Golubović. This gave personalism, particularly Mounier’s, certain legitimacy and a positive reflection within the then dominant, 'official' Marxist circle, but at the same time it became marginal and questionable to Christian thinkers. It is evident that Mounier's personalism was perceived apart from the rest of personalist 'milieu' (Jacques Maritain, Nikolai Berdyaev, Gabriel Marcel, Denis de Rougemont, and others), which was strongly opposed to Marxism and existentialism. This is also the case with personalist activism, regarding which there is mention only of the left-wing group around Mounier and the Esprit magazine, while the right-wing and national-oriented personalist groups were not mentioned at all. Catholic thinkers and those from emigration built a reserved stance, and from them there are no comprehensive or opinion articles on the subject. The author also attributes the questionable understanding of personalism, as well as the lesser acceptance of Mounier's work, to the fact that there is not a single translation of a Mounier’s work into Croatian language.
Moralnost je obilježje koje se pridjeva čovjekovu djelovanju na temelju njegova slaganja ili neslaganja sa standardima odnosno pravilima kojima se ono regulira. To, naravno, pretpostavlja da su ...čovjekova djelovanja, s jedne strane, slobodna i odgovorna, a da s druge strane, postoje standardi i pravila prema kojima ljudsko ponašanje treba biti usklađeno. Oko ovoga drugoga, kao što je poznato, postoje neslaganja, o kojima međutim ovdje nije riječ. Naprotiv, ovdje se postavlja pitanje je li moralnost isključivo kvaliteta ljudskoga djelovanja ili je se pak može naći ne samo kod najbližih primata nego i kod nižih vrsta? U tom se okviru neminovno postavlja pitanje o mogućem evolucijskom razvoju čovjekove moralnosti. Ovaj članak iznosi na vidjelo rezultate istraživanja nekih životinjskih ponašanja koja bi se na prvi pogled mogla okarakterizirati kao moralna. Tako se objašnjavaju pojave altruističkog ponašanja, empatije, osjećaja za reciprocitet, pravednost, socijalnu stabilnost. Ovakva istraživanja mogu nesumnjivo pripomoći u razumijevanju posebnosti čovjekove moralnosti, no puno toga ostaje neodgovoreno i otvoreno za daljnja istraživanja.
Die Moral ist ein Merkmal, das dem menschlichen Handeln angehört aufgrund seiner Übereinstimmung oder Nichtübereinstimmung mit Standards u Regeln, die es regulieren. Dies setzt natürlich voraus, dass menschliche Handlungen auf der einen Seite frei und verantwortlich sind und dass es auf der anderen Seite Standards und Regeln gibt, mit denen das menschliche Handeln übereinstimmen soll. Über das letztere, wie es bekannt ist, gibt es Unterschiede, von denen jedoch hier nicht die Rede ist. Hier im Gegenteil ist die Frage, ob die Moral ausschließlich Qualität des menschlichen Handelns ist, oder kann sie, nicht nur bei nächstgelegenen Primaten, sondern auch bei niederen Spezies gefunden werden. In diesem Zusammenhang stellt sich zwangsläufig die Frage einer möglichen evolutionären Entwicklung der menschlichen Moral. Dieser Artikel zeigt die Forschungsergebnisse bestimmten tierischen Verhaltens auf, welche auf den ersten Blick als moralisch charakterisiert werden könnten. So werden Auftreten von altruistischem Verhalten, Empathie, Gefühl der Reziprozität, Fairness und sozialer Stabilität erklärt. Solche Forschung kann sicherlich die Einzigartigkeit der menschlichen Moral zu verstehen helfen, aber vieles bleibt noch ungeantwortet und offen für die weitere Forschung.
Assmann’s crucial concept in his theory of cultural memory is »the Mosaic Distinction« (die Mosaische Unterscheidung). It is the starting point of a new revolutionary distinction – between truth and ...falsehood in religion, and the entire spectrum of consequences as a result thereof – a break with all earlier traditions, and the process of formation of a new type of religion that stands apart from other religions and spheres of culture such as politics, law and economics. This revolutionary monotheism has replaced the ancient polytheistic world in which Assmann found the dynamic and creative system that has contributed in many elements to the rise of a new monotheistic synthesis rooted in Mosaic distinction. The purpose of this article is to offer a partial insight into this rather forgotten, »buried« world that Assmann has vivified with his erudition, presenting some important achievements of Ancient Egypt firmly incorporated into our civilisation.
Središnji koncept Assmannove teorije kulturnog sjećanja je »mojsijevsko razlikovanje « (Die Mosaische Unterscheidung). Ono je ključ razumijevanja novog revolucionarnog razlikovanja: između istinitog i lažnog u religiji, što povlači spektar posljedica: prekid sa svim ranijim tradicijama i proces formiranja novog tipa religije koja se odvaja od svih drugih vjerovanja i područja kulture kao što su politika, pravo i ekonomija. Ovaj revolucionarni monoteizam je zamijenio antički politeistički svijet, u kojemu Assmann nalazi dinamičan i kreativan sustav koji će po mnogim sastojnicama pridonijeti usponu nove monoteističke sinteze sadržane u ideji »mojsijevskog razlikovanja«. Svrha ovog članka je ponuditi ograničen uvid u ovaj podosta zaboravljeni, »pokopani« svijet, kojega Assmann oživljava svojom erudicijom, predstavljajući neke od važnih postignuća drevnog Egipta, koja su čvrsto ugrađena u našu civilizaciju.
U radu se prikazuju i analiziraju određenja personalizma u filozofskoj literaturi, osobito enciklopedistici i filozofskim rječnicima različitih jezičnih tradicija, filozofskih škola i razdoblja 20. ...stoljeća te iznosi pokušaj određenja tog filozofskog pravca kroz komparativnu perspektivu. Personalizam se u filozofskim, sociološkim, povijesnim i drugim tekstovima određuje kao filozofija, filozofski pravac, disciplina, škola, nauk, pokret, teorija, učenje i slično. Pri tome, govor o personalizmu ima različite konotacije, naglaske i obojanost, ovisno i o povijesnom, geografskom, ili ideološkom kontekstu. Iako se kroz povijest filozofije mogu pratiti korijeni personalizma do antičkog doba, ipak se pojam personalizam vremenski uobičajeno veže uz 20. st. Razvidno je da u povijesnoj i zemljopisnoj difuziji ideja u modernoj misli postoji više oblika personalizama. Spominju se američki idealistički personalizam, ruski personalizam, različiti europski personalizmi, komunitarni kršćanski personalizmi i sl. Svaki od tih oblika ima svoje razumijevanje o osobi i stavlja je u središte filozofskog razmatranja. Korijeni personalističke filozofije po nekima sežu do antike, iako je uobičajen stav da je koncept osobe razvijen u susretu grčke filozofije i novog, kršćanskog načina razmišljanja. Na europskom kontinentu personalizam se obično veže uz tri škole: francusku u Parizu, njemačku u Göttingenu i Freiburgu te poljsku u Lublinu. Personalizam je imao odjek i u drugim europskim državama. U Francuskoj personalizam nije bio samo filozofski pravac, već je imao brojne sljedbenike i u različitim personalističkim pokretima te se taj personalizam detaljnije obrađuje u drugom dijelu članku.
As mentioned before, personalism is being determined as a philosophy, philosophical direction, discipline, school, science, movement, theory, learning and the like. In this regard, descriptions of personalism have different connotations and accents depending on the historical, geographical or ideological context. Thus, for example in Germany personalism was associated with the the thought of F. Schleiermacher or W. Sterna, in the Anglo-Saxon world with various American protestant thinkers (Bowne, Britghman and others) and in the ex – Soviet area personalism was considered to be more of a bourgeois ideology than a systematic philosophy.
Although, throughout various attempts of determination of personalism in the history of philosophy one can follow the roots of personalism back to the antiquity, yet the term ‘personalism’ is dominantly determined by the 20th century. All the determinations point out to the importance of the term ‘person’ and her/his role in the community, hence, in principle, personalism can be defined as the direction within the philosophy of the twentieth century which places the person in the center of interest and designates it a double function: a) the person is the absolute center and standard for society and all i institutions; b) a person is the basis for proclaiming absolute universality and solidarity among all people. In most determinations, it is pointed out that personalism is opposed to individualism and is close to the Christian understanding of the world and man.
In the historical and geographical diffusion of ideas in modern thought there are many types of personalism. American idealistic personalism, Russian personalism, various European personalisms, communitarian Christian personalism etc. Each of these forms has its own understanding of the person and places it at the center of philosophical consideration. Given the breadth of what can be understood under the concept of personalism, some have concluded that „there is little in common among different personalisms apart from their opposition to the various forms of materialism“ and that „full history of personalism stll has to be written“.
From different personalistic determinations, as a cross section, one can conclude that Nikolai Berdyaev, Jacques Maritain and Emmanuel Mounier are its three most prominent representatives and that personalism is most often associated with France.
The roots of French personalism are commonly found in French neocritism and tomism, and German existentialism, and the contribution of Russian religious philosophy to French personalism has not been sufficiently explored yet. However, even a superficial glimps into the personalism and its movements provides the insight on the activities of a number of Russian emigrant thinkers. Since Orthodox and Roman Catholics acted together in the personalistic movements and that Protestants joined them, we can talk about a kind of ‘ecumenism before ecumenism’ or that personalism is a true and complete Christian philosophy.
U radu se istražuje i analizira recepcija francuskoga katoličkoga filozofa, pokretača personalističkoga pokreta Emmanuela Mouniera (1905. – 1950.) u Hrvatskoj i bivšoj Jugoslaviji od sredine ...šezdesetih godina do kraja 20. stoljeća. Prate se članci o Mounieru i njegovu personalističkom pokretu, njegovim djelima te o utjecaju nekih njegovih ideja. Personalizam Emmanuela Mouniera, pa i cjelokupni personalizam kao filozofski pravac od sredine šezdesetih godina uglavnom se sagledavao kao pokušaj sinteze marksizma i egzistencijalizma ili kao nekakva nadopuna marksizmu. U takvom pristupu isticali su se radovi Franje Zenka i Zagorke Pešić-Golubović. Time je personalizam, osobito Mounierov, doduše zadobio svojevrsni legitimitet i usputnu pozitivnu refleksiju u krugu tada dominantnoga, "službenoga" marksističkoga kruga, ali istovremeno postao ruban i upitan za kršćanske mislioce. Razvidno je da se Mounierov personalizam sagledavao izdvojeno od ostaloga personalističkoga "milieua" (Jacques Maritain, Nikolaj Berdjajev, Gabriel Marcel, Denis de Rougemont i drugi), koji se izrazito suprotstavljao i marksizmu i egzistencijalizmu. To je slučaj i u pitanju personalističkoga aktivizma, u okviru kojega se spominje isključivo lijevo orijentirana skupina oko Mouniera i časopisa "Esprit", dok se desno i nacionalne orijentirane grupe personalista prešućuju. Kod katoličkih mislioca, kao i onih iz emigracije, prema Mounieru je rezerviran stav i iz tih redova ne dolazi ni jedan cjelovitiji, čak ni publicistički članak o toj temi. Upitno shvaćanje personalizma, kao i slabije akceptiranje Mounierova djela, autori pripisuju i tomu da de facto do danas ne postoji prijevod ni jednoga Mounierova djela na hrvatski jezik.
The paper studies and analyzes the reception of the
French Catholic philosopher and the initiator of personalism Emmanuel Mounier
(1905-1950), in Croatia and the former Yugoslavia from the ...mid-sixties to the
end of the 20th century. The paper examines articles on Mounier and his
personalism, his works and the influence of some of his ideas. Since the mid-sixties, the personalism of Emmanuel
Mounier, as well as personalism as a philosophical direction in general, has
largely been perceived as an attempt to synthesize Marxism and existentialism,
or as an addition to Marxism. Such an approach was particularly highlighted in the
works of Franjo Zenko and Zagorka Pešić-Golubović. This gave personalism,
particularly Mounier’s, certain legitimacy and a positive reflection within the
then dominant, 'official' Marxist circle, but at the same time it became
marginal and questionable to Christian thinkers. It is evident that Mounier's
personalism was perceived apart from the rest of personalist 'milieu' (Jacques
Maritain, Nikolai Berdyaev, Gabriel Marcel, Denis de Rougemont, and others),
which was strongly opposed to Marxism and existentialism. This is also the case
with personalist activism, regarding which there is mention only of the left-wing
group around Mounier and the
Esprit
magazine, while the right-wing and
national-oriented personalist groups were not mentioned at all. Catholic
thinkers and those from emigration built a reserved stance, and from them there
are no comprehensive or opinion articles on the subject. The author also
attributes the questionable understanding of personalism, as well as the lesser
acceptance of Mounier's work, to the fact that there is not a single
translation of a Mounier’s work into Croatian language.
U radu se istražuje i analizira recepcija francuskoga katoličkoga filozofa, pokretača personalističkoga pokreta Emmanuela Mouniera (1905. – 1950.) u Hrvatskoj i bivšoj Jugoslaviji od sredine šezdesetih godina do kraja 20. stoljeća. Prate se članci o Mounieru i njegovu personalističkom pokretu, njegovim djelima te o utjecaju nekih njegovih ideja. Personalizam Emmanuela Mouniera, pa i cjelokupni personalizam kao filozofski pravac od sredine šezdesetih godina uglavnom se sagledavao kao pokušaj sinteze marksizma i egzistencijalizma ili kao nekakva nadopuna marksizmu. U takvom pristupu isticali su se radovi Franje Zenka i Zagorke Pešić-Golubović. Time je personalizam, osobito Mounierov, doduše zadobio svojevrsni legitimitet i usputnu pozitivnu refleksiju u krugu tada dominantnoga,
službenoga
marksističkoga kruga, ali istovremeno postao ruban i upitan za kršćanske mislioce. Razvidno je da se Mounierov personalizam sagledavao izdvojeno od ostaloga personalističkoga
milieua
(Jacques Maritain, Nikolaj Berdjajev, Gabriel Marcel, Denis de Rougemont i drugi), koji se izrazito suprotstavljao i marksizmu i egzistencijalizmu. To je slučaj i u pitanju personalističkoga aktivizma, u okviru kojega se spominje isključivo lijevo orijentirana skupina oko Mouniera i časopisa
Esprit
, dok se desno i nacionalne orijentirane grupe personalista prešućuju. Kod katoličkih mislioca, kao i onih iz emigracije, prema Mounieru je rezerviran stav i iz tih redova ne dolazi ni jedan cjelovitiji, čak ni publicistički članak o toj temi. Upitno shvaćanje personalizma, kao i slabije akceptiranje Mounierova djela, autori pripisuju i tomu da de facto do danas ne postoji prijevod ni jednoga Mounierova djela na hrvatski jezik.
Friedrich Nietzsche je vrlo dojmljiva osoba suvremene filozofije. Njegova misao usmjerena je na kritiku europskog čovjeka oblikovanog metafizičkim naslijeđem. S druge strane, on pokušava, u vlastitom ...suočavanju sa zbiljnošću, donijeti novu perspektivu mišljenja. Ono se u intuitivnom ophođenju sa svijetom želi ozbiljiti po uzoru na umjetnički zadatak. Cilj je filozofa iskristalizirati svoju umjetničku bit, pri čemu stvaralački mora postaviti nove vrijednosti. Iznimna neprozirnost Nietzscheova djela, filozofije koja se više skriva negoli otkriva, onemogućuje sustavni prikaz njegova filozofijskog opusa. Razlog tomu jest Nietzscheov upravo nesustavni i pjesnički neiskaziv odnos sa zbiljnošću u skladu s razmatranjem nemogućnosti njezina oblikovanja pojmovnim kategorijama koje bi se istinito odnosile na njezinu bit. Svjestan nemogućnosti oslonca na metafiziku, kojoj je pripisao jedino moralistički i vrijednosno-sustavni odnos sa svijetom, pokušava Nietzsche iznijeti diskurs budućeg razumijevanja u znaku intuitivnog prepoznavanja i opravdanosti paradoksa koji se nalazi u heraklitovskoj biti života, čime ujedno iznalazi umjetničku potvrdu života kao velebne igre gradeće-razarajućeg pra-temelja.
Friedrich Nietzsche is a very impressive figure of modern philosophy. His thought is directed to the critique of the European man shaped by a metaphysical heritage. On the other hand, he tries, in his own confrontation with reality, to bring a new perspective of philosophical thought. In its intuitive approaching of the world it intends to actualize itself as an artistic task. The goal of the philosopher is to crystallize his artistic being wherein he must creatively set new values. The considerable vagueness of Nietzsches’s work, a philosophy that hides more than it reveals, makes it almost impossible to represent his philosophical opus in an organic way. The reason for this is just Nietzsche’s unsystematic and poetically unutterable relation to reality in accordance with the consideration of the impossibility of formulating it in conceptual categories that would really refer to its essence. Aware of the impossibility of relying on metaphysics, to which Nietzsche attributed only a moralistic and value- systematic relationship with the world, he tries to introduce the discourse of future understanding in the form of intuitive recognition and justification of the paradox lying in the heraclitean essence of life, in which he, at the same time, grounds the artistic confirmation of life as a grandiose game of construction and devastation of the primordial ground.
Describes the index of the effective number of electoral and parliamentary parties. Explained by the peculiarity of their application for the analysis of party systems. In the paper calculated the ...effective number of parties in the electoral and parliamentary levels for Ukraine after the elections to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, 1994, 1998 , 2002, 2006, 2007, 2012.
PDF
