The main aim of our paper is to identify the potential limits of Socratic dialogue in moral education. These limits will be identified using a) the original ancient writings preserving several versions of Socrates’ dialogue, and b) modern writing on the Socrates’ dialogue in moral education. We will determine whether these limits are to be found in the writing of Plato or Xenophon, or rather in the problems and paradoxes of this type of education. We assume that a historical exploration (...) of the original Socratic philosophy will help us to more easily identify the limits and problems in moral education. However, our intention is not to reject the Socratic dialogue as such, but merely to point out some of the potentially controversial aspects of its use in moral education. (shrink)

The paper deals with Martin Buber’s claim that responsibility “is the basic theme of my work in general.” As I show in the opening section of the article, his statement applies to the dialogical period of his work, but not the pre-dialogical. In the mystical phase of Buber’s thought there is no place for responsibility because the very nature of mysticism excludes that possibility. The incompatibility of mysticism and interpersonal responsibility is confirmed in the autobiographical fragment “conversion,” one of the (...) two biographical moments I discuss in relation to the shift in his thinking on responsibility. The second is his relationship with his wife Paula Winkler, which profoundly influenced his thinking about the importance of love and marriage for an understanding of responsibility. I then explore his view of responsibility as a doctrine, which developed along with his dialogical philosophy. Finally, I examine his critical views on four basic ways of avoiding responsibility, which highlight the close connection between freedom and responsibility: belief in fate, individualism, collectivism, and religious acosmism. (shrink)

This is the editorial of the monothematic issue of the journal Filozofia dedicated to Martin Buber (1878 – 1965) on the occasion of the centenary of the first publication of his most famous and popular book, I and Thou, on his philosophy of dialogue.

Martin Buber’s The Question to the Single One appeared in Nazi Germany at a time, when collectivism in its totalitarian forms was at the height of its development. On one hand this little book is an immediate reaction to the social-political situation in inter-war Europe. On the other hand it is a consideration of the anthropological question of the modern man from the point of view of dialogical personalism. The paper focuses on Buber’s critique of both the individualistic and collectivistic (...) doctrines of ethical relativism. It examines also his category of the “single one in responsibility” as a response to both doctrines. (shrink)

W tekście omawiam metateoretyczne uwarunkowania dla historii powstania i rozwoju pojęcia wolnej woli. Punktem wyjścia jest zagadnienie pojęcia spekulatywnego. Ponieważ wola jest pojęciem spekulatywnym, nie ma jednoznacznej definicji tego pojęcia. Dlatego też utrudnione jest badanie jego historii, ponieważ autorzy starożytni operowali różnymi teoriami chcenia i wolności, które nie zawsze były ze sobą kompatybilne. Następnie omawiam teorie chcenia i działania wybranych autorów, które miały istotny wpływ na późniejszy rozwój pojęcia woli. Rozpatruję pojęcie wyboru Platona, pojęcia życzenia i wyboru Arystotelesa, pojęcie przyzwolenia (...) stoików, teorię wolności Epikura, teorię wyboru Aleksandra z Afrodyzji, pojęcie woli Augustyna z Hippony i teorię woli Maksyma Wyznawcy. (shrink)

This paper provides an analysis of Martin Buber’s not very well-known essay “Distance and Relation”, which is his most relevant contribution to philosophical anthropology. In the essay, which was published almost thirty years after the publication of his most famous book, I and Thou, Buber elaborated on the anthropological foundations of his cosmic vision of dialogical life. The central question is “How is man possible?” Buber’s answer is very important to the further development of his principle of dialogue in psychology (...) (primarily his notion of confirmation) and philosophy of art, but it is not quite clear how compatible it is with some of his earlier theses from I and Thou. In particular, the relation between “distance” and the I-It relation is unclear. There are two seemingly contradictory statements: “In the beginning is the relation” and “The primal distance is a presupposition of the relation”. The aim of this paper is to examine these anthropological foundations and to elucidate this apparent contradiction. (shrink)

The submitted contribution is devoted to the controversy in Martin Buber’s conception of responsibility and especially to the question whether its nature is reciprocal or asymmetrical. This controversy arises from a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of his concept of mutuality as a constituent of I-Thou relation. Several refuting arguments are offered against the claim that the mutuality of the I-Thou relationship means equality of responsibility which enables ethical calculus.

The Presocratics in the Thought of Martin Heidegger. By Korab-Karpowicz W. Julian..).

At Protagoras 353de, Socrates gives three possible reasons for calling some pleasures `wrong'. Scholarly attention has focused on the second of these, according to which pleasures are `wrong' when they have negative consequences. This paper argues that the first reason (the pleasures are fleeting) corresponds to beliefs held by Democritus, among others; and that the third reason (the pleasant things “give pleasure in whatever way and for whatever reason“) is the view adopted by Socrates in the dialogue.