This article is focused on the notions of health and illness, as they appear in the context of philosophical reflections on finitude and contingency of human existence. Criticizing Heidegger's approach to health and illness which is based on the Aristotelian concept of privation, the author tries to find an alternative to the privative concept of illness with the help of Schelling's treatise on human freedom which explicates Evil not as a privation of Good, but as a sort of illness that (...) has its own phenomenal positivity. Even Schelling's philosophical investigation of the nature of Evil, however, doesn't seem to provide a solid ground for a non-privative and non-normative approach to pathological phenomena. Only when Schelling's treatise on human freedom is de-contextualized and radicalized in a way suggested, for instance, by Deleuze in his Difference and Repetition, does it seem possible to elucidate pathological, and especially psychopathological phenomena, as they show themselves from themselves, and not from the perspective given by the normative ideal of health. (shrink)

Po disputacích k tématům Filosofie nepředmětnosti Ladislava Hejdánka a Nekonečnost konečnosti podle Ivana Chvatíka uspořádala Katedra filosofie Evangelické teologické fakulty UK v Praze dne 29. června 2009 v pořadí již třetí pokus o výměnu mezi domácími filosofy. Tentokrát však nebyl východiskem diskusí programový text některého z účastníků, ale Platónův výklad o nejvyšších rodech v dialogu Sofistés. Tomuto textu se zde dostalo trojí velmi odlišné interpretace, kterou bychom snad mohli vzdáleně přirovnat k liternímu, morálnímu a alegorickému neboli naukovému pochopení posvátného textu (...) Písma. Filip Karfík nabízí co možná přesný výklad Platónova textu, Štěpán Špinka sleduje etické implikace Platónovy ontologie, konečně Pavlu Koubovi je pasáž ze Sofisty záminkou pro velmi zajímavé vyrovnání s Heideggerovým pojetím bytí v jeho rozštěpu na bytí jsoucna výskytového a bytí pobytu, o to zajímavější, že je provedeno prostředky Heideggerova vlastního výkladu dialogu Sofistés. Na příspěvek Pavla Kouby navazuje diskuse o zdánlivě dílčím aspektu jeho výkladu, totiž o otázce, zda identitu chceme, nebo nechceme chápat pouze jako dějství diferujících vztahů. V zájmu historické věrnosti třeba poznamenat, že tato diskuse proběhla na disputaci samé jen částečně, zato se zde odehrálo mnoho pozoruhodných diskusí dalších, které nebylo možné svěřit písemnému zachycení. Mnohé se nicméně podařilo zachytit médiem jiným, totiž na fotografiích Věry Koubové, jež jsou uveřejněny na stránkách katedry. (shrink)

This article examines the limits of Heidegger’s ontological description of emotionality from the period of Sein und Zeit and Die Grundbegriffe der Metaphysik along the lines outlined by Lévinas in his early work De l’existence à l’existant. On the basis of the Lévinassian concept of “il y a”, we attempt to map the sphere of the impersonal existence situated out of the structured context of the world. However the worldless facticity without individuality marks the limits of the phenomenological approach to (...) human existence and its emotionality, it also opens a new view on the beginning and ending of the individual existence. The whole structure of the individual existence in its contingency and finitude appears here in a new light, which applies also to the temporal conditions of existence. Yet, this is not to say that Heidegger should be simply replaced by Lévinas. As shows an examination of the work of art, to which brings us our reading of Moravia’s literary exposition of boredom (the phenomenon closely examined in Die Grundbegriffe der Metaphysik), the view on the work of art that is entirely based on the anonymous and worldless facticity of il y a must be extended and complemented by the moment in which a new world and a new individual structure of experience are being born. To comprehend the dynamism of the work of art in its fullness, it is necessary to see it not only as an ending of the world and the correlative intentional structure of the individual existence, but also as their new beginning. (shrink)

[Heidegger and psychiatric Daseinsanalysis].

[Embodiment and thinking on the border of individual being].

Are Lévinas and Deleuze two allies in their effort to break away from the Western ontology, which is based on the logic of the One and the Same, or do their philosophies represent two distant galaxies? The purpose of this paper is not to argue for either possibility, but to show the issue in all its complexity. Conjunctions as well as disjunctions of Lévinas' metaphysical thinking and Deleuze's nomadic philosophy should be dealt with on the background of the problems of (...) sexual difference and human face that play an important part in both conceptions. The analysis of these phenomena shall allow us to see the common denominator of both philosophical conceptions in the relation of thought to the outside, even though they approach the outside in two different ways. (shrink)

This article begins with Gedankenexperiment proposed in The Adventure of Difference by Gianni Vattimo: Following his suggestion to read Heidegger’s fundamental ontology in terms of Nietzsche’s The Birth of the Tragedy, we attempt to reinterpret the distinction of the authentic and inauthentic existence in the light of the difference between the Dionysian and Apollonian element, which brings us also to a new view on the existential finitude, individuality and co-existence with others. In the background of these existential features we discover (...) the notion of event that breaks the ecstatic unity of temporality and marks the hermeneutical continuity of existence by the radical discontinuity. The image of existence exposed to the power of event is further elaborated with the help of Henri Maldiney who has introduced into the frame of the fundamental ontology the concepts of trans-possibility and trans-passibility that express the existential openness to the event. Such a reformulation of the fundamental ontology, however, brings us into the sphere of heteronomous thought that, instead of preserving its essential autonomy, unity and integrity, becomes other in its relation to the otherness that is encountered in the event. (shrink)

The concept of mutual aid is central to the anarchist tradition, but also a source of controversy. This book’s intervention is to consider solidarity and mutual aid at the intersection of politics and biology, developing out of the work of Catherine Malabou.