Shows how different forms of skepticism can lead to remarkably different moral and political implications.

The Czech philosopher Jan Patocka, who studied with Husserl and Heidegger, is widely recognized as the most influential thinker to come from postwar Eastern Europe. Refusing to join the Communist party after World War II, he was banned from academia and publication for the rest of his life, except for a brief time following the liberalizations of the Prague spring of 1968. Joining Vaclav Havel and Jiri Hajek as a spokesman for the Chart 77 human-rights declaration of 1977, Patocka was (...) harassed by authorities, arrested, and finally died of a heart attack during prolonged interrogation. _Plato and Europe_, arguably Patocka's most important book, consists of a series of lectures delivered in the homes of friends after his last banishment from the academy just three years before his death. Here, he presents his most mature ideas about the history of Western philosophy, arguing that the idea of the care of the soul is fundamental to the philosophical tradition beginning with the Greeks. Explaining how the care of the soul is elaborated as the problem of how human beings may make their world one of truth and justice, Patocka develops this thesis through a treatment of Plato, Democritus, and Aristotle, showing how considerations about the soul are of central importance in their writings. He demonstrates in vivid fashion how this idea forms the spiritual heritage of Europe. (shrink)

Although seemingly a purely negative position without any implications, scepticism is more often seen to lead to two entirely different prescriptive political and moral conclusions, either liberal or illiberal. This article explains how such opposing conclusions derive from insufficient attention to: the instability of scepticism, its tendency to collapse into varieties of unquestioned belief; its underdetermined character, since it is always expressed as a variable mixture of doubt and beliefs, which are often neither acknowledged nor recognized; and insufficient clarity about (...) the motivational power of social or political theory generally. (shrink)