Studia Philosophica

This article deals with Martin Buber’s philosophy of dialogue and with the philosophical mo­tifs that the essayist and theorist of communication Vilém Flusser adopted from Buber’s concept of dialogue. The text presents various aspects of Flusser’s conception of dialogue into which Buber´s thoughts projected. The author attempts to show how Flusser’s ap­proach differs from Buber´s, in particular how Flusser deflected from the understanding of the authentic dialogue as a dialogue of two particular people to the concept of dialogue in the framework of mass-communication through media and new technologies. The question of whether and how Flusser’s communication theory relates to Jewish philosophy in general is discussed as well.

The paper recapitulates the life and work of Jiřina Popelová, a major Czech philosopher of the 20th century. Attention is paid to three collections of papers published in her honour – Sborník k šedesátým narozeninám Jiřiny Popelové (A Collection of Papers to Celebrate the 60th birthday of Jiřina Popelová) (1964), Jiřina Popelová, filozofka a učitelka filozofie (Jiřina Popelová, a philosopher and a teacher of philosophy) (1984) and Filosofka Jiřina Popelová (The Philosopher Jiřina Popelová) (2005). Closer attention is paid to the papers by M. So­botka, R. Kalivoda, J. Pešková, P. Floss and J. Gabriel. These focus on J. Popelová’s contribu­tion to the philosophy of history, Comenius studies, ethics, philosophy of culture and the historiography of European and Czech Philosophy.

This short collection of letters by Jiřina Popelová represents a „fourth en­counter“ with that philosopher, certainly the most private one. It reveals the personal life of the philosopher and her professional as well as private relationships.

In the last fifty years, we have repeatedly been confronted with the pressing question of whether our civilization, and perhaps the whole civilization, is coming to an end. G. Li­povetsky and H. Juvin tackle this question in their own ways in the book The Globalized West, which they published together in France in 2010. While Lipovetsky attempts to pro­vide a balanced view of the postmodern world, which results in a picture of a society that does not abandon its (various) traditions, Juvin emphasises the threat of global confronta­tion. Both authors primarily deal with the question of the relationship between economics and politics and both criticize in their own ways the dominance of economics over politics. It must be mentioned that their focus is a bit narrower than that of authors such as Spengler or Toynbee, or authors building on the idea of an ecological catastrophe. However, this pro­vides a convenient material for a comparison with their predecessors’ and contemporaries’ views on a society that is obviously facing great changes. The author of this paper confronts their views with the views of their predecessors and contemporaries (Feyerabend, Fuku­yama, Huntington, Popper, etc.) and attempts to find similarities and differences.

Populism nowadays is often used concept both in the academic field, as well as on the politi­cal scene itself, in the media and among the general public. The fact is that although almost everybody uses this term in our society, only few know what it really means. This article will therefore deal with a question that has been the subject of many theorists’ analysis, the question what populism means. One of the theorists is Ernesto Laclau (1935–2014) which does not understand populism as ideology, but as some special strategy or way of communication. In the first part of our article we will define the term “populism”, highlight its multiple interpretations as well as its common analytical core. In the following sections of the article, we will focus on the analysis of populism by Ernest Laclau. The aim of our article is therefore to analyze the theory of populism according to E. Laclau in the context of the current situation on the domestic and global political scene.

Phenomenology of Spirit, Heidegger says, is the first part of the system of science that was planned by Hegel. Another of its titles is called: Science of the Experience of Consciousness. By the science (Wissenschaft) is meant philosophy, understood as a science of the experience of consciousness, which means an experience that the consciousness makes with itself. According to Hegel, philosophy is attempting to get an absolute knowledge, the most general knowledge that is possible to achieve. And meanwhile for Hegel, in his Phenomenology of Spirit, the relationship to the human being, as a subject that is able to get an absolute knowledge and to achieve the self-consciousness, is the most important, Heidegger prefers in Hegel´s Phenomenology of Spirit Being itself with its relationship to beings as he understood it. For Heidegger all of the problems from the Phenomenology of Spirit represent nothing less than an articulation of the endless Being compared to the variety of temporal beings.