Na sklonku roku 2013 vydal filozof Břetislav Horyna další knihu esejů, tentokrát s názvem Bory šumí po skalinách (Olomouc: Periplum 2013). Při této příležitosti jsem položil autorovi několik otázek.
The essay, celebrating the 70th birthday of the German author, essayist and philosopher Peter Sloterdijk, focuses on the main discrepancies in his opinions in the period between his Critique of Cynical Reason (1983) and the current social-critical and political engagement (Die nehmende Hand und die gebende Seite, 2010 - Was geschah im 20. Jahrhundert?, 2016, including his confrontational polemics in the journal Cicero between 2014–2017). The author poses two questions: a) Did Sloterdijk's readers consider his opinions a genuine critical philosophy, while they concealed what Hegel marked as "gloss of uncommonness" of original conservativism? b) When and how can philosophical theories achieve an acceptable level of trustworthiness? The answers mark the determinants of Sloterdijk's anthropology, generally falling under the concept of "Anthropocene" and relying on several theories. The author highlights Sloterdijk’s theory of borders and his economic theory of the replacement of the tax system by a system of donation and charity. He also points out that Sloterdijk does not present any relevant arguments or explanations of practical implications of his theories. Instead he limits himself to moralistic and journalistic claims.
A brief contribution to the conference held as a homage to O. Marquard focuses on his basic, that is, sceptical stance in philosophy and life. It merely aspires to remark (not necessarily justify) that philosophy can be cultivated in various areas with various basic ingredients, and it can develop thinking in multifarious forms. Marquard's preferred form was Pyrrhonian scepticism, resulting in irony, which leads to further crossroads and contingencies showing no sign of a blessed state, just like the previous ones. Perhaps this is a result of the fact that crossroads exist, but a blessed state does not. There is no way he can tell; but he can doubt both.
The paper "Who Can Question Blumenberg Except for Blumenberg Himself" brings forward the question of which factors and features of the philosophy of this German thinker of the second half of the 20th century make it the case that he has moved away from academic mainstream and given philosophy back the typical characteristics of German philosophical tradition: erudition, cultivated character, adequacy, good taste in the selection of vital problems and their solutions, and, above all, critical thinking, which, on the journey between the peaks of Kant and Blumenberg himself, frequently waned, disappeared in dark gorges of being and time and vanished in polished aesthetics of the hermeneutics of God's intentions. The study focuses on Blumenberg's concept of actio per distans, which, combined with the theory of absolute metaphor and cognitive metaphor, gives rise to his historical phenomenology and politically, economically and phenomenologically oriented anthropology. At the end, the author mentions the problem of 'metametaphorics', which is newly developed as a project based on a deep misunderstanding of Blumenberg's metaphorology: the paper presents several arguments proving a discrepancy between metaphorology and metametaphorics, derived primarily from Blumenberg's theory of (the constant cultural reproduction of) myth.
Krátký příspěvek na konferenci konané jako homage na O. Marquarda se v nástinu vztahuje k jeho základnímu, tzn. skeptickému postoji ve filosofii a v životě. Chce (jako připomínka, bez hlubších analytických nároků) odkázat na možnost pěstovat filosofii v různých půdách, s různými živinami, a rozvíjet myšlení různými cestami. Tou Marquardovou byla moderní pyrrhónská skepse, ústící v ironii, jež ale sama vede jen na další rozcestí a k další kontingenci, odkud není vidět na žádný požehnaný stav, stejně jako tomu bylo na všech předchozích. Možná je to tím, že rozcestí jsou, kdežto požehnaný stav ne. Vědět to nemůže; o obojím lze ale pochybovat. and A brief contribution to the conference held as a homage to O. Marquard focuses on his basic, that is, sceptical stance in philosophy and life. It merely aspires to remark (not necessarily justify) that philosophy can be cultivated in various areas with various basic ingredients, and it can develop thinking in multifarious forms. Marquard's preferred form was Pyrrhonian scepticism, resulting in irony, which leads to further crossroads and contingencies showing no sign of a blessed state, just like the previous ones. Perhaps this is a result of the fact that crossroads exist, but a blessed state does not. There is no way he can tell; but he can doubt both.