This text focuses on the motif of exile in the life and thought of Vilém Flusser, an author with Prague roots who developed his characteristic work devoted to the philosophy of language, the theory of communication and media after leaving Czechoslovakia. He was forced to flee from his homeland to South America, specifically Brazil, in the face of Nazism. He left there, once again by necessity, in the seventies due to a local military putsch. He experienced his second exile in the south of France. The article describes Flusser’s life-fortunes with regard to how they influenced the development of his thinking, extending his work and its reception. The second part of the text describes Flusser’s characteristic method and style of writing which, in comparison with the academic world, also appears to be “one of exile”. The third part endeavours to capture the basic approaches in thinking that are evinced across Flusser’s different philosophical subjects, among which we may also find the motif of the one standing elsewhere, outside, or at a distance.
The central question of philosophical anthropology is: What is the difference between man and other living beings? While traditionally philosophers attempted to answer this question by pointing to a certain property or ability belonging exclusively to man, Karl Marx performed a theoretical revolution in philosophical anthropology by introducing a new way of how to deal with the problem of anthropological difference. The aim of the paper is, firstly, to analyse the very form, which is common for the answers to the central question of philosophical anthropology, and to describe the dynamic which is characteristic for discussions concerning the anthropological difference. Secondly it depicts Ludwig Feuerbach’s solution to the problem, in which he introduced the concept of a species being. The third step focuses on Marx’s understanding of human nature, in which a central place is given to the concept of species powers. The fourth step sketches Marx’s own solution to the problem of the anthropological difference. In the final step a consideration is given to the underlying motivation of this solution.
This article deals with the proposal, by the early-Wittgenstein, that we avoid antinomies by excluding talk about talk. Given that such a policy is in its very character controversial, we consider whether antimonies might not be better dealt with by a shift from the sphere of epistemology to that of aesthetics. To this end we develop some of the principles of Wittgensteinian aesthetics, taking in the whole of Wittgenstein’s work, both early and late, and its roots in German idealism. Key themes are an analogy between Hegel’s and Wittgenstein’s (later) approach to contradiction, and an analysis of Hegel’s thesis according to which beauty is the sensuous manifestation of truth. and Der Artikel befasst sich mit dem Vorschlag des frühen Wittgenstein, Antinomien durch ein Verbot des Sprechens über die Sprache zu vermeiden. In Anbetracht dessen, dass ein solches Verbot von seinem Wesen her ebenfalls strittig ist, wird die Möglichkeit in Erwägung gezogen, ob Antinomien nicht adäquater durch einen Übergang vom epistemischen in den ästhetischen Bereich angegangen werden konnten. Zu diesem Zweck werden im Kontext des Gesamtwerks Wittgensteins, d. h. sowohl des
Früh- als auch des Spätwerks, sowie hinsichtlich von Wittgensteins Wurzeln im deutschen Idealismus, bestimmte Grundsatze der Ästhetik Wittgensteins entwickelt. Dabei zeigt sich die entscheidende Bedeutung der Analogie der Ansätze Hegels und des (späteren) Wittgensteins hinsichtlich dieser Streitfrage sowie die Analyse der These Hegels, der gemäß die Schönheit die Sinnesmanifestation der Wahrheit ist.