The paper reacts on Pavel Cmorej’s analysis of sentences of the form (ιx)Φ(x) is C, focusing on the case where ''C'' stands for ''impossible''. The author agrees with Cmorej’s conclusion that in such a context the modal term applies on the meaning of the description, classifying it as unable to provide a procedure which would lead to identifying an individual (as a unique bearer of the property (λx)Φ(x) in some world and time). He questions Cmorej’s example of impossibility based on contradiction from the sphere of literary fiction, examines various ways in which the constitution of a literary character may impose (or seem to impose) incompatible demands on the reader, requiring her to ''think impossible'', and suggests a way of avoiding some confusions widespread in this field. and Petr Koťátko
Since the beginnings of Marxism there has been a persistent demand to understand this theory, as well its practical and organizational development, according to the principles of Marxism itself. By “Marxism” I mean here historical materialism: not mechanical determinism but the interaction of transformational praxis with continually changing reality. Th is interaction may be confrontational and, as the poet-philosopher Bertolt Brecht said, “like everything that pertains to confl ict, collision, and struggle, it cannot be treated without the materialist dialectic.” (Gesamtausgabe, vol. 23 [Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp 1993], p. 376.) In the following article I want to show that Brecht’s thesis is also valid for the history of Marxism and its forms of motion.
This article focuses on the problems and contradictions of sociological theories of action. It investigates critically the development of the theory of action after the Parsonian synthesis, drawing attention to the limitations of articulating the concept of action systematically within a presuppositional framework of analytical theory. Having exposed Parsons general theory of action and some interpretations and criticisms, the paper addresses the so-called “return of grand theory”, spearheaded in the early 1980s by authors such as Alexander, Habermas, Giddens and Luhmann. The article analyses the conceptual innovations introduced by their theories according to Parsons own definition of theoretical work, which - as he said - consists in reconstruction and transformation of categories in the moments of their failure. While it is argued that sociological theory cannot do away with general concepts, it is also argued that these need not have the form of a synthetic theory of action of the kind outlined by Parsons and the Post-Parsonians. and Jan Balon.