Czechoslovak republic was founded and grew as a parliamentary demo¬cracy whose theoretical ideological conception was Masaryk’s idea of democracy. Masaryk was convinced that democracy, expressing the meaning of modern Western humanity, could not find itself in a crisis as such. Only democrats could fail. However, the factual development of the Czechoslovak state in the 1920’s and 1930’s manifested signs of a crisis. The question thus became one of sustainability of Masaryk’s ideas. One of the serious attempts at their critical reflection is the structurally functionalist conception of crisis of democracy offered by Josef Ludvík Fischer, a sociologist and a philosopher, who saw the root of the problem in a structural pathology, not an individual failure. The crisis can be resolved, according to Fischer, by constituting a “composable society” which respects the order of reality. Masaryk and Fisher agree that democracy needs be built on a global understanding of what there is as a whole.
Předložený článek si na základě rozboru hlavních motivů ve Foucaultově a Canguilhemově pojetí norem klade za cíl vymezit, jaká je vzájemná vazba mezi biologickou a společenskou normativitou a jakým typem moci na nás normy vlastně působí. V souladu s interpretací navrženou Pierrem Macherey se pokusíme sílu norem vystihnout v termínech jejich „imanence a produktivity" a ukázat, proč nelze normy chápat dle modelu zákona, který by ke svému předmětu přistupoval zvnějšku. Poslední část pak přináší odpověď na otázku, jaký typ individualizace či subjektivizace toto pojetí diskvalifikuje a jaké možnosti ponechává pro svébytnou singularitu v rámci normativního pole., The present paper is based on the analysis of Georges Canguilhem's and Michel Foucault's conception of norms and seeks to define the reciprocal relation between biological and social normativity. Both Canguilhem and Foucault are challenging our usual ideas about the manner in which the norms are exercising their power upon us. Following the interpretation proposed by Pierre Macherey, the paper tries to define the power of norms in terms of their "immanence and productivity". Such a conception prevents us from understanding the norm according to the model of Law, which is imposed on its subjects from outside. The final part of the paper seeks to determine, which kind of individualization or subjectivation this new concept of norms disqualifies and which possibilities does it leave open for autonomous singularity within the normative field., and Ondřej Švec.
The article addresses the problem of nature of species which could be reduced to the question: Are species classes (universals) or individuals (particular things)? Reflecting on the discussion between traditionalist (e.g. Kitts and Kitts, Ruse) and proponents of a radical solution (Ghiselin, Hull) - by way of the S-A-I thesis (Species As Individuals) - we concentrate on the third possibility under which species are viewed as a hybrid category such as a ''complex particular,'' ''individualized class'' or ''event-entities'' (Supe, Ruse). My argument centers on an interchangeability of parts, and it concludes that we must distinguish three types of relation between parts and wholes: constructivist, emergent and reproductive. Thanks to this differentiation, I tend to view species as individuals, but not in the usual constructivist or emergent sense. In order to do justice to the individual character of species, a special logico-ontological structure or type-which I propose to call ''reproductive type''-needs to be devised. and Vladimír Havlík