Contrary to what is often thought, the structuralist approach has never been adopted in French sociology very extensively. When speaking about structuralism in this discipline, the work of Pierre Bourdieu is generally referred to. The present paper is intentionally heading in another direction and is questioning Lévi-Straussian traces in Baudrillard’s theory of the consumer society. First, Baudrillard acknowledges being in debt to Lévi-Strauss for his conception of consumption as a language. In this perspective exchanged goods are understood as object-signs. We believe nevertheless that Baudrillard goes even further when he analyzes the phenomenon of absurd violence, bearing in mind - even he does not directly disclose it - Lévi-Strauss’ concept of “free signifier”. All the same we finally conclude that Baudrillard’s use of Lévi-Strauss is rather cursory. Despite this fact it is of interest: Thus we follow Baudrillard’s analysis and consider the problem of social criticism, which is one of the main topics of his writings here discussed. and Jan Maršálek.
The French sociologist Raymond Aron himself felt that his reflections on the conditions of political action, a topic dealt with in his Introduction à la philosophie de l'histoire, became the basis for his own political involvement. In the book, the problem of action is closely linked to an analysis of man's relationship to history, an analysis that explores the issue of man's ability to know his past and present. This article looks at Aron's attempt to overcome the scepticism of historical relativism, and to regain objectivity. Before explaining this process the author attempts to place the book in its proper historical and intellectual context, and he then reveals how its theme of human action is linked to Aron's epis-temology. According to Aron, choice, action and decision are the three main concepts and requisites positively linked with man's relationship to history. After explaining their relevance, the author shows how Aron uses them to overcome historical relativism and scepticism. This solution is then confronted with the issue of the other, not really elaborated by Aron, and discussed in the light of postmodern thought. The article closes with a look at the question of Aron's existentialism, as his Introduction is often said to resemble Sartre's philosophy.
The paper deals with the relationship between Emile Durkheim´s sociology and the contractualist tradition of political philosophy, represented here pricipally by Thomas Hobbles. Its aim is to show that Giddens´s strict rejection of Parsons´s claim according to which Durkheim has reopened in his work the "Hobbes´s problem of order", should not be accepted as such, because it´s radicality hides that what is the value in Parsons´s thesis. As we argue, Parsons has the merit of noticing that Hobbes and Spencer, who - in respect of their social philosophies - are usually seen as opposed, appear to be close to each other when they are considered by Durkheim as to the conception of the society their philosophies yield. Yet Durkheim´s sociology is an endeavour to conceive the society independently of the state, and thus, inversely, to emancipate the state from the society, so that it can be entrusted with a different function other than the guarantor of the social order. and Jan Maršálek.
Vyplývá z bezvadně provedeného důkazu také závazek počítat ve svém dalším rozvažování a jednání s jeho závěrem? V předložené studii se zabývám Hobbesovým Leviathanem coby "literární technologií", která čtenáře staví do role autora v Leviathanu rozvíjené argumentace. V tomto smyslu kriticky navazuji jednak na interpretaci Hobbesova vědeckého stylu, kterou nabízejí S. Shapin a S. Schaffer, jednak na výklad Q. Skinnera, který se podrobně zabývá Hobbesovou rétorickou praxí. Nabízím tezi, podle níž se Hobbes v kontaktu se svým publikem nespokojuje s předvedením vědeckého důkazu, nýbrž své čtenáře nechává na vytváření vědecké argumentace a jejím závěru osobně participovat., Does a perfectly established proof also imply, for its beholder, a commitment to account for the proof’s conclusion in further reasoning and action? In the herein presented study, I treat Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan as a “literary technology” that seeks to position the reader into the role of the author of Leviathan’s argumentation. The interpretations of Hobbes’s scientific style offered by S. Shapin and S. Schaffer are thus critically developed alongside Q. Skinner’s analysis of Hobbes’s rhetorical practice. It is suggested that, with regard to his readers, Hobbes does not content himself with merely demonstrating a scientific proof, but strives to involve his readers in his argumentation and make them participate in the creation of scientific arguments and their conclusions., Jan Maršálek., and Obsahuje bibliografii