The author of this article reacts to a discussion study by Radim Šíp “How to Revive ‘Frozen’ Evolutionary Ontology” (Filosofický časopis, 62, 2014, No. 3). He argues that Šíp’s critique is unacceptable, as is his proposal for a radical reform of the doctrine of Josef Šmajs. He draws attention to Šíp’s misinterpretation of the evolutionary-ontological theory of information and to the consequences of this misinterpretation for the other arguments in Šíp’s text. Šmajs‘ diagnosis of the problematic relation of culture and nature consists in a cleavage between natural information (structural and semantic) and socio-cultural information (semantic and structural). Šíp, however, mistakenly supposes that in evolutionary ontology there is an opposition between semantic, experiential information (natural and cultural) on the one hand and structural, genetic information (natural) on the other. It is only because of this misinterpretation that Šíp can treat the conflict between culture and nature as a conflict between man and nature, subject and object. Only thus can he treat evolutionary ontology as early-modern metaphysics and call for the recognition of a greater continuity between nature and culture – for the “appreciation” of allegedly unappreciated socio-cultural information.
The discussion study takes as its starting point the thinking, which Professor Šmajs and others presented in Filosofický časopis 6, 2013 on evolutionary ontology. The author shows an enduring aspect of evolutionary ontology: ontology as the product of human culture attains to knowledge that has the seeming character of objective truth - it thus expresses the true nature of the ontic order of nature. This is not, however, the usual nonsense of inconsistent philosophy. The author of the text identifies as lying behind the step Kantian and Hegelian strategies which make possible this shift from the order of culture to the order of nature. These strategies are (i) a sign of the grounding of Professor Šmajs´ ideas in early-modern thinking; and (ii) they are the cause of a strongly anthropocentric attitude, which unwittingly influences the system of evolutionary ontology. At the end of the study, the author points to the fact that it would be more appropriate for evolutionary ontology if its proponents were able to give up their early-modern argumentative approach, and thus rid themselves of their strong anthropocentrism. In this way they would be able to avoid the conceptual conflict which makes evolutionary ontology "frozen" from within., Radim Šíp., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
The basic aim of this study is to draw attention to certain inaccuracies in the recent discussion about evolutionary ontology. After a brief presentation of Šmajs’ theory, the author describes his standing in contemporary environmental thought and he classifies evolutionary ontology as “ecological ecocentrism”. In the second part he attempts to show that evolutionary ontology, in its character and claims, belongs to a different level of scientific knowledge than standard scientific theory pertaining to a limited sphere, and that therefore certain critical remarks pointing to its overly-broad range are misplaced. The conclusion of the study reminds the reader of the main controversial points of evolutionary ontology that give rise to discussion. The first of these is the paradox of unappreciated cultural information, the second is the above-mentioned “frozenness” of evolutionary ontological thought and the third is the attempt at a quick expansion of the ready evolutionary-ontological approach., Bohuslav Binka., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
The author defends the idea of the ontological founding of environmental ethics. He recognises the need for a new morality that can foreshadow the biophile transformation of culture, but at the same time he knows that this morality may actually develop during the course of the transformation itself. He presents the view that the relation of man to nature is mediated not only by the relevant culture, but also by its hidden spiritual grounding, which determines the character of culture, both spiritual and material. Today’s culture finds itself in crisis because its predatory spiritual grounding is leading it to its own ruin. A biophile change in this grounding is therefore the condition for the emergence of a more sustained biophile culture. However, even if we recognise the ontological grounding of ethics, this does not necessarily mean that we fully understand the superior subjectivity of nature, nor that we recognise the higher moral principle in the relation of culture to the Earth. The Author therefore, albeit schematically, presents his evolutionarily-ontological concept of man, nature and culture., Josef Šmajs., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii