Predaj vydavateľskej produkcie Univerzity Pavla Jozefa Šafárika v Košiciach
English
Slovenčina
Philosophy & History of Philosophy (e-books)
There are 3 products.
Active filters
Sokratovská otázka ako filozofický problém
E-book
E-book
The goal of the monograph is to highlight the significant problem of interpreting the Socratic question, as its approach represents a method of interpreting the history of philosophy, specifically in our case, the interpretation of Socrates and Plato. The Socratic question can be grasped in diametrically different ways, as shown by Patočka and Nietzsche, among others. The former aligns with Socrates and innovatively updates his question for the present. The latter is ambivalent towards Socrates but ultimately labels him a decadent.
In the first part of the monograph, Patočka's characterization of human existence is presented, which he formulates as unified and morally firm. Patočka interprets the Socratic question as care for the soul, for its well-being, without deriving the concept of good from something positively defined but from the whole world, which can only be defined negatively due to its constant openness. This sphere of negativity is for Patočka something immensely positive because transcendence lifts humans from relative goods to the overall meaning, making them morally capable in the true sense. The good, i.e., the requirement for a surge, for a turn of humans from the world of things to the whole world, is for him a program that Socrates first formulated through his knowing ignorance.
The second part of the work is dedicated to Nietzsche's concept based on the non-unified nature of human existence, which is not derived from the whole world or overall meaning but from situational meaning. Nietzsche strives to prove that in every situation, human existence is exposed to two opposing perspectives, between which it is impossible to decide which is correct. He concludes that both perspectives are equally valid and mutually conditioned, meaning that the opposite of good, what threatens meaning, is a beneficial condition for situational meaning. He labels this level as immoral, as a sphere where human existence creates meaning outside the thinking of good and evil in opposition.
The conclusion of the work is open because, as it turns out, we do not have a common denominator that could decide on the correctness of one or the other concept. Precisely in this lies the fact that the Socratic question remains a serious philosophical problem even today.
Heidegger – Nietzsche (problém interpretácie)
E-book
E-book
The stimulus for this monograph was my two studies on Heidegger’s interpretation of Nietzsche’s ideas of the will to power and eternal return of the same, published in Heidegger and Modern Metaphysics (supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency, APVV-14-0706, under the leadership of V. Leška and M. Sobotka). In the submitted monograph, I present both studies in expanded (particularly “Will to Power as Art”) and refined versions (“Eternal Return of the Same”) and add a third chapter addressing the question of the meaning of interpreting philosophical texts, which themselves are interpretations of other texts.
In seeking an appropriate approach to the meaning of interpretation, I conclude that—generally—the purpose of interpretation is to uncover the productive dimension of the interpreted text, which can only be revealed if the interpreter enters the text openly and as neutrally as possible. If the interpreter does not open themselves to the text, allowing it to interpret them in turn, interpretation remains trapped. I believe that without mutual openness between interpreter and interpreted, interpretation has no meaning and typically becomes either rejection or misinterpretation—a form of violence.
In the third chapter, which I consider foundational, I attempt to “balance” the interpretive context of “Heidegger–Nietzsche” from the first two chapters through a reversible context of “Nietzsche–Heidegger,” albeit with the risk that my interpretation of Nietzsche’s thought—specifically his ideas of eternal return and will to power—may remain subjective, even if unintended as misinterpretation. Ultimately, the ambition of the third chapter is to explore intersections between the two philosophers, one of which—a rudimentary yet significant overlap—I identify as Heidegger’s concept of being-in-the-world, reinterpreted through Nietzsche’s lens. It is Nietzsche who challenges us to adopt a self-defined stance toward the world, to confront what it means to be in the world.
The challenge for me—and perhaps the reader—is to remain faithful to oneself, which is only possible by persisting in the context of mutual interpretation between interpreter and interpreted, regardless of who/what is interpreting or being interpreted. For the context of being-in-the-world is always co-created by both sides.