In this paper, I present some remarks about an example of Christian anti-Semitism. It is about well known anti-Semitic attitudes that Zoran Kindjic supports in his paper with some scholarly pretensions. I use this example to illustrate one kind of unacceptable paternalistic discourse. Namely, I argue that when it comes to basic eschatological teachings of Abrahamic religions, even the mildest form of what I have previously defined as linguistic-expressive paternalism – what could also be called conversational paternalism – cannot be reasonably justified.
This paper analyzes several significant polemics in Serbian philosophy, published in philosophical journals and daily papers during past two decades. These are polemics between Milorad Belančić and Slobodan Žunjić, Nenad Daković and Slobodan Žunjić, and Mihailo Marković and Aleksandar Prnjat, respectively. In the first polemic, the two authors discuss the ontological status of several philosophical terms; in the second one, authors negotiate the importance of translating and publishing F. Copleston’s A History of Philosophy, whilst in the third polemic, the two philosophers discuss the problem of paternalism, suggesting redefinition of some aspects of this problem.
The unity of freedom, science and nation, viz. liberalism, positivism and nationalism, as well as his belief in two fundamental principles – freedom and justice, were the two lodestars of Vladimir Jovanović`s entire political work and his life credo. Although he was strongly inclined to the continental liberalism, he corrected it with Millian liberalism and embracement of the Westminster system, thus avoiding the radicalism of the French role model, which was followed by the prevalent majority of socialist and Marxian-oriented Serb intelectuals in the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century. Vladimir Jovanović firmly belived that liberty was the right whose exercise must not be blocked out by the ideal of equality. As a positivist, he appreciated Herbert Spencer’s theory of evolution, organic interpretation of society and analogy between the natural and the social domain, according to which social phenomena could be reduced to natural laws. Under Mazzini’s influence he made a synthesis of liberalism and nationalism. Vladimir Jovanović`s son Slobodan Jovanović pointed out that unity of freedom, science and nation was not founded in science itself, but in rationalist philosophy. Liberalism, positivism and patriotism were not only concepts of Vladimir Jovanović`s political theory, but also ideological basis for his active political work.
This paper reconsiders some aspects of the treatment of structuralism by Sreten Marić in his introductory essay to the Serbo-Croat translation of Foucault’s classic work The Order of Things (“Existential Fundamentals of Structuralism”, 1971). The central topics of this treatment are grouped and analyzed under three principal titles, corresponding to Marić’s discussion of the then-fashionable thesis of the death of Man, to his scrutiny of the leading role of linguistics as a future paradigm for social sciences, as well as to his reflection on the limits of structuralism. It seems noteworthy that this early examination of the Foucault’s structuralism may be considered as an anticipation of further development of this author, which would eventually lead him back, in his last books, to the complex of questions concerning the philosophical status of subjectivity.
The paper examines the complex phenomena in contemporary visual culture and media-mediated world. At the same time, the text critically responds to the hypothesis about the growth and development of visual culture in the era of total mediatization. In fact, the dialectic nature of visual culture is considered here through the mediation of conflict and its two characteristic moments: the moment of alienation, and the moment of critical and potentially subversive activity. Thus, the dialectic nature of visuality in today’s age can be guided by principles of hope and revolution, or those of destruction, with help of market rules and operation of media culture.
Boscovich’ theory of natural philosophy, published in 1758, made a great influence on his peers and had plenty of followers in centuries to come. It contributed to the discovery of atomic structure and inspired many scientists to work on further advancements of modern material structure comprehensions. In 1993, the physicist Leon Ledermann, a Nobel Prize laureate, wrote that “Boscovich’s philosophy is a key for the entire modern physics”. German philosopher Nietzsche regarded Boscovich’s theory “the greatest triumph over the senses that has yet been achieved on earth”. Frenchman Herismann believed that “the entire Boscovich’s philosophy will become a philosophy of the 21st century”. This article includes a presentation of Boscovich’s life and activities, description of his philosophy as well as its contributions to modern science and philosophy.
The aim of this text is to trace the main lines of the interpretation of natural selection in the early phase of reception of the theory of evolution in Serbia, as well as the resistances met by some of Darwin’s ideas. The analysis is directed at the controversies concerning the ideas regarding the evolutionary mechanisms, i.e. the question of natural selection and inheritance of acquired characteristics, as well as the concept of competition, which is of crucial importance for Darwinian natural selection. As a matter of fact, these aspects of the interpretation of Darwin’s theory were very significant for culture in a broad sense and they can be considered as a kind of symptom of the general state of mind.
In connection with the polemics between Mihailo Marković and Aleksandar Prnjat the author puts into question the usual distinction beetwen knowledge and faith. He adduces the phenomenon of mystical knowledge as an agument that religion cannot be reduced to faith. Although the suprarational knowledge is very hard to attain because it implies the overcoming of ego, its possibility refutes narrowing of knowledge to mere understanding.
In this paper, the author critically discusses the philosophical presuppositions of Sava Mrkalj’s language reform. Mrkalj’s reflections on the origin of language and his definition of sign and language are analyzed in detail. In doing so, the author tries to find out whose philosophical influence played the major role in Mrkalj’s grammatical writings.
The author discusses the critical definition of the concept of “Serbian Philosophy” by Slobodan Žunjić, who, in his basic research of Serbian philosophy based on a new methodological approach, substantially revises results of previous studies of domestic philosophical heritage. Significance of Žunić’s philosophical works, in author’s opinion, does not only lie in a more complete view of the development of Serbian philosophy, but also in the precise philosophical concepts which put a sharp focus on the different stages of development of the Serbian philosophy over a much longer period than so far known. The author especially analyzes Žunić’s concepts of criticism in Philosophy of Serbs, Philosophy in the Republic of Serbia, and suggests arguments why Žunić insists on using the term “Serbian philosophy.”