Prawda - istina w horyzoncie anthropos w myśli rosyjskiego renesansu religijno-filozoficznego

Wydział Nauk Społecznych: Instytut Filozofii

Rola Francji i Niemiec w procesie integracji europejskiej w latach 1992-2007

Francja i Niemcy przez stulecia walczyły o zdobycie władzy i przejęcie wpływów na kontynencie europejskim i traktowały siebie nawzajem jako największe zagrożenie. Jednak tragiczna pierwsza połowa XX wieku przyniosła z jednej strony pragnienie zapewnienia, iż okropności wojny już nigdy się nie powtórzą, a z drugiej strony poczucie, że nieodzowna jest zmiana dwustronnych stosunków panujących między Berlinem a Paryżem. Konieczność stworzenia przestrzeni wolności i współpracy doprowadziła niegdysiejszych wrogów do stworzenia idei integracji najważniejszych części gospodarki. Pomysł zjednoczenia krajów Europy Zachodniej przekształcił się w kolejnych latach w symbol zaangażowania francusko-niemieckiego. Dwie republiki stały się rdzeniem europejskiej współpracy i spiritus movens zmian politycznych, ekonomicznych i instytucjonalnych w powojennej Europie. Po upadku komunizmu w 1989 roku ich rola zyskała nowy wymiar w odmiennych warunkach geopolitycznych - od momentu podpisania Traktatu z Maastricht w 1992 roku francusko-niemiecki duet powiększył swe znaczenie i wpływ na politykę nowej Unii Europejskiej. Realizacja zapisów Traktatu z Maastricht i kolejnych dokumentów, w tym Traktatu z Lizbony, koncentracja na kwestiach reform instytucjonalnych, jak również przygotowania do wschodniego rozszerzenia UE mogą być rozpatrywane jedynie w odniesieniu do wspólnych działań prowadzonych przez nadreński tandem. Realizacja trzech filarów integracji: współpracy w wymiarze ekonomicznym i społecznym, wspólnej polityki zagranicznej i bezpieczeństwa, jak również współpracy policyjnej i sądowej w sprawach karnych, podkreślają znaczenie couple franco-allemand i zwracają uwagę na rolę lidera, jaką Paryż i Berlin odgrywają w dziedzinie integracji.

Autsajder literacki w niemieckiej i rosyjskiej prozie XIX-XI wieku. Badania narratologiczne

Wydział Neofilologii: Instytut Filologii Germańskiej

Rorty's Elective Affinities. The New Pragmatism and Postmodern Thought

The present book is devoted to "European connections of Richard Rorty's neopragmatism". The theme, chosen carefully and intentionally, is supposed to show the motivation behind the writing of the present work, as well as to show its intended extent. Let us consider briefly the first three parts of the theme, to enlighten a little our intentions. "European" is perhaps the most important description for it was precisely that thread that was most important to me, being the only context seriously taken into account, as I assumed right from the start that I would not be writing about rather more widely unknown to me - and much less fascinating (even to Rorty, the hero of the story) from my own, traditional, Continental philosophical perspective - American analytic philosophy. So accordingly I have almost totally skipped "American" connections (to use the distinction I need here) of Rorty's philosophy, that is to say, firstly, a years-long work within analytic philosophy, secondly struggles with it on its own grounds, and finally attempts to use classical American, mainly Deweyan, pragmatism for his own needs and numerous polemics associated with it - the questions that are far away from my interests and that arise limited interest among reading and writing philosophical audience in Poland, and perhaps also among Continental philosophers. It did not seem possible to me to write a book on Rorty in his American connections for they are insufficiently known to me, demanding knowledge of both post-war American analytic philosophy as well as pragmatism of its father-founders. I could see, setting to work on Richard Rorty, that a book on his American connections (leaving aside the issue that it would not be a philosophical problem but rather, let us say, the one of writing a monograph) written by a Polish philosopher in Poland and then in the USA was not a stimulating intellectual challenge but rather a thankless working task. Besides, having spent much time on Rorty's philosophy, writing extensively about him and translating his works, I already knew that the "Continental" context was extremely important to his neopragmatism, and that thinking about it could be relatively prolific (as opposed to the context potentially given by American philosophy).

Luctus est istic tuus,/ crimen novercae. Boskie i ludzkie szaleństwo Heraklesa na podstawie tragedii Eurypidesa i Seneki

One of the main, initial thesis of the article is that in the tragedies `Hρακλής μαινόμενος by Euripides and Hercules Furens by Seneca the main character falls into the madness twice. The first madness is sent by Hera/ Juno and is here defined, because of its origin, as a divine madness. The second one is so called human madness and Heracles/ Hercules is most probably overcome by it, after he has recognised, that he, driven by the involuntary fury, killed his own wife and sons. This state of the psyche of the hero is already independent from the deity and originates in such deeply human feelings like despair, anger, pain, shame. The strongly stirred hero plans to commit a suicide. According to the contemporary psychology this situation can be, because of some reasons analysed in the article, recognised as a symptom of irrationality. In the drama by Seneca Amfithryon, the father of the hero also defines the state of Hercules, who has become aware of the truth about his deeds, outright as furor. There is in the drama by Euripides, however, no reference to this second madness, which is connected with the somewhat different mentality that the drama originated in (the still kept in memory Homeric ethos and the attitudes towards the issues of honour, suicide etc. determined by it). Seneca as a stoic noticed and emphasized – although he generally also accepted the suicide – that Hercules, because of the anger, acts irrationally and, as a result, is in fact mentally unable to decide about his life and death. In the article is also presented in what an interesting way the above mentioned differences in the mentality of Euripides and Seneca manifest themselves in the case of the divine madness (among other things, the difference between Greek Lyssa and Roman Furor).