Rad se bavi temeljnim karakteristikama dogmatskog mišljenja, posebno imajući u vidu odnos prema stvaralačkoj biti čovjeka. Problematizirajući razvoj čovjeka i njegove (samo) percepcije u uvjetima poželjne jednoznačnosti i limitirane slobode, rad ukazuje na neophodnost stalnog prevladavanja danih mogućnosti, te istaknuti značaj slobodarskih, antidogmatskih praksi u cilju ozbiljenja humanističke filozofije. Referirajući na temeljne pretpostavke filozofije Danka Grlića, rad ispituje konsekvence političke instrumentizacije Marxa, upozorava na jednodimenzionalnost dogmatskog mišljenja i naglašava antidogmatsku prirodu izvornog marksizma. ; The paper deals with basic characteristics of dogmatic thinking, taking into consideration especially the relation towards the creative essence of the human being. Discussing the development of human being and its (self)perception in the conditions of desirable uniformity and limited freedom, the paper strives to point at the inevitability of continuous overcoming of given possibility and point out the meaning of candid, antidogmatic practices aimed at making the humanistic philosophy come to be. Referring to the basic assumptions of Danko Grlić's philosophy, the work examines the implications of Marx's political instrumentalisation, draws attention to the one-dimensionality of dogmatic thinking and emphasises the antidogmatic nature of original Marxism.
Rad istražuje model društvenosti, interakcije i participacije kao političke elemente postmoderne umjetnosti. Postmoderno stanje nastupa nakon propasti glavne ideje modernizma, što se temelji na vjeri u napredak i emancipaciju čovječanstva odnosno nakon kraha velikih spekulativnih pripovijesti poput idealizma, scijentizma, marksizma ili utopije o promjeni svijeta pomoću umjetnosti. Otuda se kao opće mjesto nadaje teza da umjetnost nema više onu ulogu kakva joj se pripisivala od XIX. stoljeća nadalje, kao što je politička borba, kritika društva ili socijalni angažman, odnosno da više nema funkciju kritike, onoga što upozorava i što se avangardno suprotstavlja svemu postojećem. Nasuprot takvom stavu, rad nastoji podastrijeti kritički i politički potencijal postmoderne umjetnosti, pri čemu se usmjerava na umjetničku praksu nakon 1990-ih te njezino isticanje relacija, susreta i interakcije s publikom. Riječ je o aproprijaciji avangardnih strategija, ali s povijesnim odmakom i drukčijim kontekstom. ; The paper explores the model of sociability, interaction and participation as political elements of postmodern art. The postmodern condition emerged after the failure of the main idea of modernism, which was based on the belief in the progress and emancipation of humanity, namely, after the collapse of large speculative narratives such as idealism, scientism, Marxism or a utopia of changing the world through art. Not surprisingly, therefore, the principal thesis in it is that art no longer has the role attributed to it since the 19th century, the one of political struggle, criticism of society or social engagement, namely, it no longer has the function of criticism, of something that acts as a warning and is avant-gardly opposed to everything that exists. Contrary to this view, this paper seeks to present the critical and political potential of postmodern art, focusing on post-1990s artistic practice and its emphasis on relationships, encounters and interaction with audiences. It is an appropriation of avant-garde strategies, but with a historical distance and in a different context.
Autor polazi od stava da je za kritičko razumijevanje postsocijalizma (kojeg uvjetno određuje kao stanje i proturiječni procesi u Istočnoj Europi nakon demokratske revolucije) i njegovih razvojnih perspektiva upravo primjeren koncept civilnog društva. Upućuje na tri različite društvene struje koje su doprinjele obnovi problematike civilnog društva: neoliberalizam, postmarksizam i disidentski građanski otpor totalitarizmu. Zatim utvrđuje pojam civilnog društva, u smislu koji je dobio u novovjekovnim teorijama prirodnog prava. Na tom tragu precizira vlastito određenje ovog pojma kao analitičkog oruđa za analizu socijalizma i postsocijalizma. Kad je riječ o socijalizmu ukazuje na stalnu napetost između države i neautonomnog ali »realnog socijalističkog društva«, u kome se uvijek iznova javljaju klice autonomne civilne sfere. Na kraju raspravlja o (ne)ispunjenju tri temeljne pretpostavke civilnog društva u aktualnim postsocijalističkim procesima na europskom Istoku, uključujući Hrvatsku i Jugoslaviju. ; The author expresses the opinion that for a critical understanding of postsocialism (which he conditionally defines as the situation and contradictory processes in Eastern Europe after the democratic revolution) and its development perspectives, the most adequate is the concept of civil society. He indicates three different social currents which contributed to the renewal of the civil society issue: neoliberalism, post-Marxism and the dissident civil opposition to totalitarianism. He then determines the concept of civil society within the meaning it had obtained in the modem theories of natural law. Following this line of thought he specifies his own definition of this concept as an analytical means for studying socialism and postsocialism. When it is a question of socialism, he indicates the constant tension between the state and unautonomous but »real socialist society«, in which new seeds of the autonomous civil sphere keep appearing over and over again. Finally, he discusses the non-fulfilment of the three fundamental pre-suppositions for civil society in contemporary postsocialist processes in the European East, including Croatia and Yugoslavia.
Sukladno terminologiji Stanka Lasića, koji je do sada dao najcjelovitiji pregled kritike o Miroslavu Krleži, a katoličku je kritiku svrstao u "'nacionalistički' centar", autor je katoličku kritiku zbog njezine brojnosti i intenziteta, osobito u razdoblju između dvaju svjetskih ratova, izdvojio kao poseban kritički centar. Ovaj rad nastoji predstaviti temeljna polazišta, smjerove i ciljeve katoličke kritike o Krleži u spomenutom razdoblju. Autor ju je svrstao u dva podcentra – paradigmatske cjeline: Marakovićevu (marakovićevsku) i Lendićevu (lendićevsku). Oba podcentra zahvaćaju dijapazon religijskih, filozofijskih – posebice etičkih i aksiologijskih – te političkih kritičkih objekcija i ciljeva. Vidljivo je da se dva paradigmatska pristupa sastaju u točkama kritike Krležina negatorstva hrvatske duhovne i književne tradicije te njegova "metafizičkog pesimizma", a(nti)teizma, društvene dekadencije i "literarnog marksizma". Razlikuju se u percepciji Krleže kao pisca. Maraković i bliskomišljenici uvažavaju Krležu kao književnika, dok ga Lendić i lendićevski podcentar isključuju iz hrvatske književne tradicije. ; In line with the terminology devised by Stanko Lasić, author of the most comprehensive review so far of the critique on Miroslav Krleža, who classified the catholic critique under "nationalist centre", the author of this paper decided to also address this critique as a separate centre of critique, due to its volume and intensity (especially in the period between the two World Wars). The paper attempts to present the fundamentals, directions and objectives of catholic critique in the said period. The critique is classified into two sub-centres: Circle of Maraković (Marakovician) and Circle of Lendić (Lendician). Both sub-centres encompass a range of religious, philosophical – ethical and axiological in particular – and political critical observations and objectives. It is evident that the two paradigmatic approaches converge at the point of the criticism of Krleža's routine negation of Croatian spiritual and literary tradition and his "metaphysical pessimism", a(nti)theism, social decadence and the "literary Marxism". They differ in perception of Krleža as a writer. Maraković and his fringe supporters find merit in Krleža as a writer, while Lendić and Lendician sub-centre exclude him from the Croatian literary tradition.
U pokretu avangarde Walter Benjamin uvidio je tendencije za prevladavanje jaza između društva i kulture te umjetnosti i života. Njegov esej »Umjetničko djelo u razdoblju tehničke reprodukcije«, zamišljen kao okvir za teoriju moderne u svjetlu avangarde, upravo je paradigmatski za razumijevanje avangardne umjetnosti i suvremene kulture te predstavlja svojevrsnu intervenciju, benjaminovsku politiku moderniteta (B. Kiefer). Sveobuhvatna teorija avangarde ne postoji. Ukratko ću se osvrnuti na poznatija tumačenja Petera Bürgera i Aleksandra Flakera, dok su za rad u kontekstu novih istraživanja avangarde ključno poslužili radovi Dietricha Scheunemanna, glavnog urednika niza izdanja nazvanih Avant-Garde Critical Studies. U centralnom dijelu izlaganja prikazati će se odnos Benjamina i nadrealizma, koje je Adorno opisao na sljedeći način: »Benjaminova namjera je bila da potpuno odustane od očitog izlaganja i dopusti da se značenje pojavi jedino šokantnom montažom materijala. Filozofija ne samo da mora uhvatiti korak s nadrealizmom, nego i sama postati nadrealistička.« Konačno, zadnji dio rada bavit će se idejom profane iluminacije. U eseju »Nadrealizam – Posljednji trenutni snimak europske inteligencije« iz 1929. godine, jednom od bitnih prikaza teoretskih, filozofijskih i političkih dometa i obilježja pokreta avangarde,Benjamin profanu iluminaciju predstavlja kao temelj i srž nadrealističkog marksizma. ; Walter Benjamin noticed in the avant¬garde movement the tendency to overcome the discrepancy between society and culture, and art and life. His essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, envisioned as a framework for the theory of modernity in light of the avant-garde, is paradigmatic for understanding of the avant-garde art and contemporary culture. It represents Benjamin's intervention, the politics of modernity (Kiefer). Wholesome theory of avant-garde does not exist. I will briefly examine interpretations on avant-garde by Peter Bürger and Aleksandar Flaker, while I will be relying on Dietrich Scheunemann's Avant-Garde Critical Studies to examine newer theory on avant-garde. In the central part of this review I will present relation between Benjamin and surrealism, which Adorno described as: "Benjamin's intention was to fully give up on obvious exposition and let the meaning appear only through the shocking montage material. Not only should philosophy catch up with surrealism, it alone must become surreal." Finally, in the last part of this paper I will be dealing with profane illumination. In Benjamin's essay "Surrealism: The Last Snapshot of the European Intelligentsia" (1929), one of the most important reviews on theoretical, philosophical and political achievements and characteristics of avant¬garde, he presents the profane illumination as the grounding and the core of Surreal Marxism
U hrvatskome školskom sustavu dogodilo se da je "najstariji" školski predmet, onaj s najduljom školskom tradicijom, postao najmlađi. Konfesionalni katolički vjeronauk, naime, vraćen je u hrvatsku školu školske godine 1991/92, punih 40-ak godina nakon nasilnog isključenja 1952. godine. Stoga ne čudi što i sam taj predmet, odnosno Katolička crkva u Hrvata, permanentno i danas, promišlja profil i suvremeni kurikulum vjeronauka u školi, što su još uvijek interna crkvena motrišta i danas divergentna glede toga predmeta – od tvrdnji da mu je mjesto u crkvenom dvorištu pa sve do ushita što je ponovno vraćen u hrvatski školski sustav, u kojemu treba biti temeljni odgojni predmet. Nasuprot tome, na profanom području, čak i onom pedagoškome, nerijetko se dovodi u pitanje potreba i opravdanost uvođenja tog predmeta u školski sustav, ili ga se podcjenjuje, marginalizirajući ga i prepuštajući potpuno crkvenim institucijama kako bi se izbjegla svaka odgovornost, ili ga pak uspoređujući s nastavom marksizma iz prošlih vremena. U ovom radu nastoje se usustaviti neke znanstvene pretpostavke za kvalitetnije razumijevanje i daljnji razvoj vjeronauka u školi te upozoriti na njegovu teološko-pedagošku utemeljenost; njegov profil u nacionalnim školskim sustavima zemalja Europske unije; prikazati nezaobilazni doprinos toga predmeta cjelovitom odgoju u nas, što je osobito razvidno iz pedagogijskog istraživanja provedenoga na nacionalnom planu glede toga predmeta (ovo je prvo parcijalno objavljivanje tih rezultata) te naznačiti aktualne i moguće razloge krize i(li) suvremenih izazova tom predmetu. ; In the Croatian educational system it has happened that the "oldest" school subject, the one with the longest educational tradition, has become the most recent. The confessional Catholic religious instruction was returned to Croatian school in the school year 1991/92, forty years after its forced removal in 1952. Therefore, it is not surprising that Croatian Catholic Church has permanently considered the profile and contemporary curriculum of "religious instruction in school". Internal church views are even today divergent regarding that subject – ranging from claims that its place is "in the church courtyard" to the elation because of its return to the Croatian school system in which it should represent a basic pedagogic subject. On the other side, in the profane area, even the educational one, the need and justification of including that subject into the school system is frequently questioned, or it is being underrated, marginalized and left completely to the Church institutions to avoid any possible responsibility, or compared to the subject of Marxism from the past times. This article tends to systematize some scientific premises for better understanding and further development of "religious instruction in school"; to show its theological-educational foundation; to present its profile in the national school systems in the European Union countries; to document the obvious contribution of this subject to the integral education in Croatia, which is especially evident from the national educational survey, (partially) presented here for the first time; and to point out the actual and possible reasons for crisis and/or contemporary challenges for this subject. ; Im kroatischen Schulsystem kam es dazu, dass das "älteste" Schulfach, jenes mit der längsten Schultradition, zum jüngsten Schulfach wurde. Der konfessionelle katholische Religionsunterricht wurde nämlich an den kroatischen Schulen erst im Schuljahr 1991/92 wieder eingeführt, sogar 40 Jahre nachdem er im Jahre 1952 gewaltsam aus dem Lehrplan gestrichen wurde. Deswegen ist es nicht verwunderlich, dass die Fachdidaktiker bzw. die Katholische Kirche unter den Kroaten permanent über das Profil und Curriculum des "schulischen Religionsunterrichts" nachdenken und dass interne kirchliche Standpunkte hinsichtlich dieses Schulfaches noch immer weit auseinnandergehen – von Behauptungen, dass der Religionsunterricht in den "Kirchenhof " gehört bis zur Begeisterung darüber, dass er wieder seinen Platz im kroatischen Schulsystem gefunden hatte, wo er das grundlegende Erziehungsfach darstellen sollte. Andererseits werden auf der weltlichen Seite, sogar unter den Pädagogen Stimmen laut, die oft den Sinn und die Notwendigkeit einer Wiedereinführung dieses Faches in das kroatische Schulsystem in Frage stellen, oder dessen Bedeutung unterschätzen, indem sie es marginalisieren und vollständig den kirchlichen Institutionen überlassen, um jede mögliche Verantwortung zu vermeiden, oder es mit dem Marxismusunterricht aus den früheren Zeiten vergleichen. In dieser Arbeit wird versucht, einige wissenschaftliche Voraussetzungen für ein besseres Verständnis und weitere Entwicklung des "schulischen Religionsunterrichts" zu systematisieren, sowie auf seine theologisch-pädagogische Begründung und dessen Profil in den nationalen Schulsystemen der Europäischen Union hinzuweisen. Dieses Fach leistet bei uns einen unumgänglichen Beitrag zu einer ganzheitlichen Erziehung, was insbesondere aus einer landesweit durchgeführten Untersuchung über dieses Schulfach ersichtlich wird, deren Ergebnisse hier zum ersten Mal (partiell) veröffentlicht werden. Zum Schluss werden aktuelle Ursachen sowie mögliche Gründe für die gegenwärtige Krise und/oder Herausforderungen genannt, mit denen sich dieses Fach konfrontieren muss.
U članku »The 'Bubbling Up' of Subterranean Politics in Europe«, objavljenom 2013. u časopisu Journal of Civil Society, Mary Kaldor i Sabine Selchow pokušale su otkriti specifične značajke pobuna koje su se javila nakon 2010. godine u europskim zemljama poput Njemačke, Španjolske, Italije, Engleske itd. Prema autoricama, način organiziranja koji čini glavno tijelo ovih emancipatornih pokreta preuzima svoju osnovnu logiku iz svijeta Interneta. Analogija s Internetom zahtijeva ponovnu evaluaciju negativnih komentara o tehnici iz filozofske perspektive. Martin Heidegger i Herbert Marcuse najutjecajniji su filozofi 20. stoljeća koji su se bavili negativnim aspektima tehnike. Heidegger je prikazao destruktivne učinke znanstvene racionalnosti i tehnike na zapadnu kulturu kroz kritiku tradicionalne zapadne metafizike na fenomenološ- ko-ontološkoj razini, dok je Marcuse, kao predstavnik zapadnoga marksizma, oblikovao svoju kritiku tehnike u kontekstu pojma instrumentalne racionalnosti te kritike razvijenog industrijskog društva i kapitalizma. Iako su polazišne točke njihovih pogleda na tehniku, kao i osnovne svrhe kritike tehnike, različite, može se reći da obojica imaju poprilično negativno i gotovo u potpunosti pesimističko shvaćanje tehnologije. U tom će se kontekstu razmotriti Heideggerova i Marcuseova kritika tehnike kao i razlike i sličnosti između tih dvaju pristupa. Zaključno će rad naglasiti mogućnost pozitivne uloge tehnike, koja može služiti kao alternativa negativnoj perspektivi osvjetljavajući odnos između nedavnih pobuna i interneta. ; In the paper "The 'Bubbling Up' of Subterranean Politics in Europe", which was published in 2013 in the Journal of Civil Society, mary Kaldor and Sabine Selchow attempted to reveal the specific qualities of the uprisings which emerged after the year 2010 in some European countries, such as Germany, Spain, Italy, England etc. According to the authors, the mode of organization which forms the main body of these emancipatory movements obtains its basic logic from the world of the Internet. The use of the Internet requires a re-evaluation of negative philosophical commentary regarding technology. In the context of the twentieth century philosophy, martin Heidegger and Herbert marcuse are the most influential philosophers who studied on the negative aspects of technology. Heidegger portrayed the destructive effects of scientific reasoning and technology on the Western culture through the criticism of the traditional Western metaphysics on a phenomenological-ontological level. marcuse, belonging to the tradition of Western marxism, formed his critique of technology in the context of the concept of instrumental rationality and the critique of advanced industrial society and capitalism. Although the starting points of their perspectives on technology and the underlying purposes of their critiques of technology were different, it may be asserted that both have a rather negative and almost entirely pessimistic disposition towards technology. Heidegger's and marcuse's criticisms of technology will be discussed in this context and the differences and similarities between these criticisms will be shown. Finally, the paper will emphasise the question of the possibility of a positive role of technology. Technology can serve as an alternative to negative uses by shedding light on the relation between the current uprisings and the Internet. ; Dans l'article « The "Bubbling Up" of Suberranean Politics in Europe » publié en 2013 dans Journal of Civil Society, mary Kaldor et Sabine Selchow tentent de mettre en lumière les caractéristiques spécifiques des révoltes qui ont fait jour après 2010 dans certains pays européens – Allemagne, Espagne, Italie, Angleterre, etc. Selon nos auteures, le mode d'organisation qui a formé le corps essentiel de ces mouvements émancipatoires tire sa logique de base du monde de l'internet. Cette analogie avec l'internet requiert une réévaluation, à partir d'un point de vue philosophique, des commentaires négatifs sur la technologie. martin Heidegger et Herbert marcuse sont les philosophes les plus influents ayant travaillé sur les aspects négatifs de la technologie au sein de la philosophie du XXe siècle. Heidegger a dépeint les effets destructeurs de la raison scientifique et de la technologie de notre culture occidentale à travers son criticisme de la métaphysique traditionnelle occidentale à un niveau phénoménologico-ontologique, tandis que marcuse, membre du « communisme occidentale », a formé une critique de la technologie au sein du concept de rationalité instrumentale et une critique de la société industrielle avancée et du capitalisme. Bien que le point de départ de leur perspective sur la technologie et que le but sous-jacent de leur critique diffèrent, il est possible d'affirmer que leur point commun est d'avoir posé un regard négatif et presque entièrement pessimiste sur la technologie. À cet égard, le criticisme d'Heidegger et de marcuse vont être abordés afin d'en soulever les diffé- rences et les similarités. Enfin, cet article mettra l'accent sur la possibilité d'un rôle positif de la technologie qui pourrait servir d'alternative aux perspectives négatives en faisant la lumière sur le lien entre les révoltes actuelles et l'internet. ; In dem Artikel "The 'Bubbling Up' of Subterranean Politics in Europe", veröffentlicht im Jahre 2013 im Journal of Civil Society, versuchten mary Kaldor und Sabine Selchow die spezifischen Qualitäten der Aufstände zum Ausdruck zu bringen, die nach 2010 in den europäischen Ländern ausbrachen – Deutschland, Spanien, Italien, England usw. Nach Ansicht der Autoren erhält der modus der Organisation, der den Hauptkörper dieser emanzipatorischen Bewegungen bildet, seine grundlegende Logik aus der Welt des Internets. Die Analogie mit dem Internet erfordert eine Neubewertung der negativen Kommentare über die Technologie aus philosophischer Perspektive. martin Heidegger und Herbert marcuse sind die einflussreichsten Philosophen, die sich mit den negativen Aspekten der Technologie in der Philosophie des 20. Jahrhunderts befasst haben. Heidegger schilderte die zerstörerischen Auswirkungen der wissenschaftlichen Vernunft und Technologie auf die westliche Kultur durch die Kritik an der traditionellen abendländischen metaphysik auf der phänomenologisch-ontologischen Ebene, während marcuse, ein mitglied des westlichen marxismus, seine Kritik an der Technologie im Rahmen des Konzepts der instrumentellen Rationalität und der Kritik der fortgeschrittenen Industriegesellschaft und Kapitalismus geformt hat. Obgleich die Ansatzpunkte ihrer Perspektiven über die Technologie und die zugrunde liegenden Zwecke ihrer Kritik an der Technologie unterschiedlich waren, kann behauptet werden, dass beide eine eher negative und fast völlig pessimistische Einstellung zur Technologie hatten. In diesem Zusammenhang werden Heideggers und marcuses Kritiken an der Technologie diskutiert sowie Unterschiede und Ähnlichkeiten zwischen den beiden Kritiken aufgezeigt. Abschließend unterstreicht das Paper die Frage nach der möglichkeit einer positiven Rolle für die Technologie, die als Alternative zur negativen Perspektive dienen kann, indem sie Licht in das Verhältnis zwischen aktuellen Aufständen und Internet bringt.
