Inspiriran radom Erica Santnera (1996, 2011) o političkoj teologiji i kraljeva dva tijela, u ovom radu propitujem političku teologiju filma, tj. kako drugo tijelo kralja, tijelo njegove moći, migrira u novo tijelo, tijelo naroda, te sablasno, u raznim tragovima, prati filmski način proizvodnje koji je obilježio dvadeseto stoljeće. U radu dovodim u imaginarnu vezu dva lika (jedan stvarni, drugi fiktivni) koji na određeni način utjelovljuju to migriranje: (1) sudca Daniela Paula Schrebera (čiji je autobiografski zapis mentalne bolesti, od trenutka kada je objavljen 1903., okupirao pažnju ne samo psihijatara i psihoanalitičara nego i raznih teoretičara), i (2) doktora Caligarija, hipnotizera u filmu Kabinet doktora Caligarija (red. Robert Wiene, 1920.), jednog od najpoznatijih junaka njemačkog ekspresionističkog filma, kako bih analizirao kako njihovi slučajevi utjelovljuju »sublimno rojalističko meso« u nacionalnim fantazmagorijama dvadesetoga stoljeća (koje se sve više vraćaju i u naše vrijeme u doba rastućeg populizma i brojnih teorija zavjere). ; Inspired by the work of Eric Santner (1996, 2011) on political theology and the king's two bodies, in this paper, I question the political theology of film. I analyze how the carnal dimension of sovereignty (or king's second body, the body of his power), migrates into a new body, the body of the people, and in various traces appears in the filmic mode of production that marked the twentieth century. I analyse or instead bring into imaginary connection two characters (one real, the other fictional) who in a way embody this migration: (1) Judge Daniel Paul Schreber (whose autobiographical record of mental illness, from the moment it was published (in 1903), occupied the attention not only of psychiatrists and psychoanalysts but also of various theorists) and (2) Dr. Caligari, a hypnotist in the film The Office of Dr. Caligari (dir. Robert Wiene, 1920), one of the most famous characters of German expressionist film.
U ovome radu želimo ukazati na korijene Moltmannove »nove političke teologije« koje je izgradio uz J. B. Metza krajem 1960-ih i početkom 1970-ih godina s posebnim naglaskom na značenje križa u političkom i društvenom angažmanu kršćanskih vjerskih zajednica i vjernika. Moltmannova koncepcija »nove političke teologije« u velikoj se mjeri oslanja na poimanje smrti Boga koje crpi kako iz povijesti Isusa iz Nazareta, tako i iz Hegelova razumijevanja spekulativnog Velikog petka. Postavljajući veliki naglasak na smrt Boga, Moltmann je u mogućnosti križ postaviti kao radikalnu kritiku bilo kakvih obogotvorenja kolektivnih identiteta koje nameće društvo, politika i religija, pri čemu revolucionarnost križa vidi u neprestanoj kritici tih identiteta. ; In this paper, we want to point to the roots of Moltmann's "new political theology" which he initiated along with J. B. Metz at the end of the 1960s and the beginning of 1970s, with special emphasis on the meaning of the cross in the political and societal engagement of Christian communities and believers. Moltmann's conception of "new political theology" is mainly relying on his conception of the death of God which he draws from the history of Jesus of Nazareth, but from Hegel's understanding of the speculative Good Friday as well. Mainly emphasising the death of God, Moltmann was able to posit the cross as a radical critique of the divinization of collective identities that the society, politics and religion push forward. Along those lines, he sees the revolutionary potential of the cross in the critique of these identities.
This article presents a discussion of the essence of moral, political theology, one which is specifically related to the political life and the public attitude with which Croatia would like to enter the European Union and make itself more present in the world. It is a theology which strives to actively contribute to the process of the humanisation of society. Theology, as an attitude of critical reasoning, plays a fundamental role in the process of the liberation of man and the strengthening of the Christian community by helping to liberate them from all types of fetishes and idolatry. At the same time, it helps avoid the kind of fatal narcissism which impoverishes human relationships. Understood in this way, every kind of theology, and especially political theology, has a permanent and necessary role to play in the process of liberation from all forms of religious alienation. This alienation is generally something which the ecclesiastical institutions themselves produce when they obstruct or hinder the Word of God being approached in an authentic way. Adapted from the source document.
The author analyzes the attitude of the lawyer Carl Schmitt toward the philosopher Hegel. He considers the way in which Schmitt relates to Hegel & believes his references to Hegel are not justified. Namely, Schmitt was not Hegelian. The author proves his theory with an analysis of the stance of each philosopher toward liberalism, political theology, the friend-enemy theory, & each one's style of reasoning. Adapted from the source document.
The author designates the Croatian thinker Juraj Krizanic as a philosopher of politics, i.e. a modern political theorist who, on the one hand, founds his postulates on traditional theological thought, and, on the other, takes into account the postulates of modern political theory. As a theologian, Krizanic bases his conception of history and theology on the providentialism of St. Aurelius Augustine, and his political theory on the acceptance of a part of the thought of his contemporary Thomas Hobbes. The theoretical position -- political theology, positions him precisely between the political-theological postulates of Augustine and the political-theoretical hypotheses of Hobbes. In agreement with Augustine, Kriznic concludes that the political community (state) has its foundation in God and the values comprised in him, which is especially manifest in Providence and royal worship as basis of the internal structure of the state. But, in agreement with Hobbes, Krizanic understands that the mission of the state decreed by Providence operates within the earthly state and the secular political frameworks, and that, on the other hand, the king instituted by the will of God has his foundation also in the political body (the people), and this ranks Krizanic among the modern political theorists. Adapted from the source document.
This paper discusses the medieval theological and political history, and the difference between blue and red blood. The popular phrase blue blood had a special significance during the Middle Ages, and its echo has been present in our culture ever since. One might think that such an abstract concept is only an insignificant legend that emerged from the oral folk tradition without any roots in theory and literature. The author's intention is to present the concept of blue and red blood as a part of fictional genre theory. The fictional genre discourse becomes especially evident when the king's simultaneously natural and supernatural bodies, or more simply, the notion that the king possesses a superbody, are discussed. In the given period the concept of blue blood, which referred to the king's dignity, was coined. Thomas Hobbes, in his famous work Leviathan, develops the social contract theory, which is used to explain the development of the modern political community. Blue blood becomes red when an ordinary citizen becomes involved in politics, as this paper confirms. ; Ovaj rad tematizira srednjovjekovnu teološku i političku povijest, kao i razliku između plave i crvene krvi. Poznati izraz plava krv bio je posebno važan u srednjemu vijeku, a njegov odjek prisutan je u kulturi sve do danas. Mogli bismo pomisliti da je tako apstraktan koncept tek beznačajna legenda, proizašla iz usmene predaje bez ikakvih začetaka u teoriji i književnosti. Namjera je autora predstaviti koncept plave i crvene krvi kao dio teorije fikcijskoga žanra. Diskurs fikcijskoga žanra postaje vidljiv u razmatranju kraljeva istovremenog posjedovanja prirodna i natprirodna tijela, odnosno ideje da kralj posjeduje supertijelo. U danome razdoblju stvoren je koncept plave krvi koji se odnosio na kraljevo dostojanstvo. Thomas Hobbes u svojemu slavnom djelu Levijatan razvija teoriju društvenoga ugovora kojom objašnjava razvoj moderne političke zajednice. Kao što prikazuje ovaj rad, plava krv postaje crvena kada običan građanin postane aktivan ...
The critical function of the Church & theology throws some light on the general nature & place of criticism in human relations, & particularly on the role of opposition in politics. From the standpoint of the Church & theology the role of opposition is not untoward in itself, it is a positive component of political life in democracy. The article lists a number of major civilizational problems that require the useful & necessary criticism by the Church & theology. It is also the opposition's duty to use their political clout to make key political protagonists pay due attention to the Church & theology & in this way enable them to fulfill their positive social role. The opposition's activities should be founded on truth, justice, & the exclusion of hatred & even love (utopia?). Adapted from the source document.
It is with good reason that decisionism stresses the crucial importance of decisions in the political process. But it is necessary to evaluate critically its dramatic pretension (from Schmitt to Agamben), according to which the normality of life is juxtaposed with the pathos of the state of exception & crisis. This erases not only every distinction between normality & the state of exception, but even between democracy & dictatorship. The proper framework from which an explanation of decisionism & its dramatizing forms can be derived is the modern age as a whole. The birth of decisionism from the crisis of tradition & commonality can be observed already in the beginning of modernity: with Machiavelli & Hobbes. We find the peak of dramatisation in Schmitt's decisionism, in the use of political theology for the dramatization of politics as drama of the subject which obtains his self-willed freedom through a secularist disempowerment of God. The other strand of political philosophy advocates the political priority of discussion & discourse, as opposed to the priority of decision. The author is interested in forms of discourse which revolve in a Habermasian or Rawlsian way around the concept of deliberative democracy. The theories of deliberative democracy are mostly characterized by the following postulates: demand for equality & inclusion, for non-coercion & communicativeness, oriented towards mutual understanding. The author points out that these demands reflect too great expectations, which cannot be fulfilled by discourse & discussion (expectations of consensus & rationality, underestimating of pre-discursive assumptions). In the final section, the author concludes that both decisionism & theory of discourse resulted from the modern-age loss of tradition & commonality. Decision & discussion could be perceived as feuding brothers, although they are doing their best to negate their kinship. A mediation of opposition is possible insofar as the feuding brothers recognize the fact that they are related. Unification at least protects them from the danger of irrationalism & excessive expectation of rationalism. Adapted from the source document.
The term charisma was first used in theological writings. In the Old Testament literature, the term occurs only twice. However, in the New Testament it occurs seventeen times. It is used by St. Paul in the First Letter to the Corinthians, in the Letter to the Romans, in the Second Letter to the Corinthians. In the political context, the word charisma has been lavishly used in the analyses of national-socialist & Stalinist regimes. Charismatic legitimation is, primarily, a feature of various types of dictatorships & not of democratic, constitutional states. This is probably why charismatic aspects are so notorious in most contemporary social theory. 18 References. Adapted from the source document.
As opposed to philosophy, theology and natural sciences, for which only the singular Man exists, for political theory the decisive fact is the plurality of men. Politics is preoccupied with common and mutual being of different men. It is created among men and established as their connectedness. Freedom exists only in the authentic interspace of politics. We are saved from that freedom in the "necessity of history", which is a revolting absurdity. When one wishes in our time to speak about politics, one must start with the prejudice towards it. The prejudice accurately reflect the truly existing contemporary situation precisely in its political aspects, and suggest that we have ended up in a situation in which we do not quite or do not yet know how to move politically. The prejudice towards politics are manifest in the notion that national politics is made up of lies and deception by corrupt interests and corrupt ideology, while foreign politics hovers between hollow propaganda and brute force. This causes a flight into powerlessness, a desperate desire for men in general to be deprived of the freedom to act. Politics is, always and everywhere, preoccupied with illuminating and dissolving prejudice. If one wishes to dissolve prejudice, one must first discover the past judgment contained therein, i.e. actually show their contents of truth. This is the task of the faculty of judgment, but not as mere capability to subject the individual regularly and adequately to the general that corresponds to it and regarding which there is agreement, but as judgment directly and with no standard. The loss of standard, which truly determines the modern world in its facticity and cannot be annulled by any return to the good, old tradition or any arbitrary setting up of new values and standards, is therefore a catastrophe of the moral world only if one presupposes that men would in fact be completely unable to judge things in and of themselves, and that their faculty of judgment is insufficient for original judgment. Politics is always centered on care for the world organized in this or some different way, without which those who care and who are political, think that life is not worth living. Where men come together, the world always breaks through between them, and all human actions take place in this interspace. Adapted from the source document.
Mixed government, which is commonly regarded as a distinctly medieval form of government, is relevant also to contemporary constitutional states. It is the best form of government, since the aristocratic element is a continuous source of virtue, especially of justice, & a check not only on the executive, as the monarchical element which is the seat of political power, & the legislature, as the democratic element which expresses the will of the majority, but also groups & institutions that have the might & will to impose themselves as oligarchies. Mixed government is also the form of government that is practiced by most developed contemporary constitutional states: US, UK, France, Switzerland, Germany, etc. European nobility is the original aristocratic institution, by virtue of the fact that it was a system for the transfer of both virtue & general conditions of life. Three institutions that emerged in the late Middle Ages assumed structures & functions of the nobility. The first is the clergy. When, as a result of the differentiation of feudal society ethical & intellectual virtues of the nobility could no longer maintain general conditions of life, the clergy, by virtue of their abstract knowledge that ranged from philosophy & theology to law & medicine, became a class of new experts in generalities & thereby a new aristocracy. The second modern aristocratic institution is the judiciary, which has a structure & function similar to earlier aristocracies. The task of judges is to establish the highest virtue of constitutionalism. It is justice by law, which regulates general conditions of life in the state & society. What qualifies judges for the task is expertise in the new generality. The expertise includes not only education & experience in law but also impeccable private life & demonstrated professional ethics. The third modern aristocratic institution is the profession, whose most important instance is the legal profession. It shares its structure & function partly with the judiciary & partly with other professions. It seems that modern professions are degenerating. In the key area of data processing, due to rapid changes of technology, professions as systems of the transfer of virtue do not even seem to be possible. Professional aristocracies are replaced increasingly by oligarchies of capitalists & technocrats. Adapted from the source document.
Naš plan istraživanja će se usredotočiti na tri ključna elemen- ta. Prvi element je sam pojam krize; drugi je nit istraživanja, a to je socijalni nauk Katoličke crkve o krizi; treći je istraživanje konkret- nog slučaja, naime Katoličke Crkve u Portugalu te praktične primjene crkvenog nauka u vremenu krize. Kako bismo bolje razumjeli o čemu je riječ, ponajprije ćemo progovoriti o specifičnom kontekstu (suvreme- no post-industrijsko društvo) te o specifičnom povijesnom razdoblju (od kraja 19. st. do danas).Drugo, naš će govor biti u svezi s nekim neovisnim čimbenicima, poput financijskog, ekonomskog, političkog, kulturnog i antropološkog okvira u kojemu se nalazi moderno društvo. Treće, dijakronička i sinkronijska analizu mnogostrukih i neistraže- nih crkvenih prvotnih izvora omogućit će nam dublju spoznaju razvo- ja fenomena krize, razumijevanje njezinih posljedica, kao i tumačenje onoga što Crkva predlaže kao pomoć u nadvladavanju krize. Napo- kon, kako bismo dali dodatnu važnost našem istraživanju, fokusirat ćemo se na Portugal kako bismo vidjeli kako je, u kontekstu duboke društveno-ekonomske krize, Crkva djelovala u promicanju i praktici- ranju nove humanističke sinteze koja smješta čovjeka kao cilj i sredi- šte cjelokupnog društveno-ekonomskog života. ; Our research plan will focus on three key elements: one con- cept- the crisis; one research thread- the social doctrine of the Cat- holic Church on the crisis; one case study- the Portuguese Catholic Church and practical application of theology in the face of crisis. First, we will try to comprehend our dependent variable by inserting it in a specific context (contemporary post-industrial societies) and in a specific period of time (since the late XIX century until today). Secondly, we will make it interact with some independent variables such as the financial, economic, political, cultural and anthropologi- cal framework of modern societies. Thirdly, throughout a diachronic and synchronic analysis of the Church's multiple and unexplored primary sources we will be able to observe the evolution of the phe- nomenon, understand its modern consequences, and interpret the Church's proposition to overcome the crisis. Finally, in order to give greater substance to our research, we will focus on Portugal to see how, in a context of profound socio-economic crisis, the Chur- ch has been acting with a view to promoting and practicing a new humanistic synthesis that places man as the aim and centre of all socio-economic life.
The paper reports partial findings of a research project into Croatian ethnonationalism (Croatian: narodnjastvo) as a religion (in the sense of a human invention of the sacred). The practical problems are as follows: ethnonationalism as a religion, which implies inter alia that an ethnic community (Croatian: narod) has the potential and/or capability to develop into, and ought to become, the substratum of a (nation-)state; consequences of ethnonationalism, which include the unattainability of ethnic democracy, ethnic economy and ethnic maturity; conditions of Croatian ethnonationalism, primarily the Catholic Church as a condition in 1961-71, and also before and after the period, especially since 1990. Theoretical problems, i.e. inadequacies in scholarly knowledge of the practical problems, include the following: firstly, Croatian Constitutional Court jurisprudence on ethnic and religious communities; secondly, systematic history of law and state in Croatia and Yugoslavia 1945-90; thirdly, transformation of both communism and catholicism into ethnonationalism; fourthly and fifthly, social structure and representation/agency. To attain the general goal of the research project, which is the use of reason in public affairs, the research is carried out within the theoretical and methodological framework of an integral theory of law and state which includes a modified Lasswell and McDougal's policy analysis expanded by historical institutionalism and critical theory. The subject-matter are the following features of Catholicism as an institutionalized religion, especially in Croatia 1961-71: (1) law, i.e. (1.1) sources of law; (1.2) internal law (organs, members, means); (1.3) external law (relations with the state and non-Catholics); (2) the Church and economy; (3) the Church and nation; (4) Catholicism on theory and practice. The hypotheses (which are ideal-types and as such cannot be either verified or falsified conclusively) are that ethnonationalism in Croatia is a consequence of, inter alia, the following beliefs maintained by the Catholic Church in Croatia in the 1960s and to a significant degree later on: 1. the only acceptable relationship between the Church and the state is the partnership of two legally equal public orders over the same subjects within which the Church has the exclusive power to regulate matrimonial and other family relations, and the power to control education in public schools; 2. peasant family is the basic organic human community; 3. the subjects to the ecclesiastical -- originally feudal -- power tied in fact to land make the ethnic community (Croatian: narod), which is united with the clergy into the Christian community (Croatian: krscanski narod); 4. since fundamental truths are accessible by theology only, and practice is an application of theory, practical knowledge, especially on the appropriate relationship between the Church and the state, is valid only if in accord with Church teaching. The evidence presented in the paper supports to a significant degree the hypotheses. The research findings contribute to the solution of all the theoretical problems, providing major contributions to the second and the third: the most probable reason why the Catholic Church in Croatia was rather silent in the Yugoslav and Croatian Spring 1961-71 and quite vocal since the 1990 is the Croatian Church's allegiance in matters of Church and state more to the First than to the Second Vatican council (which abandoned the Church's "divine" right to be co-sovereign with the state, exposing the "right" as a human invention of the sacred); the Church's ethnonationalism, which facilitates the political partnership of the Church and the state and ensures the dominant position of the clergy within the Church, has coincided with the interest of Yugoslav communists to retain their might and power by a metamorphosis, with the Church's assistance honoured by a concordat, into Croatian ethnonationalists, who, as newly born capitalists, have appropriated the greater part of the former socialist property and continue appropriating the greater part of present public goods. Adapted from the source document.
Autor donosi izvore o osnutku dominikanskog samostana u Trogiru s posebnim osvrtom na širenje dominikanskog reda u hrvatskim krajevima u XIII. i XIV. stoljeću. Samostan je utemeljen nakon 1260. godine na predjelu Pasike izvan gradskih zidina kod crkvice sv. Franje Asiškog. Uz detaljne opise crkve i samostana kao i pregled temeljite rekonstrukcije samostanskih zgrada tijekom XIX. i XX. stoljeća, autor navodi bogati sakralni i umjetnički inventar. Posebice naglašava ulogu dominikanskog samostana u Trogiru kao i djelatnost uglednih članova ove zajednice na širem području. ; In the 13th century, two mendicant religious orders, the Dominican and the Franciscan, spread throughout the whole of Europe, promoting the ideas of equality, justice, piety and voluntary renunciation of ties to property. No more than a decade after the establishment of the order (1216), the Dominicans started to settle in the lands of the Croats. This preaching order, which primarily operated in urban units – in the centre of political, social, cultural and religious events – founded a base in Trogir some little time before 1243, and in the 1260s this became a monastery. Under the influence of the Cistercians, the Dominicans built hall churches, which differed according to the functionality of the rite. The Dominican churches were meant primarily for the laity, the choirs for the religious. The Trogir monastery in its typology follows the rules of construction – the spaces are arranged around a cloister – the church, choir, sacristy, bell tower, capitulary hall, kitchen, refectory, locutory and garden, while on the top there was dormitory and library. The Dominicans arrived in Trogir from the Split monastery of St Catherine of Alexandria. The town magistrate, Nikola Albertinov, who had the presentation to the little church of St Francis of Assisi in the area of Pasike, gave them a little church to the west of the city walls. After conflicts with the Trogir bishop, in 1365, Pope Clement IV acknowledged the lawfulness of their possession of the church and approved a plan for the construction of the monastery. However, around 1325, the church was enlarged, and in 1372, thanks to the generosity of the Kažotić and Andreis families, was extended, when the relief of the lunette of the main portal was made by Niccolò Dente known as Cervo from Venice. In the second half of the 16th century during a visitation by A. Valiero, six altars are mentioned, with a beautiful old altarpiece on the altar of St Catherine of Alexandria. In the early 17th century, as well as the large church, the Trogir Dominicans also had the Church of St Rochus alongside the southern walls of the city and the Church of St Mary outside the walls, with three altars. At the beginning of the 15th century the community used a house south of the church that was knocked down in 1412 to make room for the construction of the city walls on the town's south side. Today's monastery building was put up in 1425, as witnessed by the inscription incorporated into the eastern wall of the cloister. Major alterations were undertaken on the building of the monastery in the 19th and 20th centuries, when military units were quartered in it; and the monastery was thoroughly renovated before World War I. During the time of the English bombing in 1944, the northern wing was completely demolished, the roof of the church was destroyed, and the eastern and western wings suffered minor damage. The most celebrated member of the Trogir Dominican monastery was the 107 Blessed Augustin Kažotić (1260-1323) from a well-regarded Trogir family. He studied at the university of Paris, wrote several theological treatises, and held the offices of bishop of Zagreb and of Lucera. Also deserving of mention is the prior of the monastery in Trogir, baccalaureate and doctor of theology Vinko Andreis, who urged both the doge and the pope to come to the aid of Croatia against the Ottomans. In 1515 he was appointed papal commissioner for Illyria. In the 15th century, calligrapher and illuminator Fra Bartul was at work in the monastery, and another prominent figure is the priest Nikola Milinović, founder of the monastery of Holy Cross on Čiovo. The particular importance of the Trogir monastery came out at the end of the 16th and in the early 17th century, when a branch of the Zadar General College was opened in Trogir, with two degrees of university studies. At the end of the 18th century, the Trogir and Čiovo Dominicans were particularly prominent for their education in the theological and humanist sciences.
Na temelju Sabranih djela I–III (1997) Bonifaca Badrova (Livno, 1896. – Sarajevo, 1974), franjevca i profesora filozofije na Franjevačkoj teologiji u Sarajevu, u radu se obrađuje njegov pristup renesansnoj filozofiji i hrvatskim renesansnim misliocima. Badrov je u trećem dijelu svoje Povijesti filozofije (Sarajevo, 1959), koju je namijenio studentima za internu uporabu, uključio i neveliko poglavlje o renesansnoj filozofiji (1450–1600). On nalazi da su specifična filozofska i društvena strujanja na početku Novog vijeka iznjedrila nove, međusobno sasvim disparatne, renesansne filozofske sustave sa samo jednim zajedničkim obilježjem: odbacivanje tomističke filozofije. Prema Badrovu renesansna filozofija ima četiri glavne sastavnice: 1. obnova starih sustava: neoplatonizam, neostoicizam i hedonizam, 2. filozofija prirode, 3. politička filozofija i 4. skepticizam. Badrov hrvatske renesansne mislioce ubraja isključivo u prvu skupinu, dakle među pojedince koji su nastojali obnoviti stare filozofske sustave, i opet – isključivo među one mislioce koji se oslanjanju na Platonovu filozofiju. On smatra da je renesansni platonizam u svojoj bîti zapravo »eklektički neoplatonizam«. Na tragu spoznaje da je antički novoplatonizam eklektički zato što iz Platonovih, ali i drugih teorija probire, prihvaća i primjenjuje ono što mu se čini najprikladnije, gornju Badrovljevu tvrdnju treba razumjeti u smislu da se renesansni platonizam eklektički odnosi prema Platonovim djelima, ali i misaonim dostignućima antičkog novoplatonizma. Ipak, čini se da Badrov ne propituje detaljno izvore i izvornost renesansnog platonizma. Badrov se pojedinačno bavi trima hrvatskim filozofima: Jurjem Dragišićem, Benediktom Benkovićem i Franom Petrićem. Dodatno, o Dragišiću ističe da se bavio logičkim problemima, a da se Benković u pristupu Škotovim djelima koristio Aristotelovim logičkim aparatom. Pišući o Petriću Badrov citira Filipovića koji, pozivajući se na Überwegov Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, tvrdi da je Petrić preteča i učitelj Giordana Bruna te da je utjecao na Bernardina Telesija. U kasnijim izdanjima Überwega naprotiv nalazimo da Brunov odnos prema suvremenicima nije dovoljno jasan i da se Petrić naslanja na Telesija u nekim svojim stavovima. Nadalje, Badrov o Petriću tvrdi da pobija Aristotelovu filozofiju i drži platonizam bližim kršćanskoj misli te u osnovnim potezima iznosi Petrićev nauk o svjetlu: ono je nematerijalna supstancija, samoegzistentno i sveprisutno, prvotni uzrok i princip svih stvari. Dalje, zbog stava o prostoru kao onom koji je postojao prije svijeta, neovisno o stvarima, Badrov Petrića smješta među mislioce koji imaju ultrarealističko mišljenje o prostoru. Načelno, takvi mislioci prostor poimaju kao neku apsolutnu i beskonačnu realnost, različitu od svih drugih tjelesnih realnosti, a za Petrića on je čak počelo, prvo od njegovih četiriju počela tvarnoga svijeta. Pri izradi svojih najopsežnijih skripata Povijest filozofije Badrov se, kako dokumentira njegov popis literature, oslonio na 17 djela iz povijesti filozofije tiskanih u 20. stoljeću, a u prikazu o hrvatskim renesansnim misliocima u mnogome na Filipovićevu Filozofiju Renesanse (1956). S obzirom na kratko izvješće o Petriću, nije utvrđen utjecaj Bazaline Povijesti filozofije, a Šanc u drugom dijelu svoje Povijesti filozofije hrvatske renesansne filozofe ionako ne spominje. ; Based on Sabrana djela [Collected Works] I–III (1997) of Franciscan Bonifac Badrov (Livno, 1896 – Sarajevo, 1974), professor of philosophy at Franciscan Theology in Sarajevo, the paper examines his approach to Renaissance philosophy and Croatian thinkers of this period. In the third part of Badrov's Povijest filozofije [History of Philosophy] (1959), which he wrote for the students' internal use, he also included a small chapter on Renaissance philosophy (1450–1600). He finds that specific philosophical and social mainstreams of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries gave way to new, mutually disparate Renaissance philosophical systems sharing a single common feature: rejection of Thomistic philosophy. According to Badrov, Renaissance philosophy has four main components: 1. revival of old systems: Neoplatonism, Neostoicism and hedonism; 2. natural philosophy; 3. political philosophy; 4. Renaissance scepticism. Croatian thinkers of the Renaissance, Badrov holds, fall exclusively within the first group, that is, among those who worked on the revival of old philosophical systems, or more precisely, among the philosophers who leaned on Plato's philosophy only. In its essence, he views Renaissance Platonism as eclectic Neoplatonism. Grounded on the understanding that Neoplatonism of the Antiquity was eclectic because from the theories of Plato and others it selected, accepted and applied what it considered to be most appropriate, Badrov's statement should be understood in the sense that Renaissance Platonism had an eclectic approach to Plato's works, but also to philosophical achievements of the classical Neoplatonism. However, it seems that Badrov's analysis of the sources and originality of the Renaissance Platonism lacks depth. The philosophers that Badrov treats individually are Juraj Dragišić, Benedikt Benković and Frane Petrić. In addition, he emphasizes that Dragišić devoted himself to logical problems, and that Benković in his approach to Duns Scotus' works used Aristotle's logical apparatus. While writing on Petrić, Badrov paraphrases Filipović's Filozofija Renesanse [Renaissance Philosophy] (1956): »Überweg considers Petrić to be the forerunner and teacher of Giordano Bruno. He also influenced another Renaissance philosopher, Bernardino Telesio.« In the later editions of Überweg's Geschichte der Philosophy, by contrast, we find that Bruno's relationship to Petrić lacks clarity and that Petrić leans on Telesio in some of his views. Badrov states that Petrić refutes Aristotle's philosophy and holds Platonism to be closer to Christian thought. The Sarajevo professor outlines Petrić's doctrine on light. Further, on account of Petrić's view of space as that which exists before the world, regardless of all things, Badrov places the philosopher of Cres among the thinkers who share an ultrarealistic view of space. Mainly, these philosophers understand space as some kind of an absolute and infinite reality, different from all other bodily realities, while for Petrić it is even a principle, the first of his four principles of the material world. While preparing his most extensive manual Povijest filozofije, Badrov, as documented in his bibliography, drew from 17 works of the history of philosophy: three Zagreb editions (Albert Bazala, Franjo Šanc and Vladimir Dvorniković), five Belgrade editions (Borislav Lorenc, Branislav Petronijević, Dragan Jeremić and Bertrand Russell), six German and three French. All these books were published in the course of the twentieth century. Being too short and general, Badrov's outline of Petrić offers sparse information for the establishment of any connection with Bazala's statements on Petrić published in the second volume of Bazala's Povjest filozofije [History of Philosophy] (1909). Šanc, however, in the second part of his Povijest filozofije [History of Philosophy] makes no reference to Croatian philosophers of the Renaissance.
