Mediteran je prostor susreta. Susretanje s jedne strane znači komunikaciju, aktivnost, otvorenost, prožimanje, dok s druge strane znači i sukob, često i rat, uništenje, istrebljenje. Susretanje je, dakle, istodobno opasnost i šansa, prijetnja i prigoda, mogućnost iščeznuća i predložak za novi kvalitet, što se na Mediteranu jasno ogleda. Neprestani napon, odnosi harmonije i suprotnosti, sličnosti i različitosti, pokazuju Mediteran u bitnom upravo kao prostor posredovanja, a posredovanje kao uvjet mogućnosti nečeg takovog kao što je Mediteran.Jedno od temeljnih (...) posredovanja, iz kojeg proizlaze ostala, jest odnos čovjeka i čovjeka, što bi se, govoreći jezikom pitanja, moglo drukčije odrediti kao pitanje mogućnosti i svrhe ljudske zajednice, odnosno bîti političkog. Na Mediteranu je, između ostalog, izvorište dva, mogli bismo reći oprečna, ali određujuća pristupa ovom pitanju: tzv. tradicionalni pristup politici – antičkogrčko shvaćanje politike kao djelovanja slobodnih i jednakih građana, koji u državi kao političkoj zajednici ozbiljuju bitne svrhe ljudskoga dobroga i pravednog života te čiji najreljefniji izraz nalazimo kod Aristotela , dok je s druge strane ono što nazivamo novovjekovnim pristupom politici, koji predstavlja nasuprotni pol antičkogrčkom određenju odnosa. Radikalni obrat nastupa upravo s Machiavellijem, a raščlambom njegova djela razabiru se i utjecaji na suvremenost.The Mediterranean is a meeting point. On the one hand, meeting points imply communication, activity, openness and interlacement, while on the other, conflict, frequently even war, destruction and extermination. Meetings, therefore, represent both danger and opportunity, threat and occasion, the possibility of annihilation and a model of a new quality, which the Mediterranean clearly mirrors. Its endless tension, the relations between harmony and opposition, its similarities and differences reveal the Mediterranean, in its essence, as a zone of mediation, and mediation itself as the very prerequisite of the existence of something like the Mediterranean.One of the most fundamental mediations, out of which all the others derive, is the relationship between man and man. Once translated into the language of questions, this could be reformulated as the question of the possibility and purpose of human society, i.e. the essence of the political. The Mediterranean is, amongst other things, the source of two, one could say diametrically opposed yet determinative approaches to this issue: one is the so-called traditional approach to politics – the Ancient Greek understanding of politics as a set of actions by free and equal citizens, who fulfil the purposes of a good and virtuous life in a state as a political community, the most outstanding example of which is formulated by Aristotle – while the other is the so-called modern approach to politics, which is the polar opposite of the Ancient Greek definition of the relationship at hand. With Machiavelli a radical shift takes place, and the analyses of his work disclose his influence on contemporaneity. (shrink)

Mediteransko nasljeđe kulture, filozofije, povijesti i umjetnosti nepregledan je univerzum procesa, informacija, sinteza i imaginacija. Sam po sebi, Mediteran se predstavlja kao jedna opća imenica takvog opsega da predstavlja rod u kojem je velik dio opće europske kulture uvijek jedna od njegovih vrsta. No, ipak, riječ je o dojmu koji ne može težiti precizno utvrđenoj konstataciji već jednoj općoj opservaciji koja samo pokazuje da zamisao o zahvaćanju u smisao Mediterana kao nasljeđa ili suvremenosti predstavlja jedan ogroman, ali nikad dokraja (...) dovršen posao.Kao opće i široko obuhvatno ime, mediteranski prostor, onaj virtualni i onaj stvarni, otvorio je prostor mnogim iznimnim osobnostima. koje ukazuju na pojedinačni značaj svake od njih. Neizbježno, one ne mogu u kontekstu mediteranskog prostora predstavljati više od pojedinačnog slučaja koji nikad ne može obuhvatiti cjelokupni doseg pojma mediteranskog. Ali ono što mogu jest obznaniti one vlastite dosege koji ukazuju na vrijednost onoga što im je u mediteranskom prostoru otvoreno da misle, stvaraju i žive. U kontekstu Mediterana tu je uvijek prisutna jedna dimenzija napetosti između općeg i pojedinačnog, između napora da se izrazi duh vremena i nasljeđa, vlastito slaganje i neslaganje s njim, ali i promišljanje koje može probiti duh danog. Jedan od takvih filozofskih i umjetničkih osobnosti jest Albert Camus. Kao jedna od danas gotovo zaboravljenih figura mišljenja i umjetnosti, njegovo propitivanje humaniteta u djelima kao što su Mit o Sizifu i Pobunjeni čovjek svojevremeno su ostavili dubok trag iza sebe. Iako on nije napisao svoje pismo o humanizmu kao što je to učinio Heidegger , njegovo se djelo čini kao poseban slučaj jednog općeg govora o humanizmu suprotstavljen i zasigurno najpoznatijem intelektualcu svog doba, Jeanu Paulu Sartreu, intelektualnom hegemonu onoga doba. Postoji iskušenje da se Camusa u toj konstelaciji dovede u vezu s, recimo, stoicizmom, no time bismo promašili bit u odgovaranju na pitanje koliko bi njegov humanizam imao snage biti suvremeni humanizam, a koliko nova tehnika interpretiranja istog. Stoga mi je namjera propitati, suvremenu mogućnost tvorbi Camusovih promišljanja o povijesti, humanizmu, politici i umjetnosti, kao i danas uočljivi pomak u odnosu na prijašnje dosege u propitivanju etičnosti, politike i umjetnosti na mediteranskom prostoru.The cultural, philosophical, historical and artistic heritage of the Mediterranean is a measureless universe of processes, information, syntheses and imaginations. In itself, the Mediterranean portrays a general noun of such scope that it represents a kind in which a large part of general European culture is always but one of its sub varieties. However, this is but an impression, which cannot aspire to become a precisely verifiable or verified statement, or a general observation, which only demonstrates that the idea of penetrating the meaning of the Mediterranean as a heritage or contemporaneity represents an enormous yet never fully completed task.The Mediterranean space – both the virtual and actual – as a general and widely inclusive toponym has opened its doors to countless exceptional individuals, who point to the particular significance of each. Inevitably, within the context of the Mediterranean space they cannot exemplify more than a particular case that can never embrace the range of the Mediterranean concept as a whole. Yet, what they can do is disclose their own reaches that point to the value of that which is open to them in the Mediterranean realm to be thought, created and lived. A dimension of tension between the general and the particular, between the effort to express thespirit of time and heritage, one’s agreement and disagreement with it, as well as one’s reflections capable of penetrating the spirit of the given – are invariably present within the context of the Mediterranean. One such philosophical and artistic individual is Albert Camus. As one of the almost forgotten figures of thought and art today, his questioning humanity in The Myth of Sisyphus and The Rebel once left a profound trace. Although he never wrote a letter on humanism as Heidegger did , his work appears to be a special case of a general speech on humanism opposed to even surely the most famed intellectual of his time, Jean-Paul Sartre, the intellectual hegemon of his time. Within this constellation one can easily be tempted to compare Camus with, for example, Stoicism, but by doing so one would fail to answer the question of whether his humanism has the strength to be a contemporary humanism or just a novel interpretation technique of the same. This paper intends to examine the contemporary possibilities of constructing Camus’s reflections on history, humanism, politics and art, as well as the today distinct shift in relation to the earlier reaches of the studies into ethicality, politics and art within the space of the Mediterranean. (shrink)