Psihoanaliza kao teorija, praksa i interpretacija nije se pojavila kao samo još jedan »izam« na početku 20. stoljeća, već i kao jedan bitan pomak od doista tradicionalističkog poimanja onog unutarnjeg u čovjeku spram vanjskog. Sam Lacan, u suvremenosti jedan od najpoznatijih teoretičara i interpreta psihoanalize, kaže da pristup koji bi odogonetnuo mjesto polazišta njenog istraživanja i definiranja »nije baš unutra, a ne zna se da li je izvana«. Ovim se željelo nagovijestiti da ona uporišta koje govore ne samo o psihoanalizi, (...) već i o mogućem nalaženju istih, iznose, pa i računaju s nekim nesigurnostima spram tradicije.U vrijeme nastanka i prvih aktualnosti psihoanalize i Freudovog učenja, u filozofiji se gotovo istovremeno sve češće pojavljuju napori da se ljudska psiha i uopće psihologijsko oslobodi kauzalnosti i mehanicističkih određenja, s jedne strane, i da se istovremeno oslobodi predstave i kauzalnosti nečeg iracionalnog i beskonačnog, s druge strane. Nastojeći izbjeći nejasna određenja i suprotstavljanja duše i/ili psihe, filozofija sustavnije od E. Husserla nastoji sve izrazitije naglasiti čovjekovu unutarnjost kroz reinterpretaciju transcendentalnih iskustva subjektivnosti i intersubjektivnosti. Individualna teorijska tvorba, međusobno teorijsko prožimanje, dodirne i razdvajajuće povijesno- teorijske i filozofijske točke ovih dvaju različitih, ali povremeno i komplementarnih ishodišta predmet su zanimanja i razmišljanja u ovom radu.Psychoanalysis as a theory, practice and interpretation did not occur like another -ism on the begining of the twentieth century, but also as one important step ahead from truly traditional understanding of inside of the man which is confronted with his outside existence. Jacques Lacan himself, today one of the most known theoritician and interpreter of psychoanalysis, says that approach which could figure out where is the starting point of its exploring and defining isn’t really inside, and it’s not sure if it’s outside. Saying this, one wants to foreshow that those foundations which speak not only of psychoanalysis, but also about possible findings of them.That is why there are some uncertainties about tradition in these considerations.At the time when psychoanalysis and Freud’s learnings became actual and new, in philosophy almost simultaneously more and more often are present efforts which human psyche and psychology in general were slowly making free of causalities and mechanistic charachteristics on one side. On the other side, in the same time, there have been efforts which would make the psyche free of such images that would define it as irational and infinte entity. Trying to avoid unclear definitions and confrontations in understanding of psyche and/or soul, philosophy is more sistematical with this problem since philosophy of Edmund Husserl. He’s trying to emphasize more utterly the world inside the man through the reinterpretation of transcedental experience of subjectivity and intersubjectivity. Individual philosophical creation, mutual theoretical coming between, connecting and separating historically-theoretical and philosophical standpoints of these two different, but occasionaly also complementary outcomes are the object of interest and reflections in this work. (shrink)

Odnos između čovjeka i prirode čini se trivijalnim filozofskim problemom. Ipak, on otkriva mnoga nova razmatranja koja govore da postoje mnogi ozbiljni problemi koji se tiču znanosti, etike, filozofije i socijalnih teorija. Ta razmatranja vode nas do povijesnih i filozofskih osvrta. Oni nam daju dva važna principa: mehanicistički i materijalistički te automatizirani proizvodni proces . Ti principi bit će kritizirani od kritičke filozofije M. Horkheimera i T. Adorna kao pogrešna uporaba uma. Njegova povijest trebala bi biti obnovljena da iznova počne (...) proučavati veliku tradiciju objektivnog uma nasuprot tradiciji subjektivnog uma. Moderni razvoj znanosti, tehnologije i teorije donio nam je dva moguća pristupa problemu: biotehnološki i filozofijsko antropološki. Zaključak je sačinjen od misli i pitanja vezanih uz problem bioetike i biopolitike.The relation between the human and the nature looks like a trivial problem. However, it reveals a lot of new considerations which speak of existence of many serious problems related to the science, ethics, philosophy and social theories. Those considerations take us to the historical and philosophical turning points. They also give us some models that made some important believes in understanding human-nature relation such as: mechanistic and materialistic view and a critical review of, for example, at least two more modern examples of that relation . Some of those principals will be critisized from such critical philosophies like those of Max Horkheimer or Theodor Adorno. They critisize any misuse of mind as formal mind. They think that history of mind should be restored and thus mind should be studying anew great traditions of objective mind against the tradition of subjective one. Contemporary development of the science brought us two possible approaches to the problem: biotechnological and philosophicaly-anthropological one. The conclusion is made of thoughts and questiones about problems of bioethics and biopolitics. (shrink)

Ovaj je rad osmišljen kao analiza dijela mišljenja američkoga filozofa Fredrica Jamesona. Opus tog autora obuhvaća desetine naslova od kojih će u elaboraciji teme tri biti fragmentarno obrađena, odnosno u svakoj od njih ću posvetiti pozornost jednom poglavlju . Riječ je o sljedećim trima knjigama i pripadajućim poglavljima: The Signatures of the Visible , Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism i A Singular Modernity . Namjera je rada tekstove ovih poglavlja istaknuti kao momente jednog zamišljenog ekskursa o opsegu (...) i dubini pitanja o identitetu suvremenosti, odnosno njegovih suvremenih transfiguracija izraženih Jamesonovim tezama. Protežući se u daljnjim razradama onkraj čvrsto utvrđenih definicija i neprestanog preispitivanja metode istraživanja, ta pitanja nalaze svoju pozadinu u promišljanju koncepata i pojmova narativa i povijesnosti. Očito je da uvođenje koncepta i pojma narativa u relaciji prema povijesti evocira klasični pristup tom problemu, no ovdje je riječ upravo o njegovim suvremenim transfiguracijama koje su izražene u tim poglavljima.Namjera rada je, stoga, uz očigledne analitičke momente spomenutih tekstova, istaknuti i kritičku ulogu takve analize, s jedne strane. No, s druge strane, namjera je ukazati i na istraživanja čiji je smisao daljnje kritičko i analitičko propitivanje i utvrđivanje teorijskih polazišta koja ne ustrajavaju samo na spekulativnim postulatima vezanim uz spomenute probleme, koja ne teže tek jednoj novoj metadiskurzivnosti, već teže propitivanju mogućih istraživačkih putova koji se neizbježno pojavljuju u spomenutim transfiguracijama, kako teorije tako i neizbježnih praksa koje ih obilježavaju.This paper is generally conceived as an analysis of some fragmentary parts concerning the thought of American philosopher Fredric Jameson. The opus of this author includes tens of titles but only three of them will be elaborated here in some fragments . The books in question are the following: The Signatures of the Visible , Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism and at the end there is A Singular Modernity . My intention in this paper is to propound texts from those chapters as moments of one imagined digression about scope and depth of question which is asked about identity of contemporaneity, or rather, its contemporary transfigurations expressed through Jameson’s theses. In further elaborations this issues spreads beyond firmly set definitions and continuous examination of the method of research, and finds its foundation in reflecting concepts and notions of narrative and historicity. It is obvious that introducing concepts and notion of the narrative in relation to history evokes classical approaches to this problem, but the point here is precisely its contemporary transfigurations which are couched in these chapters.The intention of this paper is therefore also, beside obvious analytical moments in mentioned texts, to point out critical role of such analysis, on the one hand. But, on the other hand, the intention that lies in it is to indicate research point of which is further critical and analytical questioning and ascertaining theoretical starting points that do not hold on only to speculative postulates related to mentioned problems, and which do not tend only to one new meta-discursiveness, but tend to question up possible research paths that unavoidably show up in mentioned transfigurations, concerning both theory and unavoidable practices that mark them as well. (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)