The author of this paper has thoroughly studied the correspondence between I. Kant and J. H. Lambert and deals with the problem of Lambert’s influence on the creation and shape of the transcendental method used in Kant’s central work The Critique of Pure Reason. He points out that the discussion on the method stems from a deeper problem of the a general conception of metaphysics. Both authors as well as several other prominent philosophers of the time advocated differing positions. While Lambert only reformed traditional metaphysics (in dianoiology, alethiology, semiotics and phenomenology), Kant considered the reforms hopeless and created the method of transcendental criticism in his Critique of Pure Reason to serve as a foundation for new metaphysics that could be regarded a science. The study shows in detail the long-term problems that the process went through.

The author of the essay focuses on the history and sources of Neo-Kantianism. He points out two sources: a negative one and a positive one. The positive source is historicism and a negative relation to Kant. The concept of historicity (Geschichtlichkeit) relates mainly to the way of being of human spirit and its products. This term had appeared in the works of Hegel, Schleiermacher and Nietzsche, but it was only with Dilthey that it received greater publicity. Dilthey meant by the term a basic existential structure of man: namely the fact that man is not just “drawn” into history, but this “draw” is an essential characteristic of human being. The other source is the relation to Kant taken as an attribute differentiating between the individual philosophers. The return to Kant is a basic sign of Neo-Kantianism, since at the time of its emergence the opinion that it is necessary to give up Hegel’s panlogism was widely spread. The author also believes that we should regard the return to Kant as dispensation with the requirement of scientism (exactness) and also as a defense against the attempts to place philosophy outside scientifically regarded culture. The essay ends with a sketch of metaphysical exposition of Kant’s transcendental philosophy.

The text is devoted to partial argumentative analysis of Descartes’ Meditations in terms of persuasive schemes of personal argumentatiton. Descartes’ Meditations are used as a source of illustrations for various types of personal reasoning and the corresponding critical questions. Attention is given both to positive and negative form of a personal argumentation, namely to a pattern of ad hominem and ad verecundiam. The analysis presents variations of argumentative scheme and relevant evaluation tool. The text also offers justification for the interpretation of Descartes’ salutation ‘O caro’ as a persuasive move within the meaning of ad hominem argumentation, which is reflected in its controversial Czech translation.

The work deals with Voltaire’s method of writing history. It points out Voltaire’s critique of earlier historical studies. Voltaire criticized them for narrow geographic and subject scope and tried to overcome these drawbacks in his own work. Methodologically he continued the 17th century criticism of sources and considered how to find the truth or at least verisimilitude in historical studies. The second part of the work focuses on Voltaire’s critique of J. B. Bossuet, C. Montesquieu, J.-J. Rousseau and B. Pascal.

The first question relates to Pavel Materna’s career, to the circumstances that have positively formed his professional growth. In the reply to the second question Materna confides what brought him to the determined promotion and development of Transparent Intensional Logic started by his late colleague Pavel Tichý. The motivation for the third question was Materna’s long-term pedagogical work in logic at colleges in Prague and Brno. Finally, a few “logical jokes” document Materna’s famous sense of humor.

A translation of Kant’s work Ende aller Dinge (The End of All Things) from 1794, one of his polemical religious-philosophical works, has been published in Czech for the first time. It enables readers to meet one of the typical expressions of Kant’s post-critical philosophy (besides his works on philosophy of history, anthropology and political philosophy). The work clearly shows Kant’s dissatisfaction with contemporary understanding of the place of religion in society, and shows why the author got into conflict with clerical and political power of the time. The translation is introduced by a brief outline of the historical context of Kant’ s work, its place in the framework of the philosopher’s work and its reflection among Kant’s contemporaries, which resulted in an official ban imposed on Kant’s works and lectures related to religion by Friedrich Wilhelm II .

Opening speech on the evening dedicated to the life and work ethics and historian of philosophy, associate professor Karel Hlavoň (January 21, 1930 to July 30, 2009).

Love, universals, a new written source, deceit and treason – all of that can be seen in a play on the love affair between the philosopher Abélard and his conscientious student Heloise. A recently discovered letter of Abelard reveals that he actually never lost his manhood, but only pretended his bad luck to find peace and quiet for his philosophical contemplations on, among other things, universals.

A „dramatic humoresque“ – not exactly a truthful version of the clash of ideas of two major medieval Czech figures, John Huss and his philosophically more vigorous teacher Stanislav of Znoymo. In our version Huss invents the matches in order to set the world on fire and thus purify the church of evil – the audience and readers´ task is to find all historical and factual inaccuracies deliberately incorporated into the play.

The history of philosophy is dominated by men’s names – does that mean philosophy is inaccessible to women? Or could we even say that the woman is the philosopher’s enemy that hinders his intellectual efforts? Or is it the contrary, being the philosopher’s Muse, she helps promote philosophical thought? To answer these questions, the play offers four rather fictional stories about renowned philosophers and their significant others, drawing from Jiří Cetl’s work But they were philosophers... (Ale vždyť to byli filozofové..., Brno 2000). It introduces Socrates and his wife Xanthippa, Epicure and Athenian hetaerae, John Lock with a young French lady and finally Jean-Jacquesem Rousseau with his prospective wife and mother-in-law. The ultimate answer to the questions remains to be decided by the reader.

A detective story presenting a thought experiment from philosophy of mind that results in a hypothetical, extremely dangerous being – philosophical zombie – which looks and behaves just like any other person, but has no consciousness. The goal of the two detectives (René Descartes and Alan Turing) is to discover this mysterious and possibly undiscoverable creature before it dispatches the Swedish Queen.

This play offers a story from recent history, almost the present time (however a fictional one) as well as a serious, even tragic drama attempting to assess the rate of cooperation of the prominent German philosopher M. Heidegger with German war ideology and to suggest an adequate punishment.

This western-play introduces the clash between rationalism and empiricism of the Modern Period, embodied in the bloody battles between white settlers and Indians. As theplay is meant to be a tribute to E. Morricone´s film music, it is the music that wins the performed philosophical war.