This article concerns the short genealogical history of speech and writing media, which simultaneously takes an advantage of, develops as well as reconstructs, the appropriate points of view and attitudes by Peter Sloterdijk. The object of analysis is a discursive formation on speech and writing shaped in western culture, a formation consisting of arguments and imaginations contained in the Bible, philosophical writings, by Plato and Hegel mainly, and literature, indicated here only very slightly. Social history is eventually discused here, that is the view of revolutions and colonialism through the prism of print/writing medium — through the relationships of power and domination based on this medium. All the discursive and social events have their common resentment background according to Sloterdijk — following Nietzsche he assumes that there are cruelty and perversion that lurk at the roots of culture.The question is: why does he do that, what new does the historically worn-out interpretational frame let him tell about the media in the past and today?

The problem of moral responsibility occupies a central place in the discussions concerning free will. It is generally held that it has far-reaching consequences for social life and law. However, as Galen Strawson argues, it is impossible to be morally responsible for one's own actions. The argument runs as follows: a person decides one way or another on the basis of his character, personality traits or other mental respects. However, one cannot be responsible for those features—it seems obvious that they are caused by factors one cannot be responsible for, such as one's upbringing or genes. Hence the only way to be morally responsible is to be causa sui, i.e. the cause of oneself. It is widely acknowledged though that nothing can be causa sui. It follows that moral responsibility is impossible.