In the article the author would like to draw the readers’ attention to the philosophy of a contemporary French thinker, Renaud Barbaras. The main point in his investigations is the philosophy of life ; however, he does not belong to the movement called “Lebensphilosophie”. Barbaras has built up his own philosophy in long discussions and polemics with other philosophers, especially those who like E. Husserl, M. Heidegger, J. Patočka, E. Levinas or M. Henry are connected with phenomenology. One of the (...) important elements of Barbaras’ original philosophy of life is his conception of the human being. Barbaras points out the role of lack in the life of the human subject. As a result the concept of the subject of desire emerges from the broad perspective of the metaphysics of life. (shrink)

This paper deals with the problem of what otherness consists in, and what its foundation is, within the I–Other relation. In this way, the study also explores the limits of ethics and of a quasi-religious attitude, in order to establish what is required to shape interpersonal relations in a non-violent way, when faced with the radical otherness of another human being. Such an investigation also intersects with a broader ethical discussion that aims to take account of glorious or heroic acts, (...) focused on the issue of supererogation. The aim of the present study is to demonstrate the degree to which a neglect of reciprocity and justice in the context of such philosophical research constitutes a risky step. To this end, the main aspects of the debate between Emmanuel Levinas and Paul Ricœur are introduced. After examining the position of Levinas, and how Ricœur interprets the I–Other relation in Levinas, an attempt is made to assess whether the latter’s line of criticism is pertinent and helpful for attempts to arrive at the core of the disagreement between the two thinkers. (shrink)

W artykule autor chciałby, na przykładzie XX‑wiecznego czeskiego filozofa Jana Patočki, przedstawić problem wolności człowieka skonfrontowanej z dwojakiego rodzaju doświadczeniami: wojny oraz przemocy politycznej reprezentowanej przez państwo totalitarne. Te dwa doświadczenia można z pewnością traktować jako historyczne doświadczenia zła. Chodzi więc o konfrontację między ludzką wolnością a złem. W tym kontekście czeski myśliciel starał się odpowiedzieć na pytanie: jakiego rodzaju odpowiedzi moralnej w takiej sytuacji może czy nawet powinien udzielić człowiek? Jak człowiek może lub powinien się zachowywać, doświadczając zła? Freedom (...) and evil in politics. Reflections on war and totalitarianism in the thought of Jan Patočka Taking the 20th century Czech philosopher Jan Patočka as an example, in this paper, the author would like to illustrate the problem of human freedom when dealing with two kinds of experiences: war and political violence, as exemplified by the totalitarian state. Indeed, it is possible to treat these two types of experiences as historical experiences of evil. What is at stake, then, is the juxtaposition of human freedom and evil. Given this context, the Czech thinker sought to answer the question: in such a situation, with which moral response can or should one reply? When experiencing evil, how can or should a person behave? (shrink)