Search results

Filters

  • Journals
  • Keywords
  • Date

Search results

Number of results: 3
items per page: 25 50 75
Sort by:
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The aim of this analysis is to determine whether Marx’s diagnosis of alienated work applies to work that is performed in our time, and whether the concept itself is useful for philosophical anthropology. Marx assumes that there is a link between alienation of work and alienation of the worker. The author asks if these premises lead to further questions, such as: Is the phenomenon of alienation of work characterized unambiguously and precisely? Can it be useful for analyzing social phenomena occurring outside the proletariat? Is it relevant to apply this phenomenon to the philosophical discourse on man conducted independently of the historical perspective assumed by Marx? Will abolition of private ownership of means of production eliminate the phenomenon of alienated work? Which is more nearly true: Marx’s idea that private property is the result of alienated work, or the opposite, that private property is its cause?

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Witold P. Glinkowski
ORCID: ORCID
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This article aims to reconstruct Max Scheler’s conception of three types of knowledge, outlined in his late work Philosophical Perspectives (1928). Scheler distinguished three kinds of knowledge: empirical, used to exercise control over nature, eidetic (essential) and metaphysical. I review the epistemological criteria that underlie this distinction, and its functionalistic assumptions. In the article’s polemic part I accuse Scheler of a) crypto-dualism in his theory of knowledge, which draws insufficient distinctions between metaphysical and eidetic knowledge; b) totally omitting the status of the humanities in his classification of knowledge types; c) consistently developing a philosophy of knowledge without resort to the research tools offered by the philosophy of science, which takes such analyses out of their social and historical context (i.e., how knowledge is created in today’s scientific communities).

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Stanisław Czerniak
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The aim of this article is to identify and analyze similarities in philosophical anthropology of two major Polish philosophers, Roman Ingarden and Henryk Elzenberg, with particular emphasis placed on their image of a human individual as a self- ‑overcoming being. A reconstructive method has been used here. Although reciprocal references between Ingarden and Elzenberg were not numerous, their concepts of human nature are very similar. According to both philosophers, man is essentially different from animals, but participates largely in what animals do as well. What is specific to man is determined by the spiritual element that transcends the physical world. Through spirit, man can overcome the biological part of him/ herself, and tries to overcome his/her condition, because in this way only can humanity reach out and create a world of culture. At the end of text, the most important differences between the discussed concepts of man are discussed.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Antoni Płoszczyniec
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. Komisji Edukacji Narodowej w Krakowie, Instytut Filozofii i Socjologii, ul. Podchorążych 2, 30-084 Kraków

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more