Dean Komel

According to Nietzsche, a culture which establishes itself in terms of values and in itself represents the value of Europe as such, is obliged to raise the question of its own value. The experience of the critical modernity thus opens up through philosophical perception and understanding of culture so that the communication within the culture becomes critical. Together with Marx and Freud, Nietzsche stands in a row of critics of the Western culture in the second half of the 19th century, receiving a favorable reception in the 20th century. Actually, it is a lot more than just a reception; it is a manysided conceptual transformation of the self-comprehension of philosophy as a whole, which was given a strong impulse by thinkers such as Husserl, Wittgenstein and Heidegger. It is not so much the critique of morality in itself but rather the critique of the moral nature of logic that represents the break and conflict which Nietzsche introduced into modern philosophy. In this context, the word “introduce” proves adequate since it points to the interpretative moment of the break

Članek poskuša odgovoriti na vprašanje, kaj je interkulturnost, pri čemer se najprej skuša ograditi od vseh tistih pomenov, ki se nalagajo na pojmovanje interkulturnosti brez poskusa temeljitejše osmislitve. Tak odgovor nujno vključuje določeno kritiko časa in prostora, v katerem nastopa interkulturnost kot premena samega dojemanja kulture. Interkulturnost je razgrnjena predvsem v elementu »priznavanja«, s katerim je povezano pojmovanje sveta prebivanja. To omogoča, da interkulturnost definiramo kot kulturo razgovora v poudarjenem smislu.The article is an attempt at answering the question what is interculturality. First of all it brackets out all the meanings that pile up over the conception of interculturality without prior thorough reflection. Such an answer necessarily implies a specific criticism of time and space, in which interculturality appears as the transformation of the very conception of culture. Interculturality is disclosed primarily in the element of “acknowledgement”, which is closely related to the conception of the world of existence. This enables us to define interculturality as the culture of dialogue in the true sense of the word

When Ernst Jünger wrote e Worker, the »Gestalt theory« was already well acclaimed and accepted in psychology, religiology, philosophy, historiography, etc. e most general denition of the »Gestalt« can be traced back to Aristo- tle: the “Gestalt” as a whole is more than the sum of its parts. But this denition does not mean much, if we understand the relation between the whole and its parts merely in a formal manner, and not organically. e livingly connected relation is in question, which means, that in order to set the transition between the whole and the parts in motion an eort or energy must be invested, otherwise we remain without an impression

he article tackles the distinction between multiculturalism and interculturality, which evinces a phenomenological relevance, insofar it concerns the investigation of the worldhood of the world. The first problem arising in this respect is the issue of gaining phenomenological evidence of such distinction. It is necessary to take into account the historical relationship of philosophy and culture. This is evinced in the measure of the epochal opening up of truth, which proves decisive for grounding historical humanness. The discussion of interculturality therefore cannot avoid historical nihilism as the determining cultural disposition of contemporary Europe, which in the meantime grew to planetary proportions. Phenomenological original evidence that the world speaks in various languages hereby stumbles upon its historical limit as marked by controversial announcements of the “end of history”. The fact that phenomenology of today lacks the evidence of differentiating between multiculturalism and interculturality is not some sort of theoretical deficit but rather the epochal withdrawal which brings to the fore a conversation and opens up an understanding of interculturality as the culture in conversation

It seems that everything in hermeneutics begins with the question and that the very phenomenon of hermeneutics is regarded by contemporary philosophy more as a question than as a concept. It is for this very reason that it seems necessary to start a hermeneutic discussion on the possibility of philosophy as principally critical thinking, which does not only attempt to rehabilitate its previous greatness. Philosophical hermeneutics cannot accept the role of merely providing an alternative answer to the question of the possibility of philosophy, nor should it seek and find the answer in what philosophy used to be. Philosophical hermeneutics cannot impose itself neither as a new nor as a different response to philosophy. Rather, it must first and foremost respond to its question, and through this only, following Schleiermacher, hermeneutics is an ability of understanding the language of the other. And of course, we have to ask ourselves straight away, where, on which spot, from which side should philosophical hermeneutics approach this issue?

The purpose of this article is to consider interculturalism as a sort of pseudonym: it does not only deal with culture, but also with its subtracted truth. For this reason, an intercultural theory that simply criticizes Eurocentrism and western hegemony countering them with the prospects of diversity totally misses the target: change should occur originating from inside the same thought that has originated Eurocentrism. Here interculturalism differs from multiculturalism which defends diversity without seeking a common ground, identifiable, according to the Author, with the intermediate state of being in the world