Břetislav Horyna

The subject of this study is an investigation into the possibility of establishing a new mode of political thought (political theory) under the conditions of the Anthropocene. The basic principle at play is that the typical civilizational thought of the Western (Atlantic) culture – as embodied in technology – is creating a worldwide situation with no simple avenues for escape. The Westerner has turned his thoughts and reason away from a wisdom leading to harmony, but instead towards deconstruction and destruction, a devastation whose consequences will be a slow, painful, but unavoidable annihilation. This single form of human rationality is responsible for the pillaging of the natural and social environment; it is a form painstakingly protected, privileged and nurtured from the start of European modernism. Capitalism’s economic, technological and demographic growth has had unintended ecological and civilisational consequences with catastrophic cumulative effects on the environment.

A book of essays written to celebrate an important anniversary of Jiří Gabriel, a teacher of philosophy that the author is heavily indebted to, dealing with various approaches to philosophy and life with philosophy. It is an expression of gratitude for models of conduct and behavior of a man trained in philosophy, critical thinking and rational assessment of life situations, as well as an attempt to sketch traits of Gabriel’s personality distinguishing him from various, not always praiseworthy unwritten rules of common life in university society. The work is not meant to be a tract describing, assessing and classifying Gabriel’s educated work in institutionalized philosophy, nor does it aspire to be. The times of tracts shall only come and, as usual with tracts, they make living thought something it never was and wished to be. The work is a mere reflexion of forms of Jiří Gabriel’s influence on the authors life in the past decades of the author’s life; an influence far greater than Jiří Gabriel is aware of.

The proclamation of God’s death is commonly ascribed to Fridrich Nietzsche and the cultural nihilism of the turn of 19th and 20th centuries. The work on Hegel’s statement of God’s death shows that this is a much older cultural topos, appearing frequently in German (as well as British and French) literature, poetry and philosophy as early as in 18th century and especially in the era of Romanticism. The differences are not only temporal, but especially contextual; while late usage with Nietzschian cultural relativists generally has a diagnostic character, earlier occurrences of the statement relate to different cultural phenomena (old and modern mythology, modern poetry, revolutionary political and religious changes after the French Revolution of 1789, character of transcendental philosophy, and others). Hegel used this statement in his very early polemic with Kant’s and Fichte’s philosophies. He criticized both of them that in their philosophical subjectivism they were promoting the notion that God had died and man had assumed his position. This work shows some relatively little known dimensions of that polemic including the role played by F. H. Jacobi’s critical anti-Kantian position.

The book is an attempt to identify the main principles of a new political philosophy corresponding to the parameters of the Anthropocene, i.e. the geological-climatic epoch of the planetary system in which the negative influence of man on planetary cycles and evolutionary processes exceeds the influence of geological forces. Humanity has become the dominant force affecting all components of the planetary ecosystem (biosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere) and its activities bring with them problems that affect the social and political spheres. An Introduction to Environmental Political Philosophy illustrates these problems, examines their causes and phenomena, and seeks to understand them in detail. The book does not formulate cheap populist solutions or serve as a political agenda. Rather, it presents philosophical analyses of ecologically, sociologically, politically, and economically contingent phenomena in order to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the socio-political situation of the Anthropocene.

The history of the opposition of the Dionysian and Apollonian principles is longer than is usually assumed. Similarly to the many of the other contrarian figures ascribed to Nietzsche, the Apollonian–Dionysian was not of his making; its history is much older and buried under a number of different layers of interpretation. In the following work I will discuss the formal aspects and content of their development, which took place under the direct authorial influence of Pseudo-Longinus, Jacob Bernays, Friedrich Schiller, Fr. W. J. Schelling and Johan Jacob Bachofen. Still, although the discovery of a principle labelled das Dionysische doesn’t represent anything exceptional, the “Birth of Tragedy” treatise was a breakthrough: it began the development of a specific form of cultural critique, of which Nietzsche was the prime representative.

The word Anthropocene, referring to a new era of humanity’s uncontrolled exercise of power over the Earth as a geophysical unit, could be translated using a cognitive metaphor as “the Age of Loss”. We have gained such power that we are unable to adjust or even fully track its manifestations. The relation between loss and power is continuous in all the basic areas of materialization of socio-political concepts: in politics, in economics, in law and the judiciary, in legislation, environmental protection, etc. The philosophy of loss and power is inseparable from economic concerns. The entirety of Western civilization is built on the economic calculus of profit and loss, whose results are directly transformed into decisions of power made by the administrative, political, ownership and power-broking elites. The environmental and climate crisis is therefore also a crisis of privilege of one group over others. The question for politics is which political means can one use to achieve a state of uncorrupted voluntary depriviligization. This level of prosperity will itself be the subject of environmental self-limitation, being presented as “loss”. It will be posed as a political problem with the intention of depoliticizing the subject and inequality of civilizations; precisely in accordance with the posed political problem of democracy, which has already uncovered the basic connection: liberalism won’t make a poor country rich.

Few of the statements penned by philosophers have become as infamous as the “God is Dead!” of Friedrich Nietzsche. This study is not concerned with the reasons why this phrase is so popular. Instead, I would like to delve into the prehistory and partial genesis of the concept, something Nietzsche adopted from a previous tradition. Apart from known examples of theses on the death of God by Hegel, Schelling or Jean Paul, I will shed light on some of the confusion surrounding the phrase deus est mortuus in Mediaeval Christian liturgical literature and mysticism, with roots reaching back to Neoplatonism. The goal of this study is to point out that this phrase about the death of God had no significant constitutive meaning for Nietzsche but was, instead, a relatively common literary and rhetorical topos among other culturally diagnostic expressive elements. Nietzsche used it as an illustrative shortcut when describing the intercultural processes of his time, with no ambition to originality, instead, with the clear intention of shaking up the (non)thought of the comfortable bureaucrats and legalistic petit bourgeois of Germany in the late 19th century.