Paulina Sosnowska

My response to Tyson Lewis’s book concentrates on two themes, seemingly peripheral to the book’s explicit content: the pertinent question of (educational) violence and the related problem of instrumentalism. I try to tackle both of them by outlining the dispute between Walter Benjamin and Carl Schmitt. The choice of Schmitt as the background for these peripheral commentaries is not accidental. The premise of Lewis’s book is that there is a link between fascism and 21st century populism and authoritarianism (in the US, France, and Germany, but – as I would argue – much more prevalent in Hungary and Poland). The European version is, if not intellectually connected, then at least somehow coincident with the renaissance of the thought of the German jurist of the Weimar and Nazi era. Benjamin’s antifascist potential depends also on his power of de-potentializing Schmitt’s political theology, concepts of sovereignty and state of exception.

For contemporary critical philosophers of education, the thought of Paul Tillich, a protestant theologian, does not seem to be a very likely point of reference. Nevertheless, we decided to read some of his works within a philosophical-educational context. Reading those works of Tillich we realized that they required a pedagogical-philosophical acknowledgement. Scarce as the educational analyses of Paul Tillich’s writings are, they concern mostly either religious education or some specific issues connected with teaching. Our proposal was to read him differently: as a critical tool for grasping contemporary educational issues, independent from a religious or didactic approach. In the article, referring to the thoughts of Tillich, we analyze the three most important tensions of the last and present centuries: kairos I and II, referring to the human condition after World Wars I and II, and kairos III, related mainly to the war on terrorism and to the growing climate crisis. The analysis of these special moments in the history of humankind is related to the postulates and pedagogical attitudes articulated by us. We conclude that as a result of the deepening climate crisis and the looming specter of a cataclysm, the transition to a better aion may enable the pedagogy of radical hope. The essence of this pedagogy is to shape the “courage to be” during grassroots, collective and political action - an existential attitude saturated with resistance, concern and hope that such grassroots, cultural-religious practices can contribute to social change and reduce the fear of inevitable death associated with the risk of annihilation of the Earth.

The importance of education: In conversation with Martin Heidegger and Hannah Arendt. The text is a lecture delivered in German at Augsburg University in 2018. Its aim was to share with German colleagues from the Faculty of Philosophy and Social Sciences the research whose effect was the publication of Hannah Arendt and Martin Heidegger. Philosophy, modernity and education. The thesis of this lecture is that Arendt’s answer to Heidegger’s philosophy, intelligible only within the wide context of both thinkers’ struggles with the philosophical tradition of the West, also opens up a new horizon of conceptualizing the relationship between philosophy and education. This enterprise begins with a critical reconstruction of concepts that traditionally connected education to philosophy. Thereafter, it is a development of Arendt’s thesis of the broken thread of tradition, situated in the wider context of Heideggerian philosophy and his entanglement with Nazism, and consequently, it questions the traditional relationship between philosophy and education. In the final parts of this book returns the problem of dialogue between philosophy, thinking, and university education in times whose political and ethical framework is no longer determined by the continuity of tradition, but the caesura of 20th‑century totalitarianism.

The purpose of the paper is to briefly confront three different stances towards the modern age: Karl Löwith’s, Hannah Arendt’s and Hans Blumenberg’s. The author shows, how these different attitudes and premises form a conceptual triangle. On the one hand, Arendt and Löwith seem to be closer to each other than to Blumenberg, since they both tend to assess the modern age more or less negatively in comparison to pre-modern times and both treat modernity as a derivative or distortion of pre-modern concepts of the world and history. They both present a sort of attitude that Blumenberg describes as historical substantialism. On the other hand, they differ strongly in their principal points of reference, which leads them to almost contradictory conclusions about the essence of modernity. Blumenberg’s methodology and attitude towards the modern age opposes both thinkers from two different angles. The Author’s analysis focuses on the originality of the latter thinker, whose functional methodology and thorough phenomenological analyses led him to form a genuine estimation and appreciation of novelty and uniqueness of modernity against pre-modern times as well as a dialogical response to them.

It seems that the first two decades of the twenty first century demonstrate political mythology to be still functioning in the political life of the West. In this context, it is interesting to view the recent publications of Hans Blumenberg’s Nachlass: Präfiguration and Rigorismus der Wahrheit, as they reveal unpredicted complications for the interpretation of his philosophy of myth as well as of his political stances. They also evoke some more general questions concerning the role of myth in our contemporary political life. The aim of this article is to present the paradoxes connected with the posthumously published Blumenberg critique of Hannah Arendt and to situate it in the wider context of twentieth century political thought, specifically the work of Sorel, Schmitt, Rosenberg and Cassirer. It is also to point to more general ethical and political ambiguities connected with the problem of political mythology in the present.