I. Co je filosofie? A k čemu?
Viz také http://www.iep.utm.edu/con-meta/
As the foregoing sketch begins to suggest,  three very general metaphilosophical questions are   (1)   What is philosophy? (2) What is,  or what should be,   the point of philosophy?   (3) How should one do philosophy? Those questions resolve into a host of more specific metaphilosophical conundra,  some of which are as follows.  Is philosophy a process or a product? What kind of knowledge can philosophy attain? How should one understand philosophical disagreement? Is philosophy historical in some special or deep way? Should philosophy make us better people? Happier people?  Is philosophy political? What method(s) and types of evidence suit philosophy? How should philosophy be written   (presuming it should be written at all)? Is philosophy,  in some sense,  over - or should it be?
A. Různé koncepce a „definice"
1. Antika (převzít z DS)
• Sokrates
• Platón
Údivje postoj člověka, který opravdu miluje pravdu. Ba neexistuje žádnýjiný počátek filosofie, než je tento... (Tht. 155d)
• Aristoteles
2. Později...
• Kierkegaard (in Lawhead - The Philosophical Journey, s. 4-5, chybí odkaz na Kierkegaardův text)
°   In a 19th-century work, the Danish philosopher and literary genius S0ren Kierkegaard depicted one of his fi ctional characters sitting in a café worrying about the fact that he has no mission or purpose in life.
,,'You must do something, but inasmuch as with your limited capacities it will be impossible to make anything easier than it has become, you must, with the same humanitarian enthusiasm as the others, undertake to make something harder.' (...)
Out of love for mankind, and out of despair at my embarrassing situation, seeing that I had accomplished nothing and was unable to make anything easier than it had already been made, and moved by a genuine interest in those who make everything easy, I conceived it as my task to create diffi culties everywhere."
Perhaps Kierkegaard's point is that only by facing the really diffi cult issues in life will we gain something that is truly valuable. His mission was to coax us, to irritate us, and to provoke us into making the effort necessary to overcome our reticence to face one of life's most diffi cult but rewarding tasks: honest, personal refl ection. For Kierkegaard, this activity was the heart and soul of philosophy. Like many other strenuous but valuable activities, becoming a philosopher can involve intellectual labor pains, practice, determination, and creative struggling. But philosophy obviously does not produce the tangible rewards of the sort enjoyed by the mother, musician, athlete, or novelist. What, then, is the reward of doing philosophy? According to Kierkegaard, what philosophy can give us is self-understanding. Self-understanding involves knowing who I really am apart from the masks I present to others, the social roles I fulfi 11, or the labels and descriptions imposed on me by my society and my peers. It also involves understanding my beliefs and values and being aware of why I act the way I do, including knowing whether my actions result from my own authentic choices or from taken-for-granted, unexamined assumptions or the infl uences of my culture.
At fi rst glance, it would seem that self-understanding is something that everyone would desire. But Kierkegaard thought that it was not only the most important goal in life, but the most diffi cult one. Furthermore, he claimed that it is something that we are often tempted to avoid. It is much easier to be complacent, to be self-satisfi ed, and to stick with beliefs that are comfortable and familiar than to be painfully and fully honest with ourselves and to subject our deepest convictions to examination. Fitness centers promote the saying, "No pain, no gain." The same is true with our struggles to become fully realized and actualized persons. In fact, philosophy could be viewed as "aerobics for the human mind."
Kierkegaard has provided us with our first definition of philosophy: Philosophy is the search for self-understanding.
•   Lawhead, s. 6-7:
°   Thanks to Pythagoras and Socrates, we now have a second defi nition: Philosophy is the love and pursuit of wisdom.
Philosophy is the asking of questions about the meaning of our most basic concepts. Philosophy is the search for fundamental beliefs that are rationally justified.
Na s. 8 potom Lawhead všechny 4 definici spojuje do jakési „čtverné" definice: Filosofieje
1. hledání soběporozumění,
2. láska k moudrosti a snaha o její dosažení,
3. kladení otázek o významu našich nej základnej š ich pojmů,
4. hledání základních presvedčení, která by byla rozumově odůvodněna.
3. Současnost
• Blecha
• Edinburgh
• Marek Otisk
°   Filosofický slovník (Olomouc: FIN 1995, s. 127)
Filosofie ... znamená především touhu po opravdovém vědění, jež by obsáhlo celou skutečnost a vyjevilo člověku smysl jeho života, počínání a usilování.
°   Arno Anzenbacher, Úvod do filozofie (Praha: SPN 1990, s 35):
Filozofie je kritická rozumová věda o podmínkách možnosti empirické skutečnostijako celku.
°   Ottův slovník naučný (Praha: Jan Otto 1888-1908, sv. IX, s. 226):
Filosofie jest věda, která na základě výsledkův ostatních věd hledí sestrojiti jednotný názor světa. Cíl její vždy byl a bude, aby lidské poznatky spojila v přehledný celek, aby ze všeho vědění takto nasbíraného vyvodila poslední výslednici, z níž by vysvítalo, jak člověk v přívale dojmů životních se orientovati, jak na svět zírati, jak smýšleti ajednati má.
S. 16: „Jest tedy patrno, že ani dnes dostupné texty, které uvádějí do filosofie, nejsou sto podat bezvadnou definici filosofie. Nelze předpokládat, že rozmnožování výčtu těchto definic, či dokonce pokus o vlastní výměr, by vedl k lepšímu výsledku: Filosofie je minimálně velice obtížně definovatelná, j e docela dobře možné, žejiž z povahy samotné filosofie plyne, žeje nedefinovatelná..."
B. Filosofie a ...
1. věda
C. Obsah filosofie
• Jsoucno a bytí - ONTOLÓGIE (METAFYZIKA)
Co existuje?
° Jaké j sou úrovně skutečnosti? (Substance, akcidenty.) °   Jakéjsou „druhy"jsoucen? (Heidegger - „pobyt".)
Svoboda vs. determinismus
Prostor a čas
Identita věcí
• Podmínky a možnosti poznání - EPISTEMOLOGIE
co j e vedení?
Můžeme poznat podstatu věcí?