Odgovor na pitanje: kako je moguća prosvećenost?
An Answer to the Question: How Enlightenment is Possible?
Abstract
Autor članka analizira ključne termine Kantove definicije prosvećenosti: nezrelost, vođstvo drugoga, krivicu, čovečnost, lenjost, kukavičluk, hrabrost i druge. U prvom delu rada se izlažu kritike koje osporavaju svaki razložan karakter Kantove koncepcije prosvećenosti. Njima se potom suprotstavljaju odbrane Kantovog određenja prosvećenosti koje ukazuju, s jedne strane, na njegovu autorefleksivnost i, s druge, na njegovu neprolaznu aktuelnost. Posebna pažnja posvećuje se istorijskoj i tekstualnoj rekonstrukciji razumevanja javnosti kao uslova mogućnosti delotvornog angažovanja uma i racionalne organizacije društva. Zaključuje se da pitanje o prosvećenosti ostaje otvoreno, u meri da samom pojmu preti opasnost proizvoljne upotrebe pod potpuno nejasnim semantičkim pravilima, ali i da neprekidne reinterpretacije Kantovog pokušaja njegovog definisanja
svedoče o nezaobilaznosti te instance, s obzirom na koju su se – priznanjem njene merodavnosti,
preadaptacijom ili odbacivanjem – iskušavala..., artikulisala i profilisala i od nje
drugačija shvatanja prosvećenosti i njenih orijentira.
The author analyzes the key terms of Kant's definition of enlightenment: immaturity,
guilt, humanity, laziness, cowardice, bravery, and others. The first part of the paper presents
the criticisms that challenge every reasonable character of Kant's conception of enlightenment. After that, these critiques are confronted with the defenses of Kant's definition of enlightenment that points out, on the one hand, its self-reflectivity and, on the other, its everlasting actuality. Special attention is paid to the historical and textual reconstruction of the understanding of public as a condition of the possibilities for the effective engagement of the mind and the rational organization of society. It is concluded that the question of enlightenment remains open, to the extent that the danger of arbitrary use under a completely vague semantic rules threatening the very notion of enlightenment. Continuous reinterpretations of Kant's attempt to define it, however, are also testimonies of an unav...oidable instance, with respect to which – by recognition of its relevance, its rearranging or rejection – different conceptions of enlightenment and its landmarks were tempted, articulated and established.
Keywords:
prosvećenost / enlightenment / Kant, Imanuel / public / Kant, Imanuel / javnost / sloboda / samostalno mišljenje / freedom / independent thinkingSource:
Theoria, 2014, 57, 4, 105-124Funding / projects:
- Studying climate change and its influence on environment: impacts, adaptation and mitigation (RS-43007)
URI
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0351-2274/2014/0351-22741404105K.pdfhttp://rifdt.instifdt.bg.ac.rs/123456789/1586
Collections
Institution/Community
IFDTTY - JOUR AU - Krstić, Predrag PY - 2014 UR - http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0351-2274/2014/0351-22741404105K.pdf UR - http://rifdt.instifdt.bg.ac.rs/123456789/1586 AB - Autor članka analizira ključne termine Kantove definicije prosvećenosti: nezrelost, vođstvo drugoga, krivicu, čovečnost, lenjost, kukavičluk, hrabrost i druge. U prvom delu rada se izlažu kritike koje osporavaju svaki razložan karakter Kantove koncepcije prosvećenosti. Njima se potom suprotstavljaju odbrane Kantovog određenja prosvećenosti koje ukazuju, s jedne strane, na njegovu autorefleksivnost i, s druge, na njegovu neprolaznu aktuelnost. Posebna pažnja posvećuje se istorijskoj i tekstualnoj rekonstrukciji razumevanja javnosti kao uslova mogućnosti delotvornog angažovanja uma i racionalne organizacije društva. Zaključuje se da pitanje o prosvećenosti ostaje otvoreno, u meri da samom pojmu preti opasnost proizvoljne upotrebe pod potpuno nejasnim semantičkim pravilima, ali i da neprekidne reinterpretacije Kantovog pokušaja njegovog definisanja svedoče o nezaobilaznosti te instance, s obzirom na koju su se – priznanjem njene merodavnosti, preadaptacijom ili odbacivanjem – iskušavala, artikulisala i profilisala i od nje drugačija shvatanja prosvećenosti i njenih orijentira. AB - The author analyzes the key terms of Kant's definition of enlightenment: immaturity, guilt, humanity, laziness, cowardice, bravery, and others. The first part of the paper presents the criticisms that challenge every reasonable character of Kant's conception of enlightenment. After that, these critiques are confronted with the defenses of Kant's definition of enlightenment that points out, on the one hand, its self-reflectivity and, on the other, its everlasting actuality. Special attention is paid to the historical and textual reconstruction of the understanding of public as a condition of the possibilities for the effective engagement of the mind and the rational organization of society. It is concluded that the question of enlightenment remains open, to the extent that the danger of arbitrary use under a completely vague semantic rules threatening the very notion of enlightenment. Continuous reinterpretations of Kant's attempt to define it, however, are also testimonies of an unavoidable instance, with respect to which – by recognition of its relevance, its rearranging or rejection – different conceptions of enlightenment and its landmarks were tempted, articulated and established. T2 - Theoria T1 - Odgovor na pitanje: kako je moguća prosvećenost? T1 - An Answer to the Question: How Enlightenment is Possible? IS - 4 VL - 57 SP - 105 EP - 124 DO - 10.2298/THEO1404105K ER -
@article{ author = "Krstić, Predrag", year = "2014", abstract = "Autor članka analizira ključne termine Kantove definicije prosvećenosti: nezrelost, vođstvo drugoga, krivicu, čovečnost, lenjost, kukavičluk, hrabrost i druge. U prvom delu rada se izlažu kritike koje osporavaju svaki razložan karakter Kantove koncepcije prosvećenosti. Njima se potom suprotstavljaju odbrane Kantovog određenja prosvećenosti koje ukazuju, s jedne strane, na njegovu autorefleksivnost i, s druge, na njegovu neprolaznu aktuelnost. Posebna pažnja posvećuje se istorijskoj i tekstualnoj rekonstrukciji razumevanja javnosti kao uslova mogućnosti delotvornog angažovanja uma i racionalne organizacije društva. Zaključuje se da pitanje o prosvećenosti ostaje otvoreno, u meri da samom pojmu preti opasnost proizvoljne upotrebe pod potpuno nejasnim semantičkim pravilima, ali i da neprekidne reinterpretacije Kantovog pokušaja njegovog definisanja svedoče o nezaobilaznosti te instance, s obzirom na koju su se – priznanjem njene merodavnosti, preadaptacijom ili odbacivanjem – iskušavala, artikulisala i profilisala i od nje drugačija shvatanja prosvećenosti i njenih orijentira., The author analyzes the key terms of Kant's definition of enlightenment: immaturity, guilt, humanity, laziness, cowardice, bravery, and others. The first part of the paper presents the criticisms that challenge every reasonable character of Kant's conception of enlightenment. After that, these critiques are confronted with the defenses of Kant's definition of enlightenment that points out, on the one hand, its self-reflectivity and, on the other, its everlasting actuality. Special attention is paid to the historical and textual reconstruction of the understanding of public as a condition of the possibilities for the effective engagement of the mind and the rational organization of society. It is concluded that the question of enlightenment remains open, to the extent that the danger of arbitrary use under a completely vague semantic rules threatening the very notion of enlightenment. Continuous reinterpretations of Kant's attempt to define it, however, are also testimonies of an unavoidable instance, with respect to which – by recognition of its relevance, its rearranging or rejection – different conceptions of enlightenment and its landmarks were tempted, articulated and established.", journal = "Theoria", title = "Odgovor na pitanje: kako je moguća prosvećenost?, An Answer to the Question: How Enlightenment is Possible?", number = "4", volume = "57", pages = "105-124", doi = "10.2298/THEO1404105K" }
Krstić, P.. (2014). Odgovor na pitanje: kako je moguća prosvećenost?. in Theoria, 57(4), 105-124. https://doi.org/10.2298/THEO1404105K
Krstić P. Odgovor na pitanje: kako je moguća prosvećenost?. in Theoria. 2014;57(4):105-124. doi:10.2298/THEO1404105K .
Krstić, Predrag, "Odgovor na pitanje: kako je moguća prosvećenost?" in Theoria, 57, no. 4 (2014):105-124, https://doi.org/10.2298/THEO1404105K . .