Karel Kosík

In this article the author starts from the notion of ‘national roads to Socialism’ in its two fundamental meanings – the political-tactical and the theoretical. He seeks to demonstrate, using the Czech example, the complicated dynamic development of the central themes of the ‘ideological whirlwinds’ of the twentieth century which are concentrated in the terms ‘revolution’ and ‘national emancipation’. To this end he focuses on two important Czech Communist political thinkers and activists – the historian, musicologist, and minister in post-war Czechoslovak governments, Zdeněk Nejedlý (1878–1962), and the philosopher and essayist Karel Kosík (1926–2003) – each of whom, with regard to their generations and their lives in general, represents a different Czech radical left-wing intellectual approach to the challenges of his times. Each man, in his own distinctive way, sought to formulate the prerequisites and conceptual framework of the Czechoslovak, or Czech, ‘national road’ to Socialism, but also to warn about pitfalls. With his early post-Second World War conception of Czechoslovak Communists as the heirs of progressive national traditions, Nejedlý sought to show how the legacy of the Hussite Revolution of the fifteenth century and the National Awakening of the nineteenth century was currently relevant to Communist policy. Indeed, on the whole he succeeded in linking it with Communist Party efforts to achieve the historical legitimation of their government and thus create the official framework of the interpretation of Czech history which remained authoritatively valid throughout the 1950s. Kosík, by contrast, first attempted, from radically left-wing positions, to work out alternative, implicitly polemical conceptions of national revolutionary continuity, which sought inspiration amongst Czech radical democrats and their revolutionary expression in 1848, and he thus became, from the late 1950s, one of the chief representatives of Marxist revisionism in Czechoslovakia, a philosopher-critic of Stalinism and the dehumanization of modern man and woman under the pressure of abstract ideologies and the apparatus of power and the bureaucracy, eventually earning the reputation of the philosopher of the Prague Spring of 1968. The author does not seek to portray these two figures exhaustively; instead, his aim is to provide the basic contours of how each tried to solve the dilemma between the nationally particular and the revolutionarily universal, which all Communist and radical Socialists thinkers of their time faced and somehow had to come to terms with. The author sets the intellectual and creative development of these two figures into the wider political context from the end of the Second World War to the Prague Spring.

The article starts from the notion of ‘national roads to Socialism’ in its two fundamental meanings – the political-tactical and the theoretical. It seeks to demonstrate, using the Czech example, the complicated dynamic development of the central themes of the ‘ideological whirlwinds’ of the twentieth century which are concentrated in the terms ‘revolution’ and ‘national emancipation’. To this end the author focuses on two important Czech Communist political thinkers and activists – the historian, musicologist, and minister in post-war Czechoslovak governments, Zdeněk Nejedlý (1878–1962), and the philosopher and essayist Karel Kosík (1926–2003) – each of whom, with regard to their generations and their lives in general, represents a different Czech radical left-wing intellectual approach to the challenges of his times. Each man, in his own distinctive way, sought to formulate the prerequisites and conceptual framework of the Czechoslovak, or Czech, ‘national road’ to Socialism, but also to warn about pitfalls. With his early post-Second World War conception of Czechoslovak Communists as the heirs of progressive national traditions, Nejedlý sought to show how the legacy of the Hussite Revolution of the fifteenth century and the National Awakening of the nineteenth century was currently relevant to Communist policy. Indeed, on the whole he succeeded in linking it with Communist Party efforts to achieve the historical legitimation of their government and thus create the official framework of the interpretation of Czech history which remained authoritatively valid throughout the 1950s. Kosík, by contrast, first attempted, from radically left-wing positions, to work out alternative, implicitly polemical conceptions of national revolutionary continuity, which sought inspiration amongst Czech radical democrats and their revolutionary expression in 1848, and he thus became, from the late 1950s, one of the chief representatives of Marxist revisionism in Czechoslovakia, a philosopher-critic of Stalinism and the dehumanization of modern man and woman under the pressure of abstract ideologies and the apparatus of power and the bureaucracy, eventually earning the reputation of the philosopher of the Prague Spring of 1968. The author does not seek to portray these two figures exhaustively; instead, his aim is to provide the basic contours of how each tried to solve the dilemma between the nationally particular and the revolutionarily universal, which all Communist and radical Socialists thinkers of their time faced and somehow had to come to terms with. The author sets the intellectual and creative development of these two figures into the wider political context from the end of the Second World War to the Prague Spring.

Las reflexiones de este libro fueron redactadas entre 1991 y 1997, cuando después de la caída del bloque socialista Kosik fue reintegrado a la actividad académica, pero, sobre todo, cuando por fin se le permitió escribir y salir del silencio para expresar reflexiones realmente profundas y lúcidas, guardadas secretamente en su pensamiento, como cuidándolas del enemigo, y maduradas forzosamente a lo largo de casi dos décadas. Las 245 páginas que componen el texto se encuentran cargadas de riqueza reflexiva. Se puede tener la seguridad de que se leerá a un autor que piensa desde otro nivel, un autor lleno de ideas, inspirador, que piensa cosas de un manera profundamente radical.

Nildo Viana, neste livro, remonta grande parte dos textos que abordam a crise do Marxismo, desde o início do século XX até recentemente. Discute as teses de Rosa Luxemburgo, Karl Korsch, Isaac Deutscher, Perry Anderson, Agnes Heller, Ernest Laclau, André Gorz, entre outros, mostrando seus equívocos e encerrando com a tese polêmica segundo a qual o Marxismo não está em crise, pois o que ocorre é que ele está chegando ao seu fim. Além deste ensaio polêmico, 'O fim do Marxismo e outros ensaios' apresenta também textos sobre o Jovem Marx, Karel Kosik e Mão Tse-Tung.


O conjunto de ensaios que compõem o presente livro possui como temática o marxismo. O marxismo surge no século 19 e se desenvolve no século 20. Em toda sua história se escreve sobre sua crise. Porém, sustentamos que o marxismo não está em crise e sim se aproxima do seu fim. O século 21 será o século do fim do marxismo. Assim, já que o marxismo está próximo de deixar de existir, então nada mais necessário do que analisar e perceber o significado deste acontecimento. Além disso, refletir sobre a histó-ria do marxismo e de suas deformações durante o século 20, bem como resgatar a sua unicidade, que muitos epígonos de Marx buscaram desfazer, se torna necessário. Sendo assim, o conjunto de ensaios aqui reunidos é necessário para se repensar o marxismo nu-ma época que o seu fim se aproxima.

El filósofo checo Karel Kosík (1926-2003) desempeñó un rol prominente en el seno del movimiento de oposición a los regímenes de Novotný y Husák, contribuyendo tanto a la gestación como a la pervivencia de los anhelos expresados por la población checoslovaca du-rante la Primavera de Praga. Junto a la contextualización histórica de su obra, se pone también de manifiesto cómo Marx y Heidegger incidieron con igual relevancia en la conformación de su pensamiento. La filosofía de Kosík reviste por ello una singularidad propia que la aleja de las versiones tradicionales del humanismo marxista predominantes a mediados del siglo pasado en el bloque oriental y occidental.

Kniha Podzim postmodernismu je souborem dvanácti studií z oblasti filosofie, politologie, estetiky a literární vědy. Impulsem k sestavení knihy byla konference Cesty z postmodernismu? Postmodernismus, kapitalismus, utopie, která se konala 13. prosince 2013. Smyslem setkání filosofů, politologů a estetiků byla diskuse nad knihou Michaela Hausera Cesty z postmodernismu. Filosofická reflexe doby přechodu (Filosofia, Praha 2012), v níž autor představil svou koncepci překonání rozporů a jednostranností postmoderního myšlení. Příspěvky, které na konferenci zazněly (V. Bělohradského, J. Pechara, J. Fialy, J. Stejskala a R. Kandy), však tvoří menší část předkládané publikace. Ta se díky tvůrčímu podílu dalších oslovených autorů, kteří se tehdy debaty aktivně nezúčastnili, podstatně rozrostla a změnila se také její původně zamýšlená koncepce. [The Autumn of Postmodernism. Thoughts on Michael Hauser’s Book Roads out of Postmodernism (and More) (Podzim postmodernismu. Úvahy [nejen] nad knihou Michaela Hausera Cesty z postmodernismu) is a collection of twelve studies from the fields of philosophy, politology, aesthetics, and literary studies. The inspiration to compile this book lay in the conference Roads out of Postmodernism? Postmodernism, Capitalism, and Utopia (Cesty z postmodernismu? Postmodernismus, kapitalismus, utopie) held on December 13th, 2013. The purpose of this meeting of philosophical, political, and aesthetic scholars was to discuss Michael Hauser’s book Roads out of Postmodernism: A Philosophical Reflection on a Time of Transition (Cesty z postmodernismu. Filosofická reflexe doby přechodu, Filosofia, Praha 2012), in which the author presented his approach for overcoming the contradictions and biases in postmodern thought. However, the contributions read at this conference (by V. Bělohradský, J. Pechar, J. Fiala, J. Stejskal, and R. Kanda) comprise only the minority of the publication presented here. Authors who had not actively taken part in the debate at the time were approached, and thus the publication grew substantially in size—and took on a design different from that originally intended.]

En el presente artículo abordamos la confrontación que ciertos autores pertenecientes al llamado marxismo occidental mantuvieron con la concepción de la vida cotidiana de “término medio” (Durchschnittlichkeit) de Ser y tiempo (1927). Nos centramos principalmente en la obra del filósofo checo Karel Kosík (1926-2003), quien, a lo largo de su trayectoria intelectual, llevó a cabo una recepción crítica de la analítica existencial heideggeriana, así como también en los aspectos divergentes y convergentes entre la concepción de la cotidianidad de Martin Heidegger y de György Lukács. En la última sección, se apuntan las posibles sendas de encuentro para un develamiento fenomenológico-marxista de la “verdad” de la cotidianidad.

Al fondo di questo studio è il tema della libertà, del suo emergere sotto forma di esperienza difficile e rischiosa. Saggiando la profondità di tale questione diviene possibile individuare l’autentico contenuto etico dell’opera di Jan Patočka, chiarendone i legami con la fenomenologia, la storia della filosofia, la politica, la pratica del dissenso. La disamina si arricchisce ulteriormente attraverso il confronto con altre tradizioni di pensiero, come il lavoro intellettuale di Karel Kosík e la tradizione fenomenologica milanese, più volte intersecatesi con la vita e la filosofia di Patočka, fino a definire una trama concettuale raramente tematizzata. Procedendo da queste premesse, Il rischio della libertà – espressione che parafrasa quanto lo stesso filosofo ceco scrisse negli anni cinquanta – si propone di ripercorrere l’itinerario del pensiero patočkiano, con l’intento di fornire una nuova chiave di lettura in grado di delinearne gli aspetti più noti e chiari, così come di metterne in luce i contenuti più problematici e meno evidenti.

The aim of this article is to shed light on the reflections that Czech Marxist philosopher Karel Kosík dedicated to literature, and particularly to the writings of Franz Kafka, from the 1960s to the 1990s. More specifically, this article clarifies whether and how Kafka’s work influenced Kosík’s philosophy of praxis and critique of modern society.

Pretendeu-se apreender a tese marxista de interdependência entre subjetividade e objetividade,
entre as condições materiais de reprodução social e a formação das consciências humanas.
Sendo o trabalho a esfera central na produção e reprodução social, as condições postas
materialmente para que o trabalho seja executado, incidirão na própria subjetividade humana, na
forma de interação entre homem e natureza. Longe de ter um caráter exclusivamente econômico,
a perspectiva marxista considera como indispensável para analisar a sociedade a subjetividade
humana, os sentimentos e as emoções que perpassam e conduzem as relações sociais. Todavia,
não se confunde subjetividade com moralismo ou eticismo, como se os sentimentos e a
consciência humana brotassem do vácuo, ou fossem inseridos num ciclo vicioso e formassem
uma fórmula tautológica entre estes, um gerando e sendo gerado pela outro. É preciso analisar de
forma dialética a relação da consciência humana com as atividades práticas e as condições
estabelecidas que as influenciam e limitam. Deve-se romper com uma visão idealista, trazendo o
homem concreto para sua realidade concreta, para seus problemas terrenos e, a partir daqui,
conduzir as categorias para um entendimento da totalidade.

One of the pivotal issues in the thought of Karel Kosík is that of praxis. Although various interpreters have recognised the centrality of this notion and identified its affinity with other theories of praxis drawn from the traditions of Marxism and Critical Theory, an examination of the overall meaning of praxis in Kosík’s output is still missing. This chapter aims at filling this gap by looking at three different stages of Kosík’s reflection. First, I will clarify the meaning and function of the idea of praxis, as well as its relationship with the concepts of theory and labour, in Dialectics of the Concrete (1963). I will then address Kosík’s subsequent works until the failure of the Prague Spring (1964–69), in order to understand how his interpretation of praxis evolved throughout these crucial years of intellectual and political turmoil. I will conclude with an analysis of Kosík’s late output (post-1989) that will reveal both the elements of continuity and the radical transformations that his reflection underwent.

This is the final proof of the chapter 6 of Karel Kosik and Dialectics of the Concrete (Eds. Joe. G. Feinberg, Ivan Landa, Jan Mervart). The paper analyzes Karel Kosik's criticism of existentialism and the concept of "care". Kosik's criticism is based on a Marxian holistic stance pertaining to categories of labour, abstract labour, and concrete labour.

The Czech Marxist philosopher Karel Kosík was a humanist. He was also a humanist who problematised the meaning of the human. The central tensions of humanism run through Kosík’s work. Kosík held up the human being as a transcendent ideal in contrast with an alienating reality, even while he pointed toward the historical contingency of this transcendent ideal. Kosík never fully resolved this tension, but he pointed to one possibility for resolution. In his notion of ‘democracy’, especially ‘radical democracy’, a term emerges that mediates between the absolute, abstract human ideal and the relative, concretely alienated person. This term, ‘the people’, points to an alternative conception of humanity, grounded in social form and emancipatory struggle. If the people’s activity is ‘radical’, it reaches for humanity’s roots.

The file uploaded here is a draft before typesetting. The final version is available here: https://brill.com/view/book/9789004503243/BP000010.xml (or contact the author).

Full citation: Feinberg, Joseph Grim. “And the ‘Thing Itself’ Is Man: Radical Democracy and the Roots of Humanity.” In Karel Kosík and the Dialectics of the Concrete, ed. Joseph Grim Feinberg, Ivan Landa, and Jan Mervart, Leiden: Brill, 2022, pp. 187–204.

Cet article examine les liens entre, pour l’aspect technique, le plan séquence et le montage, et, pour l’aspect philosophico-historique, la vie quotidienne et la politique mondiale, du point de vue d’une profanation capable de désamorcer la puissance et avec une attention particulière portée à l’unique film expérimental de Pasolini : La sequenza del fiore di (1968). Ce court métrage n’a pas seulement un statut spécial dans la filmographie de Pasolini, il marque aussi un tournant du tragique vers un ton comique/pessimiste de son cinéma profanateur. Cet article révèle aussi une réception inattendue de Heidegger, par l’intermédiaire du marxisme heideggerien de Karel Kosik et d’une conception benjaminienne du profane fondée sur l’idée de bonheur.

Politik felsefe ve diyalektik arasındaki bağlantı üzerinden “politik felsefe”yi tanımlama çabası geliştirmek, çeşitli zorlukları yanında getirir. Yeterince tartışmalı olan politik felsefe kavramının, en az onun kadar kapsamlı tartışmalara konu olan bir başka kavram olan diyalektikle ilişkilendirilmesi politik felsefenin ne olduğuna dair hızlı ve belirgin bir yanıt verilmesini sağlamaz. Aksine, her iki alanda yapılan tartışmaları daha da karmaşık hale getirir. Üstüne üstlük, bu iki alan arasında ilişki kurmak kendi içinde kimi zorlukları barındırır: Politik felsefe, politik düşünme ve politik olan gibi kavramlar üzerine özgül bir düşünce geliştiren teorisyenler diyalektikle mesafelidirler. Hannah Arendt, Hegel diyalektiği konusunda temkinlidir, Carl Schmitt diyalektiğe nadiren değinir, Chantal Mouffe ise diyalektiğe olumlu bir anlam yüklese de G. W. F. Hegel’in ya da Hegel esinli Marksistlerin yaptığının aksine diyalektik bütünlük anlayışını reddeder. Hegel, Karl Marx ya da György Lukács gibi önde gelen diyalektikçilerse “politik felsefe” ya da “politik olan” gibi kavramlar üzerine ayrıntılı bir inceleme geliştirmemişlerdir. Bu yazıda, diyalektik bir politik felsefe incelemesi için genel bir çerçeve çizmek amaçlanıyor.

El filósofo checo Karel Kosík (1926-2003) llevó a cabo en su obra una recepción crítica del pensamiento de Martin Heidegger. En determinados capítulos de Dialéctica de lo concreto (1963), así como en otros ensayos tardíos, elaboró una crítica de la analítica existencial heideggeriana, principalmente a la concepción de la estructura del ser del Dasein como “preocupación” o “cuidado” (Sorge). Nos ocupamos aquí de dilucidar el sentido y el alcance de esta crítica a Ser y tiempo (1927).

El concepto de "maquinación" (Machenschaft) ocupa un lugar central en la obra de Heidegger durante el período comprendido entre 1936 y 1940. En su análisis de la esencia de la época moderna, el filósofo checo de orientación marxista Karel Kosík se apropia de importantes elementos conceptuales procedentes de esta etapa del pensamiento de Heidegger. En concreto, emplea nociones análogas a la de “maquinación”, como "sistema de manipulabilidad". Ponemos de relieve las semejanzas y puntos de fricción en la descripción de la esencia de la época moderna de ambos pensadores, así como sus respectivas propuestas para poner coto a la primacía técnica y al pensamiento calculador y las resonancias políticas derivadas de sus análisis.

Although Jan Patočka often addressed Marx's thought, as well as the intellectual and historical development of Marxism, up till now the reasons for his interest, as well as the outcomes of his investigation, have seldom been made the object of analysis. 1 The aim of this chapter is to begin to fill this gap by clarifying the various aspects of the complex bond between Patočka's thought, Marx's and Marxism as well as the importance of the latter two in the economy of Patočka's philosophy. To do this, I will use the idea of history as a pivot concept, in order to show how the various interpretations of the meaning of history given by Marx, Marxist philosophers, and by Patočka himself, might be useful in helping us grasp both the similarities and the differences between these philosophical projects. To do this, I will proceed through several steps: I will first analyse Patočka's initial encounter with Marx's philosophy, which dates back to the 1930s and was mediated by the work of Ludwig Landgrebe. Second, I will provide a sketch of Patočka's critique of the theoretical and political development of Marxism, through the concept of radical supercivilisation, and his following analysis of the aporias into which historical materialism run up and their possible overcoming. I will then compare Patočka's understanding of the meaning of history, developed in his late output, with the insight into this same problem provided by Karel Kosík, who by developing a critique of the materialistic understanding of history fostered an internal reform of Marxism, aimed at overcoming its dogmatic traits. Finally I will conclude by showing how Patočka's heretical understanding of history can be interpreted as a positive answer to his critique of historical materialism.

Educational studies in Brazil have a strong tradition based on Marxist dialectical thinkers as Gramsci, Lukács and  Kosik.  One  of  the  most  significant  Marxist  approaches  in  the  field  of  pedagogical  theories  in  Brazil  is called  Historical-Critical  Pedagogy.  The  non-critical  educational  approaches defend an  almost  immediate identification of the school contents and methods with the pragmatic needs emerged in everyday practices and this perspective  ignores  the dialectics  phenomena-essence  and takes the pseudo-concrete  as the real
concrete. Historical-Critical Pedagogy takes the opposite direction and understands that the way to engage school  education  in  a  transformative  social  praxis is to organize  the school  curriculum  in  order  to  provide the conceptual tools required to take the “detour” that Kosik, based on Marx, considered necessary for human beings to grasp the essence of social reality. This paper will be an attempt to explore the points of intersection between Dialectics of Concrete and Historical-Critical Pedagogy.

This call is no longer current -- the volume in question should appear in the fall of 2021. But if you work in this area, I'd still be interested in hearing about your research. 

In recent years there has been an increasing level of interest in connections between phenomenology and political philosophy, including the very idea of 'the political' itself. In this context, a wide-ranging body of new work has appeared, much of it engaging productively with emerging tendencies in political theory. What is largely absent from these developments, however, is a serious encounter between phenomenology and Marxism as a philosophical tradition. This absence is all the more notable inasmuch as there is currently a general resurgence of interest in Marxist ideas as providing a framework for the critical analysis of the contemporary world. There is, to be sure, an older tradition of phenomenological Marxism that includes many important contributions. But much of that work is now rather dated in terms of the salient political issues, as well as with regard to current levels of scholarship within the phenomenological tradition. What motivated those contributions, however, remains as pertinent as ever, if not more so—to wit, the recognition of important methodological and philosophical complementarities between a phenomenological analysis of lived experience and a Marxist approach to understanding the historical dynamics of capitalist society.

This volume is intended to gather together new work aiming to revitalize the tradition of phenomenological Marxism (or Marxist phenomenology) by combining cutting-edge scholarship that is fresh and rigorous, with a lucid sensitivity for the practical no less than the theoretical complementarity of the respective traditions. The emphasis will be on philosophical issues as opposed to political-economy as such, but in ways that are not oblivious to the political-economic realities of our time. Although historically-oriented and figure-focused contributions are welcome, preference will be given to proposals having substantive consequences that advance important contemporary debates.

Çalışma üç bölümden oluşmaktadır. İlk bölümde diyalektiği yenileme çabalarının kısa bir tarihçesine, ikinci bölümde ise nedensellik-özgürlük ilişkisine dair yapılan tartışmalara yer verilecektir. Üçüncü bölümde bu dönemin sosyalist demokrasi tanımları ele alınacaktır. Çalışmanın bütününde, Orta ve Doğu Avrupa tarihinde “1968” momentinin “Varşova Paktı’nın Çekoslovakya’ya müdahalesi”ne indirgenerek incelenemeyeceği, 1968’in zengin bir entelektüel birikimin doruk noktasına ulaştığı tarih olarak anlaşılması gerektiği savunulacak, bu birikimin göz ardı edilmesinin tüm Avrupa tarihinde “1968” momentinin düşünsel boyutunun yeterince kavranamamasına neden olacağı vurgulanacaktır. Çalışmada ele alınan yazarlar kimi düşünce tarihçileri tarafından “revizyonizm” başlığı altında incelenmiştir.  Eduard Bernstein’ın XIX. yüzyıl sonunda yaptığı “Marksizm’i revize etme” çağrısına referans yapan, 1950’lerin ve 1960’ların resmi parti ideologları tarafından kullanılan bu terim, dönemin eleştirel Marksist düşünürlerinin tavırlarını yeterince yansıtmamaktadır. Sözkonusu düşünürlerin Marksizm’in güncelliğini yitirmiş yönlerini revize etmekten bahsetmek yerine mekanik materyalizm yorumlarını reddederek Marx’ın eserlerine atıfla diyalektiği güncellemeyi hedefledikleri düşünülürse, onların düşüncesinin Marksizm içinde “yenilikçi ortodoks”  bir hatta tekabül ettiğini söylenmek daha doğru olur.

El texto hace un análisis de los principales puntos de la obra del filósofo checo Karel Kosik, principalamente en su obra Dialéctica de lo concreto, especialmente en los conceptos de praxis y pseudo-concreción, así como en su última obra importante, Reflexiones antediluvianas.
El texto pone a prueba la tesis de que Kosik realiza una interacción crítica entre los conceptos de praxis y de poíesis, es decir, se muestra cómo Kosik enriquece ambos conceptos al convertir al agregar a la praxis características propias de la poíesis, y viceversa

El problema de la subjetividad es un tópico altamente tratado por la filosofía moderna, la cual lo considera una función central del entendimiento humano. En esta línea, el objeto del presente trabajo es realizar una interpretación comprensiva de la propuesta metodológica del filósofo checo Karel Kosik, a través del concepto de praxis en tanto autoconstrucción consciente del ser humano en su dimensión objetiva y subjetiva, comprendiendo el devenir como totalidad. Para esto, nos centraremos en su trabajo Dialéctica de lo concreto donde se reconocen las aportaciones sistematizadas que nos permiten sostener a la subjetividad como praxis y así considerar críticamente sus aportes al marxismo.

......

The problem of subjectivity is a topic highly treated by modern philosophy, which considers it a central function of human understanding. In this line, the object of the present work is to perform a comprehensive interpretation of the methodological proposal of the Czech philosopher Karel Kosik, through the concept of praxis and selfaware of the human being in its objective and subjective dimension, understanding the evolution as a whole. For this, we will focus on his work Dialectic of the concrete where the systematized contributions that allow us to sustain subjectivity as praxis are recognized and thus critically consider his contributions to Marxism.

Les rapports entre marxisme et phénoménologie ont constitué un axe fondamental du débat culturel européen, dans les années 1960 et 1970. Dans la France de l’après-guerre, Sartre et Merleau-Ponty faisaient
déjà référence, sur le plan de la fondation théorique, à la tradition phénoménologique de Husserl et de Heidegger, et sur le plan de l’engagement civil, au marxisme. Trần Đức Thảo, élève de Merleau- Ponty, mettra en place dès 1951 une première synthèse de ces deux paradigmes dans son Phénoménologie et matérialisme dialectique. Onze années après, Jean-Toussaint Desanti reviendra sur l’exigence d’une convergence entre phénoménologie et marxisme. En Italie, puis en Allemagne, d’autres tentatives vont émerger. Ce volume a pour ambition de proposer une synthèse sur le sujet. Il vise également à promouvoir une première réflexion historique sur le courant philosophique qui, pendant au moins deux décennies, a occupé la scène intellectuelle, et à évaluer son héritage dans le débat contemporain.

Die Zielsetzung dieses Vortrages besteht darin, das Denken Karel Kosíks in einer ungewöhnlichen Perspektive zu präsentieren, dabei gehe ich von meiner Analyse des Lachens und des Humors aus, die das Denken Kosík begleiten, wobei sie sich als ein unabdingbar menschliches Phänomen erweisen, das zu einer politischen Macht werden kann. Um diesem Problem eine größere Tiefe zu geben, habe ich einen Vergleich zwischen dem kosíkianischen Denken und der Position Bergsons gewählt, bezüglich des gleichen Themas habe ich versucht eine Analyse des Lachens zu skizzieren, um von seinen weniger eindeutigen und weniger offen-sichtlichen Aspekten auszugehen, die das Subjekt dazu bringen, sich von der Realität zu distanzieren, ohne jemals aufzuhören, in einer besonderen Art und Weise ein Teil von ihr zu sein. Diese komplizierte Lage wird durch die Figur des Soldaten Schwejk, insbesondere bei Kosík  unverzichtbar, um ihren Widerstand gegen die Idee des "großen Mechanismus", der die Gegenwart beherrscht, veranschaulicht.

Dans une volonté de renouer avec le dialogue entre phénoménologie et marxisme, très fructueux notamment dans les années 1960 et 1970, nous tenterons, dans cette étude comparative, de regarder de plus près l’une des tournures qu’il a prises, à savoir la question du rapport entre praxis et temporalité, notamment telle qu’elle est traitée dans La dialectique du concret (1963), œuvre maîtresse du philosophe tchèque Karel Kosík (1926-2003), philosophe marxiste fortement influencé par la phénoménologie heideggerienne, et dans Totalité et infini d’Emmanuel Levinas, phénoménologue qui s’inspire, pour traiter le problème du rapport entre le temps et l’œuvre, du marxisme utopique d’Ernst Bloch.
Open access: https://books.openedition.org/enseditions/16974

Mon livre
Le Printemps de Prague, 1968. Une révolution interrompue ?
paraît le 4 janvier 2021 dans la maison d’édition CODEX à Paris. On le trouve dans la base de données des librairies françaises dès décembre 2020  et on peut le commander :
http://www.arcadesdirect.fr/fr/histoire/36835-printemps-de-prague-1968-le-une-revolution-interrompue-.html 
Il a 176 pages et le prix est fixé à 18 euros.
Résumé :
Le Printemps de Prague de 1968 est un événement complexe, ambivalent et multiforme. On y découvre du meilleur et du pire. Il achève une époque où une réforme du communisme paraissait à certains encore possible. Il a marqué non seulement l’histoire des peuples tchèque et slovaque, l’histoire des pays communistes et du mouvement communiste mondial mais, de manière plus générale, le conflit entre l’Est et l’Ouest qui a dominé le « court XXe siècle ». Il ne s’agissait pas d’un simple « accident de parcours » sur le chemin de la « détente », comme l’ont proclamé à l’époque certains politiciens et diplomates occidentaux. Comme l’a constaté à juste titre l’historien français Antoine Marès, on peut même considérer la Tchécoslovaquie comme un « sismographe de l’Europe au XXe siècle ».
Pour résumer ce qui se passa entre janvier et août 1968 en Tchécoslovaquie, ce livre prend en compte trois niveaux foncièrement différents.
1) celui des instances dirigeantes du parti communiste et de l’État tchécoslovaques ;
2) celui des écrivains, des philosophes et des journalistes, les vrais promoteurs des changements qui furent assez rapidement rejoints par le public, y compris les ouvriers ;
3) celui de l’Union soviétique et de ses quatre satellites du Pacte de Varsovie qui se rendirent maîtres de la situation et « rétablirent l’ordre » (Milan Šimečka) à l’aide de leurs armées.
J’insère le Printemps de Prague dans les étapes de la contestation des régimes communistes en Europe du Centre-Est. L’ouverture partielle des archives après 1989 et la publication de très nombreux documents m’a permis de corriger, compléter, préciser ou nuancer l’image du Printemps de Prague et de ses protagonistes. Je laisse parler les acteurs du Printemps de Prague pour permettre aux lecteurs de saisir leurs idées, ainsi que l’ambiance générale. Les illusions des communistes réformistes et des marxistes révisionnistes sont disséquées.
Ensuite, d’autres questions présentant un intérêt de portée générale, sont abordées. Entre autres les réactions des pays communistes (et de leurs partis dirigeants) qui n’ont pas prêté leur concours à l’invasion militaire soviétique : en Europe la Roumanie, l’Albanie et la Yougoslavie ; les réactions des pays communistes d’Asie ; l’attitude des dirigeants des partis communistes de certains pays démocratiques ; last but not least les réactions des dirigeants de certains pays occidentaux.
L’ouvrage analyse aussi la place des pays successeurs de la Tchécoslovaquie dans l’Union européenne de nos jours. Ce livre est accessible à tout lecteur cultivé.
Miroslav Novák a enseigné de 1990 à 2014 à l’Université Charles de Prague, où il est devenu le premier Professeur ordinaire de science politique. Actuellement, il est Professeur à l’Academia rerum civilium à Kutná Hora (CZ). Parmi ses nombreuses publications en langue française, on peut mentionner Du Printemps de Prague au Printemps de Moscou (Genève, Georg, coll. Lug, 1990, 484 p.) et, plus récemment, « Systèmes partisans compétitifs : quelle divergence entre Duverger et Sartori ? », Revue française de science politique, vol. 65, no 3/2015, pp. 447-467 ou « Au-delà de l’élitisme et du populisme », Pp. 111-129 in: Marc Feix, Marie-Jo Thiel et Paul H. Dembinski (dir.), Peuple et populisme, identité et nation (Strasbourg, Presses universitaires de Strasbourg, coll. Chemins d’éthique, 2020).