ABSTRACT: Aesthetic disinterestedness is one of the central concepts in aesthetics, and Jerome Stolnitz, the most prominent theorist of disinterestedness in the 20th century, has claimed that (i) ancient thinkers engagement with this notion was cursory and undeveloped, and consequently, (ii) the emergence of disinterestedness in the 18th century marks the birth of aesthetics as a discipline. In this paper, I use the extant works of Epicurus to show that the ancient philosopher not only had similar concepts, but also motivated (...) them in careful and complex ways. I argue that, in the Epicurean theoretical framework, arts belong to the category of ‘merely natural’ desires, and this classification, combined with what we know of Epicurus’ rejection of art criticism, shows he had carefully worked out reasons supporting the idea that art ought to be approached terminally, rather than instrumentally. Finally, I compare the notion of aesthetic disinterestedness with Epicurus’ views on arts and argue that in many ways the latter are not inferior to the former, and therefore ought to belong to the history of aesthetics. (shrink)

In the article foundations of evolutionary theory of a jesuit and a philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin are analysed as formed by the use of language. The theory as well as its main concepts are shortly presented as given in “The Phenomenon of Man”. The struggles of Teilhard de Chardin met in the attempt to describe the idea of the world’s evolutionary development are emphasized. It is shown that language itself is “against” the author’s attempts and that it creates it (...) own metaphysics. (shrink)

In the thesis a description of the other person as a phenomenon of icon in thinking of a contemporary French philosopher Jean-Luc Marion is researched. A question is raised how the icon (as Marion describes it) can be recognized in the face of the other. A notion of “iconic visibility” is accepted and employed to study how phenomenal “structure” of the first icon – Christ – repeats itself in the face of the other. Main features allowing to interpret the face (...) as the icon from the phenomenological and not theological point of view are displayed. “Subject” capable of recognizing the icon is researched in detail. It is argumented why the gifted should not be considered to be a passive object-like givee and why the other is not the only active subject-like pole of the phenomenon. Features of Marion’s conception of the icon which determine the initial lack of evidence of the phenomenon are disclosed. It is shown that the difficulty of recognition of the icon is inherent to the description of the phenomenon. The role of the phenomenon of love for the appearing of the icon is highlighted and Marion’s conception of love is discussed. A possibility to demonstrate the icon as a final and inevitable interpretation of the face of the other was not found. It is reasoned that the possibility of such demonstration is prohibited in the very definition of the phenomenon. In spite of that it was shown how such a phenomenon may appear, therefore, lack of proof does not deny the possibility of appearing. (shrink)