Analyzes the relationship between humanity and the natural world from the point of view of philosophy and examines the dehumanization of nature in Western civilization The quest of this volume is one of recalling what we have thus hidden ...

I draw on the resources of Husserlian phenomenology to argue that the way humans constitute nature as a meaningful whole by their purposive presence as hunter/gatherers (nature as mysterium tremendum), as herdsmen/farmers (nature as partner), and as producer/consumers (nature as resource) affects the way they respond to its distress—as to a resource failure, as a to flawed relationship, or asto a fate from which “only a god could save us.” I find all three responses wanting and look to a different (...) experience, that of nature as an endangered species, as the ground for a more adequate response of accepting responsibility for our freedom, with the consequence of imposing ethical limits on the way that humans relate to all being, not to humans alone. (shrink)

What is the epistemological status of a world within which speaking to trees would appear as an appropriate behavior? It would be a world perceived as a community of autonomous beings worthy of respect. Such a world contrasts with the anthropocentric conception of the world as a value?free reservoir of raw materials, but neither worldview can or should claim descriptive accuracy. Both are equally ?manners of speaking? and the choice between them must rest on whether they are conducive to ecologically (...) constructive or ecologically destructive behavior. On that basis, speaking to trees is a legitimate, speaking of biomechanisms an illegitimate form of verbal behavior. (shrink)

I draw on the resources of Husserlian phenomenology to argue that the way humans constitute nature as a meaningful whole by their purposive presence as hunter/gatherers (nature as mysterium tremendum), as herdsmen/farmers (nature as partner), and as producer/consumers (nature as resource) affects the way they respond to its distress—as to a resource failure, as a to flawed relationship, or asto a fate from which “only a god could save us.” I find all three responses wanting and look to a different (...) experience, that of nature as an endangered species, as the ground for a more adequate response of accepting responsibility for our freedom, with the consequence of imposing ethical limits on the way that humans relate to all being, not to humans alone. (shrink)

Doom and Democracy: An Essay in Political Soteriology The essay explores the philosophical (metatheoretical) presuppositions of democratic social strategy in the current "apocalyptic age". Here democracy means a way of life based on the assumption that individual freedom, mutual respect and fundamental good will toward the other can be taken for granted; as a feasible and a desirable way of ordering human affairs. In this broadly cultural sense, democracy is an outgrowth of a deeply rooted consensus on the posture of (...) respect and good will toward all. Yet democracy, with its Enlightenment heritage of sober rationality, seems ill-equipped for dealing with apocalyptic threats. That what makes our age apocalyptic is truth denied. The arrogant posture of omnipotence leads to paralysis. A democratic strategy needs to be one that has the courage to face the truth and the commitment to deal heart and will with the finite tasks we recognise once we give up the arrogance of infinite ones. (shrink)

The term "nature myths" designates narratives presenting whatis as intelligible in terms of value and meaning. Such narratives function to motivate ecological activism by articulating such presuppositions as the conviction that what we do matters, destruction of nature is intrinsically wrong, and the possibility of nondestructive human beings. However, such narratives motivate only if they are regarded in some sense as true. The question is, in what sense? Not in an objectivist sense, since value-even if intrinsic-is a subject related reality. (...) Not in an idealist sense, since they respect the autonomy of reality. Nor in a "depth" sense of expressing an alleged "essential condition of guilt", since this would remain a positivist description, albeit one level removed. Instead, I propose treating nature myths as orienting the world and guiding human components therein. As such, nature myths can be said to be true or false inasmuch as they provide or fail to provide adequate guidance for sustainable coexistence with all of the Earth. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is not to theorize but to examine the primordial perceptions of “the rational” and “the irrational” on which our theoretical judgments are based. We do not question the importance of such judgments. But, unless they build on a clear experiential foundation—even if by inverting it—their results remain arbitrary. Whether we wish to deal with the real and the derivative, the true and the false, the good and the evil, or, as in our case, the rational (...) and the irrational, we need to begin with a clear apperception of the eidos each term articulates as lived experience. (shrink)

[Globalization: The human meaning of an inhuman. phenomenon].

[Some Notes on the Meaning of Dialogue.].

[Original Czech work on inter-human ethics].

[Notes on the Discussion of the “Spiritual Dimension of the Environment“].