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 ...

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)

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)

[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“].

[The curious friendship of positivism and phenomenology. in Czech thought].