Karel Kosík

Dialéctica de lo concreto. Estudio sobre los problemas del hombre y del mundo

Ed. Grijalbo, México 1967
(t. o.: Dialektika Konkreteniko)

INTRODUCCIÓN

El prólogo de esta edición, escrito por Adolfo Sánchez Vázquez, catedrático de filosofía de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México a quien corresponde también la traducción, expone el lugar que ocupa esta obra en la literatura marxista de aquellos años: se inscribe en el movimiento antidogmático y renovador del marxismo que (...) se registra (...) desde 1956; es decir, a partir del XX Congreso del Partido Comunista de la Unión Soviética (p. 11), pero no lo realiza, como se hizo habitual, a partir de los primeros escritos de Marx —el llamado joven Marx—, sino mediante una nueva valoración de las obras de su madurez, obtenida al enfrentar su pensamiento con los problemas planteados por la filosofía a lo largo del siglo XX (p.ej por la fenomenología de Husserl, el existencialismo y el estructuralismo). De este modo la filosofía de Kosik no puede ser considerada —transcribimos de nuevo un juicio del traductor— como un desvanecimiento de la línea divisoria entre marxismo y lo que le es ajeno a él (ibid.), pues arraiga en las mismas fuentes, si bien somete a análisis temas —nuevos o viejos— que escapan a una mirada dogmática (ibid.).

A FOOL AGAINST THE SYSTEM

THE GOOD SOLDIER ŠVEJK: A FOOL AGAINST THE SYSTEM

 “When Švejk subsequently described life in the lunatic asylum, he did so in exceptionally eulogistic terms: ‘I really don’t know why those loonies get so angry when they’re kept there. You can crawl naked on the floor, howl like a jackal, rage and bite. If anyone did this anywhere on the promenade people would be astonished, but there it’s the most common or garden thing to do. There’s a freedom there which not even Socialists have ever dreamed of.’” (Jaroslav Hašek, The Good Soldier Švejk).

The underlying political and, to some extent, ideological context of Hašek’s novel has been remarked by Karel Kosik in his essay Hašek and Kafka, in which he investigates on similarities (or differences) of Hašek’s Josef Švejk and Josef K. from Kafka’sTrial. Kosik wrote: “Švejk’s “odyssey under the honourable escort of two soldiers with bayonets” takes him from the Hradčany garrison jail along Neruda Street to Malá Strana and over Charles Bridge to Karlín. It is an interesting group of three people: two guards escorting a delinquent. From the opposite direction over Charles Bridge and up to Strahov, another trio makes its way. This is the threesome from Kafka’s Trial: two guards leading a “delinquent,” the bank clerk Josef K., to the Strahov quarries, where one of them will “thrust a knife into his heart.” Both groups pass through the same places, but meeting each other is impossible.” (Steiner).

These two escorts set in comparison are rather symbolic – the first one leading its “delinquent” to freedom, and the second one to death. Both characters are victims of the system and represent two different approaches to its supremacy. “Kafka’s man is walled into a labyrinth of petrified possibilities, alienated relationships and materialism of daily life, all these growing to supernaturally phantasmagoric dimensions, while he constantly and with unrelenting passion searches for  the truth. Kafka’s man is condemned to live in a world in which the only human dignity is the interpretation of that world; while other forces, beyond the control of any individual, determine the course of world’s change.” (Peter Steiner, Tropos Kynikos: Jaroslav Hašek’s “The Good Soldier Švejk”, Poetics Today, Vol. 19, No. 4, Winter, 1998). On the other hand Hašek’s character proves that“man, even in a reified form, is still man, and that man is both the object and the producer of reification… [That] man cannot be reduced to an object, he is more than a system.” (Ibid.). 

It seems that in order to fight the system, Švejk’s method proved to be more effective than that of Josef K.’s. This is not to say that Švejk did not try to understand the system. However, by being ignorant of it, or approaching it under the guise of a fool, he managed to stay outside of its destructive mechanisms. Josef  Švejk, unlike Josepf K., by using precisely the system’s own means, caused its inner erosion and thus led himself to freedom. Therefore, following his own words it is justified to say: Long live the fool! Long live  Josef  Švejk! 

SOURCE:http://artlark.org

LINDA CESANA – KAREL KOSÍK: PRAXIS E VERITÀ.

LINDA CESANA – KAREL KOSÍK: PRAXIS E VERITÀ. «L’UOMO SI REALIZZA, CIOÈ SI UMANIZZA NELLA STORIA».

24 dicembre 2015 ppci Lascia un commento

In questo articolo si tenterà di cogliere come la verità e la prassi si pongano ad oggetti focali della filosofia di Karel Kosík, e si cercherà di mostrare come ad oggi, questa possa fornire spunti filosofici preziosi per criticare il cosmo capitalistico odierno nella prospettiva dell’apertura di spazi sociali emancipati.
La verità è oggetto proprio della filosofia, rubricata da Kosík attività umana indispensabile, autonoma rispetto all’ideologia e alla scienza. Una filosofia che si trasformasse in ideologia, visione del reale che scaturisce da determinati assetti di potere (l’ideologia forgia il sentire comune, secondo la lezione marxiana per cui le idee dominanti sono espressione della classe dominante, trasformandosi in apologia dell’esistente) e che quindi s’interdice la via verso l’universale, cesserebbe di essere filosofia perché rinuncerebbe al suo carattere critico-rivoluzionario rispetto al presente e sarebbe costretta a zoppicare dietro alla vita, ossia a fare l’apologia del potere. L’ideologia, infatti, comporta mistificazione perché non conosce la fatica del pensiero. Kosík cerca in questo modo di smarcarsi dall’ideologizzazione filosofica del comunismo storico novecentesco con la sua idolatria del Partito, riconoscendo oltremodo uno spessore ideologico al «capitalismo democratico» in cui si plaude alla fine delle ideologie novecentesche nell’accettazione ideologica della conformazione mercatistica del mondo. Superando le angustie di una riduzione della filosofia a ideologismo, la filosofia recupera un’istanza veritativa come presa di posizione rispetto alla totalità storica e sociale attuale: «La filosofia viene volgarmente concepita come espressione della situazione, e non come verità reale»… Source:blog.petiteplaisance.it

Historism and Historicism

by Karel Kosik

Marx's famous fragment on classical Greek art shares the fate of many a brilliant thought: the sediment of commentaries and a frequent overstatement of the obvious have obscured its true sense.1 Was Marx investigating the significance and the timeless character of antique art? Was he attempting to solve problems of art and beauty? Is the quote in question an isolated expression or is it related to his other views? What is its proper meaning? Why do those commentators fail who consider only its literal immediacy and see it as an invitation to resolve the question of the ideal character of Greek art? And why do also those interpreters fail who consider Marx's immediate answer as satisfactory, without pausing to question why the manuscript abruptly breaks off in the middle of an idea?

Download pdf file here

ΠΟΙΟΣ ΕΙΝΑΙ Ο ΣΒΕΪΚ?

Χάσεκ και Κάφκα ήτοι o κόσμος του αλλόκοτου

του Κάρελ Koσίκ

Μετάφραση: Μάριος Δαρβίρας

[1. Κάφκα και Χάσεκ

Oι Χάσεκ και Κάφκα γεννήθηκαν την ίδια χρονιά στην ίδια πόλη, την Πράγα όπου και πέρασαν το μεγαλύτερο μέρος της ζωής τους. Η Πράγα ήταν επίσης η πόλη αυτή όπου περίπου στα χρόνια του Πρώτου Παγκοσμίου Πολέμου έγραψαν τα έργα τους για τα οποία αργότερα θα γίνονταν παγκοσμίως γνωστοί. Πέθαναν με διαφορά μόλις ενός χρόνου ό ένας από τον άλλο, στις αρχές τις δεκαετίας του ’20. Βεβαίως αυτές είναι επιφανειακές και συμπωματικές διαπιστώσεις και καθεαυτές δεν μας λένε και πάρα πολλά όσον αφορά στην σχέση των δύο δημιουργών.]

Το προγραμματικό αυτό όπως έχει χαρακτηριστεί από τον ίδιο δοκίμιο, του ανυπότακτου Τσέχου φιλοσόφου και ανθρωπιστή Κάρελ Κοσίκ (Karel Kosík, Πράγα 1926-2003), δημοσιεύτηκε για πρώτη φορά το έτος 1963 υπό τον τίτλο “Kdo je Svejk , Hašek a Kafka neboli groteskní svet” στο περιοδικό Πλάμεν , τεύχος 6. Εδώ παρουσιάζεται για πρώτη φορά στην ελληνική γλώσσα 

Όλο το μεταφρασμένο κείμενο εδώ

Man and Philosophy

Karel Kosík 

Written: 1965;
Source: The Autodidact Project;
First Published: Erich Fromm (ed.), Socialist Humanism: An International Symposium, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965, pp. 162-171.
Translated: Ronald Sanders.
Transcribed: Ralph Dumain.

Download article in pdf format here 

Ještě o Karlu Kosíkovi

Alena Wagnerová

K Listům 4/2006

Ve svém nepochybně záslužném článku k nedožitým osmdesátinám Karla Kosíka se Karel Hrubý dopouští podstatné chyby v tom, že Kosíkův vývoj začíná sledovat od jeho poválečného návratu z nacistického vězení a zcela pomíjí léta, která zatčení předcházela. Právě tyto roky jsou pro pochopení zrání Kosíkovy osobnosti, jeho politických a morálních postojů neodmyslitelné.

Kosík se totiž z nacistického vězení nevrátil jako přesvědčený komunista, jak to píše ve svém článku Hrubý, ale do vězení se jako přesvědčený komunista a člen odbojové organizace Předvoj dostal. A to je velmi podstatný rozdíl.

Zcela konkrétně se Kosík vrátil z terezínské Malé pevnosti, která pražskému gestapu sloužila jako pobočná věznice pro vězně ve vyšetřovacím řízení. Zde byla řada členů Předvoje

po svém zadržení v říjnu 1944 vězněna a převážena k výslechům do Prahy, ale zde se v nelidských podmínkách vězeňské každodennosti naplňovala i solidarita mezi členy skupiny, a tím potvrzovala morální východiska jejich dosavadního úsilí. Zde Kosík také 2. května 1945 zažil popravu řady svých blízkých kamarádů z odbojové organizace, které více méně náhodou sám ušel. Jim se do smrti cítil být morálně zavázán a tento závazek velmi podstatně ovlivňoval Kosíkův kritický postoj k vývoji po roce 1989, viz i titul jednoho z jeho posledních filosofických esejů Jinoch a smrt, jenž se k tomuto zážitku vztahuje.