118
RECENZE A REFERÁTY
letech o v l i v n ě n obecnou knlickoreaJistickou n á l a d o u , z d a koncepce s p o n t á n n o s t i p o z n á v a j í c í h o
subjektu není plodem této n á l a d y , zda skutečnost, že p ů v o d n ě psal o zákonech a principech
jsoucna a p o z n á n í , později v š a k t é m ě ř v ý h r a d n ě m í s t o toho o kategoriích jsoucna a p o z n á n í ,
s o u v i s í n ě j a k s t í m t o v ý v o j e m ( s r o v n e j s t r . 3 5 a 37) a t d . a t p .
P r o m a r x i s t u je s t u d i u m H a r t m a n n o v ý c h d ě l i p r a c í o jeho d í l e v e l m i p o d n ě t n é . M u s í
je o v š e m studovat s c í l e m v y t ě ž i t z n i c h m a x i m u m p r o p r o h l o u b e n í d i a l e k t k k o m a t e r i a i i s t i c k y c h k o n c e p c i r ů z n ý c h o t á z e k , i k d y ž s v ě d o m í m , ž e H a r t m a n n o v a filosofie j e n e d i a l e k t i c k á ,
y p o d s t a t ě n e o r e a l i s t i c k á , n e z n a j í c í s k u t e č n o u m a t e r i á l n í p r a x i . P í š í - l i se p r á c e o t é t o f i l o s o f i i
j e n o m s c í l e m odhalit l e d v í b u r ž o a z n í h o filosofa, je z n i c h j e n o m v e l m i m a l ý p r o s p ě c h
<o?v/
ifň
wi '
J
G a r t m a n i jego „ k r i t i č e s k a j a ontologija", V o p r o s y
filosofii,
e J
V
N
i
k
o
l
a
V c e l k u je m o ž n o konstatovat, ž e k n i h a Ingeborg W i r t h o v é je p r a c í p s a n o u s v e l k ý m
zaujetím pro ú s t ř e d n í p r o b l é m ; přesto, že m u s í m e označit jeho řešení za nezcela uspokojivé,
f . ? P ř
z hlediska i m a n e n t n ě kritického a jen částečně i z hlediska t r a n s e u n t n ě
k r i t i c k é h o , nelze n e v i d ě t , že r e c e n z o v a n á k n i h a je v m n o h é m s m ě r u p o d n ě t n á a p o z o r u ­
hodná.
l,udvík
Tošenovský
l
e
d
e
v
š
í
m
A Dlseoune of Method
(Pavel
Materna:
Operatlre Auffassung der Methode;
Rozpravy
Č S A V , P r a h a 1965, 116 pp.)
It i s true t h a t the sub-title i n f o r m s us t h a t i t i s m e r e l y a " c o n t r i b u t i o n to s t r u c t u r a l
m e t h o d o l o g y " , b u t the content of this c o n t r i b u t i o n a n d the m a n n e r of t r e a t m e n t h a v e a w i d e r
r a n g e . M a t e r n a ' s c o n c e p t i o n o f m e t h o d sets o u t f r o m t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e o n l y e f f e c t i v e
m e a n s ( p r o c e d u ř e ) f o r s o l v i n g the p r o b l é m is a m e t h o d b a s e d o n the t h e o r y of a l g o r i t h m s ,
and that a non-algorithmatized approach, or one incapable of being algorothmatized, cannot
be c o n s i d e r e d a m e t h o d i n the exact sense. I n š p i t e o f the fact t h a t the " o p e r a t i v e c o n c e p t i o n
of m e t h o d " (further O C M ) is i n c o n c e i v a b l e w i t h o u t the t h e o r y of a l g o r i t h m s , the a u t h o r has
a p p r o a c h e d h i s e x p o s i t i o n i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f t h i s t h e o r y a n d i n t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n i t s e l f (I, 3)
p r o c l a i m s t h a t p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n O C M a n d the t h e o r y of a l g o r i t h m s are r a t h e r the results of
its analyses t h a n a n a-priori g i v e n i d e a . M a t e r n a ' s w i s h that O C M s h o u l d issue i n the t h e o r y
o f a l g o r i t h m s as a r e s u l t o f t h e l o g i c o f t h e m a t t e r ( a n d n o t t h e o t h e r w a y r o u n d ) , c o r r e s p o n d s
also to the fact that he does n o t m e n t i o n the r e l a t i o n between O C M a n d the t h e o r y of
a l g o r i t h m s i n d e t a i l u n t i l the second last chapter. I n the t r e a t m e n t itself, definitions, assertions
a n d their proofs are a c c o m p a n i e d b y explanations a n d examples, w h i c h renders the e x a c t i n g
t e x t m o r e c o m p r e h e n s i b l e to the r e a d e r . I n t h i s sense w e c a n a g r e e w i t h t h e a u t h o r w h e n
h e t e r m s h i s w o r k " p r o p e d e u t i c " (p. 9 5 ) .
Before g i v i n g a brief s u m m a r y of the contents of M a t e r n a ' s study, w e m u s t acquaint
ourselves w i t h some of his i n i t i a l concepts. M a t e r n a conceives m e t h o d o l o g y i n agreement, for
e x a m p l e , w i t h B o c h e ň s k i as a t h e o r y o f m e t h o d (p. 7 ; p . 2 1 , n . 4 6 ) . S t r u c t u r a l m e t h o d o l o g y
"is c o n c e r n e d w i t h the s y n t a c t i c - s e m a n t i c characteristics c o m m o n to a l l m e t h o d s a n d the
f o r m a l s i d e o f t h e m u t u a l c o r r e l a t i o n s o f i n d i v i d u a l m e t h o d s " (p. 1 0 8 ) . O C M s e t s o u t f r o m
t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t " e v e r y m e t h o d c a n b e U n d e r s t o o d as a r e g u l a t i o n g o v e r n i n g t h e s e q u e n c e
o f s i m p l e b a s i c ( e l e m e n t a r y ) o p e r a t i o n s " (p. 1 0 8 ) .
T h e e x p l a n a t i o n p r o p e r o f the c o n c e p t o f m e t h o d w i t h i n the f r a m e w o r k o f s t r u c t u r a l
m e t h o d o l o g y (it i s n o t a q u e s t i o n o f a c o m p r e h e n s i v e a n a l y s i s o f m e t h o d ! ) i s i n t r o d u c e d b y
a n i n t u i t i v e c o n c e p t i o n o f m e t h o d i n t w o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s : m e t h o d as a n a p p r o a c h t o t h e
p r e s u p p o s e d a i m a n d m e t h o d as t h e r u l e s d e t e r m i n i n g t h i s a p p r o a c h . T h e p r e l i m i n a r y d e f i n i t i o n o f m e t h o d i s as f o U o w s : m e t h o d i s a g r o u p o f r e g u l a t i o n s d e t e r m i n i n g t h e o p e r a t i o n s
w h i c h t r a n s f o r m i n p u t i n f o r m a t i o n i n t o o u t p u t ( I I I A , d e f . 5-1). T h e m o r e p r e c i s e r e n d e r i n g
o f t h e c o n c e p t o f m e t h o d r e q u i r e d t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f f u r t h e r c o n c e p t s (see d e f . 6 — 1 8 ) . T h e
a u t h o r e n u m e r a t e s 5 c o n d i t i o n s f o r i n t r o d u c i n g t h e e x a c t f o r m u l a t i o n o f m e t h o d I (III_ D ,
d e f . 1 9 , p . 2 4 - 5 ) a n d a f t e r a s h o r t r e f e r e n c e to i n t e l l e c t u a l a n d r e a l e x p e r i m e n t ( t h e o r e t i c a l
a n d p r a c t i c a l methods) h e indicates the w a y i n w h i c h i t w o u l d be p o s s i b l e to a t t a i n the e x a c t
f o r m u l a t i o n of m e t h o d I I (III F , def. 19, p . 32). M a t e m a is c o n c e r n e d w i t h the u n a m b i g u o u s
r e p r o d u c t a b i l i t y of the m e t h o d a n d the core of his O C M is assertion 3, t e r m e d a " r a t i o n a l i s t i c
h y o t h e s i s " (p. 3 3 ) . F o r t h e a n a l y s i s o f the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the r a t i o n a l i s t i c h y p o t h e s i s t h e
a u t h o r c o n s i d e r e d i t essential to i n t r o d u c e the i d e a of the s u p e r p o s i t i o n of m e t h o d s . T h i s
n e w concept, w h o s e a n a l o g u e i n the t h e o r y of a l g o r i t h m s is the c o m p o s i t i o n of a l g o r i t h m s ,
e n a b l e s M a t e r n a , a p a r t f r o m t h e c l o s e r e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e r a t i o n a l i s t i c h y p o t h e s i s (see I V D ) ,
to t o u c h o n the question of the classification of methods f r o m the v i e w p o i n t of structural
RECENZE A REFERÁTY
119
m e t h o d o l o g y , to m e n t i o n t h e p r o b l é m o f r e d u c t i o n o f t h e " h i g h e r " m e t h o d s l o t h e " l o w e r " ,
a n d to p r e p a r e the g r o u n d í o r his f i n á l chapter, d e a l i n g w i t h the p r o b l é m o f the o p e r a t i v e
character of the p h i l o s o p h i c a l m e t h o d . I n C h a p t e r V , P a v e l M a t e r n a treats the r e l a t i o n s h i p
between f o r m a l a n d contentual m e l h o d s , a n d throws light on the difference between
a
s y m b o l i c a n d a r e a l o p e r a t i o n . T o the q u e s t i o n o f h o w f o r m a l i t y is c o n n e c t e d w i t h e x a c t i t u d e ,
M a t e r n a gives the a n s w e r : ". . . f o r m a l m e t h o d s a c q u i r e e x a c t i t u d e p r e c i s e l y because t h e y
s u b s t i t u t e r e a l o p e r a t i o n s f o r s y m b o l i c o p e r a t i o n s . " (p. 66) I n C h a p t e r V I , e n t i t l e d " D é m o n s t r a t i v e a n d N o n - D e m o n s t r a t i v e M e t h o d s " , t h e e x p o s i t i o n i s b a s e d o n a n a n a l y s i s o f the
h e u r i s t i c p r o b l é m . T h e a u t h o r realizes that the d e s c r i p t i v e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the h e u r i s t i c
m e t h o d is not sufficiently exact; heuristics is a d i s c i p l i n ě w h i c h deals w i t h p r o b l e m s for
w h i c h n o e f f e c t i v e p r o c e d u ř e i s k n o w n (see p . 8 3 ) . M a t e r n a i s c o n v i n c e d t h a t e v e n i n t h e
f i e l d of " h e u r i s t i c s " a n effective p r o c e d u ř e is p o s s i b l e i n p r i n c i p l e . A s w e m e n t i o n e d a l r e a d y
i n the i n t r o d u c t o r y passage, i t is not u n t i l the s e v e n t h a n d p e n u l t i m a t e chapter that O C M
i s r e l a t e d to the t h e o r y o f a l g o r i t h m s . T h e c e r t a i n t y ( u n a m b i g u i t y ) o f a l g o r i t h m s is the i d e á l
concretization of the g e n e r á l r e q u i r e m e n t for the u n a m b i g u o u s r e p r o d u c t a b i l i t y of a m e t h o d .
I t i s t h e b a s i s , t o o , f o r a s s e r t i o n 1 2 , t h a t " e v e r y a l g o r i t h m i s a m e t h o d " (p. 91) a n d f u r t h e r ,
t h a t it is a m e t h o d e v e n i n the sense o f the e x a c t f o r m u l a t i o n of m e t h o d I I . M a t e r n a c o n d i t i o n a l l y f o r m u l a t e s t h e i n v e r t e d a s s e r t i o n 1 2 " ' , " e v e r y m e t h o d i s a n a l g o r i t h m " (p. 9 3 ) . T h e
w o r k p r o p e r c o n c l u d e s w i t h a b r i e f a d d e n d a o n the c o n c e p t o f the r a t i o n a l i s t i c h y p o t h e s i s ;
a n e x t r é m e , a n d n o t altogether c o n c l u s i v e l y d e m o n s t r a t e d c o n s e q u e n c e of O C M is the i d e n tification of the concepts " m e t h o d " a n d " a l g o r i t h m " . T h e e i g h t h a n d f i n á l c h a p t e r (like the
i n t r o d u c t o r y first chapter) is of a d i f f e r e n t n á t u ř e . It concentrates o n the s p e c i á l p r o b l é m
of the o p e r a t i v e c o n c e p t i o n o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l m e t h o d a n d is d i r e c t l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h the
i m p u l s e s w h i c h l e d P a v e l M a t e r n a to h i s a t t e m p t at a g e n e r á l a n a l y s i s o f O C M . F o r this
r e a s o n w e s h a l l n o w p a y c l o s e r a t t e n t i o n to t h i s p r o b l é m .
I n h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n (I, 1) t h e a u t h o r s t a t e s t h e t w o a i m s w h i c h i m p e l l e d h i m to u n d e r t a k e
h i s w o r k . T h e f i r s t c o u l d b e t e n n e d t h e d o u b t s o f a s c i e n t i f i c s p e c i a l i s t as to t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s
of the p h i l o s o p h i c a l ( s p e c i f i c a l l y : the dialectic) m e t h o d i n science, the second, o n the c o n t r a r y ,
r e p r e s e n t s t h e d o u b t s o f t h e p h i l o s o p h e r as t o t h e j u s t i f i a b i l i t y o f t h e d e m a n d f o r o p e r a t i v e
f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h i s p h i l o s o p h i c a l m e t h o d . T h e f i r s t a t t i t u d e l e a d s to t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t
p h i l o s o p h i c a l m e t h o d is i r r e l e v a n t to specialist science, the second results i n the assertion
that the d e m a n d f o r the o p e r a l i v i t y of p h i l o s o p h i c a l m e t h o d leads to the r e d u c t i o n of a h i g h e r
t y p e of r a t i o n a l i t y to a l o w e r .
I f w e a g r e e w i t h t h e a u t h o r ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t m e t h o d — so f a r as c o n c e r n s i t s u s e , a i m a n d
f u n c t i o n — is d e t e r m i n e d b y the p r o b l é m for w h i c h i t is a n adequate m e t h o d of solution
( V I I I , 1), a n d i f w e s u p p l e m e n t i t w i t h a n o t h e r of his thoughts, that e v e r y m e t h o d ís a
c e r t a i n t r a n s c r i p l i o n o f a t h e o r y ( V I I I , 2), w e c o u l d e x p a n d t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f the g i v e n
p r o b l é m i n d e p e n d e n t l y e v e n i n t h e s e n s e o f w h e t h e r ( a n d t o w h a t e x t e n t , a n d i n w h a t sense)
t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l o u l l o o k o f t h e a u t h o r s t i l l h a s at t h e p r e s e n t d a v a n y i n f l u e n c e i n s c i e n t i f i c
r e s e a r c h . T h e o p i n i o n t h a t t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l p o s i t i o n o f t h e s c i e n t i s t h a s n o p l á c e i n the
a c t u a l m a n i p u l a t i o n o f r e l e v a n t f a c t s c a n a l s o b e e x p r e s s e d thtfs, n á m e l y t h a t p h i l o s o p h y is
a l w a y s a p p l i e d o n l y i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the results of scientific reserch, a n d n e v ě r i n the
a c t u a l process w h i c h c o n d i t i o n s these results. W e c o n s i d e r t h a t this p r o b l é m a l o n g w i t h the
p r o b l e m a t i c a l effectiveness of p h i l o s o p h i c a l m e t h o d , is m o r e u r g e n t a n d has m o r e extensive
p r a c t i c a l consequences f o r science i n g e n e r á l t h a n has the q u e s t i o n of r e d u c t i o n i s m , w h i c h
w e c o n s i d e r l o b e s e c o n d a r y (besides w h i c h i t is o n e w h i c h a l a r m s o n l y p h i l o s o p h e r s ) .
I n states w i t h a s o c i a l i s t s y s t é m i t has g r a d u a l l y b e c o m e a n a c c e p t e d a s s u m p t i o n t h a t a n y
specialist science s h o u l d be c o m b i n e d w i t h certain p h i l o s o p h i c a l aspects w h i c h are specific for
the g i v e n b r a n c h ( w h i l e u n d e r s t a n d i n g p h i l o s o p h y i n the b r o a d sense, t h a t is notj f o r e x a m p l e ,
as o n l y o n t o l o g y a n d g n o s e o l o g y , b u t a l s o as " p r a x e o l o g y " , etc.) P h i l o s o p h i c a l m a t e r i a l i s m
f o r t h e M a x i s t i s u n i f i e d w i t h t h e d i a l e c t i c a l m e t h o d (the m e t h o d i s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y t h e o r y
a n d the t h e o r y is a m e t h o d ) ; the a d v a n t a g e s of this m e t h o d , i l l u s t r a t e d b y e x a m p l e s f r o m
p o l i t i c a l practice a n d p a r t l y too b y c e r t a i n w e l l - k n o w n a n d n o l o n g e r p r o b l e m a t i c a l p h e n o m e n a of n a t u r a l sciences, i n the f o r m u l a t i o n o f S t a l i n ' s p a m p h l e t o n d i a l e c t i c a l a n d h i s t o r i c a l
m a t e r i a l i s m , h a v e p a s s e d i n t o t h e g e n e r á l c o n s c i o u s n e s s , b u t o f t e n o n l y as a p r o c l a m a t i o n o f
f a i t h , a n d n o t as a n a c t i v e i n s t r u m e n t f o r r e v e a l i n g n e w t r u t h s . P h i l o s o p h e r s t h e m s e l v e s , d e a l ­
i n g w i t h the w o r k i n g out of the categories o f dialectis, h a v e themselves d i s c r e d i t e d dialectics
as a m e t h o d b e c a u s e i n s t e a d o f a p p l y i n g d i a l e c t i c s to t h e e x a m i n a t i o n o f c o n c r e t e p r o b l e m a t i c
m a t e r i á l , t h e y used the p r i n c i p l e s of dialectics o n l y to e x p l a i n the a l r e a d y a c h i e v e d results
of s p e c i á l sciences (in the w o r s e case t h e y o n l y s o u g h t at r a n d o m i n these sciences for e v i ­
d e n c e to s u p p o r t the theses of dialectics. ) T h e d i a l e c t i c m e t h o d w a s u s u a l l y p r e s e n t e d i n the
1
120
RECENZE A REFERÁTY
f o r m s o f t h e s e s , i n s t r u c t i o n s , a n d s t a t e m e n t s , n o t as i m p e r a t i v e l y f o r m u l a t e d d i r e c t i o n s f o r
action. P e r h a p s f o r this reason, too, M a t e r n a , i n s t e a d of the concept " d i a l e c t i c a l m e t h o d "
u s u a l l y e m p l o y s the concept " p h o l o s o p h i c a l m e t h o d " , for besides the higher degree of general i z a t i o n the latter concept is not b u r d e n e d b y associations w i t h the sterile dialectic " m e t h o d "
of the so-called d o g m a t i c p e r i o d of M a r x i s t p h i l o s o p h y .
Hic Rliodus.
I n o u r o p i n i o n it is precisely i n these w i d e r aspects that M a t e r n a ' s s t u d y
a t l a i n s g r e a t e r s i g n i f i c a n c e n o t o n l y as a s p e c i á l i s t s t u d y o n m e t h o d o l o g y , b u t a l s o as a
fundamental
contribution
urgently
addreitpd
to'the
camp of the philosophers,
calling o n t h e m to
c o n s i d e r t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f p h i l o s o p h y as a m e t h o d , a n d a l s o t o c o n s i d e r t h e n á t u ř e o f w h a t
i s k n o w n as t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l m e t h o d .
M a t e r n a is f u l l y conscious of the i m p o s s i b i l i t y of a n e x h a u s t i v e analysis of the p r o b l é m
j u s t m e n t i o n e d . T h e r e f o ř e h e l i m i t e h i m s e l f t o t h e c o n c e p t i o n o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l m e t h o d as a n
a p p l i c a t i o n of p h i l o s o p h y i n the sciences a n d leaves aside the m e t h o d of s o l v i n g the i n t e r n a l
p r o b l e m s of p h i l o s o p h y . Characteristic for the p h i l o s o p h i c a l m e t h o d is the h i g h degree o f
s u p e r p o s i t i o n . S i n c e h o w e v e r the p h i l o s o p h i c a l m e t h o d w o u l d be a m e t h o d o f s o l v i n g p r o b e m s c o m m o n t o a l l s c i e n c e s as a n i n t e g r a t i n g m e t h o d i n t h e h i e r a r c h y o f m e t h o d s , i t c o u l d
be of assistance i n ascertaining the essential relationships not o n l y w i t h m a s p e c i á l d i s c i p l i n ě ,
b u t also i n i n t e r - d i s c i p l i n e connections. T h e f u n d a m e n t a l d i f f i c o l t y here, of course, r e m a i n s
i n the fact that w h a t w e call the p h i l o s o p h i c a l o p e r á t o r is o n l y s l i g h t l y operative a n d that
u n a m b i g u o u s r e p r o d u o t a b i l i t y cannot be ensured. I n accordance w i t h this c o n c l u s i o n M a t e r n a
c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l o p e r á t o r as h e u r i s t i c (p. 1 0 1 ) , i . e. as a m e t h o d w i t h o u t a n
e f f e c t i v e p r o c e d u ř e o f s o l u t i o n (cf. p . 8 3 ) . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e a u t h o r i s c o n v i n c e d o f t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of f i n d i n g effective p r o c e d u ř e e v e n i t this case. I n the m e a n t i m e , h o w e v e r , t h e insertion of consideration of the p h i l o s o p h i c a l m e t h o d into a n exposition o f O C M is — i n o u r
o p i n i o n — n o t adequate, a n d i t is p r e c i s e l y the l i n k i n g o f the t w o g r o u p s o f p r o b l e m s t h a t
w i t h g r e a t e r u r g e n c y w a r n s a g a i n s t t h e e x i s t i n g p h i l o s o p h i c a l m e t h o d as a n i n e f f e c t i v e o n e .
In our o p i n i o n the speciál a n d exceedingly dehcate p r o b l é m of p h i l o s o p h i c a l m e t h o d is discredited for still other reasons that those precisely here a d d u c e d . N o n - p h i l o s o p h e r s are u s u a l l y
sceptical a b o u t the p o s t u l á t e of the scientific c h a r a c t e r of p h i l o s o p h y , w h e t h e r because of t h e
e x t e r n a l — " n o n - e x a c t " — f o r m , i n w h i c h p h i l o s o p h i c a l t h i n k i n g expresses itself, o r because
of the w a y ("method"), b y m e a n s of w h i c h i t reaches — " p h i l o s o p h i c a l " — conclusions, sometimes too for the v e r y questions — "eternal" a n d "generally h u m a n " — w h i c h p h i l o s o p h y asks
a n d w h i c h i t d e a l s w i t h i n its o w n w a y . I f t h e c r i t e r i a of w h a t has s c i e n t i f i c s t a n d k i g a r e
c o n s i d e r e d to b e i r r e l e v a n t i n p h i l o s o p h y , a l l the m o r e n e g a t i v e i ň u s t b e the a t t i t u d e to t h e
s y m b i o s i s of p h i l o s o p h y a n d m e t h o d , a n d to the v a l u e of this c o n n e c t i o n for science. T h e
p h i l o s o p h i c a l m e t h o d a p p e a r s t o b e a contradictio
in
adiecto.
I t c a n n o t b e d e n i e d t h a t t h e a t t i t u d e to t h e p r o b l e m s i n v c s t i g a t e d a n d t h e v e r y c h o i c e o f
p r o b l é m are effected b y the g e n e r á l c i r c u m s t a n c e s of the t i m e a n d a b o v e a l l b y the p h i l o s o p h ­
i c a l credo
of the creative w o r k e r . O n m o r e t h a n one o c c a s i o n a n u n s y s t e m a tic i m p u l s e —
u n s y s t e m a t i c i m p u l s e — i n c l u d i n g too the p h i l o s o p h i c a l i m p u l s e — has been a m o r e fruitful
one f o r the d e v e l o p m e n t of science than systematized a n d exact criteria of a m e t h o d w h i c h
t u r n e d o u t i n c o n c r e t e c o n n e c t i o n s t o b e s t e r i l e . J u s t as t h e r e d o e s n o t e x i s t a n a b s t r a c t p u r e
r e a l i t y w i t h o u t r e l a t i o n s h i p s a n d connections^ so too t h e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n of a n a b s t r a c t l y p u r e
m e t h o d , w h i c h w o u l d enable the effective i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the g i v e n reality, is e q u a l l y i n d e f e n s i b l e . T h e i m p e r a t i v e s o f t h e m e t h o d c h o s e n (the s e l e c t i o n o f facts a n d the a p p r o a c h t o
t h e i r t r e a t m e n t ) , the langttage o f e x p r e s s i o n a n d a l s o the p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the results
attained i n the research are d e t e r m i n e d b o t h b y the current l e v e l o f scientific w o r k a n d b y
the p h i l o s o p h i c a l a t t i t u d e of the scientiet to r e a l i t y i n its m o s t g e n e r á l c o n n e c t i o n s . It m u s t b e
r e g r e t t e d t h a t t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a t t i t u d e m e n t i o n e d i s n o t em e f f e c t i v e m e t h o d . M a t e r n a i s
c o n v i n c e d — a l t h o u g h u n f o r t u n a t e l y h e is n o t a b l e to p r o v e t h e correctness o f h i s o p i n i o n —
that a n effective p h i l o s o p h i c a l m e t h o d is i n p r i n c i p l e capable of b e i n g realized. T h i s reviewer,
i n the sense of N o t e 2 a b o v e — a n d a g a i n w i t h o u t a d e q u a t e a r g u m e n t — is c o n v i n c e d of t h e
opposite, even a l t h o u g h he does not d e n y the u t i l i t y of p h i l o s o p h i c a l m e t h o d .
2
A s t r i k i n g feature of p h i l o s o p h y is the h i g h i y g e n e r á l character of the p r o b l e m s it deals
w i t h . O n the o t h e r h a n d , o n l y s u c h a n a p p r o a c h to r e a l i t y , w h i c h is c a p a b l e o f b e i n g generali z e d a n d into the b a r g a i n of b e i n g algorithmatized, can b e c o m é a m e t h o d . T h e h i g h degree
o f g e n e r a l i t y i s c o m m o n t o p h i l o s o p h y a n d t o m e t h o d . I n d i s t i n c t i o n to P a v e l M a t e r n a t h e
present r e v i e w e r d e n í e s to p h i l o s o p h y i n the f u n c t i o n of m e t h o d the p o s s i b i l i t y of b e i n g
a l g o r i t h m a t i z e d a n d the same t i m e expresses h i s o b j e c t i o n to M a t e m a ' s use of the concept o f
m e t h o d o n l y for effective approaches a n d rules. Besides not e v e n P a v e l M a t e r n a terms his
r a t i o n a l i s t i c p o s t u l á t e w i t h r e g a r d to m e t h o d a n y m o r e t h a n a h y p o t h e s i s , b e i n g a w a r e of t h e
121.
RECENZE A REFERÁTY
existence a n d c l e a r l y t o o o f t h e n e c e s s a r y presence of i n e f f e c t i v e a p p r o a c h e s a n d rules. (Afterall not even mathematics, for instance, is altogether algorithmatizaMe. E v e n the non-algorithm a t i z a b l e field of research m u s t of course — e v e n t h r o u g h this results f r o m u s i n g a n i n ­
e f f e c t i v e m e t h o d — b e s o f a r as p o s s i b l e t r e a t e d i n t h e s c i e n t i f i c a l l y m o s t a d e q u a t e w a y . )
I n a n y case w e c o n s i d e r i t v e r y u s e f u l t h a t i n t h e w o r k u n d e r r e v i e w t h e c o n c e p t of m e t h o d
w a s s t r i c t l y asserted a n d f u r t h e r t h a t t h e advantages of effective ( a l g o r i t h m i c ) m e t h o d wereprescisely emphasized.
T h i s s t u d y of O C M is suggestive i n m a n y directions. It directs t l e r e a d e ť s attention to the
p r o b l e m s o f m e t h o d i n a w a y w h i c h i s d e f i n i t e l y n o t t r a d i t i o n a l a n d c o m b i n e s tliis field o f
research w i t b w i d e r p h i l o s o p h i c a l aspects, so that i t is o f e q u a l í n t e r c s t f o r e x a m p l e to t h e
n a t u r a l s c i e n t i s t a n d to the p h i l o s o p h e r . I n p a r t i c u l a r w e m u s t n o t f a i l t o n o t i c e a n d to assess
v e r y h i g h l y w h a t t h e a u t h o r m o d e s t l y calls m e r e l y " p r o p e d e u t i c s " , n á m e l y the v e r y h a p p y
c o m b i n a t i o n of exact e x p o u n d i n g based o n definitions a n d u n c o m p r o m i s i n g assertion alongw i t h a n e x p l a n a t o r y c o m m e n t a r y of e x e m p l á r y c o m p h e h e n s i b i l i t y . M a t e r n a ' s b o o k is w o r t h y
of note.
In c o n c l u s i o n w e m a y p o i n t o u t that this w o r k of a Czech l o g i c i a n has been p u b l i s h e d .
i n G e r m a n , w i t h a fairly extensive s u m m a r y b y the author i n English.
1
It is w o r t h n o t i n g that theoretical w o r k e r s s p e c i a l i z i n g i n dialcctics (whether i n the f o r m
of t h e o r y a n d m e t h o d , o r w i t h i n w h a t i s k n o w n a s d i a l e c t i c a l l o g i c ) h a v e f o r t h e m o s t p a r t
ignored the m e t h o d o l o g i c a l significance of the p r i n c i p l e s of c o n t e m p o r a r y f o r m a l logic f o r
science, a n d the need to k n o w t h e m .
A n e x a m p l e of t h i s c o n c e p t i o n i s t h e o p i n i o n t h a t science i s r e a s o n at w o r k , p h i l o s o p h y
r c a s o n o n h o l i d a y . T h e p h i l o s o p h y o f m a n c a n b e i n t e r p r e t e d p r e c i s e l y i n t h i s sense, as m e r e l y
the s u b j e c t i v e l y v a l i d c r e a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l p h i l o s o p h e r s . P e r s h a p s f o r this r e a s o n t o o , M a r x i s t
p h i l o s o p h y , i n o r d e r t o b a l a n c e a n d c o m p l e m e n t t h e p h i l o s o p h y o f m a n , f u ř t h e r s so v e h e m e n t l y
the scientific t r e n d w i t h its purposeful a n d a n x i o u s s t r i v i n g f o r s y s t é m , exactitude a n d objective v a l i d i t y , w i t h o u t regard f o r the e m o t i o n a l attitude of m a n a n d h i s interests. E v e n
a l t h o u g h I s y m p a t h i z e w i t h t h e efforts o f t h e supporters of t h e s c i e n t i f i c t r e n d , I believe,.
h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e c o r e a n d raison
ďétre
o f p h i l o s o p h y does n o t l i e i n the e m b o d i m e n t of the
idea of scientific exactitude i n a d e i n d i v i d u a l i z e d f o r m b u t i n the i n d i v i d u a l projection of
t i h s i d e á l . T h u s t o o t h e h i s t o r y o f p h i l o s o p h y w a s n o t , i s n o t a n d p r o b a b l y n e v ě r w i l l b y theh i s t o r y of science, a n d the specific attraction of the h i g h l y o r i g i n á l a n d characteristic c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f t h e o b j e c t i v e w i t h t h e s u b j e c t i v e (the s p e c u l a t i v e ) i n t h e i n d i v i d u a l a n d u n i q u e expression o f thought w i l l r e m a i n preserved to p h i l o s o p h y . F r o m this point-of-view it w o u l d
even b e possible to assert that a p h i l o s o p h i z i n g based o n science is n o t of itself a science
(especially i f w e realize the vague character of the m e t h o d of p h i l o s o p h i c a l w o r k ) although i n
p r i n c i p l e scientific treatment of p h i l o s o p h i z i n g is possible.
2
Translated
Miloš
Dokulil
by Jessie
Kocmanová
Bartoš:
Kategorie nahodilého T dějinách filosofického mySlení (Die Kategorie des
Zufalllgen in der Geschichte des philosophischen Denkens); C S A Y , P r a h a 1 9 6 5 , 1 9 6 s t r .
Jaromír
Es k a n n gewiB k e i n Zweifel dariiber bestehen, d a B z u d e n Arbeiten, die sich i n letzter
Zeit b e i uns positiv ausgewirkt haben, auch das B u c h J . B a r t o š ' gcrecbnet werden k a n n .
Dies i s t auch i n d e r H i n s i c h t interessant, d a B die ursprungliche K o n z e p t i o n dieser Arbeit
schon v o r zehn J a h r e n enstanden ist, einige K a p i t e l , die sich auf i h r e P r o b l e m a t i k beziehen,.
wu-rden schon v o r einiger Zeit veroffentlicht.
Die K o n z e p t i o n der Arbeit ist ů b e r h a u p t nicht einfach; der A u t o r m u B t e verschiedeneM e t h o d e n i n G r i f f n e h m e n , w o b e i besonders i n d e n ersten K a p i t e l n eine gewiBe A r t v o n
H e r m e n e u t i k d i e O b e r h a n d behalt. E s versteht s i c h v o n selbst, d a B d i e H e r m e n e u t i k a u c h
init philologischen A n a l y s e n untermauert ist. Diese K a p i t e l erinnern a n V i c o oder Heidegger,.
w u r d e n a b e r , w a s fťir B a r t o š s y m p t o m a t i s c h i s t , o f f e n b a r o h n e e r w e i s b a r e B e e i n f l u s s u n g v o n
d i e s e r S e i t e k o n z i p i e r t . B e i d e r R e z e n s i o n e i n e r s o g r o ů a n g e l e g t e n A r b e i t , d i e fast d i e g a n z e G e s c h i c h t e d e r P h i l o s o p h i e m i t b e r u c k s i c h l i g t , h f i t t e es s i c h e r l i c h k e i n e n S i n n , d e m A u t o r
jene oder andere M i f i d e u t u n g e n vorzuwerfen, die i n jeder Arbeit solchen T y p s v o r k o m m e n
m i i B e n . D e r A u t o r k o n n t e a u c h n i c h t v e r m e i d e n , d a B d i e B e w a l t i g u n g des Stoffes i n e i n z e l n e n
Teilen der A r b e i t sich a u f unterschiedlicher E b e n e bewegt. A n m a n c h e n Slellen m u B t e sicK