FOUNDER’S FOREWORD
What follows is an English translation of the “Foreword” written by the founder of the journal, Stanislav Sousedík, and published in the first double issue of the journal [Studia Neoaristotelica 1/1–2 (2004): 3–9] in Czech and German. Note that while the idea and purpose of the journal remains largely the same as described in this programmatic text, it no longer aims merely at the Czech and Slovak audience but has transformed itself into an international journal. The original Czech and Slovak orientation of the journal is preserved in the Series Bohemoslovaca.
Currently, several specialized philosophical journals are published in the Czech Republic. Moreover, various other periodicals occasionally provide opportunities to discuss philosophical questions. The number and scope of these publications seem fully adequate for the Czech context. Therefore, launching a new journal, as we intend to do, must have a particular reason, which I would like to introduce here.
The existing philosophical journals in the Czech Republic are generally affiliated with various academic institutions. They serve to present the scholarly work conducted there, which today pursues different directions both in content and methodology. As a result, these journals do not have a clearly defined philosophical orientation. However, one consequence of the evident development of philosophical efforts since 1989 is that, after a largely receptive period, philosophical schools of thought are now gradually taking shape. This is undoubtedly a healthy development. In order for such groups to deepen their own positions, present them to the academic community, and engage systematically with external influences, publishing a journal with a specific thematic focus can be highly beneficial.
The editorial board of the new journal Studia Neoaristotelica consists of a group of philosophy scholars, most of whom teach at Catholic theological faculties in Czechia and Slovakia. This group shares an interest in contemporary philosophical logic, ontology, and metaphysics, as well as the conviction that Aristotle’s principles provide a fruitful and useful starting point for addressing questions in these fields. This conviction is accompanied by an effort to develop a metaphysical framework based on Aristotelian foundations that meets the needs of the modern era in both content and presentation. In their pursuit of this ideal, they rely on two main sources.
One of these sources is contemporary analytical philosophy. This may surprise some readers, as analytical philosophy is often regarded as non-metaphysical or even explicitly anti-metaphysical. However, this view is incorrect. Thinkers such as B. Russell and G. E. Moore, considered the founders of this tradition in the Anglo-Saxon world, were indeed critical of metaphysics but did not reject it outright—only the prevailing Hegelianism of their time. A more radical rejection of metaphysics emerged only temporarily and only in the second phase of analytical philosophy, particularly with the neopositivism of the so-called Vienna Circle. The insistence on the so-called verification principle of meaning initially led to the view that metaphysical statements were meaningless and that, at best, they expressed the subjective emotional experiences of the metaphysician, akin to an interjection. However, this extreme view was already being reconsidered by neopositivists themselves in the early 1950s. The subsequent decline of neopositivism is well known and can be attributed to several factors, including the abandonment of the idea that natural language should be corrected using an artificial logical language, the transition to a logical analysis of natural languages, the blurring of the distinction between analytic and synthetic statements (which was central to positivism), the study of conceptual schemes, and the emergence of essentialism (the idea that an entity must necessarily have certain properties to be what it is). As a result of these developments—some of which were contradictory—metaphysics has now become an established discipline within analytical philosophy. It attracts considerable interest, as evidenced by numerous specialized studies as well as textbooks and encyclopedic publications. The works of contemporary metaphysicians often contain ideas that strongly resemble Aristotle’s, and some analytical philosophers explicitly acknowledge their intellectual debt to Aristotle or particular elements of his doctrine. The contributors to this journal consider these developments highly relevant to their Aristotelian-inspired philosophical program.
The second source on which the contributors rely is, of course, Aristotle himself, along with the more than 2,000-year-old tradition of Aristotelian schools that have built upon his work. Given the vastness of this tradition, a selection must naturally be made. The editorial team shares a particular interest in the so-called “Second Scholasticism.” By this, we mean a Christian-oriented Aristotelianism that was cultivated at European (and later South American) universities roughly from the mid-15th to the mid-18th century, notwithstanding regional variations. Previous historiography of this period has focused almost exclusively on “modern” philosophy in the narrower sense, with its well-known protagonists such as R. Descartes and F. Bacon. As a result, the Second Scholasticism has nearly vanished from the historical consciousness of educated individuals today—including, quite often, professional philosophers. The study of this tradition, which holds significant cultural and historical value, is still in its early stages. However, the interest of the scholars gathered around this new journal is not primarily historical but, above all, systematic.
The leading figures of the Second Scholasticism were generally not as brilliant as their medieval predecessors. Their significance lies in the fact that they systematized the intellectual heritage of the preceding era, associated with figures such as Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham, into a highly detailed and comprehensive framework. This required a fundamental refinement of conceptual tools, careful logical examination of arguments that earlier authorities had only hinted at, and the derivation of new conclusions from previously established principles. The various strands of Aristotelianism that evolved in this way are distinguished by a markedly technical style of exposition. This sets the thinkers of the Second Scholasticism apart from the representatives of modern philosophy in the narrower sense—whose works, in addition to their philosophical significance, are often regarded as part of national literary heritage. At the same time, however, it brings Second Scholasticism closer in style to the metaphysical discourse found in contemporary analytical philosophy. This methodological and substantive affinity between these historical and contemporary traditions—despite, or perhaps because of, their undeniable differences—can be philosophically stimulating today. The scholars involved in this new journal aim to draw upon precisely this inspiration in pursuit of their philosophical objectives.
The above remarks should suffice to characterize the philosophical orientation of our journal. It is a clearly defined program, but this does not mean that the journal’s content will be monotonous. Our goal in Studia Neoaristotelica is to publish all scholarly contributions that we find interesting. Naturally, this includes submissions from diverse perspectives, even those that contradict our philosophical program.
Studia Neoaristotelica, the first issue of which you now hold in your hands, is—as reflected in its editorial board—both a Czech and a Slovak journal. It will be published twice a year. Its editors will make every effort to ensure that its existence contributes, above all, to the intellectual richness and diversity of our two nations. We publish this first issue in the hope that it will be received with openness and understanding by the academic community, including those who do not share our views.
Stanislav Sousedík