Otakar A. Funda is a proponent of critical rationalism, which explains phenomena from phenomena, prefers the scientific method, rejects illusions, and fictions of redemption and is extremely reserved about the so-called "last justifications". At the same time, Funda represents a strong line in the contemporary philosophy of religionhe is a representative of humanistic atheism, which he does not understand as negativistic nihilism, but as a different, rationally sober and positive-creative answer to the questions of human life. The purpose of the review study is to present and analyze Fundaʼs book Glosses -Fragments against the background of the thinking of other authors, or in dialogue with them. I will try to read Fundaʼs text through the lens of the categories possibleimpossible and reflections on the possibility of the impossible. More specifically, I will clarify this point of view through the phenomenological reflections of the French philosopher J.-L. Marion and the approach of E. Levinas.

The paper intends to introduce main points of Eco's critique of Vattimo's philosophy. It focuses on differences in their approaches and provides a closer view of one of the philosophical discussions happening at the wake of the new millennium. We focus on understanding reality and the limits of interpretation as the two key points of Eco's consideration and criticism. In 1983, Umberto Eco participated in publishing the well-known volume "weak thought", although he later no longer considered himself part of the philosophical initiative. He represents a position of minimal or negative realism. Gianni Vattimo is a proponent of the "weak thought", where reality is not introduced as stable, natural or objective. Reality does not itself speak out but needs a spokesmen or motivated interpreters. Vattimo, therefore revives Nietzsche's thought "There are no facts, only interpretations", which he deploys further in his own way.

No abstract

Jednou z filozofických otázok intenzívne traktovaných v patristike a scholastike je otázka, či je možné kresťanské učenie o stvorení sveta potvrdiť, dokázať, či obhájiť filozoficky, racionálne, alebo či ide o náuku prijateľnú výlučne vierou. Ak by eventuálne kresťanský autor odhalil nepresnosti či vnútorné rozpory teórií, ktoré sú v protiklade s kresťanskou náukou o stvorení sveta, neznamená to, že by ju tým "dokázal". Jeho "rozbitie" argumentov v prospech večnosti sveta, by nevyhnutne neviedlo k podpore a akceptovaniu kresťanskej koncepcie kreácie. Zrejme by sa tým filozoficky nevytvorili podmienky, náznaky a predpoklady dopracovať sa racionálne k presvedčeniu, že svet nie je večný a musel byť stvorený Bohom ex nihilo. Ak by sa biblickú predstavu snažil kresťanský autor ob-

No abstract