A look at the philosophy of Josef Šmajs

This article by Dan Polansky looks at the philosophy of the Czech environmental philosopher Josef Šmajs. Šmajs is notable enough to have a Czech Wikipedia page and to be recognized by Gemini.

Initial questions:

What writings by Šmajs are available online, to serve as the basis for analysis?
What articles about the philosophy of Šmajs are available online?
What key concepts are introduced by Šmajs?
What theories or doctrines are promulgated by Šmajs?

Articles are listed in the further reading. Some are in Czech, some in English.

Šmajs introduces the key concept of evolutionary ontology (evoluční ontologie). I failed to figure out what he means by that. He does not seem to constrain the term evolution merely to replicator-based processes such as biological and cultural evolution; he also speaks of evolution in other contexts (example quotation to be added). One can ask whether there is some relationship to Hegelian dialectics.

Šmajs is concerned with destruction of environment by humans and with the risk of human extinction. He seems to believe that non-human biological entities should have some of the human rights.

Šmajs seems to suggest that a solution of environmental problems is to be sought more in what he calls společenské vědy (social sciences) than in physical and other natural sciences. Into společenské vědy (social sciences) he seems to include philosophy, a classification not matching the usual Anglophone one, by which philosophy is not a social science but a branch of humanities. He seems to be saying that the solution is to be found by philosophy.

Šmajs seems to use the term culture (kultura) to refer to totality of all currently human cultures. He posits a contrast of nature vs. culture. He seems to see culture as "predatory", or at least today's culture. It is not clear whether his use of the term matches customary uses in Anglophone cultural anthropology. One sentence suggests that culture is the same thing as technosphere: "Člověkem vytvářená globální kultura – planetární technosféra – se totiž osamostatňuje, vymyká se lidským záměrům a střetává se starší, svébytnější a sofistikovanější planetární biosférou."^[1]

As for the culture being predatory, it is unclear why that alone should be a bad thing: predatory relationships are widespread in biological nature. Thus, a tiger eats an antelope, but that does not make the tiger bad. Sure enough, there are problems with the technosphere in relation to biological and other nature, but it is unclear that the concept of predation is the best one to point to these problems, or even an applicable one. One can admit that the word predatory is often used pejoratively to refer to certain social interpersonal phenomena deemed harmful or unjust. But that does not seem to be the phenomenon under discussion; rather, culture or technosphere is described as predatory in relation to nature. Thus, to make a wooden chair from a cut tree is to be predatory with respect to that tree. But from an environmentalist perspective, a culture that makes wooden pieces of furniture and wooded houses, even if it is "predatory" with respect to the trees, does not on this account alone present a problem.

References

↑ https://www.blisty.cz/art/77197-filosoficky-koncept-ustavy-zeme.html

References

Further reading