Reflections on Jan Čížekʼs Book Comenius and Bacon: Two Early Modern Pathways to the Restoration of Knowledge

0553588 - FLÚ 2022 RIV CZ eng J - Článek v odborném periodiku
Schifferová, Věra
Reflections on Jan Čížekʼs Book Comenius and Bacon: Two Early Modern Pathways to the Restoration of Knowledge.
Acta Comeniana. -, 34/58 (2020), s. 103-129. ISSN 0231-5955
Institucionální podpora: RVO:67985955
Klíčová slova: Francis Bacon * Johannes Amos Comenius * Restoration of Knowledge * Methodological Questions
Obor OECD: Philosophy, History and Philosophy of science and technology
Způsob publikování: Pouze metadata

This review article discusses the monograph by Jan Čižek that deals with the conception of the restoration of knowledge in Francis Bacon and Johannes Amos Comenius. The reviewer points to Patočka’s and Schaller’s contributions to the topic, contributions which Čižek mentions only marginally or omits altogether. This may be considered a flaw in Čižek’s work since Patočka’s and Schaller’s studies are not only comparative analyses but contribute to the interpretation of the spiritual foundations of modern European civilisation, so the monograph should have discussed them, albeit critically. The review article further deals with conceptually important problems in Čižek’s book. First of all, this regards the issue of the methodological approach to Bacon and Comenius. The reviewer values Čižek’s rejection of the ahistorical approach to Bacon and Comenius, which distorts the authentic nature of their thought. At the same time, however, she supposes that the relationship between historical and presentist perspectives is far more complex and she calls for a broader discussion of this topic, taking into consideration the opinions of different authors (e.g. Leibniz, Gadamer, Gilson). The second issue discussed is the question of a common theological motivation driving both Bacon and Comenius. Čižek repeatedly points out that both thinkers found support for their projects of knowledge improvement in the Book of Daniel (Da 12:4). The reviewer supposes that Čižek could also have analysed other biblical passages Comenius used for his pansophia. He could have dealt too with the metaphysical background of Comenius’s pansophia. This has shown more clearly what is different in Comenius when comparing him with Bacon, most notably the main characteristics of pansophia. Thirdly, the reviewer devotes attention to the concept of human affairs (res humanae). Čižek claims that this concept stems from Bacon. The reviewer points to the inspiration provided to Comenius by Augustinian and Campanellian sources and conjectures that Comenius’s concept of human affairs grew simultaneously out of several intellectual traditions.
Trvalý link: http://hdl.handle.net/11104/0329354