Naslov
Interdisciplinaran pristup Miroslava Krleže pri prosuđivanju nauka Immanuela Kanta
(Miroslav Krleža’s Interdisciplinary Approach in Judging Immanuel Kant’s Teaching)

Autori
Balić, Davor

Vrsta, podvrsta i kategorija rada
Sažeci sa skupova, sažetak, znanstveni

Izvornik
Međunarodni interdisciplinarni 1. Kongres Centra za interdisciplinarna istraživanja Filozofskog fakulteta Osijek: »Interdisciplinarnost u teoriji i praksi« / International Interdisciplinary 1st Congress of the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Osijek: “Interdisciplinarity in Theory and Practice” / Miliša, Zlatko ; Papo, Demian ; Potlimbrzović, Hrvoje - Osijek : Filozofski fakultet Sveučilišta Josipa Jurja Strossmayera u Osijeku, 2021, 25-26

Skup
1. kongres Centra za interdisciplinarna istraživanja Filozofskog fakulteta Osijek: Interdisciplinarnost u teoriji i praksi

Mjesto i datum
Osijek, Hrvatska, 04.11.2021. - 05.11.2021

Vrsta sudjelovanja
Predavanje

Vrsta recenzije
Međunarodna recenzija

Ključne riječi
Miroslav Krleža, Immanuel Kant, interdisciplinarnost
(Miroslav Krleža, Immanuel Kant, interdisciplinarity)

Sažetak
U opusu hrvatskog polihistora Miroslava Krleže (1893–1981) prisutne su i prosudbe o nauku brojnih filozofa, pa tako i o njemačkom filozofu Immanuelu Kantu (1724–1804). Ali, usprkos tome što se Krleža o Kantovu nauku očitovao često, štoviše 1924. godine posvetio mu je i zaseban članak (»O dvestogodišnjici rođenja Imanuela Kanta«), krležolozi su, prema mojim spoznajama, do sada rijetko ili pak uzgredno ukazivali na Krležine stavove o tom znamenitu njemačkom filozofu. Naime, do danas su, ponovno prema mojim spoznajama, objavljena tek dva kratka teksta koja su posvećena Krležinim promišljanjima o Kantu. Napisao ih je povjesničar umjetnosti Andrej Žmegač za natuknice enciklopedije Krležijana: jedan za natuknicu »Kant, Immanuel«, a drugi za natuknicu »‘O dvjestagodišnjici rođenja Immanuela Kanta’«. Prosuđivanju Kantova nauka Krleža je u svojem opusu pristupio, među ostalim, interdisciplinarno. Naime, očekivano ga je prosuđivao iz filozofske, posebice iz logičke, spoznajnoteorijske i etičke perspektive, ali i iz, također očekivano, perspektive književnosti, posebice u dramama, novelama i romanima. Međutim, prosuđivao ga je i iz perspektive povijesti, politike i umjetnosti, pa čak i iz perspektive medicine, kao i antropologije. Kantov nauk Krleža je pritom nerijetko kritizirao i razumijevao bliskim srednjovjekovlju, pri čemu izdvajam tvrdnje iz već spomenuta članka »O dvestogodišnjici rođenja Imanuela Kanta«, u kojem stoji da je u tom nauku »sve neprobojno kao tvrđavni bedem u srednjem vijeku« i da »Kant miriše po alhemijskom sumporu i magiji«. Ali, često je ukazivao i na njegovu iznimnu vrijednost i utjecaj. Tako je, primjerice, u eseju »Francisco José Goya y Lucientes« (1926) ustvrdio da je 18. stoljeće bilo stoljeće »Kanta i Mocarta« te da je Kant jedan od »giganata« i jedna od »monumentalnih figura«, dok je u polemičkom spisu »Dijalektički antibarbarus« (1939) izvijestio da je »citirao Velikoga Immanuela«.

Izvorni jezik
Hrvatski

Znanstvena područja
Filozofija, Povijest, Književnost

Napomena
The opus of the Croatian polymath Miroslav Krleža
(1893–1981) contains his judgment of the teachings
of numerous philosophers, including the German
philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). However,
regardless of the fact that Krleža often expressed
his thoughts on Kant’s teaching, moreover he
devoted a separate article to it in 1924 (“On the
Occasion of the Bicentenary of Imanuel Kant’s
Birth”), researchers of Krleža have, according to
my knowledge, rarely or incidentally pointed out
his attitudes towards that eminent German
philosopher thus far. In fact, two short texts
regarding Krleža’s thoughts on Kant have been
published until the present day. Both of them were
written by art historian Andrej Žmegač for the
entries of the Krležijana encyclopedia: one for
the entry “Kant, Immanuel,” and the other for the
entry “‘On the Occasion of the Bicentenary of
Immanuel Kant’s Birth’.”
When he was judging Kant’s teaching in his opus,
Krleža took, among others, an interdisciplinary
approach. As expected, he judged Kant from a
philosophical perspective, especially from the
perspective of logic, theory of knowledge and
ethics, but also from, also as expected, a
literary perspective, especially in his dramas,
novellas and novels. However, he also judged him
from a historical, political and artistic
perspective, and even from the medical and
anthropological one.
Krleža often criticized Kant’s teaching and
considered it close to the Middle Ages, whereat I
single out his statements from the aforementioned
article “On the Occasion of the Bicentenary of
Imanuel Kant’s Birth,” in which he said that
“everything is as impenetrable as a fortress wall
in the Middle Ages” in Kant’s teaching and that
“Kant smells like alchemical sulfur and magic.”
But, he also often pointed out Kant’s exceptional
value a nd influence. For example, in the essay
“Francisco José Goya y Lucientes” (1926) he
claimed that the 18th century was a century of
“Kant and Mozart” and that Kant was one of the
“giants” and one of the “monumental figures,”
while in his polemical writing “Dialectical
Antibarbarus” (1939) he said that he had “cited
Immanuel the Great.”

POVEZANOST RADA