Human rights and civil society

Luděk Sekyra is a leading Czech businessman, chairman of The Sekyra Foundation and owner of the Sekyra Group.

The Sekyra Group is one of the largest real estate development companies in Central Europe. The company focuses primarily on investments in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland.

Luděk Sekyra graduated from the Faculty of Law at Charles University in Prague, where he studied and taught legal philosophy. His interests include moral and political philosophy, as well as support of liberal values and civil society. In the academic sphere, he works on the problem of reciprocity, justice and moral autonomy. Through his foundation, The Sekyra Foundation, he supports the University of Oxford and Harvard University and a number of activities in civil society, including interfaith dialogue. He also co-founded the Centre for Philosophy, Ethics and Religion, later the Centre for Philosophy, Ethics and Religion at Charles University in Prague, with whom he is an active collaborator.

Luděk Sekyra is a member of the Vice Chancellor’s Circle at the University of Oxford and a Foundation Fellow of Harris Manchester College, and a member of the Advisory Board at the Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University. He is also a member of the Aristotelian Society and the American Political Science Association and a long-term partner of the Athens Democracy Forum organized by the New York Times.

Mons. prof. PhDr. Tomáš Halík, Th.D., dr.h.c. (mult) is a professor at the Faculty of Arts as Charles University (teaching philosophy and sociology of religion). Since 1990 he has been the president of the Czech Christian Academy, and since 2015, the vice president of the Council for Research in Values ​​and Philosophy in Washington.

Pope John Paul II appointed him as an advisor to the Pontifical Council for Dialogue with Unbelievers (1990), while Benedict XVI named him an Honorary Prelate (2008). He is a member of the European Academy of Sciences and Arts and a number of other institutions and has received numerous literary and other awards at home and abroad, including the Cardinal König Prize (2003), the Romano Guardini Prize “for outstanding merit in interpreting our time” (2010), the Best European Book of the Year in theology (2011), the honorary title “Man of Reconciliation” for merit in Christian–Jewish dialogue (2011) and the Knight's Cross of Merit awarded by the President of Poland (2012).

During the communist regime he was active in the religious and cultural dissent; after 1989 he travelled across all continents lecturing and studying, including periods as a visiting professor at Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard. His books have been published in 19 languages.

Mgr. Michael Žantovský studied psychology at Charles University and McGill University in Montreal and worked as a researcher at the Psychiatric Research Institute in Prague. In the 1980s he worked as an independent translator, publicist and lyricist. He has translated more than fifty works of modern Anglo-American prose, poetry and drama into Czech. He contributed to the samizdat press, and since 1988 he has been a Prague correspondent for Reuters. He also wrote a book on the life and work of Woody Allen. He is the author of an extensive biography of the late President HAVEL, which was published in Czech, English and other languages ​​in November 2014.

In November 1989 he co-founded the Civic Forum and in December 1989 he became its press secretary. In January 1990, he became press secretary and spokesman for President Václav Havel, as well as the political coordinator of the President's office. In 1996–2002 he was a senator of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defense and Security. In 1997 and 2001–2 he was Chairman of the Civic Democratic Alliance. He has served as ambassador of the Czech Republic in the United States of America, Israel and the United Kingdom. Since 2015 he has been the director of the Václav Havel Library.

Jiři Pehe is a Global Professor at New York University’s Center for European and Mediterranean Studies and Director of NYU Prague. From September 1997 to May 1999 he was Director of the Political Department of Czech President Václav Havel and later served as President Havel’s adviser. Previously he served as Director of Central European Research at the Research Institute of RFE/RL in Munich, Germany. He is a political analyst and the author of six books on politics as well as four novels. He has written extensively on developments in Eastern Europe for American, Czech and German periodicals and academic journals.

Martin Palouš studied natural science, philosophy and international law. In 1974 he received a Doctorate of Natural Sciences (RNDr), and in 2001 he earned a higher doctorate in political science/philosophy (Associate Professorship) at Charles University. In 2007 he got a PhD in public international law.

Since January of 2011, Martin Palouš has been a Senior Fellow and the Director of the Václav Havel Program for Human Rights and Diplomacy at Florida International University’s School of International and Public Affairs. He is also the President of the Václav Havel Library Foundation and the International Platform for Human Rights in Cuba.

He was one of the original signatories of Charter 77, served as its spokesperson in 1986 and participated in the creation of Civic Forum during the Velvet Revolution (November 1989). Since the fall of communism he has served as a Member of Parliament (1990), Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs (1990–1992, 1998–2001), Ambassador of the Czech Republic to the United States (2001-2005) and Permanent Representative of the Czech Republic to the United Nations (2006-2011).

Mgr. Daniel Kroupa, Ph.D. is a philosopher, politician and university teacher. He is a scholar of Professor Jan Patočka and a signatory to Charter 77. During communism he worked mostly in blue-collar professions: window cleaner, machinist and stoker. He also worked for several years as a promotional editor and hospital technician. After the Velvet Revolution, in which he was actively involved from the beginning, he entered politics. He co-founded the ODA political party and was one of the founders of the democratic right wing in Czechoslovakia. He was elected a member of the House of Deputies of the Federal Assembly. He participated in the creation of several laws, such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, the Constitution of the Czech Republic and the Higher Education Act. In the 1990s he was a member of the Chamber of Deputies and a six-year senator of the Czech Parliament. He chaired the ODA between 1998–2001. Kroupa has lectured political philosophy at several universities: the University of Economics, Prague; Charles University and the University of West Bohemia. For ten years he led the Department of Political Science and Philosophy at Faculty of Arts of Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem, where he still works.

Václav Štětka received his Ph.D. in sociology from Masaryk University in Brno, the Czech Republic, where he then worked as Assistant Professor in the Department of Media Studies and Journalism at the Faculty of Social Studies. Between 2009 and 2013 he was a Senior Research Fellow at the Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford, working on an ERC-funded project titled “Media and Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe”. He moved to Prague in 2013, having been appointed a Senior Researcher at the Institute of Communication Studies and Journalism, Charles University. There, he established the Political Communication Research Group, which focuses on the role of social media in political communication and civic participation. In 2016 he joined the Department of Social Studies, Loughborough University, becoming a Lecturer and member of the new Centre for Research in Communication and Culture (CRCC).

Václav Štětka was a member of the Executive Board of ECREA (European Communication Research and Education Association) between 2015 and 2016, and since 2016 he has been Vice-Chair of ECREA’s Political Communication Section.

He has been an active member of the recent COST network on Populist Political Communication (2014–2018), a participant in the Oxford-based Digital News Report project and a contributor to the Media Pluralism Monitor project led by the European University Institute in Florence. He has been regularly invited as an expert to collaborate with various media organizations, NGOs and policy actors around the issues of media freedom and quality of democracy; recently, he has been involved in the organization of the Athens Democracy Forum, hosted by the New York Times, with Loughborough University’s CRCC as one of the Knowledge Partners. Since 2018 he has been a member of the Network of European Political Communication Scholars (NEPOCS).

Lord Mark Maloch-Brown is a British diplomat and politician and the president of the Open Society Foundations.

Dr. habil. Karolina Wigura is a sociologist, historian of ideas, and journalist. She is a member of the Board of the Kultura Liberalna Foundation.

Jacques Rupnik is a French political scientist and historian.

Grzegorz Ekiert is a professor of Government at Harvard University, the director of the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies and a Senior Scholar at the Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies.

Ivan Krastev is a political scientist, the chairman of the Centre for Liberal Strategies in Sofia, and a permanent fellow at the IWM (Institute of Human Sciences) in Vienna.

Marta Šimečková is a journalist and the founder of the Central European Forum in Bratislava.  

Mark Thompson is the former president and chief executive officer of The New York Times and BBC.

Jeff McMahan is a philosopher and professor at Oxford University. He has been Sekyra and White's Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Oxford since 2014.

Michael Rosen is a professor of political theory in the Government Department and has worked on a wide variety of topics in philosophy, social theory and the history of ideas.

Alexander Görlach is a Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, and a Research Associate at the Internet Institute at Oxford University.

Radosław Sikorski is a Polish politician and journalist who is a Member of the European Parliament.

Barbara Havelková is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law and a Law Fellow at St Hilda’s College, University of Oxford. She holds degrees from Charles University in Prague (Mgr - Master in Law, summa cum laude; JUDr), Europa-Institut of Saarland University (LLM) and the University of Oxford (MSt in Legal Research and DPhil). She visited Harvard and Michigan Law Schools as a Fulbright-Masaryk Scholar and spent time at the Jean Monnet Center at NYU as an Emile Noël Fellow.

Barbara’s research and teaching interests include gender legal studies and feminist jurisprudence, equality and anti-discrimination law, constitutional law, EU law and law in post-socialist transitions. Her book, Gender Equality in Law: Uncovering the Legacies of Czech State Socialism, was published by Hart/Bloomsbury in 2017, and a volume on Anti-Discrimination Law in Civil Law Jurisdictions, she co-authored and co-edited, came out in 2019 with Oxford University Press.

Barbara has also been active as an expert and an academic in the Czech Republic. Between 2014 and 2017, she acted as an Advisor to the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic on issues of gender and law. In Czech, she is the author of a monograph Pay equality of men and women (Auditorium, 2007), co-author of the leading Commentary on the Czech Anti-Discrimination Act (C.H.Beck, 2010, 2016) and co-editor and co-author of edited volumes What to do with prostitution? Public policies and the rights of persons in prostitution (SLON, 2014) and Men’s Laws: Are Legal Rules Neutral? (WoltersKluwer, 2020).

Here you can view a video of Tomas Halik at The Thirteenth LWF Assembly plenary III session.

The Foundation has supported the Petr Pithart Library, whose purpose is to share, preserve, and externally represent Petr Pithart’s half-century in Czech culture, education, and politics. The main activities of the library are education, documentation, and publishing, and it also organizes debates and public meetings.

The library intends to publish The Life and Times of Petr Pithart, a book linked via QR codes to a web portal (https://petrpithartmemory.cz/) and multimedia (film and television documentaries, audio podcasts).

The Foundation supported the publication of Adam Smith’s book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, known by its abbreviated title, The Wealth of Nations. Adam Smith (1723–1790) was a Scottish economist and philosopher, a founder of modern economics, and a member of the Scottish Enlightenment. The book is a foundational work of classical economics, first published in 1776, and studies the economy at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, describing the free market as more productive and useful than other systems. It was in The Wealth of Nations that Smith formulated his metaphor of the “invisible hand” of the market.

The Foundation supported the publication of Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments. Adam Smith (1723–1790) was a Scottish economist and philosopher, a founder of modern economics, and a member of the Scottish Enlightenment. The book is considered to be the pinnacle of British moral philosophy. In it, Adam Smith developed his theory of spontaneous genesis of the moral order, as well as the philosophical foundations of the scientific method, which he later applied in The Wealth of Nations.

The book was published by the Liberal Institute, whose goal is to develop and apply ideas and programs based on the principles of classical liberalism. Their activities are grounded in the values of individual freedom, limited government, free markets, and peace. Their original scientific projects and research serve as the foundation for their other work in the fields of education (lectures, summer schools, discussion forums, teaching) and publishing (books, studies, scientific and popular articles, translation work).

Preface

Adam Smith is one of the most important figures of the extraordinary intellectual effort that was the Scottish Enlightenment – a student of the moral philosopher Francis Hutcheson and friend of David Hume, who was clearly one of the most influential British philosophers of the 18th century. The thinking of Adam Smith, known primarily as the father of modern economics, had deep philosophical roots, as testified by his academic position as professor of moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow. All this fundamentally shaped his thinking, his approach toward ethical, social, and economic analysis. Throughout the history of ideas, we do not find many figures with both a marked impact on ethics and a fundamental impact on economics. In his book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, first published in 1759, he developed, in an extremely original manner, the central concept of sympathy, which we also find in the work of his predecessors, such as Shaftesbury or Hutchenson, and his colleagues and contemporaries, such as Hume. For him, sympathy is a moral sentiment, a kind of reflection of feelings, passions and the states of others, whilst the approaches of those others are mirrored in our consciousness and ideas as a precondition of a sympathetic relationship towards them. This is the foundation of Smithian moral theory and draws us closer to ‘the healing consolation of mutual sympathy’. In this interpretation, sympathy includes not only compassion and togetherness, but also the idea of the market, intermingling with broad-based empathy.^[1]  The second important concept in Smithian moral philosophy is the ‘impartial spectator’. His stance is an expression of moral standards and, in the first edition, also of consensual values and social status. Smith was acutely aware of the disillusion with the social dynamics of rapidly emerging capitalism and this led him, in his sixth and final edition of 1790, to a transformation of the ‘impartial spectator’ – in his words ‘the man within the breast’, who became a representative of the virtuous few. Smith’s new chosen ones faced the growing ‘marketplace of desire’, which represented the birth of a consumer society at the tail end of the 18th century.

The ideal of individualistic agrarian capitalism produced by enterprising individuals started to fade away. Smith saw the surreptitious seeds of erosion of his model, which was so admired by the liberal economic elites of the 20th century, such as Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich August von Hayek. This also strengthened his mistrust in large trade and joint-stock companies with monopolistic tendencies, especially the East India Company, which he considered to be a ‘national cancer’. He believed the ‘admiration of the rich and powerful’ to be a symptom of social depravity and the erosion of moral sentiments. The liberal critical reflection of rapidly developing capitalism found strong expression in a thorough critique by Marx, which reached a fundamentally erroneous conclusion, however. Recently, a wide-ranging response in this sense was awoken by Thomas Piketty’s comprehensive critique of capitalism’s tendency to produce asset inequality.^[2] With all due respect for his analysis of the causes of growing inequality, one cannot agree with his conclusions calling for intervention, regulation, and redistribution. We must always keep in mind that the market environment is not only one of the causes of economic inequality, but also a primary source of societal wealth. It cannot be overlooked that freedom, autonomy and democracy founded in neutral institutions are a result of market competition. Smith’s position as the founder of economic liberalism often raised the question about the mutual relationship of his ethical thinking as a whole in The Wealth of Nations, his most influential work on economics. The concepts of sympathy or the ‘impartial spectator’ are replaced by the concepts of self-interest and the ‘invisible hand’ of the market. This apparent contradiction led several commentators to the conclusion that his work has two completely distinct sides, that he arrived at a radical change in his perspective of social reality. Nevertheless, on closer inspection of his work we can see a coherence of thought, since economic concepts cannot be properly understood without an ethical context. I believe that the link that connects the two is that of prudence, Smith’s most important virtue, not only an expression of self-interest, but a precondition for sympathy. As a rule, only the satisfaction of one’s own self-interest opens up the possibility for sympathy with the needs of others and the ability to care for them. Prudence is a characteristic which allows for the opinions of others, it is a characteristic which oscillates between selfish self-love and benevolence, i.e. kindness, affection and tolerance. It is a symbol of the tension between the market environment and the moral attitudes, thus generating societal movement. Prudence is also a source of legitimacy for spontaneously established norms and principles, which have a generic regulatory function, both in ethics and in the economic environment. A prudent person can be both a canny businessman and a benevolent and generous patron, a moral person, standard creator, and thus an impartial founder of a framework for the ‘invisible hand’ of the market. The latter not only coordinates individual choices and neutralises conflicts, but also moulds individuals into social creatures. In this interpretation, the market takes us out of isolation whilst the spontaneous allocation of resources and the fulfilment of needs mixes with the interaction of entities who are in competition with each other yet express mutual sympathy. Prudence can be approached as a step towards something more structured, which I would call the ethics of wealth, of surplus, which should evoke not only pleasure, but responsibility and empathy. This is a highly desirable line of reasoning which deserves to be developed, as it offers a liberal value approach as an alternative to the compelling yet dysfunctional egalitarian models. The breadth and depth of Adam Smith’s thematic scope is astonishing. For me, he and David Hume are the most inspirational of the British moralists, and alongside Kant, both have profoundly influenced my own ethical thinking.

I have a particularly strong personal connection to The Theory of Moral Sentiments since I have the first edition from the middle of the 18th century in my library. I trust that the reader will also develop an affection for the book – it deserves it.

Luděk Sekyra

^[1] An original and inspirational interpretation of Smith’s work, in terms of sympathy or empathy, including a comparison with Hume’s concept, is found in Samuel Fleischacker’s book Being Me, Being You: Adam Smith and Empathy, The University of Chicago Press 2019

^[2] Piketty, Thomas – Capital in the Twenty First Century, Universum 2015

On Monday June 19^th, 2023, between 13.00 and 18.00 am, at the Vaclav Havel Library (Ostrovní 129/13, 110 00 Nové Město) the Democracy & Culture Foundation in collaboration with the Sekyra Foundation, and Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung will conduct a twin event. During the first part a panel of two speakers will examine the issue of “Women in Politics and Public Space”. In the second part the Atlas organization will conduct and facilitate a four-hour citizens’ driven consultation on the issue of “Political parties, money and influence”. Local citizens will be asked to debate this specific issue and come up with policy recommendations that have a Czechia-oriented and universal application, which, when implemented, will contribute to strengthening the functioning of Liberal Democracy.

The entire event will be conducted in Czech.

Ms. Ladmanova, Head of Representation of the European Commission in the Czech Republic and Ms. Nerudova, University professor and a candidate in the 2023 Czech presidential election will be the speakers in the panel

Andrea Venzon and Colombe Cahen-Salvador will conduct and facilitate the Consultation.

Václav Štětka will act as the moderator for the panel and as rapporteur for the Consultation

The consultation is part of the “Re-Imagining the Building Blocks of Democracy”, a 3-year international project, already in its 2d year of implementation which runs in 10 cities across the world (both the Global North and the Global South) and aims through a combination of experts’ roundtables and citizens’ consultations to identify, publicize and push for implementation specific policy proposals that would help Liberal Democracy meet the challenges of our times. The proposals concentrate on five main issues (building blocks) namely people, parties-money & influence, voting, information & disinformation and the balance between legislative and executive power.

Some of the issues that will be debated during the consultation are the following:

In today’s interconnected world Parties & Money have become interconnected with Power & Influence. Simultaneously, the centers of “power& influence” have shifted, with technology and innovation as drivers in this shift.

• Which are the primary power yielders and influencers in a democratic political system? Which are these new centers, and which is their importance. The ways used to exercise “power & influence” through money.
• To what extent has this development altered the traditional “power & influence” of political parties? How parties exercise it, how have they adapted. What, if any, is the “cost” in terms of democracy.
• Have the centers of “power & influence” within parties shifted? Why, how and which is the extent of this development. The case to redress the balance in terms of enhancing democracy and counterbalance in terms of efficiency.
• Have these developments increased or reduced the relation between citizens and parties? Effects on representation—qua parties representing citizens.
• Is there a need to address party reform? Ways to redesign party structure and to re-balance the different centers of “power & influence
• What is the importance and what are the dangers of reaching out and of appeasing grass roots organizations and of launching an “open party”?

Registration is required here. 

19. 6. 2023, the Vaclav Havel Library

The University of Notre Dame Press published a new book by Tomáš Halík Touch the Wounds: On Suffering, Trust, and Transformation.

March, 2023

A lecture will be given by Stephen Darwall, professor at Yale University called “Attitudes of the Will and Attitudes of the Heart”.

Abstract:

The reactive attitudes through which we hold people accountable (resentment, guilt, and blame) have been much studied. But P. F. Strawson gave other examples – love, gratitude, and "hurt feelings." I present an analysis of these attitudes as "second-personal attitudes of the heart."  Whereas the deontic moral attitudes are attitudes of the will – expressing demands from one will to another – second-personal attitudes of the heart open one's heart to another's in the hope that theirs will be open to one's heart in return. In the process we arrive at a perfectly general account of attitudes as "reciprocating attitudes."

JAN PALACH SQUARE, FACULTY OF HUMANITIES, CHARLES UNIVERSITY, March 16, 2022 AT 5:00 PM

Kultura Liberalna is a centrist liberal media organization established in Poland in 2008 by a group of journalists and academics, which publishes an influential weekly online journal featuring articles, commentary, and debate. The organization also publishes books, organizes international events, and develops partnerships with other media outlets and intellectual networks around the globe. The organization‘s main aim is to strengthen and modernize liberal ideas in Central and Eastern Europe through the promotion of the ideals of an open society, pluralism of worldviews, and free debate based on mutual respect.

In 2023, Kultura Liberalna plans to realize the Czech Philosophical Thinking Project, which will be focused on subjects such as John Amos Comenius and the role of education, Jan Patocka and European philosophy, and Jan Mukařovský and literary theory.

In January, the Emeritus White’s Professor of Moral Philosophy, John Broome, the current Sekyra and White’s Professor of Moral Philosophy, Jeff McMahan, and Luděk Sekyra himself all participated in a two-day workshop at Corpus to investigate aggregation in moral, and political and legal philosophy. More here.

A lecture will be given by Stefan Gosepath, professor at Freie Universität Berlin called “What, if anything, is wrong with inheritance”.

Abstract:

This talk is concerned with the fundamental question of whether it is just that people inherit property. Should a property owner be entitled to transfer that property after their death to a person of their choosing? Is the right to posthumous transfer a part of the right to private property? Gosepath will defend the thesis that the common social practice of inheritance, embodied in law and institutions, is actually pro tanto unjust, since it confers an unjust advantage on the beneficiary. To establish this thesis, Gosepath shall first consider the main arguments against inheritance from a justice perspective, then defend these positions against four of the main normative arguments offered in favour of inheritance: the right to property objection, the gift objection, the value of the family objection, and the double tax objection.

JAN PALACH SQUARE, FACULTY OF HUMANITIES, CHARLES UNIVERSITY, OCTOBER 13, 2022 AT 5:00 PM

This essay by Luděk Sekyra was originally published by Seznam Zprávy on September 28, 2022.

Every war must be assessed according to its true causes. In order to be a just war (jus ad bellum), the cause must be justifiable – for example, a war of liberation or defense or a struggle against a brutal regime.

Unjust wars always have more complicated motives: for example, an imperial attack on a national minority or an attempt to achieve hegemonic power. In essence, though, these motives are morally unjustifiable. One such motive is Russian national imperialism, which is the basis of its current aggression towards Ukraine. It must also be mentioned that this aggression has been carried out in a way that does not respect recognized rules of waging war (jus in bello), intentionally bringing its horrors to the civilian population and, at the same time, violating the principle of proportionality.

War generally results in seeking peace; peace is the boundary line of war, its limit. At the same time, the issue involves a difficult dilemma: at what moment do the advantages of peaceful coexistence prevail over being prepared for battle, defense, and sacrifice? In an unjust war, especially one where the aggressor cannot be fully defeated, the cardinal question is: what degree of “permanent” injustice or loss of territory is acceptable for making peace as a prerequisite for the autonomous development of every national community?

 An empire without self-reflection

To find the causes of the current conflict, we must look at Russia’s age-old imperial ambitions as a territorial power, which stem from the geopolitical orientation of its leaders: those who do not try to expand their territory are no good. The expansive thinking of a superpower, however, often resonates with the uncritical, resigned, but also frustrated mentality of ordinary people. According to author Alexander Solzhenitsyn, this way of thinking makes it so that a Russian can bear freezing weather and blows from a nagaika, but cannot bear not being feared. A peasant beaten by a lord crawls home and beats his wife unconscious.

The author’s own life story is, in its way, fascinating and contradictory at the same time, which is exactly why it can serve as a key for understanding the attitudes of a significant part of the Russian elite. His Gulag Archipelago is perhaps the most effective description of the frightening reality of the Soviet prison system, and his novel The Red Wheel created an unusually lively image of the Bolshevik revolution. He was persecuted and forced into exile. However, after the fall of communism and his return to Russia, he inspired Putin and shared with him the idea of Great Russia including both Belarus and Little Russia – that is, Ukraine. The national idea of Great Russia, the dream of the nation’s special mission, has deep roots, often stressing the role of the Orthodox Church; the views of another literary giant, Dostoyevsky, are typical in this respect. After all, territorial expansion is the historical foundation of Russian state doctrine, which sees East Slavic nations as an essential part of its empire, entirely in the spirit of Havel’s incisive bon mot that Russia doesn’t know where it begins and ends.

There are two kinds of limits to expansion: external, like Ukrainians’ military and political resistance to aggression, and internal, first and foremost the collective self-reflection of an imperial nation. Here we encounter the issue of the transformation of the values of Russian society. To the extent that we can speak of internal criticism, this is not a widespread position, but usually involves the statements of individual dissidents.

Russia has not undertaken the painful soul-searching of Western nations like France, Belgium, and Britain over their own colonial pasts, which casts doubt on established stereotypes, cultural patterns, and even the very narrative of the great figures of that era. Other examples of successful reckoning with dark episodes of history include postwar Germany and Japan.

Although all this can serve as inspiration for Russia, and robust reflection on the country’s history would be a turning point and a condition for true change, it is unrealistic to expect it at present. The two ideological pillars of Russia – nationalism and Orthodoxy – are firmly in the hands of the regime. It is, above all, ideology rather than material conditions that acts as a driver of Russian history. Another driver is the Muscovite elite, not the people. A century ago, Masaryk, a great expert of Russian society, observed that thanks to its uncritical masses, Russia will always see the emergence of a political oligarchy, be it czarist or Bolshevik. He noted that they removed the czar, but not czarism. Similarly, they later rid themselves of communism, but not totalitarian thought.

After all, the continuity and expansion of authoritarianism and brutality is not a civilizational alternative to the West, it is just another limit on Russian imperial ambitions.

 A conflict of liberties

We should not overlook the fact that the Russian aggression is not just a military and political conflict; this is just the shell under which a deeper cultural conflict is hidden. If we take a good look at Russian history, we find that the country suffered several generations of Tatar domination, then groaned under the subjection of the czar; it never went through the Enlightenment and later faced communist totalitarianism. Collective identity, identification with the state and its apparatus, have remained primary. At a relatively early point, from the rule of Czar Ivan the Great in the sixteenth century and the legendary cruelty of his all-powerful oprichniki, repressive units of state power received a privileged position. This got transferred to the practice of police institutions in later regimes. In another layer of these traditions, we see a culture of war, death, seeking enemies, and a predominance of oppression and fear as a principle of negative unity.

With a no less bloody history, Ukraine was subjected to a difficult coexistence with the Russian Empire, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and even Ottoman invasions, but its formative elements were different. The Cossacks and their “hetmans” always vigilantly protected their independence, and the Ukrainian Revival in Galicia, around Lviv, absorbed Enlightenment influences in the environment of the relatively liberal Habsburg monarchy. Religious pluralism was expressed through the Greek Catholic Church in the west and the Orthodox Church in the east. As a country on the periphery, a borderland, it was more exposed to Western intellectual influences, including individualism and critical thought. Despite Russian pressure, a modern Ukrainian identity was thus formed, creating a self-sufficient nation despite occasional offshoots of charged nationalism.

Ukrainian statehood has always been fragile and uncertain under pressure from many sides. For a long time, the nation existed without political representation. Ukrainian liberty means autonomy, liberty from the state; this is not just a dream of resistance to oppressors, to the originators of Stalin’s Holodomor, but also a definite impulse and a motivation to fight against today’s occupiers. It is a defensive liberty, recalling what legendary Oxford professor Isaiah Berlin called negative liberty, in contrast to positive liberty, which the state creates the preconditions for and enforces. This, in contrast, is distantly similar to the Russian model of liberty, which arises in a totalitarian conception of the state founded on the principle of everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. This then becomes the sole source of a kind of “manipulative” liberty which is aggressive and eliminates any alternative stance that citizens may adopt as well as the autonomy of the individual.

These two concepts of liberty are irreconcilable, this being the core of the ongoing war, though one often covered by calculated rhetoric. Liberty is always substantive in terms of both morality and practical politics.

The different borders of evil

Evil is a part of human nature. Immanuel Kant even speaks of a “radical disposition towards evil”, which for him is “an invisible enemy who hides behind reason”. Unjust aggression includes a manifestation of this sort of evil, but it is only a possibility, a matter of how we handle our natural dispositions, just as we can tend towards the opposite, good deeds.

The problem of evil has worried Christian thinkers since Augustine and philosophers from Leibniz through today. How is it possible than an infinitely good god allows the existence of evil, is a common question. So that good can come about, is one answer. The borders of evil are, on the one hand, its worst manifestations, like violence against civilians in war, genocide, and ethnic cleansing; and on the other hand, good and the strength of human conscience. Given the primary human need for recognition from others, we can speak of the social origin of evil, because many wish to gain the admiration and respect of others through their actions. A remedy for this tendency can usually be found in a moral community, whether religious or secular, sharing fundamental human values, in contrast with destructive evil, one example of which is Russia’s spiteful aggression.

A substantial amount of evil in the world is carried out by humans against one another. What can be done, however, when no alternative moral community exists, or one can only be created or identified with difficulty, as is the case given the conditions of contemporary Russia? The only option left is personal engagement, including the remarkable courage needed to express one’s opinion in public – because an individual’s right to a moral stance cannot be taken away, it belongs to the elementary inheritance of humanity. Unfortunately, people must sometimes suffer for it.

Intellectuals who understand the region, like Timothy Snyder, Timothy Garton Ash, and political philanthropist George Soros, reacted to the aggression with very clear denunciation, warning against further goals of the aggressor, and calling for unlimited support of the invaded country. Other important Central European intellectuals – Adam Michnik, Tomáš Halík, and many others – spoke out similarly and even more forcefully. Finally, the sentiment of citizens of countries, including those that are not so close to Russia geographically, is predominantly pro-Ukrainian, which is one reason why Ukraine can rely on the unanimous support of the European Union and the United States.

On the other hand, a number of influential figures of the West have expressed the opposite opinion. The doyen of left-wing discourse, Noam Chomsky, surprised few when he accused NATO of provoking everything by considering admitting Ukraine. More unexpected were similar statements by Pope Francis: these, too, have developed in some ways since, but his initial attempt to maintain a certain amount of neutrality is, in his case, striking at the least. I believe that this apparent pretext cannot be passed off as the true cause of the attack on a sovereign state.

Henry Kissinger, a realist, would prefer to give Crimea to Russia for the price of peace; his thoughts have also shown a progression, though without a clear stance. On the other hand, popular contrarian Jordan B. Peterson placed the aggression in the context of the American culture war between progressives and conservatives, in which progressive trends are supposedly devastating a secularized, “pathological” West. He assigns conservative Russia an important role in the revival of Christian religiosity. To this, all that needs to be said is that the crucial culture war is between Russia and the West; the latter will win, which is why Ukraine wants to be a part of it. Marxist revivalist Slavoj Žižek, on the other hand, warns that Russian neo-imperialism will be replaced by neoliberalism, and that Ukraine will become an economic colony of the West; this can be prevented if the country sets off on its own path, but he doesn’t say which. Even Jürgen Habermas, an iconic figure of European public discourse, is irritated by the radical support for Ukraine shown by some German politicians and has made an appeal for a sober compromise with a nuclear superpower. Here we find resonance with  the illusion of an effective left-wing Ostpolitik hidden in his theory of communicative action as the preferred model of coexistence.

What connects these realist views is that, to some extent, they do not distinguish between a principled moral stance and a political solution which is necessary but often full of compromises; this is dangerous, because this sort of confusion leads the basic stance itself to become relativized. The consequence is polarization, a breakdown that may threaten the stability of just political organization in both national and international communities.

One factor standing behind these views is the ever-influential idea from modern analytic philosophy that reality is value-neutral, that values are a human projection onto it; in this conception, justice and injustice, truths and lies are matters of subjective attitudes. This approach must be rejected, because the horrors of war prove that both facts and mere events have an objective moral content, that the line between good and evil cannot be explained away when one is limiting the other. In addition, the worst wartime situations, like the torture of civilians, urgently call for the resolution of a complicated philosophical riddle: how to overcome the conflict, the discrepancy, the abyss between facts and values, between what is and what should be. I have a feeling that seeking an answer to this question is the key to moral progress, to the ability to look at the world through the eyes of the other.

Change and continuity

Ukrainians have displayed heroism, which is undoubtably a virtue, and have the right to all-around help from us when they are facing aggression for their turn towards the idea of Europe, civil rights, and respect for the dignity of the individual. The rational legacy of the Enlightenment is today being fought and died for in Kherson and Kharkiv: this must be taken into consideration before starting any discussion about the conflict, its economic consequences, and potential compromises for peace.

Politics stands for power or the balance of power, but morality is a stance that is never neutral. We cannot rule out the existence dilemmas, but Russian aggression is certainly not for the good, so the alternative is the obvious direction to take.

This offers the option to taking clear positions. After all, the main task of ethics is identifying principles and adopting stances. I am convinced that the principle of moral reciprocity is essential, being a precondition for and guaranteeing the continuity of a humanity grounded in values, because values are the source of accepted principles. Reciprocity means that we should treat others as we want them to treat us. Moral reciprocity has an asymmetric dimension in the form of responsibility towards those who are not capable of reciprocal actions – those who are weaker, vulnerable, children, and seniors. We never know when we, too, may find ourselves in such a situation. A heightened responsibility for the stronger towards the weaker could also be a starting point for relationships between states. Applying a moral perspective in this domain may seem idealistic, but it is necessary for a consistent attitude in helping those who are facing injustice through no fault of their own.

A successful defense and victory for a democratic Ukraine will be symbolic and inspirational. Let us not forget that democracy does not always win: even in the Peloponnesian War, ancient Athens, the cradle of democracy, was defeated by the militaristic monarchy of Sparta, thus putting an end to the blossoming of this cradle of Western culture. In the twentieth century, interwar Europe was enlaced in a web of authoritarianism; after the war, its eastern part was captured by totalitarianism isolated from liberty by the Iron Curtain. It is good that the geopolitical voluntarism and territorial ambition of Russia are running up against the Euro-Atlantic security architecture; the tragedy of Ukraine is that it is not a part of the latter.

This leads me to think about the moral structure of a world founded on principles, conscience, and freedom, which are a part of its set of values, to which we must return as the foundation for any sensible politics capable of sacrificing short-term interests for long-term ones. History is usually a compromise between change and continuity. Russia needs a change; Ukraine, continuity for its chosen path, and in this, it deserves our support.

Luděk Sekyra

The conference “Wittgenstein and Philosophy for the 21st Century” aims to present and develop the relevance of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s thinking to contemporary thought. A particular focus is on future-oriented topics such as artificial intelligence, inter-cultural understanding, and modern epistemology. The conference is a sequel to the “Culture and Value after Wittgenstein” conference which took place in Oxford in August 2019 and “Wittgenstein and the Vienna Circle – After 100 Years” which took place in Vienna in June 2021. Organized by the Sekyra Foundation and the Centre for Philosophy, Ethics and Religion (Charles University).

The Foundation is supporting the publication of a new translation of Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince by Jan Bíba. Regardless of our perspective on The Prince, the book changed our way of thinking about politics forever. This new translation of the classic text includes several short texts connected to the original treatise, which are appearing in Czech for the first time. This edition including accompanying texts and extensive commentary place the text not only in the context of the author’s life and work, but also in the historical and political context of Europe in the 15th and 16th century, thereby helping us more clearly understand Machiavelli’s way of thinking.

The foundation is supporting the publication of A Long Night’s Stories, which was originally published in 2018 by Hlbiny in Bratislava. The new publication, by the UK-based Mount Orleans Press, is intended to spread the knowledge about the brutality of the communist regime.

Rudolf Dobiáš was born into a peasant family on September 29, 1934, in Dobra near Trenčín, Slovakia. In 1954 he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for treason. The main reason for the arrest was membership in an illegal scouting organization that produced and distributed anti-communist leaflets. After being sentenced, he was transported to Jáchymov District, where he worked as a miner in the Jáchymov uranium mines until 1960. After the fall of communism, he became a journalist, working as editor of Slovenský denník. Until 2013 he edited the journal of the Slovak Confederation of Political Prisoners, Naše Svedectvo (Our Testimony). He has compiled four books of testimonies attesting to the brutality of the communist regime, Triedni nepriatelia (Class Enemies), as well as an anthology of poetry written in prison, Básnici za mrežami (Poets Behind Bars).

She was she told me a proper English schoolgirl,

though born in Prague and weaned off south, in Belgrade, hiding from Hitler's bombs in a Kensington Park Rd. basement, not really knowing they were meant for her,

an unsuspecting Jewish girl

from a far-away country of which it was known nothing,

the country lost, and freed, and lost again,

its freedom lost and found, and lost again. They fled.

'For us, like any other fugitive,'

the poet said, 'it is today in which we live.'

She became a refugee on Long Island

and teenager in Denver, proper again, how else, wishing, as all refugees do, to belong.

She started clubs and groups, a family, a home, and hosted parties, raised funds and daughters, and acted proper and was content to stay silent until she lost it one more time,

and had to start from scratch; but before long she found a bridge across the troubled waters. Her loyalty grew out of being exiled,

her strength out of being left alone.

So she went public, never to be alone again,

went back to school, reading Locke and Hobbes and Plato

and her own dad, some Henry, mostly Zbig,

taught through the years and traveled through the summers and learned to fight and learned to speak in pins

and worked and studied till she made it big,

till she was poised to help enlarging NATO.

She knew defeat but scored some major wins,

Democrat to the core yet open to all comers

for who else could charm both Jesse Helms and John McCain?

With freedom she went back to the city she was born in,

looked for family graves, those that were not just airborne ashes,

and spoke Czech again, though she received no warning

she would be wined and dined by true or sycophantic

friends, treated at times like queen, at times like some difficult auntie, and fell in love with Havel, the roasted duck, the spires,

kept safely away from our domestic clashes,

and humored all, the foes and the admirers,

made Bill Clinton play My Funny Valentine on sax

and made me put on my threadbare wedding tux

Proper most of the time, decent always,

but tough as nails, a Calamity Jane

siding with those oppressed, betrayed, and women, not to be lured by populistic sirens

easily smelling the lack of cojones in tyrants

and lies in diplomats and politicians of both sexes, including some of those she used to call her “exes”. And though she surely made for herself a name,

she was never carried away by hallowed hallways but lit them up to push against the dark,

knowing that a lived life is the only life worth living And as all those who have left their mark

was hated by some and loved by many,

a teacher, a friend, a policy wonk, a granny.

Michael Zantovsky, Washington, DC, April 27, 2022

Centre for philosophy, ethics and religion Faculty of Arts, Charles University invites you for two sessions with Prof. Mark Wrathall (University of Oxford)

session one

Heidegger’s Phenomenology of Authentic Religious Life

Date: WED 20.4.2022

Time: 15:50

Location: Room 217, FF UK – nám. Jana Palacha 2

For this session, please read Part One, Chapter Four and Part Two of Heidegger’s Introduction to the Phenomenology of Religion (in Gesamtausgabe vol. 60: Phänomenologie des religiösen Lebens; English Translation is The Phenomenology of Religious Life).  Secondary source for the discussion is Denis McManus, “Being-Towards-Death and Owning One’s Judgment,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research XCI (2015): 245-272

session two

The Modal Interpretation of Heideggerian Death

Date: THU 21.4.2022

Time: 17:30

Location: Room 225V, FF UK – nám. Jana Palacha 2

For the second session, the primary text is Division Two, Chapter I of Being and Time. Possible secondary reading is Thomson, I. (2021). Death (Tod). In M. Wrathall (Ed.), The Cambridge Heidegger Lexicon (pp. 210-220). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The secondary readings are available online or contact jakub.jirsa@ff.cuni.cz for them.

20.4.2022, Room 217, FF UK – nám. Jana Palacha 2
21.4.2022, Room 225V, FF UK – nám. Jana Palacha 2

We the undersigned, on behalf of ourselves as well as the institutions we represent, wish to nominate Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who is leading the Ukrainians’ existential struggle for the return of peace, freedom, and justice, for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize.

Early in the morning of February 24, 2022, Russian armed forces crossed the Ukrainian border and began an invasion against a sovereign, independent state. Despite repeated warnings about the accumulation of Russian forces along the Ukrainian borders, none of us imagined that an act of this kind could occur in Europe in the 21^st century.

This is not a local conflict that “only” affects Ukraine. The war has become a symbol of the struggle for universal values. With his unprecedented move, Russian President Vladimir Putin has cast doubt on the future of the international security order. “If we win, and I’m sure we'll win, this will be the victory of the whole democratic world, this will be the victory of our freedom, this will be the victory of light over darkness, of freedom over slavery,” Zelenskyy declared in one of his speeches.

As past experiences have shown, the fear that Vladimir Putin will proceed according to a plan known well from the history of Czechoslovakia is entirely realistic. First he will occupy a border region, then the entire country, and if the democratic world does not stand up in time and with sufficient force, he will continue further. This would only embolden dictators and war criminals throughout the world.

Freedom is a precious and fragile gift. At the same time, it is also a demanding duty. It must be constantly cared for, protected, and developed. Zelenskyy’s stance has shown that he is well aware of this fact. The conflict between freedom and aggressive totalitarianism, which has shaped the history of the 21^st century, has proven to be as yet unsettled, and if we do not defend the values of freedom, human dignity, and the right to self-determination for both nations and individuals, we could lose everything.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine does not have any motive that could justify it. However, from the perspective of Ukrainians, this war is much more than a defense against an aggressor. It is a struggle for the moral character of Europe, a test of bravery and solidarity. “Please don’t be silent. Do not turn a blind eye on this, come out and support Ukraine,” the Ukrainian present said in his appeal to the world. He has repeatedly, urgently called for a peaceful resolution to the conflict that would prevent further humanitarian catastrophes and further needless loss of human life.

At the very beginning of the war, the Ukrainian president had the opportunity to leave the country; however, he refused the offer of evacuation to safety. He chose a different path. He stands at the head of his country’s armed forces, and his demeanor has given millions of Ukrainians the feeling that they are not alone in this difficult time, as well as the hope that the aggressor will not emerge victorious. He has shown exemplary courage, one of the most important human virtues. He is a man who inspires the world with his humanity and conviction.

A number of eminent individuals have requested that you extend the period for nominations for the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize, in part because we find ourselves in an unprecedented situation where heroism is taking shape at every moment. We believe that President Zelenskyy’s behavior and attitudes fully justify our nomination and trust that you will receive our nomination positively.

Respectfully,

Prof. Tomáš Halík                                            Luděk Sekyra                                     Michael Žantovský

Prof. Tomáš Halík, Professor at Charles University in Prague, winner of the Templeton Prize, President of the Czech Christian Academy

Luděk Sekyra, Chairman of the Sekyra Foundation

Michael Žantovský, Director of the Václav Havel Library

This very interesting article titled From eastern Europe we watch Ukraine in fear. Its fate could decide the continent’s future by Karolina Wigura and Jarosław Kuisz was published by the Guardian on February 1, 2022.

Tomáš Halík has been named an honorary professor of the International Institute for Hermeneutics, which was founded 20 years ago at the University of Warsaw. Its mission is to promote international and interdisciplinary partnership in phenomenologically oriented hermeneutic philosophy. Its international community of professors has aimed to develop partnerships between philosophy, theology, literary criticism, and other fields.

In addition, Tomáš Halík became the first foreign recipient of the prestigious Józef Tischner Award in Krakow. Tischner, the award’s namesake, was a Polish philosopher and chaplain of the Solidarity movement.

From the Polish press release:

“This unique prize has been awarded without interruption since 2001 to significant intellectuals, journalists, and social activists. This year’s laureate, Tomáš Halík – a philosopher, theologian, and sociologist – was recognized in the category of religious and philosophical work continuing Tischner’s ‘thinking in values’ for his book Time of Empty Churches. In this book, he shows that the pandemic era has forced us to rediscover Christianity.”

Oxford University acknowledges its cooperation with the Sekyra Foundation and will rename its oldest professorship in philosophy

Oxford University has decided to acknowledge its long-term cooperation with Luděk Sekyra and his Sekyra Foundation. The foundation, whose international efforts focus on supporting philosophy, has provided support for the oldest statutory professorship in philosophy at Oxford, the White’s Professorship of Moral Philosophy, which is also the most significant chair of moral philosophy in the world. The professorship was established in 1621 by Thomas White, and after 400 years its new name will be the Sekyra and White’s Professorship of Moral Philosophy. For the occasion, Oxford University will organize a conference of leading specialists working on current issues of moral philosophy, especially population ethics, an area in which the Sekyra Foundation intends to support future research. Including the direct contribution to the professorship amounting to 2.8 million pounds, the total amount of support provided by the Sekyra Foundation to Oxford University will reach 100 million CZK.

The vice-chancellor of the university, Professor Louise Richardson, adds: “We at Oxford are proud of the long standing links between our philosophers and Prague, dating back to Jan Hus translating banned works by John Wycliffe in the 14th and 15th century. It is wonderful that in its 400th year the Chair has become the Sekyra and White’s Professorship of Moral Philosophy. We are very grateful to Ludek and the Sekyra Foundation for this generous gift.”

Cooperation with Oxford University

“Nothing could more aptly characterize the tradition and intellectual excellence that we associate with the name of Oxford University than the professorship of moral philosophy established in 1621 by Thomas White, the oldest university chair in philosophy. I often wonder why we so rarely ask ourselves how to live a good life, what constitutes moral progress, what our responsibility is towards future generations, why the public sphere is not also a sphere of morality, and how the continuity of humanity is affected by technology and global climate change. These challenges, which have, among others, been the subject of my discussions with philosophers at Oxford, help us uncover deeper levels of reality, the essence of the lives we lead. I am glad that I could contribute to this dialogue,” says Luděk Sekyra, the foundation’s chairman of the board.

The foundation’s cooperation with Oxford University is the result of the lifelong interest that its founder, Luděk Sekyra, has had in moral and political philosophy. This has previously included support for large international conferences about the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein, interfaith dialogue, and a volume of moral philosophy by Derek Parfit. Its significant acts have also included the construction of the Sekyra House, a student center at Harris Manchester College, and especially the installation of a bench honoring Václav Havel in the university park. Not but not least, the foundation provides stipends for postgraduate students of philosophy and legal theory, including human rights issues.

“To me, Oxford University is a fascinating center of knowledge. It brings together students and instructors connected by a genuine excitement for their field of study, no matter what it is, and a desire for knowledge throughout the whole world. It is a unique environment where academic freedom applies universally, a truly international environment where views influenced by a wide range of cultures clash and connect in cultivated debates. Studying at Oxford especially allowed me to meet a number of outstanding professionals who, despite their young age, had already conducted some inspiring work in the field of human rights. I also appreciate receiving a stipend from the Sekyra Foundation because it advocates for values that align with mine,” says Martina Grochová, a student of human rights at Oxford who received a stipend from the Sekyra Foundation.

The Sekyra and White’s Professorship of Moral Philosophy

This oldest Oxford professorship of philosophy and most significant chair of moral philosophy in the world has been held by leading British philosophers and thinkers. One of the first holders was Professor Edward Fulham, chaplain to Charles II. Its holders in the 19^th century included Henry Liddell – longtime dean of the famous Christ Church College, among other things the father of the girl for whom his university colleague Lewis Carroll wrote Alice in Wonderland. The professorship was also held by one of the most important philosophers of the 19^th century, Thomas Hill Green. In the 20^th century, it was held by men like W. D. Ross and H. A. Prichard, but also J. L. Austin, a main figure in philosophy of language; in the latter half of the century, its holders included R. M. Hare, a crucial figure in moral philosophy of the time, and Sir Bernard Williams.

The current holder of the professorship, Jeff McMahan, remarks on its significance: “For much of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, Oxford has been the best place in the world for the study of moral philosophy. Part of the reason for this is that some of the holders of the White’s Professorship of Moral Philosophy – for example, Sir David Ross, R.M. Hare, and Sir Bernard Williams – are widely regarded as having been the best and most important moral philosophers in the world during the time when they held the Professorship. This position has, however, been insecure because, unlike most other named professorships, it has had no stable source of funding. The endowment by the Sekyra Foundation of what will become the Sekyra and White’s Professorship ensures that this distinguished, 400-year-old position will finally be secure for the future.”

Oxford University is not just one of the world’s leading educational institutions, but also an internationally respected center for the development of moral philosophy. It is the home of the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, the Institute for Ethics in AI, and the Future of Humanity Institute. The university is where one of the greatest moral philosophers of the previous era, Derek Parfit, developed his extraordinarily influential conception of moral stances towards future generations, known as population ethics.

“The Sekyra Foundation's extremely generous endowment is of immense importance for the study of philosophy in the University of Oxford.  And it also brilliantly honors the deep-seated traditions of British philosophy whose influence over the centuries has been felt far beyond the frontiers of the British Isles,” says Stanley Johnson, former politician, environmental activist, and father of the current prime minister.

 Oxford and the Czech lands

The history of relations between Oxford University and the Czech lands stretches as far back as the 14^th century. In the mid-14^th century Adalbert Ranconis de Ericinio, an intellectual in the European style, was not just a rector at the Sorbonne, but was also later active at Oxford. He started a fund for the support of Czech students, and these students brought the teachings of Oxford Professor John Wycliffe to Prague. Jan Hus’s companion Jerome of Prague spent time at Oxford as well. Wycliffe’s ideas became the inspiration for the Hussite movement. In the 15^th century Peter Payne, another teacher at Oxford and the principal of St. Edmund Hall, directly took part in the Hussite efforts for reform and also later served as the movement’s main diplomat.

We must also mention the students of medicine invited by Oxford to finish their studies after the Czech universities were closed in 1939. In the 1980s civically engaged Oxford professors founded the Jan Hus Educational Foundation, through which they provided significant ideological support for the Czech dissent movement. A number of them, for example Roger Scruton, Anthony Kenny, and Charles Taylor, actively participated in apartment seminars and expended great personal effort to bring samizdat and banned philosophical literature to the country behind the Iron Curtain. Last but not least, we must mention that three of our presidents – T. G. Masaryk, Eduard Beneš, and Václav Havel – were given the extraordinary tribute of an honorary doctorate from Oxford University. In 2016, an honorary doctorate was also awarded to philosopher and theologian Tomáš Halík for his intellectual work and civic stances.

“I first came to Oxford, the Mecca of Western education, as a student in August 1968. I dreamed that I would one day return. The following day, the hope of the Prague Spring ended under the tracks of Soviet tanks. For twenty years I was unable to travel to the West; I was active in the cultural dissent movement. After the fall of communism, I was invited to lecture at Oxford as a senior fellow, in 2014 I became the namesake of a lecture hall in Sekyra House at Harris Manchester College, and in 2016 I was awarded an honorary doctorate from Oxford University. Oxford has become a home for my heart. Sometimes our hearts’ great dreams come true, even if at a different time and in a different way than we expected,” says Professor Tomáš Halík, expressing his emotional relationship to the university.

About Oxford University

Oxford University is the oldest and most prestigious university in the English-speaking world and one of the best universities altogether. According to the Times World University Rankings, it has been the best university in the world for six years running, including for 2022. Oxford is one of the most important British institutions and has played an essential role in the history of the island nation. It is also a global symbol of British education, tolerance, humanity, and democracy.

At least 47 Nobel Prize holders have degrees from Oxford, as well as 26 prime ministers of the United Kingdom (including the most recent prime ministers, David Cameron, Theresa May, and Boris Johnson) and over 30 foreign presidents and prime ministers.

The university’s current vice-chancellor is Professor Louise Richardson, the first woman in history to hold the position. The honorary title of chancellor is held by Lord Chris Patten, previously an important politician and the last British governor of Hong Kong.

The university has approximately 21,000 students from 160 countries, 57 of whom are from the Czech Republic.

About the Foundation

The Sekyra Foundation was founded by Czech entrepreneur Luděk Sekyra to support human rights, moral universalism, liberal values, and civil society. It also specializes in the development of critical and philosophical thought at an international scale. In addition, it actively supports academic institutions and educational projects, including the publication of works by important thinkers. The Foundation’s mission also includes promoting intergenerational dialogue in the context of responsibility for the future of the planet.

The foundation cooperates with Harvard University, Oxford University, and the Centre for Philosophy, Ethics, and Religion at Charles University. It supports the Athens Democracy Forum, together with the New York Times; the Czech Christian Academy; the Festival of Freedom; Foyer, a platform for integration in the Molenbeek district of Brussels; the Central European Forum in Bratislava; the Polish liberal media platform Kultura Liberalna; and also students at international universities. The Foundation is a general partner of the Czech Centre of PEN International, as well as a long-time supporter of the Václav Havel library and the main partner of the Václav Havel Human Rights Prize.

The foundation recently supported an English translation of essays by the important Czech philosopher Jan Patočka, to be published by the prestigious British publishing house Bloomsbury. The foundation also cooperates with a number of important organizations and institutions, such as the Open Society Foundation, the ERSTE Foundation, and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

The foundation’s governing bodies include significant public figures such as Tomáš Halík, Daniel Kroupa, Michael Žantovský, Jiří Pehe, Martin Palouš, Jiří Přibáň, and, until recently, Jiřina Šiklová. Its international advisory board includes Mark Thompson, former CEO of the New York Times; Mark Malloch-Brown, president of the Open Society Foundations; Michal Rosen, professor of ethics in politics at Harvard University; and Jacques Rupnik, a French-Czech political scientist and historian.

The Foundation has supported a conference dedicated to John Rawls in cooperation with the University of Notre Dame in the USA.

The conference commemorates the 100th anniversary of the birth of John Rawls, one of the most influential political philosophers of the twentieth century, and the 50th anniversary of the publication of his A Theory of Justice, one of the greatest works of political philosophy produced in the modern period and still the central work in the field to this day.

Notre Dame University, USA, September 2021

Kreas FFUK and Centre for Philosophy, Ethics and Religion invite you for a conference

On Liberal Education: The autopoietic function of universities

25th – 27th August 2021

The conference will take place on ZOOM and here is the link.

The conference deals with (mainly but not only) the role of universities in contemporary societies, the selfconstituting aspect of universities, as well as with more current topics such as question of trust between universities and democratic societies, the position of expertise and its change during the covid pandemic or sources of continuing differences between universities in the so-called West and the post-communist countries.

The Foundation is supporting the publication of Jan Patočka: A Selected Edition, a translation of selected texts and essays of Czech philosopher Jan Patočka. Patočka was a writer and lecturer who made substantial contributions to existential phenomenology and the interpretation of Czech culture and European culture in general. He was one of the last pupils of Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger.

Jan Patočka never joined the Communist Party and was subject to persecution, which ended in his death as a dissident spokesperson of Charter 77.

The book will be published by Bloomsbury in 2022.

Preface

Philosophy, Fate, and Sacrifice

Not many figures in twentieth-century Czech history can compete with the philosopher Jan Patočka. This extraordinary personality speaks to us through his philosophical work and his moral positions alike. His death after many hours of questioning by the secret police became a symbol for the birth of Charter 77, Czechoslovakia’s largest dissident movement, which played a fundamental role in the fall of the communist regime. Despite his age, the courageous philosopher admirably decided to take on the risk of serving as the platform’s first spokesperson, a decision that ended in the ultimate sacrifice. The moral foundations of Charter 77 are perhaps best illustrated by Patočka’s famous statement that “there are things worth suffering for” and that “they are what make life worth living.” What this sentence conveys above all is an emphasis on fundamental human rights, on “living in truth,” which is the core of “anti-” or “nonpolitical politics” springing from values and the power of conscience. We later find these same ideas in concentrated form in the work of Václav Havel, on whom Patočka had a profound influence.

In his youth, the Czech philosopher was one of the most gifted pupils of Moravian native Edmund Husserl, the founder of phenomenology. This became the starting point of his lifelong philosophical journey. In his habilitation thesis, “The Natural World as a Philosophical Problem,” Patočka developed and deepened Husserl’s concept of the natural or lifeworld (Lebenswelt). Patočka, like his teacher—or Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, and, of course, Wittgenstein—sought to disclose the structure of the world. To grasp the world as a whole, not in the dualism of the natural and scientifically mediated mathematical world. This is the path that leads to the overcoming of fragmentation, to the renewal of life as a whole. How relevant in this age of social networks and filter bubbles with their algorithms sealing us off into virtual echo chambers. In this environment, there is a general lack of critical reflection and debate, resulting in fragmentation, an absence of reflection and respect for perspectives different from ours, and the canalization of our own attitudes.

For Patočka, philosophy is the bold path leading to the essence of things, which “a naive life seeks to avoid.” His work is primarily anchored in the continental philosophical tradition, so we need not agree with his belief that phenomenology best describes the structure of our world. Some are on closer terms with analytic philosophy, such as the formal logic of Wittgenstein and Carnap; others subscribe to Kant’s transcendental idealism. I myself am more convinced of the primacy of the moral structure of the world. Regardless, no one can deny the originality of Patočka’s ideas and interpretations. His phenomenology is not merely existential, but always emphasizes the importance of understanding others, of consideration for them and coexistence with them.

What is amazing is the sheer breadth of his interests, always serious-minded and in many ways revealing. Among those we must mention are Greek philosophy, literature and art, educational theory focused on the fundamental work of his compatriot and pedagogical genius John Amos Comenius, and, last but not least, the philosophy of history.

Though at his core a philosophical, apolitical person, Patočka’s fate was shaped by political tumult: the traumatic experience of 1930s Berlin, the Nazi German occupation of Czechoslovakia, and the Communists’ rise to power in 1948, after which he had to leave the university, although he returned for a brief spell in 1968 in connection with the Prague Spring. Subsequently, his public engagement was limited to the teaching of apartment seminars, which, however, shaped the character of Czech dissent in a substantial way. He also returned to Greek philosophy, developing his ideas about the historical role of the city, or polis, as a place of “care for the soul”—a source of unity in life, albeit born in battle, in struggle (polemos).

Socrates’ thesis that “the unexamined life is not worth living” could serve as the motto for Patočka’s thinking at the tail end of his philosophical journey. Life in Patočka’s view is inextricably bound up with problematization, upheaval, and a resultant “solidarity of the shaken.” What remains constant is the question of meaning and meaningfulness, and these fateful experiences lead him to the conviction that “the world is dark and problematic, [. . .] we do not possess it; but this means coming into conflict and going to one’s death” (see “The Spiritual Person and the Intellectual,” p 425). Intellectual insight must necessarily be accompanied by engagement, by concrete acts. The context of these reflections clarifies his lifelong admiration for the man of action Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, Czechoslovakia’s first president and the only philosopher to found a state.

Patočka sees the meaning of both history and individual life in the unifying message of the victim, a beacon of resistance for all those who hesitate, tolerate, and adapt in spite of disagreement. He invites us to undertake a fundamental reflection, to be brave enough not to fear the truth, a choice which may result in sacrifice. Most of us live within the confines of our comfort zones; it is urgent that we leave them—this is what I would refer to as “Patočka’s appeal.” It is the call to take a moral stance, to take action affirming the meaning of our own existence.

His multilayered philosophical legacy opens a broad space for interpretation and debate. Recall his reflections on the idea of ​​the West, highlighting the benefit of the creative struggle between Czech elements and Western cultural influences, and emphasizing that we must be “more western than the West itself,” a statement that may be applied to all of Central Europe, this unique space in between the West and Russia. Despite the often loud criticism of the West here, frequently chiming in with the West’s own withering self-critique, I still feel that the people who inhabit this in-between space realize there is a substantially worse alternative, namely, the threat from the East.

Patočka’s reflections on the universal character of European culture, the moral crisis of Europe, the post-European era, and supercivilization are similarly a source of unrelenting debate. Finally, his observations on freedom “as letting being be,” not distorting it, in which he presages the current environmental crisis, are unjustly neglected. These inquiries of Patočka’s are especially important for the international philosophical public, who in this volume of translated essays by the great Central European thinker have access to the best of the Czech philosophical tradition, knowledge of which remains rather marginal, particularly in the Anglo-American environment.

I am extremely pleased that our foundation—which has long supported the philosophy and work of Jan Patočka, and whose board includes direct students of his, such as the philosopher Daniel Kroupa and the theologian Tomáš Halík—was able to be involved in the publication of this book.

Luděk Sekyra

Translated from the Czech by Alex Zucker

The epidemic has closed off not just society, but also the public sphere, moving it to the world of digital networks and underscoring trends that can be traced back to the beginning of the internet revolution. What is most apparent is the fragmentation of ever-present parasocial interactions.

Logically, this trend has been helped on the one hand by the isolating epidemic, and on the other by the filtering bubbles that use algorithms to close off virtual platforms in which opinions can be shared. Internet communication is thus often lacking a critical mirror, a capability for polemical argumentation and external dialogue. A consequence of this is a fragment, the absence of life in its entirety, in reflection – after all, respect for other viewpoints is needed to fully refine an individual’s opinion. Socrates, for one, knew this when he claimed that the unexamined life is not worth living.

The restrictions of COVID and the subsequent recession of relationships have created a “sterile human” who, captive to fear, has replaced society with digital contact full of microaggressions, thus helping deepen the chasm between a peaceful politics grounded in values and a belligerent populist cynicism.

Vaccines have provided an epidemiological solution to the pandemic, but its political consequences are varied and may prove fatal for entirely distinct subjects, be it the popularity of political parties or the political ambitions of the sympathetic Million Moments for Democracy movement against populist Prime Minister. The former lost control in steering the country through the pandemic, while the latter was unable to replicate its success from the real-life public sphere in the COVID public sphere. Although at first 250 thousand participants united for a demonstration in Prague’s Letná Park in 2019, the movement was subsequently unable to even get 50 thousand signatures for the creation of a new organization. This showed the irreplaceability of a real-life public sphere and physical contact as a natural basis for communal action, compared with the fragmentation of internet communities. Last but not least, civil disobedience and mass protest always contain a political element and often radically transform public discourse and space alike. Such displays of dissent were marginalized by the pandemic.

THE CZECH PUBLIC SPHERE

The Czech nation has a complicated relationship with politics. After the Battle of White Mountain, it became a plebeian nation; National Revival associations like Sokol and Hlahol were predominantly apolitical, and Czech delegates often sulked outside of the Austro-Hungarian parliament or engaged in trifling, superficial politics. Meanwhile, Hungarians managed to force the establishment of a dual monarchy and Poles stirred up two extraordinarily brave rebellions against czarist rule.

Masaryk, who led the emancipation movement to its ultimate success, was convinced that politics was “only a rather modest component of intellectual life”. Since its contemporary origin, the overwhelmingly democratically attuned Czech nation has often avoided effective politics. It was not politicians, but rather intellectuals like Palacký, Masaryk, and later Havel who provided a moral orientation for the nation and gave its efforts political direction. Their internal principles were piety as humanity, a humanitarian ideal, and conscience and living in truth, respectively. In the nation’s historical memory, these figures became established as a permanent elite, unlike momentary, purely political ones. Accordingly, in its subconscious, the political solutions from the critical years of 1938, 1948 and 1968, and for many even some aspects of the developments after the Velvet Revolution leave an entirely negative, or else contradictory, impression. Czechs are thus historically easily mobilized against politics; they have a liking for expressions of civic dissatisfaction, gatherings, associations, and especially “apolitical politics”, be it the principled politics of dissidents or the empty one of populists.

Platforms for elites of particular eras at Letná or Wenceslas Square symbolize a surge of national pride, if not self-centeredness. This, unfortunately, often alternates with disillusionment in the reality of the everyday shakiness of individuals, laxness, and personal ambition that undermines the lasting success of collective efforts and unifying political acts. What is the cause of all this? According to Masaryk, it is the inability of Czechs to rid themselves of the fear of smallness “that sits at the very heart of the Czech soul like a hungry worm”. Jan Patočka attributes it to the effort to achieve “greatness through small means” as well as insufficient “principled thought”. Ferdinand Peroutka finds the cause in adaptability, and historian Jan Tesař, in the nation’s theatrical nature.

Because the nation’s relationship to politics is ruled by doubts, it is viewed as a source of failure. There is a strong belief that someone who stands outside of it can save the earth. Given this, it is understandable that Czechs see a path leading to the renewal of politics through the formative construction of civil society symbolizing the authenticity of interests and values not deformed by it.

SOCIETY AND INSTITUTIONS

Given the absence of trust in politics as such, it is more difficult in the Czech context than elsewhere to fulfill the great ambition of Western philosophy to bring the political order into harmony with the moral order. The function of civil society, a place where moral individuals capable of acting according to their convictions are born, is irreplaceable, as is the role of independent democratic institutions. The liberal ideal of neutral institutions concerns the continuity of justice and values that represent the public interest and set it apart from private or particular interests. The institutional backbone of the political order faces threats from two sides: from populists whose goal is to attain power and from groups with primarily economic interests. Flawed institutional designs can have far-ranging negative consequences. One example is the introduction of direct presidential elections into an entirely inappropriate constitutional framework, which created a new center of power in conflict with the original intentions of the document’s framers. These are systemic errors that play into the hands of efforts to exploit direct or indirect control over state organs for personal benefit. Such power plays sow deep mistrust towards the institutions, which radically changes the equation of political behavior. In the Czech Republic, this issue has been intensified by a situation in which the mission and esteem of the office collide with the dubious moral standing of its representatives.

Situations like this modify the public sphere, in which the social and moral capital of civil society is transformed into political capital. If society is a space of reciprocity, moral gravity, and recognition of the dignity of all members of the community, it will generally stand against excesses of public power. In the painful absence of self-confident liberal parties, civil society becomes an informal guardian of negative freedom – freedom from the state, from its incursions on the rights of individuals – as well as the defender of minority interests against the tyranny of often small majorities. This task becomes urgent when considering the disparate mix of power between new, marketing-based political formations and traditional parties in their death throes. Paradoxically, another new form of protest stands out on the opposition’s horizon, perhaps a more consistent kind, further evidence of the nation’s belief in protest against the system.

THE SHADOWS OF OLIGARCHIZATION

The transformation away from totalitarianism was, for the most part, welcomed. Time has shown that some necessary and well-intended measures have led to unexpected consequences. The core of this socioeconomic change was a process of privatization and restitution.

The way in which the economically necessary process of privatization was carried out laid the foundations for oligarchization. This is a complex phenomenon, but its roots can be found in the “lumpenbourgeoisie” of privatization, to use Karel Kosík‘s fitting, if Marxist-tinged, term. Unlike restitution, privatization lacked a deeper ethical sense of correcting an injustice, and also lacked a credible legal framework as well. All of this had a negative effect on the public image of entrepreneurship on the whole.

Oligarchization is not an issue of inequalities that follow from market relations – that is, the ethics of capitalism. It is a state where every relevant actor ruthlessly defends their own economic priorities in the arena of power, but nobody defends the public sphere, which must belong to all without differentiation, even to those who have nothing. It does not take long for us to become convinced of the destructiveness of this situation; to the words of classic French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau that “Nothing is more dangerous than the influence of private interests in public affairs” we need only add that these can be both skillfully hidden and difficult to identify.

In addition to indirect influence through affiliated structures, there is also a direct route to power, entry into politics. This path allows the personality traits of these actors to stand out. This does not mean that those who are able to effectively assert private interests will be good managers of the common interest. The famous Oxford philosopher Isaiah Berlin warned of those who have an ego but lack empathy and do not reflect the opinions of others – of sociopaths active in politics.

The defense against various forms of colonization of the public sphere is its emancipation and cultivation, primarily through the raw materials for society’s intellect: active citizenship, critical media, and transparent institutions.

A RESPONSIBLE SPHERE

The transfer of moral capital from civil society to the political requires a responsible public sphere where the civic interest takes on a political form that allows for finding reasonable agreements. It was the idea of the public that created modern society. Today we are witnesses to the erosion of the public arena, which has been abandoned by both rational argumentation and attempts to find a consensus; dissent, as permanent disagreement, has become predominant, while a politics founded on compromise is fighting for survival.

To the old, substantial question of how to live a good life we must add further questions: where we want to live and with whom we want to share the notional agora. Certainly we wish to live in a place where an opinion is a call for dialogue and not for attack, where mutual respect is in equilibrium with a desire for power. One may object that evil is also a part of human nature. Yes, we cannot eradicate it, but it usually destroys itself. In a “post-fact era”, we face an onslaught of those for whom truth is an invention of liars and limitless ambition is a source of authoritarian aspirations.

The effort to overcome egoism with togetherness sounds nice but is difficult to realize. This fact is reflected in Kant’s fitting reminder that “Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made”. To fashion a sculpture of consensus from the tangle of opposing interests is an extraordinarily difficult task. This is an issue of one’s value system, ethical examples, and individuals shaped by the atmosphere of their time, their education, social relations, and religious traditions as well. A brave stance always requires inner freedom and autonomy, which allows us to value ourselves.

The shock of an epidemic is perhaps necessary as an awakening to the fact that life in the Anthropocene is accompanied by a conflict between civilization and nature, which serves as an impulse for seeking a new equilibrium. Environmental questions form the most fundamental challenge for our era. In comparison with the West, however, the domestic response to this paradigm appears insignificant, and it is sad that our political spectrum lacks a strong, authentic ecological movement, meaning that we are only reacting to external pressure.

I believe that the experiences of COVID will evoke widespread self-reflection, because it has become clear that every society, even one that is closed off, is vulnerable. The new imperative should be: not to live in the moment like an animal, but to open oneself up to the world in its entirety. One rarely gets the chance to look out onto the horizon, which gives our lives meaning and a public perspective. Doing so leads to a personal understanding that life does not consist solely in the spirals of power or adaptable facts, but first and foremost in unquantifiable values like reciprocity, justice, considerateness, and responsibility for conduct in the public forum. In this, we can start to have hope that there is a way to bring the vision of a tolerant and decent society from the world of ideas into reality.

Luděk Sekyra

The author is a businessman and the founder of the Sekyra Foundation

The Foundation has supported a publication to commemorate František Černý's 90th birthday. The book is a collection of essays written by friends, co-workers and people with whom František Černý has been in contact, especially in the last 20 years. František Černý is a Germanist, former Czech ambassador to Germany, and editor of foreign broadcasts for Czech Radio. Together with Lenka Reinerová, he founded the Prague Literary House of German-Language Authors (Prager Literaturhaus deutschsprachiger Autoren), which promotes authors such as Franz Kafka, Lenka Reinerová, R. M. Rilke, Franz Werfel, andMax Brod, as well as contemporary authors like Libuše Moníková, Jiří Gruša, and the youngest generation of authors writing in German with connections to the Czech Republic.

The special publication included Mr. Sekyra's essay.

An unforgettable encounter

Sometimes one has an unexpected encounter that influences one for the rest of one’s life. In the late eighties, when I worked as a young teacher at the faculty of law, I studied legal philosophy, and in particular the concept of the rule of law, the “Rechtsstaat”, a term which originated in German political theory in the 19^th century. German was my first foreign language, and I also felt an affinity for it due to my geographic circumstances, being from Český Krumlov. I wanted to further improve my knowledge, so I registered for an advanced language course on Národní třída (Prague‘s Národní Avenue). It was a legendary course taught by Germanist František Černý. His explanations were accompanied by the inimitable gracefulness and wit that, in my eyes, are so characteristic of Professor Černý.

The lessons were not just for improving out conversational skills and grammar; given his deep knowledge of German literature, I was most engaged by the discussions of great figures of German literature, including the reading and interpretation of their texts.

Given the fact that I was born in the home region of Adalbert Stifter, I felt an affinity for Austrian literature. My favorite novel was his Indian Summer, as well as inimitable stories like Rock Crystal. My other favorite authors included Joseph Roth, with his The Emperor’s Tomb, and especially Robert Musil, whose novel The Man Without Qualities had a substantial impact on my intellectual development. And, last but not least, the critical reflection of post-war Austria in the books of Thomas Bernhard.

At that time I was starting to read more German literature. I read many books by the Mann brothers, and the discussions between me, a novice reader, and such a boundlessly erudite scholar in this field like Professor Černý were greatly enriching to me. I was fascinated by the ambiguous intellectual construction of Doctor Faustus and Thomas Mann’s whole world of ideas. His fresco portraying the rise and fall of an entrepreneurial family, the Buddenbrooks, in the novel of the same name was to some extent a revelation to me. I often recalled the individual characters later, at the outset of my own entrepreneurial career, and I frequently remember them to this day. The discussions with Professor Černý allowed me to look deeper into the psychology of the individual protagonists, as well as the meaning and message of these works. Later in life, I referenced many of the characters in conversation with leading representatives of large German or Austrian companies, as well as with members of German-language intellectual milieux and cultural circles. This was immensely valuable to me, and for that I will be forever indebted to our honoree.

In the period following the Velvet Revolution, when Professor Černý became a visible figure in Czech–German relations and subsequently even ambassador to Germany, I had the opportunity to see him at various social and celebratory gatherings. He was always brimming with optimism and was instrumental in addressing every new challenge and aspect of Czech–German mutual relations.

I gladly remember the optimistic and enriching conversations from that period of great euphoria.

Last but not least, Professor Černý’s efforts helped keep the tradition of Prague German literature an active concern, ensuring that authors like Franz Kafka, Egon Erwin Kisch, and Johannes Urzidil belong to the cultural legacy of both nations. As we well know, he and Lenka Reinerová were together responsible for the creation of the Prague Literary House of German Language Authors.

I was delighted that he approached me to support this today very highly respected institution at its outset, which I was glad to do. It will be my pleasure to continue this support through the Sekyra Foundation, and I believe that the Literary House’s activity will contribute to a greater understanding with Germany, our fated neighbor, about which Václav Havel said that it “is our inspiration and our pain, the source of many understandable traumas as well as measures to which we compare ourselves”. One particular expression of support for the German-language cultural legacy in our lands this year will be the installation of a bust of Franz Kafka in the Hotel Savoy (formerly Krone) in Špindlerův Mlýn, in which the author began to write his novel The Castle.

We are currently in negotiations for the acquisition of property in Berlin’s extended center, and if everything works out, it might be worth it for one of the newly built streets to bear the name of František Černý. What do you think?

Luděk Sekyra

Prague, 8/6/2021

František Černý, Luděk Sekyra

The Foundation has supported an international symposium dedicated to Ludwig Wittgenstein. The symposium is being co-organized with the Vienna Circle Society and the Institute Vienna Circle of the University of Vienna.

The year 2021 is the centenary of the first publication of Wittgenstein’s Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung (1921), published a year later in a German-English edition as Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. The work has had an enormous, worldwide influence on intellectual history and philosophy from the 20th century up to the present. In the year 2021, we are also commemorating the 70th anniversary of Wittgenstein’s death in 1951.

Vienna, 10–12/6/2021

Jiřina Šiklová was a very active member of the Board of Directors and participated on a number of the Foundation’s projects, such as the Czechoslovak Documentation Centre, Babylon Magazine, and several publications.

Jiřina Šiklová was not only one of the most active figures in the Czech dissent, but also a pioneer of gender studies at the Charles University Faculty of Arts. She was politically engaged and advocated for the importance of women’s rights throughout her life.

To honor the exceptional figure of Jiřina Šiklová, the Foundation proposes an annual lecture on gender and women’s rights.

Prague, 22/5/2021

Together with the Center for Architecture and Metropolitan Planning, the Foundation is supporting a lecture by one of the world’s most important economists, Edward Glaeser.

Prof. Edward Glaeser is one of the world’s most important urban economists, having spent several decades defining the role of the city in people’s lives. His summarized his findings in a groundbreaking book called Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier, which completely changes the established viewpoint on cities and argues that cities support our strongest attributes. Glaeser’s book leads you on a world tour of urban economies. This autumn, he is planning to publish a new book, Survival of the City: Living and Thriving in an Age of Isolation. This book maps the changes that cities have undergone and will continue to undergo due to the pandemic. Every crisis has brought some kind of shift in quality of life. Right now, cities are at a crossroads: they can either go back to where they were before 2020, or they can move forward. But how should things change and what should we learn from? The event will be moderated by journalist and editor-in-chief of the newspaper E15 Nikita Poljakov.

This is an online event. You can stream it here.

Prague, April 21, 2021 at 7 PM

The Foundation, in cooperation with the New York Times, supported the Czech translation of the 2021 and 2022 editions of Turning Points magazine. The translation was published as a special supplement in the newspaper Hospodářské noviny.

Turning Points is an annual magazine whose authors include intellectuals and leading experts in a number of fields who follow important trends and point out crucial moments that might affect the future.

In 2021 the special supplement included four additional essays focusing on current events in Central Europe written by Luděk Sekyra, Václav Štětka, Ivan Krastev, and Karolina Wigura. And in 2022 the additional essays were written by Luděk Sekyra, Jiří Přibáň and Jakub Jirsa.

The special supplement was published on January 12, 2021 and on January 14, 2022

The Karel Čapek Prize has been awarded by the Czech Centre of the International PEN Club since 1994, when it was given to Günter Grass and Philip Roth at the PEN International World Congress in Prague. The Prize is awarded in even years to important literary works that, in accordance with the efforts of Karel Čapek, have clearly and significantly contributed to the assertion or defense of democratic and humanistic values in society.

Prague, 2020, 2022

This essay by Luděk Sekyra was originally published by Seznam Zprávy on April 29, 2020.

Freedom affects us all, as does the epidemic. It serves as an ideal tool for those who wish to limit the autonomy of individuals, warns Luděk Sekyra, a developer who collaborates with Oxford University, in this essay for Seznam Zprávy.

The specter of coronavirus is haunting the world. After a century that eradicated the highest number of epidemics in history, we now have a century that has birthed a global pandemic. It is not the first, and probably not the last, to gradually make its way from Asia to the other continents.

For example, the Plague of Justinian, which broke out in 541, destroyed any ambitions that the Eastern Roman Empire would once again be united with the western part of the former empire. The plague gradually weakened its population as well as its ability to defend itself, and was one of the causes of the rise and territorial expansion of Islam. Repeated attacks of disease turned the 7^th century into a dark age.

The Black Death, which began to spread in the mid-14^th century, killed about a third of the population of Europe and caused people to turn away from the church, leading to the rise of fanaticism and heresies. Cruel pogroms against Jews, who were supposedly responsible for it, led them to migrate to Eastern Europe.

The so-called Asiatic cholera afflicted Europe throughout the 19^th century, beginning in 1817, and caused a fundamental reform in the way that people lived alongside one another in large agglomerations, including hygienic rules, widened streets, standards for housing, and the distribution of potable water.

Finally, the Spanish flu from 1918–20, whose geographic origin is uncertain, may have killed up to 100 million people, most of them young. It had a harsher effect on the Central Powers like Austria and Germany, which contributed to their loss in World War I.

In the context of this history, there is symbolism to be found in the final words of Albert Camus’s remarkable work The Plague: the plague bacillus “never dies or disappears for good”, but “bides its time” for its day to come again.

Even though these pandemics had dramatic effects on individuals as well as society, none of them changed human nature, which can overcome traumatizing experiences with humility and hope and push them out of memory with the arrival of new ones. It is no coincidence that the Spanish flu, more global and devastating than any previous pandemic, is known as the “forgotten” one. This, too, fills me with a certain optimism and skepticism towards the dark predictions that the world as we know it will never return. Still, some features of a pandemic are always the same. The dominant subjective feeling is fear, and its objective consequence is the limitation of freedom by the authorities.

Fear and social recession

Fear of infection is a subconscious fear of death. The rich have generally left the cities for isolated residences in the country, while the poor have clung to superstition and mysticism. According to Thomas Hobbes, one of the founders of modern political philosophy, fear of a violent death is the reason for shifting power towards authorities and the creation of the state, because fear leads us to respecting and fulfilling our obligations. On a psychological level, every pandemic is an epidemic of fear. But fear, the most selfish human feeling, can also lead to a positive emotion.

Today, every day, we are witnesses to an enormous wave of solidarity. The togetherness and selflessness of health care workers in the most strongly affected areas is changing the equations of our behavior, which are critically important to overcoming the infection together. In essence, the virus is antisocial: it limits both physical and social contact, which has fatal consequences among the elderly, for whom loneliness and losing contact with loved ones has a particularly negative effect on mental health and the course of illness. This can often lead to depression and a rise in the suicide rate – that is, to what Ezra Klein aptly called a “social recession”, in which communities break down.

The social dimension of the pandemic is to a large extent in the hands of the state authority, which limits freedom, especially in terms of interaction and movement. This atomizes society and clears out the public sphere. In an atmosphere of worries about personal health, people are more willing to submit to infringements on their personal integrity; anxiety essentially makes individuals more controllable.

The value of freedom

Why is freedom so important? It is the moral foundation of our existence, and it has three prerequisites: spontaneity, which liberates it from the laws of nature; autonomy, which makes it depend exclusively on one’s reason and will; and reciprocity, mutuality, because the border of our freedom is the freedom of others.

According to Immanuel Kant, probably the greatest thinker of the modern era, “freedom is […] the inner worth of the world” and “morality first discloses to us the concept of freedom”. Freedom is not arbitrary, but the ability to act according to principles that have moral content such as respect for fairness, dignity, and equality for other members of one’s community.

Despite the fact that acting according to certain principles is quite demanding, interpersonal relations are founded on what I would call “moral gravitation”. We are attracted both by principles impressing us with their perfection and specific positions and examples of heroism and sacrifice.

Let us allow that freedom extends beyond moral behavior that excludes neutrality and calls for courage and effort, and can be expressed in other ways as well. It is nonetheless desirable to have some common denominator. I have a feeling that the one most familiar to us is the idea of the West, the idea of human rights, the rule of law, tolerance, and critical thought.

There is still currency in philosopher Jan Patočka’s claim that Czechs have to be “more Western than the West itself” because we live in an ambivalent liminal space. The previous century brought us into the arms of the East, which threatens us with its aggression, just as we are threatened by the betrayal of our own elites.

Freedom affects us all, as does the epidemic. It serves as an ideal tool for those who wish to limit the autonomy of individuals. In fact, in Greek “epi demos” indicates a phenomenon that touches every person. French philosopher Michel Foucault captured this in his famous statement from his work Discipline and Punish that “an epidemic is a dream of the powerful” because it “makes it possible to control the population”. Epidemics are probably the greatest enemy of freedom, because epidemics always represent deviations from regular rules, both hygienic and social. Especially in an environment without an established liberal tradition and a fragile institutional structure, one can see the appeal of attempts to turn a state of emergency, or elements of it, into a permanent advantage.

Fluctuating populists

Today, the exemplary representatives of the Central European political mainstream are fluctuating populists. Their mission is political cynicism, riding on the moods of the moment, manipulating negative emotions towards groups of individuals as well as institutions. Their strategy, without principles or scruples, finds favor in an atmosphere of fear, whether of infection or virtual refugees. They frequently fluctuate between extremes, from proclaimed liberalism to xenophobic nationalism, from conservatism to intolerance and constitutional nihilism, from fighting corruption to corrupting their own electorate.

The face of the region embodied by this group of power players is Viktor Orbán. In the eyes of the West, the others, led by Jarosław Kaczyński, remain in his shadow, mere imitators – some more conservative, some more popular. When political positions lack authenticity, the only principle is holding power. Their reactions to the current situation are telling: the former has undertaken an unprecedented strengthening of government powers, while the latter has changed the electoral rules in favor of his preferred presidential candidate. The Czech courts, as well, have ruled that some of the steps taken by our executive have been illegal. The liberal model can come in many different shades, but it must always be a constitutional system.

Unlike in the West, the concentration of this type of politician cannot simply be attributed to the growth of social media. Their roots go deeper. Hungarian intellectual István Bibó called Central European politicians before and just after the Second World War “false realists” who tended to push out Western-style idealists. These political actors came to power on a wave of popular storms of existential fear and political hysteria and especially superficial nationalism which, ever since the national revival movements of the 19th century, had shaped the political priorities of their nations, often at the expense of liberal efforts. Thanks to these politicians, the explosive postwar period culminated in totalitarianism.

A new phenomenon falling into this model was described by sociologist Yuri Levada, who noted that the post-Soviet sphere gave rise to the “wily man”, an adaptable person who adjusts to new conditions but also looks for loopholes in them that he could exploit. He does not just tolerate unfairness and deceptive behavior, but has a parasitic mentality including an obsession with influence – not just behind the scenes.

These formative sources for the political characters of Central Europe reinforce their eclectic fluctuations – something from everything, something for everyone ­– but also, in contrast, the significance of principled actors like Masaryk and contributions of people like Havel. The mainstream is becoming an evolutionary environment where admiration for authoritarian models and their disciplined reaction to the epidemic is unsurprising, even though we don’t really know the true facts. However, the ever more frequent argument that regimes that issue commands are more effective than liberal and consensual ones comes up short. Especially when it is evident that initial censorship of information led to the virus’s uncontrollable spread – not for nothing are people calling it the “Chinese Chernobyl”.

Of course, some measures can be more effectively implemented in undemocratic systems. There is no debate over orders. After all, not even the nationalist American president, who effectively gave up on a broader coordination of approaches in the context of the G8, for example, has been advantageous. On the other hand, it is many times more difficult to close off an open, multicultural metropolis like New York than a provincial city like Wuhan. With all respect to the Confucian ethic, which has many parallels to the Aristotelian one that birthed our culture of virtue, it is impossible to learn to stabilize society (as Czech president Miloš Zeman has recommended) where freedom – especially negative freedom, freedom from the state – is not a political value.

An epidemic of digital control

Of course, an epidemic has many faces. Those who live in urban agglomerations face greater risks, and the concentration of infections presents a psychological and emotional burden. There is also a demonstrable connection between coronavirus and the environment: the infection spreads more quickly in greater pollution. Greta’s wake-up call is the appeal of future generations to address the climate priorities expressed in the Paris Agreement and the European Green Deal.

In connection with increased digital oversight of social interaction and movement, the epidemic threatens the inviolability of the private sphere. Also contributing to this inconspicuous erosion is the personalized online communication of the virtual public sphere. Ultimately, data intended for the fight against coronavirus can also be used for political marketing to have an influence on the next generation, perhaps a “distancing” one, for whom the value of physical contact will not be a priority because they live on the internet.

As early as the 1990s, philosopher Gilles Deleuze used the prophetic term “dividual”, which indicates a person lacking individuality. People are turning into streams of information, data, and access codes, because they live in a society of oversight – or, if you will, surveillance capitalism – where, paradoxically, an invisible version of Orwell’s Big Brother is always present. The most vulnerable among us are slowly losing the outlines of their identity; all that is left is dependence on someone else, or the habit that everything must be permitted. The result is not just fear of infection, but fear of freedom, which opens us up to responsibility and criticism.

We all want the epidemic to retreat, whether by running its course, a cure, or a vaccine. But we must be alert to the retreat of freedom grounded in autonomy, so the longed-for return to normalcy does not degenerate into the reality of a new era of “normalization” – a term that, in the context of Central Europe, has always represented a fundamental restriction of civil and political freedoms by totalitarian powers.

Naarden, February 7, 2020 – The Jan Amos Comenius Prize jury announced today that Tomáš Halík, philosopher and theologian, professor of sociology at Charles University in Prague, will be awarded the 2020 Prize on March 28. The jury considers the seventy-one-year-old Halík to be one of the most influential spiritual and independent thinkers of our time, who carries out in word and deed Comenius’s intellectual legacy in a modern and inspiring spirit. In 2019, the prize was awarded to the director of the Foundation for Refugee Students (Stichting voor Vlunchteling-Studenten, UAF), Marjam Seighali, a Dutch woman with Iranian roots. After the prize is given, Reverend Mpho Tutu van Furth will deliver the anniversary Lecture in Honor of Jan Amos Comenius titled “Preacher, Teacher and Public Speaker”.

Tickets to the Grote Kerk (Great Church) in Naarden, where the award ceremony and lecture will take place, are available through www.comeniusmuseum.nl

 Tomáš Halík will receive the 2020 Jan Amos Comenius Prize on Saturday, March 28, in the Grote Kerk in Naarden. The jury chair, Dr. Douwe D. Breimer, writes: “This year we commemorate 350 years since the death of Jan Amos Comenius. He was Czech in origin, and so we are very happy that another Czech, professor Tomáš Halík from Prague, will receive this year’s Jan Amos Comenius Prize. He is an outstanding scholar and clergyman who has gained world renown for his extraordinary life in a number of political regimes, and mainly for his books which have been published in many languages. To this day, he acts independently and critically against injustice and restrictions on freedom and is an unwavering champion of solidarity among the nations of the world.”

About the Jan Amos Comenius Prize

The Jan Amos Comenius Prize (Comeniusprijs in Dutch), made from a cup of Czech crystal, will be awarded this year for the ninth time. Its revious recipients were Robert Dijkgraaf (2012), Paul Schnabel (2013), Louise Fresco (2014), Geert Mak (2015), Herman Van Rompuy (2016), Jonathan Israel (2017), Herman Tjeenk Willink (2018), and Mardjan Seighali (2019). The Prize is a Dutch award given out annually during Jan Amos Comenius Day (Comeniusdag in Dutch) in Naarden. The prize aims to honor an individual who, in the spirit of Comenius’s thought and activity, makes a distinct contribution towards education, schooling, science, and culture in advancing the international community.

Award ceremony and lecture by Mpho Tutu van Furth

After the prize is awarded on March 28, Reverend Mpho Tutu van Furth will deliver the annual Lecture in Honor of Jan Amos Comenius. Mpho Tutu van Furth was born in South Africa, studied in the USA, served as a reverend in Alexandria, Virginia, and currently lives in Amsterdam. She is involved internationally in advocating for women’s rights and education for young women and girls.

The Grote Kerk will be open for those interested in the award ceremony and lecture from 1:30 PM. Tickets costing 7.50 euro are available on the website of the Comenius Museum: www.comeniusmuseum.nl.

On the occasion of Jan Amos Comenius Day, a concert of the Hodonín Symphony Orchestra and Mixed Chorus will take place on Saturday, March 28 at 8:30 PM at the Grote Kerk. Free entry.

A lecture was given by Eric Nelson, professor at Harvard University called “The Theology of Liberalism”.

Abstract:

We think of modern liberalism as the novel product of a world reinvented on a secular basis after 1945. In his lecture, Eric Nelson shows that we could hardly be more wrong. Eric Nelson contends that the tradition of liberal political philosophy founded by John Rawls is, however unwittingly, the product of ancient theological debates about justice and evil. Once we understand this, he suggests, we can recognize the deep incoherence of various forms of liberal political philosophy that have emerged in Rawls’s wake.

Eric Nelson, Matěj Cíbik

JAN PALACH SQUARE, FACULTY OF HUMANITIES, CHARLES UNIVERSITY, ROOM  217, FEBRUARY 13, 2020 AT 5:30 PM

The Medal of St. George, awarded annually in Poland for fighting against evil and persistent work for good in public life, has been given to Czech priest and philosopher Tomáš Halík.

Previous recipients of the award include Václav Havel, Adam Michnik, Polish prime minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki, philosopher Leszek Kolakowski, and astronomer Michał Heller, the only Polish recipient of the Templeton Prize.

Krakow, 23 November 2019

Bringing together academic specialists from the fields of philosophy, literature, history and the arts with members of the wider public interested in moral responsibility and the grounds for political action. The Sekyra Foundation supported this evening arts event which is aimed at anyone passionate about the arts and the important contribution they make to a healthy society.

Jan Patočka (1907-1977) was a Czech philosopher. Thanks to his contributions to phenomenology and the philosophy of history, he is regarded as one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century. His philosophy forms a dialogue with many of the great philosophical thinkers of the 20^th century, including Husserl, Heidegger, Arendt, and Foucault—while also reaching back to ancient Greek philosophy. Like the ancient Greeks, he sees care for the soul as central to the task of philosophy, and insists that we include as part of this idea care for the polis, for social beings in a community. Like his hero Socrates he sought a basis for politics in a combination of constant questioning (and self-questioning), public participation in the polis, and private virtue. The call to champion freedom and truth also imposes upon us a huge burden of responsibility for our fellow citizens and our fellow human beings. Our challenge is to become more fully human by moving perpetually towards the idea of truth and meaning.

The Conference

This conference will explore the contributions of Czech philosopher Jan Patočka to our understanding of whether and how meaningful political action is possible—taking cues from his phenomenology, his essays on arts and culture, his writings on Europe, and his conception of sacrifice. The day will feature Patočka scholars and academics who worked underground in the former Czechoslovakia. A topical introduction to the ideas of this fascinating philosopher, offering novel ways of reflecting on our contemporary political crises.

The evening arts-based event, taking place in the evening after the close of the academic conference, will provide an opportunity to emphasise the important part played by the arts and culture in Patočka’s philosophy and to celebrate some of the great artists and great art which were a particular influence on him.

Publication of the new Selected Edition

The conference is also designed to promote wider awareness of Jan Patočka in advance of the publication of a new Selected Edition of his texts, including many being published in English for the first. It is intended that this new publication will be suitable for scholars and for the general reader, and capable of disseminating Patočka’s ideas far more widely in the English-speaking world.

The Selected Edition is due to be published by Bloomsbury Publishers Limited, one of the UK’s leading academic publishers, in both UK and American editions sometime in 2020.

Senate House, London, 8 November, 2019

Václav Štětka, member of the Board of Supervisors of the Sekyra Foundation, received the GACR President’s Award for extraordinary results investigating grant projects in the field of basic research supported by the Czech Science Foundation (GACR).

The role of social media in the transformation of political communication and civic engagement in the Czech Republic, a project investigated by the group PolCoRe led by Václav Štětka in the years 2014–2016, comprehensively mapped the process of political parties and individual politicians adopting social networks for both electoral and non-electoral communication in the Czech Republic, thus enabling a better understanding of the growing role that social media plays in communication between citizens and political actors, including factors that influence the willingness of internet users to become involved in the political process using digital technology. The project captured a decisive period in the rise of populist and alternative parties in the Czech political system and helped shed light on the crucial significance of social networks for these new political subjects and their communication strategy. Regarding the use of social networks for political communication on the part of citizens, the project ascertained that virtual and real forms of participation do not exclude another, but rather support one another, and also revealed surprisingly significant differences between men and women in the intensity and form of online political participation.

You can find a report from ČT24 (in Czech) here.

Prague, October 1, 2019

Frank-Walter Steinmeier, President of the Federal Republic of Germany, awarded Dr. Tomáš Halík the Cross of Merit 1st Class of the Federal Republic of Germany for his efforts in Czech–German conciliation and his long-lasting engagement in promoting a just civil society and dialogue between nations and religions.
Halík received the honor on 21 October 2019, exactly 41 years after he was secretly ordained as a priest in Erfurt, then in East Germany, in order to work in the underground church in Czechoslovakia.
Dr. Halík previously (in 2012) received a similar high state honor from the President of the Republic of Poland, namely the Knight’s Cross of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland, for his outstanding contribution to the development of Polish–Czech cultural dialogue and his collaboration with Catholic groups.

Germany, 21 October 2019

A debate with Mark Thompson, CEO of The New York Times 

Both journalism and democracy are in the process of transition – and many would say in crisis. Faced with the increasing dominance of digital platforms, majority of professional news media are fighting for economic survival as well as for regaining audience’s trust, while many countries are witnessing the rise of populism and growing polarization, threatening the very foundations of democracy. How do journalists and media organizations respond to these challenges, and what can they do to bridge the widening societal gaps that are often exploited by populists? How can they counter the influx of disinformation and “fake news” while still protecting free speech? What is the place and future of traditional journalistic norms such as objectivity, impartiality and balance in the allegedly post-truth age, and in an increasingly polarized media landscape?

Panellists: 

• Mark Thompson, CEO of The New York Times and former Director-General of BBC
• Jiří Hošek, journalist, SeznamTV
• Emma Smetana, journalist, moderator of DVTV
• Michael Žantovský, diplomat, Director of Václav Havel Library
• Moderator:  Václav Štětka, media scholar, Loughborough University

Admission is free on the basis of registration until capacity has been met. Link for registration is here.

A link to the video can be found here.

Mark Thompson gave a couple of interviews during his short visit. The links are below.

• Czech television
• Czech Radio 
• DVTV 

Video and photos are attributed to the Vaclav Havel Library.

Václav Havel Library, 23 September 2019, 5:30pm

Václav Štětka, Emma Smetana, Jiří Hošek, Michael Žantovský, Mark Thompson

Mark Thompson

Václav Štětka, Emma Smetana, Jiří Hošek, Michael Žantovský, Mark Thompson

Václav Štětka, Emma Smetana

Jiří Hošek, Michael Žantovský, Mark Thompson

The Foundation initiated its cooperation with Kultura Liberalna, a Polish NGO and liberal think tank. Its mission is to create a better Europe by renewing liberalism and stressing the importance of the rule of law, pluralism, and freedom and dignity for every individual. Kultura Liberalna is a platform with a political and cultural weekly magazine and daily blog that hosts public events devoted to Polish and European politics and social affairs, as well as publishing books on liberalism and democracy. It also functions as an observer of public debate and documents and analyzes instances of radicalization in public discourse.

The Foundation supported a Conference titled “Two Visions of Europe: What Sources of Hope for the Future?”, part of the Cracking Borders, Rising Walls series, which brings together a set of panelists from the ranks of academia and international media and encouraging the broader public to participate in the discussions as well. This year’s panelists include Yascha Mounk from Johns Hopkins University and representatives of important international media including Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Die Zeit, Der Tagesspiegel, The Spectator, The New York Times, and Le Monde.

Photos are attributed to Kultura Liberalna.

Rafał Trzaskowski (Mayor of Warsaw), Łukasz Pawłowski (Kultura Liberalna)

Karolina Wigura (Kultura Liberalna)

Jarosław Kuisz (Kultura Liberalna), Sylvie Kauffmann (Le Monde), Jakub Patočka (Referendum), Marek A. Cichocki (Collegium Civitas), Francesca Paci (La Stampa), Philipp Fritz (Die Welt)

Karolina Wigura (Kultura Liberalna), Bartosz Węglarczyk (Onet.pl), Yascha Mounk (Johns Hopkins University), Gaspard Koenig (GenerationLibre), Eva Oer (Die Tageszeitung)

Eva Oer

Yascha Mounk

Łukasz Pawłowski (KL), Michał Sutowski (Krytyka Polityczna), Paweł Musiałek (Klub Jagielloński), Tomasz Sawczuk (Kultura Liberalna), Mateusz Luft (Kontakt)

Warsaw, 19/9–20/9/2019

In cooperation with The Rimbaud and Verlaine Foundation, the Foundation supported the translation of selected philosophical texts by Jan Patočka from Czech to English.

Jan Patočka (1907–1977) was a Czech philosopher. Thanks to his contributions to phenomenology and the philosophy of history he is regarded as one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century. He studied in Prague, Paris, Berlin, and Freiburg, and was one of the last pupils of the celebrated philosophers Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger.

The Rimbaud and Verlaine Foundation is one of the most significant arts organizations in the United Kingdom. The mission of the Foundation is to support the arts – not just poetry and literature, but also classical music, opera, jazz and rock music, theatre, visual art, and sculptures. It is a platform for many contemporary artists and producers, and it also offers educational internships.

The Rimbaud and Verlaine Foundation, Great Britain, 2019

The Foundation held its first press conference to announce a strategic cooperation with The Czech Centre of the International PEN Club in 2019. One of the Foundation's main objectives is to support the publishing of major works, so this partnership was a logical result of the Foundation’s mission.

“It is a great honor for me that we are able to be the general partner of The PEN Club, whose activities I have always admired and which has had a significant influence on the country’s history. Figures such as Karel Čapek and T.G. Masaryk were present at its inception; people like Jaroslav Seifert, Václav Černý, and Václav Havel have been active in it; and its current members include Ivan Klíma and Jiří Stránský, who are rare examples of moral integrity and artistic originality,” added Luděk Sekyra, the founder of the Foundation.

“The PEN Club brings together writers who have committed themselves, to the greatest extent possible, to helping to eliminate racial, class, and national hatred, pursuing freedom of speech and respect for human rights, and promoting peace in the world. On the eve of World War II in 1938 at the Prague Congress, at a moment when these fundamental values were under threat, the PEN Club made its warning heard. If these values ​​are questioned in the present, too, it is important that writers can express their views in public debate so that they can be heard. The support provided by Luděk Sekyra’s Foundation to the PEN Club is an acknowledgment of the organization’s historical merits and a contribution to its current role,” said Daniel Kroupa, member of the Sekyra Foundation's Board of Trustees.

“I believe that the PEN Club will have a bright future. Surrounded by an intellectual elite represented on the board of directors of the Sekyra Foundation, one cannot help but feel hopeful. And as the new strategic partnership with the Foundation also leads us to the Werich Villa, for me this is like the triangle of my dreams, and in this environment I can work with my colleagues from PEN Club very well. The societal role of a writer will be strengthened by this cooperation and I look forward to it all,” said Jiří Dědeček, Chairman of the Czech Centre of International PEN Club.

“Jiří Dědeček informed me of everything in detail, and after almost 13 years of experience managing the PEN Club, I knew very well what it would mean. And I am also aware that the number of educated foundations is decreasing, and with it the willingness to have that rare virtue of participate in the growth (but also the stumble and fall) of the very culture that was originally led mostly by Václav Havel. I am not afraid to say publicly that, with your Foundation, things will be better for us,” said Jiří Stránský, former chairman of the Czech Centre of the International PEN Club.

Werich Villa, Prague, 15/4/2019

Petr Fischer (journalist), Jiří Dědeček (chairman of the Czech Pen Club), Daniel Kroupa (member of the Board of Governors)

Daniel Kroupa (member of the Board of Governors)

Tomáš Halík (member of the Board of Governors), Petr Fischer (journalist), Jiří Dědeček (chairman of the Czech Pen Club)

Tomáš Halík (member of the Board of Governors), Petr Fischer (journalist), Jiří Dědeček (chairman of the Czech Pen Club), Jiří Pospíšil (chairman of the Jan and Meda Mládek Foundation)

Irena Maňáková (National Library)

Ivan Klíma (writer)

Petr Fisher (journalist), Jiří Dědeček (chairman of the Czech Pen Club)

Jiří Dědeček (chairman of the Czech Pen Club)

Jiří Dědeček (chairman of the Czech Pen Club), Václav Štětka (member of the Board of Supervisors), Luděk Sekyra (chairman of the Sekyra Foundation)

Luděk Sekyra (chairman of the Sekyra Foundation), Tomáš Halík (member of the Board of Governors)

Václav Štětka (member of the Board of Supervisors), Luděk Sekyra (chairman of the Sekyra Foundation)

Jiří Dědeček (chairman of the Czech Pen Club)

The Foundation has supported the Petr Pithart Library, whose purpose is to share, preserve, and externally represent Petr Pithart’s half-century in Czech culture, education, and politics. The main activities of the library are education, documentation, and publishing, and it also organizes debates and public meetings.

The library intends to publish The Life and Times of Petr Pithart, a book linked via QR codes to a web portal (https://petrpithartmemory.cz/) and multimedia (film and television documentaries, audio podcasts).

The Foundation supported the publication of Adam Smith’s book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, known by its abbreviated title, The Wealth of Nations. Adam Smith (1723–1790) was a Scottish economist and philosopher, a founder of modern economics, and a member of the Scottish Enlightenment. The book is a foundational work of classical economics, first published in 1776, and studies the economy at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, describing the free market as more productive and useful than other systems. It was in The Wealth of Nations that Smith formulated his metaphor of the “invisible hand” of the market.

The Foundation supported the publication of Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments. Adam Smith (1723–1790) was a Scottish economist and philosopher, a founder of modern economics, and a member of the Scottish Enlightenment. The book is considered to be the pinnacle of British moral philosophy. In it, Adam Smith developed his theory of spontaneous genesis of the moral order, as well as the philosophical foundations of the scientific method, which he later applied in The Wealth of Nations.

The book was published by the Liberal Institute, whose goal is to develop and apply ideas and programs based on the principles of classical liberalism. Their activities are grounded in the values of individual freedom, limited government, free markets, and peace. Their original scientific projects and research serve as the foundation for their other work in the fields of education (lectures, summer schools, discussion forums, teaching) and publishing (books, studies, scientific and popular articles, translation work).

Preface

Adam Smith is one of the most important figures of the extraordinary intellectual effort that was the Scottish Enlightenment – a student of the moral philosopher Francis Hutcheson and friend of David Hume, who was clearly one of the most influential British philosophers of the 18th century. The thinking of Adam Smith, known primarily as the father of modern economics, had deep philosophical roots, as testified by his academic position as professor of moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow. All this fundamentally shaped his thinking, his approach toward ethical, social, and economic analysis. Throughout the history of ideas, we do not find many figures with both a marked impact on ethics and a fundamental impact on economics. In his book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, first published in 1759, he developed, in an extremely original manner, the central concept of sympathy, which we also find in the work of his predecessors, such as Shaftesbury or Hutchenson, and his colleagues and contemporaries, such as Hume. For him, sympathy is a moral sentiment, a kind of reflection of feelings, passions and the states of others, whilst the approaches of those others are mirrored in our consciousness and ideas as a precondition of a sympathetic relationship towards them. This is the foundation of Smithian moral theory and draws us closer to ‘the healing consolation of mutual sympathy’. In this interpretation, sympathy includes not only compassion and togetherness, but also the idea of the market, intermingling with broad-based empathy.^[1]  The second important concept in Smithian moral philosophy is the ‘impartial spectator’. His stance is an expression of moral standards and, in the first edition, also of consensual values and social status. Smith was acutely aware of the disillusion with the social dynamics of rapidly emerging capitalism and this led him, in his sixth and final edition of 1790, to a transformation of the ‘impartial spectator’ – in his words ‘the man within the breast’, who became a representative of the virtuous few. Smith’s new chosen ones faced the growing ‘marketplace of desire’, which represented the birth of a consumer society at the tail end of the 18th century.

The ideal of individualistic agrarian capitalism produced by enterprising individuals started to fade away. Smith saw the surreptitious seeds of erosion of his model, which was so admired by the liberal economic elites of the 20th century, such as Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich August von Hayek. This also strengthened his mistrust in large trade and joint-stock companies with monopolistic tendencies, especially the East India Company, which he considered to be a ‘national cancer’. He believed the ‘admiration of the rich and powerful’ to be a symptom of social depravity and the erosion of moral sentiments. The liberal critical reflection of rapidly developing capitalism found strong expression in a thorough critique by Marx, which reached a fundamentally erroneous conclusion, however. Recently, a wide-ranging response in this sense was awoken by Thomas Piketty’s comprehensive critique of capitalism’s tendency to produce asset inequality.^[2] With all due respect for his analysis of the causes of growing inequality, one cannot agree with his conclusions calling for intervention, regulation, and redistribution. We must always keep in mind that the market environment is not only one of the causes of economic inequality, but also a primary source of societal wealth. It cannot be overlooked that freedom, autonomy and democracy founded in neutral institutions are a result of market competition. Smith’s position as the founder of economic liberalism often raised the question about the mutual relationship of his ethical thinking as a whole in The Wealth of Nations, his most influential work on economics. The concepts of sympathy or the ‘impartial spectator’ are replaced by the concepts of self-interest and the ‘invisible hand’ of the market. This apparent contradiction led several commentators to the conclusion that his work has two completely distinct sides, that he arrived at a radical change in his perspective of social reality. Nevertheless, on closer inspection of his work we can see a coherence of thought, since economic concepts cannot be properly understood without an ethical context. I believe that the link that connects the two is that of prudence, Smith’s most important virtue, not only an expression of self-interest, but a precondition for sympathy. As a rule, only the satisfaction of one’s own self-interest opens up the possibility for sympathy with the needs of others and the ability to care for them. Prudence is a characteristic which allows for the opinions of others, it is a characteristic which oscillates between selfish self-love and benevolence, i.e. kindness, affection and tolerance. It is a symbol of the tension between the market environment and the moral attitudes, thus generating societal movement. Prudence is also a source of legitimacy for spontaneously established norms and principles, which have a generic regulatory function, both in ethics and in the economic environment. A prudent person can be both a canny businessman and a benevolent and generous patron, a moral person, standard creator, and thus an impartial founder of a framework for the ‘invisible hand’ of the market. The latter not only coordinates individual choices and neutralises conflicts, but also moulds individuals into social creatures. In this interpretation, the market takes us out of isolation whilst the spontaneous allocation of resources and the fulfilment of needs mixes with the interaction of entities who are in competition with each other yet express mutual sympathy. Prudence can be approached as a step towards something more structured, which I would call the ethics of wealth, of surplus, which should evoke not only pleasure, but responsibility and empathy. This is a highly desirable line of reasoning which deserves to be developed, as it offers a liberal value approach as an alternative to the compelling yet dysfunctional egalitarian models. The breadth and depth of Adam Smith’s thematic scope is astonishing. For me, he and David Hume are the most inspirational of the British moralists, and alongside Kant, both have profoundly influenced my own ethical thinking.

I have a particularly strong personal connection to The Theory of Moral Sentiments since I have the first edition from the middle of the 18th century in my library. I trust that the reader will also develop an affection for the book – it deserves it.

Luděk Sekyra

^[1] An original and inspirational interpretation of Smith’s work, in terms of sympathy or empathy, including a comparison with Hume’s concept, is found in Samuel Fleischacker’s book Being Me, Being You: Adam Smith and Empathy, The University of Chicago Press 2019

^[2] Piketty, Thomas – Capital in the Twenty First Century, Universum 2015

On Monday June 19^th, 2023, between 13.00 and 18.00 am, at the Vaclav Havel Library (Ostrovní 129/13, 110 00 Nové Město) the Democracy & Culture Foundation in collaboration with the Sekyra Foundation, and Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung will conduct a twin event. During the first part a panel of two speakers will examine the issue of “Women in Politics and Public Space”. In the second part the Atlas organization will conduct and facilitate a four-hour citizens’ driven consultation on the issue of “Political parties, money and influence”. Local citizens will be asked to debate this specific issue and come up with policy recommendations that have a Czechia-oriented and universal application, which, when implemented, will contribute to strengthening the functioning of Liberal Democracy.

The entire event will be conducted in Czech.

Ms. Ladmanova, Head of Representation of the European Commission in the Czech Republic and Ms. Nerudova, University professor and a candidate in the 2023 Czech presidential election will be the speakers in the panel

Andrea Venzon and Colombe Cahen-Salvador will conduct and facilitate the Consultation.

Václav Štětka will act as the moderator for the panel and as rapporteur for the Consultation

The consultation is part of the “Re-Imagining the Building Blocks of Democracy”, a 3-year international project, already in its 2d year of implementation which runs in 10 cities across the world (both the Global North and the Global South) and aims through a combination of experts’ roundtables and citizens’ consultations to identify, publicize and push for implementation specific policy proposals that would help Liberal Democracy meet the challenges of our times. The proposals concentrate on five main issues (building blocks) namely people, parties-money & influence, voting, information & disinformation and the balance between legislative and executive power.

Some of the issues that will be debated during the consultation are the following:

In today’s interconnected world Parties & Money have become interconnected with Power & Influence. Simultaneously, the centers of “power& influence” have shifted, with technology and innovation as drivers in this shift.

• Which are the primary power yielders and influencers in a democratic political system? Which are these new centers, and which is their importance. The ways used to exercise “power & influence” through money.
• To what extent has this development altered the traditional “power & influence” of political parties? How parties exercise it, how have they adapted. What, if any, is the “cost” in terms of democracy.
• Have the centers of “power & influence” within parties shifted? Why, how and which is the extent of this development. The case to redress the balance in terms of enhancing democracy and counterbalance in terms of efficiency.
• Have these developments increased or reduced the relation between citizens and parties? Effects on representation—qua parties representing citizens.
• Is there a need to address party reform? Ways to redesign party structure and to re-balance the different centers of “power & influence
• What is the importance and what are the dangers of reaching out and of appeasing grass roots organizations and of launching an “open party”?

Registration is required here. 

19. 6. 2023, the Vaclav Havel Library

A lecture will be given by Stephen Darwall, professor at Yale University called “Attitudes of the Will and Attitudes of the Heart”.

Abstract:

The reactive attitudes through which we hold people accountable (resentment, guilt, and blame) have been much studied. But P. F. Strawson gave other examples – love, gratitude, and "hurt feelings." I present an analysis of these attitudes as "second-personal attitudes of the heart."  Whereas the deontic moral attitudes are attitudes of the will – expressing demands from one will to another – second-personal attitudes of the heart open one's heart to another's in the hope that theirs will be open to one's heart in return. In the process we arrive at a perfectly general account of attitudes as "reciprocating attitudes."

JAN PALACH SQUARE, FACULTY OF HUMANITIES, CHARLES UNIVERSITY, March 16, 2022 AT 5:00 PM

Kultura Liberalna is a centrist liberal media organization established in Poland in 2008 by a group of journalists and academics, which publishes an influential weekly online journal featuring articles, commentary, and debate. The organization also publishes books, organizes international events, and develops partnerships with other media outlets and intellectual networks around the globe. The organization‘s main aim is to strengthen and modernize liberal ideas in Central and Eastern Europe through the promotion of the ideals of an open society, pluralism of worldviews, and free debate based on mutual respect.

In 2023, Kultura Liberalna plans to realize the Czech Philosophical Thinking Project, which will be focused on subjects such as John Amos Comenius and the role of education, Jan Patocka and European philosophy, and Jan Mukařovský and literary theory.

In response to the war between Ukraine and Russia, the Foundation has offered support for Ukraine and written an open letter nominating Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy for the Nobel Peace Prize.

In partnership with the Faculty of Arts at Charles University, the Foundation also decided to support Ukrainian researchers and students. The donation is also intended to cover the costs associated with the East European Studies program at the Department of East European studies.

Prague, July 2022

A lecture will be given by Stefan Gosepath, professor at Freie Universität Berlin called “What, if anything, is wrong with inheritance”.

Abstract:

This talk is concerned with the fundamental question of whether it is just that people inherit property. Should a property owner be entitled to transfer that property after their death to a person of their choosing? Is the right to posthumous transfer a part of the right to private property? Gosepath will defend the thesis that the common social practice of inheritance, embodied in law and institutions, is actually pro tanto unjust, since it confers an unjust advantage on the beneficiary. To establish this thesis, Gosepath shall first consider the main arguments against inheritance from a justice perspective, then defend these positions against four of the main normative arguments offered in favour of inheritance: the right to property objection, the gift objection, the value of the family objection, and the double tax objection.

JAN PALACH SQUARE, FACULTY OF HUMANITIES, CHARLES UNIVERSITY, OCTOBER 13, 2022 AT 5:00 PM

This essay by Luděk Sekyra was originally published by Seznam Zprávy on September 28, 2022.

Every war must be assessed according to its true causes. In order to be a just war (jus ad bellum), the cause must be justifiable – for example, a war of liberation or defense or a struggle against a brutal regime.

Unjust wars always have more complicated motives: for example, an imperial attack on a national minority or an attempt to achieve hegemonic power. In essence, though, these motives are morally unjustifiable. One such motive is Russian national imperialism, which is the basis of its current aggression towards Ukraine. It must also be mentioned that this aggression has been carried out in a way that does not respect recognized rules of waging war (jus in bello), intentionally bringing its horrors to the civilian population and, at the same time, violating the principle of proportionality.

War generally results in seeking peace; peace is the boundary line of war, its limit. At the same time, the issue involves a difficult dilemma: at what moment do the advantages of peaceful coexistence prevail over being prepared for battle, defense, and sacrifice? In an unjust war, especially one where the aggressor cannot be fully defeated, the cardinal question is: what degree of “permanent” injustice or loss of territory is acceptable for making peace as a prerequisite for the autonomous development of every national community?

 An empire without self-reflection

To find the causes of the current conflict, we must look at Russia’s age-old imperial ambitions as a territorial power, which stem from the geopolitical orientation of its leaders: those who do not try to expand their territory are no good. The expansive thinking of a superpower, however, often resonates with the uncritical, resigned, but also frustrated mentality of ordinary people. According to author Alexander Solzhenitsyn, this way of thinking makes it so that a Russian can bear freezing weather and blows from a nagaika, but cannot bear not being feared. A peasant beaten by a lord crawls home and beats his wife unconscious.

The author’s own life story is, in its way, fascinating and contradictory at the same time, which is exactly why it can serve as a key for understanding the attitudes of a significant part of the Russian elite. His Gulag Archipelago is perhaps the most effective description of the frightening reality of the Soviet prison system, and his novel The Red Wheel created an unusually lively image of the Bolshevik revolution. He was persecuted and forced into exile. However, after the fall of communism and his return to Russia, he inspired Putin and shared with him the idea of Great Russia including both Belarus and Little Russia – that is, Ukraine. The national idea of Great Russia, the dream of the nation’s special mission, has deep roots, often stressing the role of the Orthodox Church; the views of another literary giant, Dostoyevsky, are typical in this respect. After all, territorial expansion is the historical foundation of Russian state doctrine, which sees East Slavic nations as an essential part of its empire, entirely in the spirit of Havel’s incisive bon mot that Russia doesn’t know where it begins and ends.

There are two kinds of limits to expansion: external, like Ukrainians’ military and political resistance to aggression, and internal, first and foremost the collective self-reflection of an imperial nation. Here we encounter the issue of the transformation of the values of Russian society. To the extent that we can speak of internal criticism, this is not a widespread position, but usually involves the statements of individual dissidents.

Russia has not undertaken the painful soul-searching of Western nations like France, Belgium, and Britain over their own colonial pasts, which casts doubt on established stereotypes, cultural patterns, and even the very narrative of the great figures of that era. Other examples of successful reckoning with dark episodes of history include postwar Germany and Japan.

Although all this can serve as inspiration for Russia, and robust reflection on the country’s history would be a turning point and a condition for true change, it is unrealistic to expect it at present. The two ideological pillars of Russia – nationalism and Orthodoxy – are firmly in the hands of the regime. It is, above all, ideology rather than material conditions that acts as a driver of Russian history. Another driver is the Muscovite elite, not the people. A century ago, Masaryk, a great expert of Russian society, observed that thanks to its uncritical masses, Russia will always see the emergence of a political oligarchy, be it czarist or Bolshevik. He noted that they removed the czar, but not czarism. Similarly, they later rid themselves of communism, but not totalitarian thought.

After all, the continuity and expansion of authoritarianism and brutality is not a civilizational alternative to the West, it is just another limit on Russian imperial ambitions.

 A conflict of liberties

We should not overlook the fact that the Russian aggression is not just a military and political conflict; this is just the shell under which a deeper cultural conflict is hidden. If we take a good look at Russian history, we find that the country suffered several generations of Tatar domination, then groaned under the subjection of the czar; it never went through the Enlightenment and later faced communist totalitarianism. Collective identity, identification with the state and its apparatus, have remained primary. At a relatively early point, from the rule of Czar Ivan the Great in the sixteenth century and the legendary cruelty of his all-powerful oprichniki, repressive units of state power received a privileged position. This got transferred to the practice of police institutions in later regimes. In another layer of these traditions, we see a culture of war, death, seeking enemies, and a predominance of oppression and fear as a principle of negative unity.

With a no less bloody history, Ukraine was subjected to a difficult coexistence with the Russian Empire, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and even Ottoman invasions, but its formative elements were different. The Cossacks and their “hetmans” always vigilantly protected their independence, and the Ukrainian Revival in Galicia, around Lviv, absorbed Enlightenment influences in the environment of the relatively liberal Habsburg monarchy. Religious pluralism was expressed through the Greek Catholic Church in the west and the Orthodox Church in the east. As a country on the periphery, a borderland, it was more exposed to Western intellectual influences, including individualism and critical thought. Despite Russian pressure, a modern Ukrainian identity was thus formed, creating a self-sufficient nation despite occasional offshoots of charged nationalism.

Ukrainian statehood has always been fragile and uncertain under pressure from many sides. For a long time, the nation existed without political representation. Ukrainian liberty means autonomy, liberty from the state; this is not just a dream of resistance to oppressors, to the originators of Stalin’s Holodomor, but also a definite impulse and a motivation to fight against today’s occupiers. It is a defensive liberty, recalling what legendary Oxford professor Isaiah Berlin called negative liberty, in contrast to positive liberty, which the state creates the preconditions for and enforces. This, in contrast, is distantly similar to the Russian model of liberty, which arises in a totalitarian conception of the state founded on the principle of everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. This then becomes the sole source of a kind of “manipulative” liberty which is aggressive and eliminates any alternative stance that citizens may adopt as well as the autonomy of the individual.

These two concepts of liberty are irreconcilable, this being the core of the ongoing war, though one often covered by calculated rhetoric. Liberty is always substantive in terms of both morality and practical politics.

The different borders of evil

Evil is a part of human nature. Immanuel Kant even speaks of a “radical disposition towards evil”, which for him is “an invisible enemy who hides behind reason”. Unjust aggression includes a manifestation of this sort of evil, but it is only a possibility, a matter of how we handle our natural dispositions, just as we can tend towards the opposite, good deeds.

The problem of evil has worried Christian thinkers since Augustine and philosophers from Leibniz through today. How is it possible than an infinitely good god allows the existence of evil, is a common question. So that good can come about, is one answer. The borders of evil are, on the one hand, its worst manifestations, like violence against civilians in war, genocide, and ethnic cleansing; and on the other hand, good and the strength of human conscience. Given the primary human need for recognition from others, we can speak of the social origin of evil, because many wish to gain the admiration and respect of others through their actions. A remedy for this tendency can usually be found in a moral community, whether religious or secular, sharing fundamental human values, in contrast with destructive evil, one example of which is Russia’s spiteful aggression.

A substantial amount of evil in the world is carried out by humans against one another. What can be done, however, when no alternative moral community exists, or one can only be created or identified with difficulty, as is the case given the conditions of contemporary Russia? The only option left is personal engagement, including the remarkable courage needed to express one’s opinion in public – because an individual’s right to a moral stance cannot be taken away, it belongs to the elementary inheritance of humanity. Unfortunately, people must sometimes suffer for it.

Intellectuals who understand the region, like Timothy Snyder, Timothy Garton Ash, and political philanthropist George Soros, reacted to the aggression with very clear denunciation, warning against further goals of the aggressor, and calling for unlimited support of the invaded country. Other important Central European intellectuals – Adam Michnik, Tomáš Halík, and many others – spoke out similarly and even more forcefully. Finally, the sentiment of citizens of countries, including those that are not so close to Russia geographically, is predominantly pro-Ukrainian, which is one reason why Ukraine can rely on the unanimous support of the European Union and the United States.

On the other hand, a number of influential figures of the West have expressed the opposite opinion. The doyen of left-wing discourse, Noam Chomsky, surprised few when he accused NATO of provoking everything by considering admitting Ukraine. More unexpected were similar statements by Pope Francis: these, too, have developed in some ways since, but his initial attempt to maintain a certain amount of neutrality is, in his case, striking at the least. I believe that this apparent pretext cannot be passed off as the true cause of the attack on a sovereign state.

Henry Kissinger, a realist, would prefer to give Crimea to Russia for the price of peace; his thoughts have also shown a progression, though without a clear stance. On the other hand, popular contrarian Jordan B. Peterson placed the aggression in the context of the American culture war between progressives and conservatives, in which progressive trends are supposedly devastating a secularized, “pathological” West. He assigns conservative Russia an important role in the revival of Christian religiosity. To this, all that needs to be said is that the crucial culture war is between Russia and the West; the latter will win, which is why Ukraine wants to be a part of it. Marxist revivalist Slavoj Žižek, on the other hand, warns that Russian neo-imperialism will be replaced by neoliberalism, and that Ukraine will become an economic colony of the West; this can be prevented if the country sets off on its own path, but he doesn’t say which. Even Jürgen Habermas, an iconic figure of European public discourse, is irritated by the radical support for Ukraine shown by some German politicians and has made an appeal for a sober compromise with a nuclear superpower. Here we find resonance with  the illusion of an effective left-wing Ostpolitik hidden in his theory of communicative action as the preferred model of coexistence.

What connects these realist views is that, to some extent, they do not distinguish between a principled moral stance and a political solution which is necessary but often full of compromises; this is dangerous, because this sort of confusion leads the basic stance itself to become relativized. The consequence is polarization, a breakdown that may threaten the stability of just political organization in both national and international communities.

One factor standing behind these views is the ever-influential idea from modern analytic philosophy that reality is value-neutral, that values are a human projection onto it; in this conception, justice and injustice, truths and lies are matters of subjective attitudes. This approach must be rejected, because the horrors of war prove that both facts and mere events have an objective moral content, that the line between good and evil cannot be explained away when one is limiting the other. In addition, the worst wartime situations, like the torture of civilians, urgently call for the resolution of a complicated philosophical riddle: how to overcome the conflict, the discrepancy, the abyss between facts and values, between what is and what should be. I have a feeling that seeking an answer to this question is the key to moral progress, to the ability to look at the world through the eyes of the other.

Change and continuity

Ukrainians have displayed heroism, which is undoubtably a virtue, and have the right to all-around help from us when they are facing aggression for their turn towards the idea of Europe, civil rights, and respect for the dignity of the individual. The rational legacy of the Enlightenment is today being fought and died for in Kherson and Kharkiv: this must be taken into consideration before starting any discussion about the conflict, its economic consequences, and potential compromises for peace.

Politics stands for power or the balance of power, but morality is a stance that is never neutral. We cannot rule out the existence dilemmas, but Russian aggression is certainly not for the good, so the alternative is the obvious direction to take.

This offers the option to taking clear positions. After all, the main task of ethics is identifying principles and adopting stances. I am convinced that the principle of moral reciprocity is essential, being a precondition for and guaranteeing the continuity of a humanity grounded in values, because values are the source of accepted principles. Reciprocity means that we should treat others as we want them to treat us. Moral reciprocity has an asymmetric dimension in the form of responsibility towards those who are not capable of reciprocal actions – those who are weaker, vulnerable, children, and seniors. We never know when we, too, may find ourselves in such a situation. A heightened responsibility for the stronger towards the weaker could also be a starting point for relationships between states. Applying a moral perspective in this domain may seem idealistic, but it is necessary for a consistent attitude in helping those who are facing injustice through no fault of their own.

A successful defense and victory for a democratic Ukraine will be symbolic and inspirational. Let us not forget that democracy does not always win: even in the Peloponnesian War, ancient Athens, the cradle of democracy, was defeated by the militaristic monarchy of Sparta, thus putting an end to the blossoming of this cradle of Western culture. In the twentieth century, interwar Europe was enlaced in a web of authoritarianism; after the war, its eastern part was captured by totalitarianism isolated from liberty by the Iron Curtain. It is good that the geopolitical voluntarism and territorial ambition of Russia are running up against the Euro-Atlantic security architecture; the tragedy of Ukraine is that it is not a part of the latter.

This leads me to think about the moral structure of a world founded on principles, conscience, and freedom, which are a part of its set of values, to which we must return as the foundation for any sensible politics capable of sacrificing short-term interests for long-term ones. History is usually a compromise between change and continuity. Russia needs a change; Ukraine, continuity for its chosen path, and in this, it deserves our support.

Luděk Sekyra

The conference “Wittgenstein and Philosophy for the 21st Century” aims to present and develop the relevance of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s thinking to contemporary thought. A particular focus is on future-oriented topics such as artificial intelligence, inter-cultural understanding, and modern epistemology. The conference is a sequel to the “Culture and Value after Wittgenstein” conference which took place in Oxford in August 2019 and “Wittgenstein and the Vienna Circle – After 100 Years” which took place in Vienna in June 2021. Organized by the Sekyra Foundation and the Centre for Philosophy, Ethics and Religion (Charles University).

The foundation is supporting the publication of Polemic with a Euroskeptic, or How to Make the European Union a World Superpower, which will be published by Bourdon. The book is written as a dialogue between two people who discuss questions about European integration focusing on the possibility of closer political and military integration in the European Union. The aim of this book is to contribute to the consolidation of peace and security in Europe and to debate how European Union members can achieve this goal on their own. The book will include educational supplementary material such as maps, a historical overview of the development of the European integration, and more; this will aid the dissemination of knowledge about the institutions of the European Union in the Czech Republic.

The Foundation is supporting the publication of a new translation of Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince by Jan Bíba. Regardless of our perspective on The Prince, the book changed our way of thinking about politics forever. This new translation of the classic text includes several short texts connected to the original treatise, which are appearing in Czech for the first time. This edition including accompanying texts and extensive commentary place the text not only in the context of the author’s life and work, but also in the historical and political context of Europe in the 15th and 16th century, thereby helping us more clearly understand Machiavelli’s way of thinking.

The foundation is supporting the publication of A Long Night’s Stories, which was originally published in 2018 by Hlbiny in Bratislava. The new publication, by the UK-based Mount Orleans Press, is intended to spread the knowledge about the brutality of the communist regime.

Rudolf Dobiáš was born into a peasant family on September 29, 1934, in Dobra near Trenčín, Slovakia. In 1954 he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for treason. The main reason for the arrest was membership in an illegal scouting organization that produced and distributed anti-communist leaflets. After being sentenced, he was transported to Jáchymov District, where he worked as a miner in the Jáchymov uranium mines until 1960. After the fall of communism, he became a journalist, working as editor of Slovenský denník. Until 2013 he edited the journal of the Slovak Confederation of Political Prisoners, Naše Svedectvo (Our Testimony). He has compiled four books of testimonies attesting to the brutality of the communist regime, Triedni nepriatelia (Class Enemies), as well as an anthology of poetry written in prison, Básnici za mrežami (Poets Behind Bars).

The foundation has supported a work by Krištof Kintera called Praying Wood. The sculpture is a seven-meter humanoid figure made of aluminum, cast from a wooden model and covered with silver, which kneels with its hands lifted towards the heavens in an expression of warning and hope for the future. In today’s world, where people are experiencing a pandemic, the sculpture’s significance is even more urgent and extends to the theme of hope and faith for a better tomorrow.

2021

Oxford University acknowledges its cooperation with the Sekyra Foundation and will rename its oldest professorship in philosophy

Oxford University has decided to acknowledge its long-term cooperation with Luděk Sekyra and his Sekyra Foundation. The foundation, whose international efforts focus on supporting philosophy, has provided support for the oldest statutory professorship in philosophy at Oxford, the White’s Professorship of Moral Philosophy, which is also the most significant chair of moral philosophy in the world. The professorship was established in 1621 by Thomas White, and after 400 years its new name will be the Sekyra and White’s Professorship of Moral Philosophy. For the occasion, Oxford University will organize a conference of leading specialists working on current issues of moral philosophy, especially population ethics, an area in which the Sekyra Foundation intends to support future research. Including the direct contribution to the professorship amounting to 2.8 million pounds, the total amount of support provided by the Sekyra Foundation to Oxford University will reach 100 million CZK.

The vice-chancellor of the university, Professor Louise Richardson, adds: “We at Oxford are proud of the long standing links between our philosophers and Prague, dating back to Jan Hus translating banned works by John Wycliffe in the 14th and 15th century. It is wonderful that in its 400th year the Chair has become the Sekyra and White’s Professorship of Moral Philosophy. We are very grateful to Ludek and the Sekyra Foundation for this generous gift.”

Cooperation with Oxford University

“Nothing could more aptly characterize the tradition and intellectual excellence that we associate with the name of Oxford University than the professorship of moral philosophy established in 1621 by Thomas White, the oldest university chair in philosophy. I often wonder why we so rarely ask ourselves how to live a good life, what constitutes moral progress, what our responsibility is towards future generations, why the public sphere is not also a sphere of morality, and how the continuity of humanity is affected by technology and global climate change. These challenges, which have, among others, been the subject of my discussions with philosophers at Oxford, help us uncover deeper levels of reality, the essence of the lives we lead. I am glad that I could contribute to this dialogue,” says Luděk Sekyra, the foundation’s chairman of the board.

The foundation’s cooperation with Oxford University is the result of the lifelong interest that its founder, Luděk Sekyra, has had in moral and political philosophy. This has previously included support for large international conferences about the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein, interfaith dialogue, and a volume of moral philosophy by Derek Parfit. Its significant acts have also included the construction of the Sekyra House, a student center at Harris Manchester College, and especially the installation of a bench honoring Václav Havel in the university park. Not but not least, the foundation provides stipends for postgraduate students of philosophy and legal theory, including human rights issues.

“To me, Oxford University is a fascinating center of knowledge. It brings together students and instructors connected by a genuine excitement for their field of study, no matter what it is, and a desire for knowledge throughout the whole world. It is a unique environment where academic freedom applies universally, a truly international environment where views influenced by a wide range of cultures clash and connect in cultivated debates. Studying at Oxford especially allowed me to meet a number of outstanding professionals who, despite their young age, had already conducted some inspiring work in the field of human rights. I also appreciate receiving a stipend from the Sekyra Foundation because it advocates for values that align with mine,” says Martina Grochová, a student of human rights at Oxford who received a stipend from the Sekyra Foundation.

The Sekyra and White’s Professorship of Moral Philosophy

This oldest Oxford professorship of philosophy and most significant chair of moral philosophy in the world has been held by leading British philosophers and thinkers. One of the first holders was Professor Edward Fulham, chaplain to Charles II. Its holders in the 19^th century included Henry Liddell – longtime dean of the famous Christ Church College, among other things the father of the girl for whom his university colleague Lewis Carroll wrote Alice in Wonderland. The professorship was also held by one of the most important philosophers of the 19^th century, Thomas Hill Green. In the 20^th century, it was held by men like W. D. Ross and H. A. Prichard, but also J. L. Austin, a main figure in philosophy of language; in the latter half of the century, its holders included R. M. Hare, a crucial figure in moral philosophy of the time, and Sir Bernard Williams.

The current holder of the professorship, Jeff McMahan, remarks on its significance: “For much of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, Oxford has been the best place in the world for the study of moral philosophy. Part of the reason for this is that some of the holders of the White’s Professorship of Moral Philosophy – for example, Sir David Ross, R.M. Hare, and Sir Bernard Williams – are widely regarded as having been the best and most important moral philosophers in the world during the time when they held the Professorship. This position has, however, been insecure because, unlike most other named professorships, it has had no stable source of funding. The endowment by the Sekyra Foundation of what will become the Sekyra and White’s Professorship ensures that this distinguished, 400-year-old position will finally be secure for the future.”

Oxford University is not just one of the world’s leading educational institutions, but also an internationally respected center for the development of moral philosophy. It is the home of the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, the Institute for Ethics in AI, and the Future of Humanity Institute. The university is where one of the greatest moral philosophers of the previous era, Derek Parfit, developed his extraordinarily influential conception of moral stances towards future generations, known as population ethics.

“The Sekyra Foundation's extremely generous endowment is of immense importance for the study of philosophy in the University of Oxford.  And it also brilliantly honors the deep-seated traditions of British philosophy whose influence over the centuries has been felt far beyond the frontiers of the British Isles,” says Stanley Johnson, former politician, environmental activist, and father of the current prime minister.

 Oxford and the Czech lands

The history of relations between Oxford University and the Czech lands stretches as far back as the 14^th century. In the mid-14^th century Adalbert Ranconis de Ericinio, an intellectual in the European style, was not just a rector at the Sorbonne, but was also later active at Oxford. He started a fund for the support of Czech students, and these students brought the teachings of Oxford Professor John Wycliffe to Prague. Jan Hus’s companion Jerome of Prague spent time at Oxford as well. Wycliffe’s ideas became the inspiration for the Hussite movement. In the 15^th century Peter Payne, another teacher at Oxford and the principal of St. Edmund Hall, directly took part in the Hussite efforts for reform and also later served as the movement’s main diplomat.

We must also mention the students of medicine invited by Oxford to finish their studies after the Czech universities were closed in 1939. In the 1980s civically engaged Oxford professors founded the Jan Hus Educational Foundation, through which they provided significant ideological support for the Czech dissent movement. A number of them, for example Roger Scruton, Anthony Kenny, and Charles Taylor, actively participated in apartment seminars and expended great personal effort to bring samizdat and banned philosophical literature to the country behind the Iron Curtain. Last but not least, we must mention that three of our presidents – T. G. Masaryk, Eduard Beneš, and Václav Havel – were given the extraordinary tribute of an honorary doctorate from Oxford University. In 2016, an honorary doctorate was also awarded to philosopher and theologian Tomáš Halík for his intellectual work and civic stances.

“I first came to Oxford, the Mecca of Western education, as a student in August 1968. I dreamed that I would one day return. The following day, the hope of the Prague Spring ended under the tracks of Soviet tanks. For twenty years I was unable to travel to the West; I was active in the cultural dissent movement. After the fall of communism, I was invited to lecture at Oxford as a senior fellow, in 2014 I became the namesake of a lecture hall in Sekyra House at Harris Manchester College, and in 2016 I was awarded an honorary doctorate from Oxford University. Oxford has become a home for my heart. Sometimes our hearts’ great dreams come true, even if at a different time and in a different way than we expected,” says Professor Tomáš Halík, expressing his emotional relationship to the university.

About Oxford University

Oxford University is the oldest and most prestigious university in the English-speaking world and one of the best universities altogether. According to the Times World University Rankings, it has been the best university in the world for six years running, including for 2022. Oxford is one of the most important British institutions and has played an essential role in the history of the island nation. It is also a global symbol of British education, tolerance, humanity, and democracy.

At least 47 Nobel Prize holders have degrees from Oxford, as well as 26 prime ministers of the United Kingdom (including the most recent prime ministers, David Cameron, Theresa May, and Boris Johnson) and over 30 foreign presidents and prime ministers.

The university’s current vice-chancellor is Professor Louise Richardson, the first woman in history to hold the position. The honorary title of chancellor is held by Lord Chris Patten, previously an important politician and the last British governor of Hong Kong.

The university has approximately 21,000 students from 160 countries, 57 of whom are from the Czech Republic.

About the Foundation

The Sekyra Foundation was founded by Czech entrepreneur Luděk Sekyra to support human rights, moral universalism, liberal values, and civil society. It also specializes in the development of critical and philosophical thought at an international scale. In addition, it actively supports academic institutions and educational projects, including the publication of works by important thinkers. The Foundation’s mission also includes promoting intergenerational dialogue in the context of responsibility for the future of the planet.

The foundation cooperates with Harvard University, Oxford University, and the Centre for Philosophy, Ethics, and Religion at Charles University. It supports the Athens Democracy Forum, together with the New York Times; the Czech Christian Academy; the Festival of Freedom; Foyer, a platform for integration in the Molenbeek district of Brussels; the Central European Forum in Bratislava; the Polish liberal media platform Kultura Liberalna; and also students at international universities. The Foundation is a general partner of the Czech Centre of PEN International, as well as a long-time supporter of the Václav Havel library and the main partner of the Václav Havel Human Rights Prize.

The foundation recently supported an English translation of essays by the important Czech philosopher Jan Patočka, to be published by the prestigious British publishing house Bloomsbury. The foundation also cooperates with a number of important organizations and institutions, such as the Open Society Foundation, the ERSTE Foundation, and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

The foundation’s governing bodies include significant public figures such as Tomáš Halík, Daniel Kroupa, Michael Žantovský, Jiří Pehe, Martin Palouš, Jiří Přibáň, and, until recently, Jiřina Šiklová. Its international advisory board includes Mark Thompson, former CEO of the New York Times; Mark Malloch-Brown, president of the Open Society Foundations; Michal Rosen, professor of ethics in politics at Harvard University; and Jacques Rupnik, a French-Czech political scientist and historian.

The Foundation has supported a conference dedicated to John Rawls in cooperation with the University of Notre Dame in the USA.

The conference commemorates the 100th anniversary of the birth of John Rawls, one of the most influential political philosophers of the twentieth century, and the 50th anniversary of the publication of his A Theory of Justice, one of the greatest works of political philosophy produced in the modern period and still the central work in the field to this day.

Notre Dame University, USA, September 2021

The Foundation is supporting the publication of Jan Patočka: A Selected Edition, a translation of selected texts and essays of Czech philosopher Jan Patočka. Patočka was a writer and lecturer who made substantial contributions to existential phenomenology and the interpretation of Czech culture and European culture in general. He was one of the last pupils of Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger.

Jan Patočka never joined the Communist Party and was subject to persecution, which ended in his death as a dissident spokesperson of Charter 77.

The book will be published by Bloomsbury in 2022.

Preface

Philosophy, Fate, and Sacrifice

Not many figures in twentieth-century Czech history can compete with the philosopher Jan Patočka. This extraordinary personality speaks to us through his philosophical work and his moral positions alike. His death after many hours of questioning by the secret police became a symbol for the birth of Charter 77, Czechoslovakia’s largest dissident movement, which played a fundamental role in the fall of the communist regime. Despite his age, the courageous philosopher admirably decided to take on the risk of serving as the platform’s first spokesperson, a decision that ended in the ultimate sacrifice. The moral foundations of Charter 77 are perhaps best illustrated by Patočka’s famous statement that “there are things worth suffering for” and that “they are what make life worth living.” What this sentence conveys above all is an emphasis on fundamental human rights, on “living in truth,” which is the core of “anti-” or “nonpolitical politics” springing from values and the power of conscience. We later find these same ideas in concentrated form in the work of Václav Havel, on whom Patočka had a profound influence.

In his youth, the Czech philosopher was one of the most gifted pupils of Moravian native Edmund Husserl, the founder of phenomenology. This became the starting point of his lifelong philosophical journey. In his habilitation thesis, “The Natural World as a Philosophical Problem,” Patočka developed and deepened Husserl’s concept of the natural or lifeworld (Lebenswelt). Patočka, like his teacher—or Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, and, of course, Wittgenstein—sought to disclose the structure of the world. To grasp the world as a whole, not in the dualism of the natural and scientifically mediated mathematical world. This is the path that leads to the overcoming of fragmentation, to the renewal of life as a whole. How relevant in this age of social networks and filter bubbles with their algorithms sealing us off into virtual echo chambers. In this environment, there is a general lack of critical reflection and debate, resulting in fragmentation, an absence of reflection and respect for perspectives different from ours, and the canalization of our own attitudes.

For Patočka, philosophy is the bold path leading to the essence of things, which “a naive life seeks to avoid.” His work is primarily anchored in the continental philosophical tradition, so we need not agree with his belief that phenomenology best describes the structure of our world. Some are on closer terms with analytic philosophy, such as the formal logic of Wittgenstein and Carnap; others subscribe to Kant’s transcendental idealism. I myself am more convinced of the primacy of the moral structure of the world. Regardless, no one can deny the originality of Patočka’s ideas and interpretations. His phenomenology is not merely existential, but always emphasizes the importance of understanding others, of consideration for them and coexistence with them.

What is amazing is the sheer breadth of his interests, always serious-minded and in many ways revealing. Among those we must mention are Greek philosophy, literature and art, educational theory focused on the fundamental work of his compatriot and pedagogical genius John Amos Comenius, and, last but not least, the philosophy of history.

Though at his core a philosophical, apolitical person, Patočka’s fate was shaped by political tumult: the traumatic experience of 1930s Berlin, the Nazi German occupation of Czechoslovakia, and the Communists’ rise to power in 1948, after which he had to leave the university, although he returned for a brief spell in 1968 in connection with the Prague Spring. Subsequently, his public engagement was limited to the teaching of apartment seminars, which, however, shaped the character of Czech dissent in a substantial way. He also returned to Greek philosophy, developing his ideas about the historical role of the city, or polis, as a place of “care for the soul”—a source of unity in life, albeit born in battle, in struggle (polemos).

Socrates’ thesis that “the unexamined life is not worth living” could serve as the motto for Patočka’s thinking at the tail end of his philosophical journey. Life in Patočka’s view is inextricably bound up with problematization, upheaval, and a resultant “solidarity of the shaken.” What remains constant is the question of meaning and meaningfulness, and these fateful experiences lead him to the conviction that “the world is dark and problematic, [. . .] we do not possess it; but this means coming into conflict and going to one’s death” (see “The Spiritual Person and the Intellectual,” p 425). Intellectual insight must necessarily be accompanied by engagement, by concrete acts. The context of these reflections clarifies his lifelong admiration for the man of action Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, Czechoslovakia’s first president and the only philosopher to found a state.

Patočka sees the meaning of both history and individual life in the unifying message of the victim, a beacon of resistance for all those who hesitate, tolerate, and adapt in spite of disagreement. He invites us to undertake a fundamental reflection, to be brave enough not to fear the truth, a choice which may result in sacrifice. Most of us live within the confines of our comfort zones; it is urgent that we leave them—this is what I would refer to as “Patočka’s appeal.” It is the call to take a moral stance, to take action affirming the meaning of our own existence.

His multilayered philosophical legacy opens a broad space for interpretation and debate. Recall his reflections on the idea of ​​the West, highlighting the benefit of the creative struggle between Czech elements and Western cultural influences, and emphasizing that we must be “more western than the West itself,” a statement that may be applied to all of Central Europe, this unique space in between the West and Russia. Despite the often loud criticism of the West here, frequently chiming in with the West’s own withering self-critique, I still feel that the people who inhabit this in-between space realize there is a substantially worse alternative, namely, the threat from the East.

Patočka’s reflections on the universal character of European culture, the moral crisis of Europe, the post-European era, and supercivilization are similarly a source of unrelenting debate. Finally, his observations on freedom “as letting being be,” not distorting it, in which he presages the current environmental crisis, are unjustly neglected. These inquiries of Patočka’s are especially important for the international philosophical public, who in this volume of translated essays by the great Central European thinker have access to the best of the Czech philosophical tradition, knowledge of which remains rather marginal, particularly in the Anglo-American environment.

I am extremely pleased that our foundation—which has long supported the philosophy and work of Jan Patočka, and whose board includes direct students of his, such as the philosopher Daniel Kroupa and the theologian Tomáš Halík—was able to be involved in the publication of this book.

Luděk Sekyra

Translated from the Czech by Alex Zucker

The Foundation has supported a publication to commemorate František Černý's 90th birthday. The book is a collection of essays written by friends, co-workers and people with whom František Černý has been in contact, especially in the last 20 years. František Černý is a Germanist, former Czech ambassador to Germany, and editor of foreign broadcasts for Czech Radio. Together with Lenka Reinerová, he founded the Prague Literary House of German-Language Authors (Prager Literaturhaus deutschsprachiger Autoren), which promotes authors such as Franz Kafka, Lenka Reinerová, R. M. Rilke, Franz Werfel, andMax Brod, as well as contemporary authors like Libuše Moníková, Jiří Gruša, and the youngest generation of authors writing in German with connections to the Czech Republic.

The special publication included Mr. Sekyra's essay.

An unforgettable encounter

Sometimes one has an unexpected encounter that influences one for the rest of one’s life. In the late eighties, when I worked as a young teacher at the faculty of law, I studied legal philosophy, and in particular the concept of the rule of law, the “Rechtsstaat”, a term which originated in German political theory in the 19^th century. German was my first foreign language, and I also felt an affinity for it due to my geographic circumstances, being from Český Krumlov. I wanted to further improve my knowledge, so I registered for an advanced language course on Národní třída (Prague‘s Národní Avenue). It was a legendary course taught by Germanist František Černý. His explanations were accompanied by the inimitable gracefulness and wit that, in my eyes, are so characteristic of Professor Černý.

The lessons were not just for improving out conversational skills and grammar; given his deep knowledge of German literature, I was most engaged by the discussions of great figures of German literature, including the reading and interpretation of their texts.

Given the fact that I was born in the home region of Adalbert Stifter, I felt an affinity for Austrian literature. My favorite novel was his Indian Summer, as well as inimitable stories like Rock Crystal. My other favorite authors included Joseph Roth, with his The Emperor’s Tomb, and especially Robert Musil, whose novel The Man Without Qualities had a substantial impact on my intellectual development. And, last but not least, the critical reflection of post-war Austria in the books of Thomas Bernhard.

At that time I was starting to read more German literature. I read many books by the Mann brothers, and the discussions between me, a novice reader, and such a boundlessly erudite scholar in this field like Professor Černý were greatly enriching to me. I was fascinated by the ambiguous intellectual construction of Doctor Faustus and Thomas Mann’s whole world of ideas. His fresco portraying the rise and fall of an entrepreneurial family, the Buddenbrooks, in the novel of the same name was to some extent a revelation to me. I often recalled the individual characters later, at the outset of my own entrepreneurial career, and I frequently remember them to this day. The discussions with Professor Černý allowed me to look deeper into the psychology of the individual protagonists, as well as the meaning and message of these works. Later in life, I referenced many of the characters in conversation with leading representatives of large German or Austrian companies, as well as with members of German-language intellectual milieux and cultural circles. This was immensely valuable to me, and for that I will be forever indebted to our honoree.

In the period following the Velvet Revolution, when Professor Černý became a visible figure in Czech–German relations and subsequently even ambassador to Germany, I had the opportunity to see him at various social and celebratory gatherings. He was always brimming with optimism and was instrumental in addressing every new challenge and aspect of Czech–German mutual relations.

I gladly remember the optimistic and enriching conversations from that period of great euphoria.

Last but not least, Professor Černý’s efforts helped keep the tradition of Prague German literature an active concern, ensuring that authors like Franz Kafka, Egon Erwin Kisch, and Johannes Urzidil belong to the cultural legacy of both nations. As we well know, he and Lenka Reinerová were together responsible for the creation of the Prague Literary House of German Language Authors.

I was delighted that he approached me to support this today very highly respected institution at its outset, which I was glad to do. It will be my pleasure to continue this support through the Sekyra Foundation, and I believe that the Literary House’s activity will contribute to a greater understanding with Germany, our fated neighbor, about which Václav Havel said that it “is our inspiration and our pain, the source of many understandable traumas as well as measures to which we compare ourselves”. One particular expression of support for the German-language cultural legacy in our lands this year will be the installation of a bust of Franz Kafka in the Hotel Savoy (formerly Krone) in Špindlerův Mlýn, in which the author began to write his novel The Castle.

We are currently in negotiations for the acquisition of property in Berlin’s extended center, and if everything works out, it might be worth it for one of the newly built streets to bear the name of František Černý. What do you think?

Luděk Sekyra

Prague, 8/6/2021

František Černý, Luděk Sekyra

The Foundation has supported an international symposium dedicated to Ludwig Wittgenstein. The symposium is being co-organized with the Vienna Circle Society and the Institute Vienna Circle of the University of Vienna.

The year 2021 is the centenary of the first publication of Wittgenstein’s Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung (1921), published a year later in a German-English edition as Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. The work has had an enormous, worldwide influence on intellectual history and philosophy from the 20th century up to the present. In the year 2021, we are also commemorating the 70th anniversary of Wittgenstein’s death in 1951.

Vienna, 10–12/6/2021

Together with the Center for Architecture and Metropolitan Planning, the Foundation is supporting a lecture by one of the world’s most important economists, Edward Glaeser.

Prof. Edward Glaeser is one of the world’s most important urban economists, having spent several decades defining the role of the city in people’s lives. His summarized his findings in a groundbreaking book called Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier, which completely changes the established viewpoint on cities and argues that cities support our strongest attributes. Glaeser’s book leads you on a world tour of urban economies. This autumn, he is planning to publish a new book, Survival of the City: Living and Thriving in an Age of Isolation. This book maps the changes that cities have undergone and will continue to undergo due to the pandemic. Every crisis has brought some kind of shift in quality of life. Right now, cities are at a crossroads: they can either go back to where they were before 2020, or they can move forward. But how should things change and what should we learn from? The event will be moderated by journalist and editor-in-chief of the newspaper E15 Nikita Poljakov.

This is an online event. You can stream it here.

Prague, April 21, 2021 at 7 PM

The Foundation has supported the publication of a book on the correspondence between philosopher Erazim Kohák and theologian Karel Skalický covering the period 1978–2011. The book’s editor is Zdeněk A. Eminger.

The book provides unique testimony to the lives of two important personalities during their time in exile and after their return home. Its one hundred and sixteen letters tell the story of men who fled communist Czechoslovakia to freedom in the United States of America and Italy,  respectively. The letters show their daily personal and professional lives and also describe, sometimes in great detail, the fate of Czech exiles in America and Europe, including a number of important exile communities.

The Sekyra Foundation has supported the publication of the book Prague Spring 1968 by Miroslav Novák. The book acquaints the reader with the atmosphere of the Prague Spring and places actors and events in their local and contemporary context. The author lets individuals speak for themselves with numerous quotes, allowing readers to understand their thinking. He places emphasis on a critical analysis of the illusions of reform communists and revisionists Marxists of the time. The book questions deep-rooted myths and raises new, relevant questions about the normalization period in Czechoslovakia.

The book’s author, Dr. Miroslav Novák (1953), worked at the Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University, and from 2006 to 2009 was the president of the CEVRO Institute in Prague. He specializes in comparative political science, especially in party systems, empirical theories of democracy, the concept of totalitarianism, opposition in communist systems, and populism.

The Foundation, in cooperation with the New York Times, supported the Czech translation of the 2021 and 2022 editions of Turning Points magazine. The translation was published as a special supplement in the newspaper Hospodářské noviny.

Turning Points is an annual magazine whose authors include intellectuals and leading experts in a number of fields who follow important trends and point out crucial moments that might affect the future.

In 2021 the special supplement included four additional essays focusing on current events in Central Europe written by Luděk Sekyra, Václav Štětka, Ivan Krastev, and Karolina Wigura. And in 2022 the additional essays were written by Luděk Sekyra, Jiří Přibáň and Jakub Jirsa.

The special supplement was published on January 12, 2021 and on January 14, 2022

The Foundation supported the creation of a book of Biblical stories for children retold by Ivana Pecháčková and published by Meander.

The stories are accompanied by illustrations by talented Czech artists from the youngest generation, turning each Biblical story into an original artwork.

The books do not aim to present biblical texts to children at all costs – that is, even at the cost of excessive simplification or obscuring the meaning of the original text. On the contrary, the publisher aimed to make the smallest possible changes – and have these be sensitive and empathetic. Each book includes creative questions and tasks for children.

Prague, 2020

ArtLib.cz (an abbreviation of Art Library) is a non-profit organization that brings together art historians, curators, gallerists, photographers, and experienced Wikipedia editors. The organization was established in 2012 and its original goal was to write Wikipedia pages for artists from the celebrated generation flourishing in the 1960s who lacked them. After the occupation of Czechoslovakia in August 1968, some of these artists were pressured to emigrate or were not able to exhibit their work for the next 20 years, so the general public was only able to encounter their work after the fall of the Communist regime.

Prague, 2020

The Foundation continues to support the Gaudeamus Endowment Fund at the Cheb Grammar School that organizes a history competition for high school students. During the competition, which for many years has been the largest meeting of Czech and Slovak high school students, students display their knowledge, the depth of which continues to amaze the university professors in attendance. The Foundation donated funds to organize the final part of the competition and to provide awards for the winners.

Cheb, 2020

The Foundation supports the annual Broumov Discussion Forum. The conference takes place every year at the Benedictine monastery in Broumov. The Broumov Discussion Forum aims to inspire people to consider important issues in the present; they gather people who feel a sense of responsibility towards the world. High school and university students make up an important part of the Broumov Discussion Forum, as they have the opportunity to obtain scholarships, attend workshops, and participate in the organization of the event.

Broumov Monastery, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021

The Karel Čapek Prize has been awarded by the Czech Centre of the International PEN Club since 1994, when it was given to Günter Grass and Philip Roth at the PEN International World Congress in Prague. The Prize is awarded in even years to important literary works that, in accordance with the efforts of Karel Čapek, have clearly and significantly contributed to the assertion or defense of democratic and humanistic values in society.

Prague, 2020, 2022

The Foundation supported the publication of a book by Ivan Krastev titled Is it Tomorrow, Yet? How the Pandemic Changes Europe. The author considers questions such as: What will the world look like after the coronavirus pandemic? Haven’t we already lived in it for some time now? Has the pandemic just made long-term trends more clear? How should nation-states and the European Union prepare for economic crisis in an era of deglobalization? At the peak of the coronavirus crisis, Ivan Krastev garnered worldwide interest with his essay about the pandemic’s impact on future social changes. This essay picks up the thread by studying the political and cultural impacts of COVID-19 as a social laboratory experiment. Krastev brilliantly and provocatively analyzes the social effects of the quarantine dystopia, the return of government interventions, the closing of borders to nation-states, the role of experts and crisis management in democratic and authoritarian states (big data government), ethical questions about health and economic measures, and intergenerational and international solidarity. He combines political analysis and data from studies of historical pandemics with examples of literary treatments and philosophical treatises, showing the paradoxes of a transformed world in which the pandemic is an essential shared experience of those who live in it.

IVAN KRASTEV (born 1965) is a Bulgarian political scientist and journalist, chairman of the Centre for Liberal Strategies in Sofia, Bulgaria, and a Permanent Fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna. He is a founding board member of the European Council on Foreign Relations, a member of the Board of Trustees of the International Crisis Group, and an active contributor to the New York Times. His most recent book, The Light that Failed, about the breakdown of the liberal democratic order, won the 2019 Lionel Gelber Prize and has been translated into 18 languages. In 2020, he was awarded the Jean Améry Prize for European Essay Writing.

Prague, 2020

This essay by Luděk Sekyra was originally published by Seznam Zprávy on April 29, 2020.

Freedom affects us all, as does the epidemic. It serves as an ideal tool for those who wish to limit the autonomy of individuals, warns Luděk Sekyra, a developer who collaborates with Oxford University, in this essay for Seznam Zprávy.

The specter of coronavirus is haunting the world. After a century that eradicated the highest number of epidemics in history, we now have a century that has birthed a global pandemic. It is not the first, and probably not the last, to gradually make its way from Asia to the other continents.

For example, the Plague of Justinian, which broke out in 541, destroyed any ambitions that the Eastern Roman Empire would once again be united with the western part of the former empire. The plague gradually weakened its population as well as its ability to defend itself, and was one of the causes of the rise and territorial expansion of Islam. Repeated attacks of disease turned the 7^th century into a dark age.

The Black Death, which began to spread in the mid-14^th century, killed about a third of the population of Europe and caused people to turn away from the church, leading to the rise of fanaticism and heresies. Cruel pogroms against Jews, who were supposedly responsible for it, led them to migrate to Eastern Europe.

The so-called Asiatic cholera afflicted Europe throughout the 19^th century, beginning in 1817, and caused a fundamental reform in the way that people lived alongside one another in large agglomerations, including hygienic rules, widened streets, standards for housing, and the distribution of potable water.

Finally, the Spanish flu from 1918–20, whose geographic origin is uncertain, may have killed up to 100 million people, most of them young. It had a harsher effect on the Central Powers like Austria and Germany, which contributed to their loss in World War I.

In the context of this history, there is symbolism to be found in the final words of Albert Camus’s remarkable work The Plague: the plague bacillus “never dies or disappears for good”, but “bides its time” for its day to come again.

Even though these pandemics had dramatic effects on individuals as well as society, none of them changed human nature, which can overcome traumatizing experiences with humility and hope and push them out of memory with the arrival of new ones. It is no coincidence that the Spanish flu, more global and devastating than any previous pandemic, is known as the “forgotten” one. This, too, fills me with a certain optimism and skepticism towards the dark predictions that the world as we know it will never return. Still, some features of a pandemic are always the same. The dominant subjective feeling is fear, and its objective consequence is the limitation of freedom by the authorities.

Fear and social recession

Fear of infection is a subconscious fear of death. The rich have generally left the cities for isolated residences in the country, while the poor have clung to superstition and mysticism. According to Thomas Hobbes, one of the founders of modern political philosophy, fear of a violent death is the reason for shifting power towards authorities and the creation of the state, because fear leads us to respecting and fulfilling our obligations. On a psychological level, every pandemic is an epidemic of fear. But fear, the most selfish human feeling, can also lead to a positive emotion.

Today, every day, we are witnesses to an enormous wave of solidarity. The togetherness and selflessness of health care workers in the most strongly affected areas is changing the equations of our behavior, which are critically important to overcoming the infection together. In essence, the virus is antisocial: it limits both physical and social contact, which has fatal consequences among the elderly, for whom loneliness and losing contact with loved ones has a particularly negative effect on mental health and the course of illness. This can often lead to depression and a rise in the suicide rate – that is, to what Ezra Klein aptly called a “social recession”, in which communities break down.

The social dimension of the pandemic is to a large extent in the hands of the state authority, which limits freedom, especially in terms of interaction and movement. This atomizes society and clears out the public sphere. In an atmosphere of worries about personal health, people are more willing to submit to infringements on their personal integrity; anxiety essentially makes individuals more controllable.

The value of freedom

Why is freedom so important? It is the moral foundation of our existence, and it has three prerequisites: spontaneity, which liberates it from the laws of nature; autonomy, which makes it depend exclusively on one’s reason and will; and reciprocity, mutuality, because the border of our freedom is the freedom of others.

According to Immanuel Kant, probably the greatest thinker of the modern era, “freedom is […] the inner worth of the world” and “morality first discloses to us the concept of freedom”. Freedom is not arbitrary, but the ability to act according to principles that have moral content such as respect for fairness, dignity, and equality for other members of one’s community.

Despite the fact that acting according to certain principles is quite demanding, interpersonal relations are founded on what I would call “moral gravitation”. We are attracted both by principles impressing us with their perfection and specific positions and examples of heroism and sacrifice.

Let us allow that freedom extends beyond moral behavior that excludes neutrality and calls for courage and effort, and can be expressed in other ways as well. It is nonetheless desirable to have some common denominator. I have a feeling that the one most familiar to us is the idea of the West, the idea of human rights, the rule of law, tolerance, and critical thought.

There is still currency in philosopher Jan Patočka’s claim that Czechs have to be “more Western than the West itself” because we live in an ambivalent liminal space. The previous century brought us into the arms of the East, which threatens us with its aggression, just as we are threatened by the betrayal of our own elites.

Freedom affects us all, as does the epidemic. It serves as an ideal tool for those who wish to limit the autonomy of individuals. In fact, in Greek “epi demos” indicates a phenomenon that touches every person. French philosopher Michel Foucault captured this in his famous statement from his work Discipline and Punish that “an epidemic is a dream of the powerful” because it “makes it possible to control the population”. Epidemics are probably the greatest enemy of freedom, because epidemics always represent deviations from regular rules, both hygienic and social. Especially in an environment without an established liberal tradition and a fragile institutional structure, one can see the appeal of attempts to turn a state of emergency, or elements of it, into a permanent advantage.

Fluctuating populists

Today, the exemplary representatives of the Central European political mainstream are fluctuating populists. Their mission is political cynicism, riding on the moods of the moment, manipulating negative emotions towards groups of individuals as well as institutions. Their strategy, without principles or scruples, finds favor in an atmosphere of fear, whether of infection or virtual refugees. They frequently fluctuate between extremes, from proclaimed liberalism to xenophobic nationalism, from conservatism to intolerance and constitutional nihilism, from fighting corruption to corrupting their own electorate.

The face of the region embodied by this group of power players is Viktor Orbán. In the eyes of the West, the others, led by Jarosław Kaczyński, remain in his shadow, mere imitators – some more conservative, some more popular. When political positions lack authenticity, the only principle is holding power. Their reactions to the current situation are telling: the former has undertaken an unprecedented strengthening of government powers, while the latter has changed the electoral rules in favor of his preferred presidential candidate. The Czech courts, as well, have ruled that some of the steps taken by our executive have been illegal. The liberal model can come in many different shades, but it must always be a constitutional system.

Unlike in the West, the concentration of this type of politician cannot simply be attributed to the growth of social media. Their roots go deeper. Hungarian intellectual István Bibó called Central European politicians before and just after the Second World War “false realists” who tended to push out Western-style idealists. These political actors came to power on a wave of popular storms of existential fear and political hysteria and especially superficial nationalism which, ever since the national revival movements of the 19th century, had shaped the political priorities of their nations, often at the expense of liberal efforts. Thanks to these politicians, the explosive postwar period culminated in totalitarianism.

A new phenomenon falling into this model was described by sociologist Yuri Levada, who noted that the post-Soviet sphere gave rise to the “wily man”, an adaptable person who adjusts to new conditions but also looks for loopholes in them that he could exploit. He does not just tolerate unfairness and deceptive behavior, but has a parasitic mentality including an obsession with influence – not just behind the scenes.

These formative sources for the political characters of Central Europe reinforce their eclectic fluctuations – something from everything, something for everyone ­– but also, in contrast, the significance of principled actors like Masaryk and contributions of people like Havel. The mainstream is becoming an evolutionary environment where admiration for authoritarian models and their disciplined reaction to the epidemic is unsurprising, even though we don’t really know the true facts. However, the ever more frequent argument that regimes that issue commands are more effective than liberal and consensual ones comes up short. Especially when it is evident that initial censorship of information led to the virus’s uncontrollable spread – not for nothing are people calling it the “Chinese Chernobyl”.

Of course, some measures can be more effectively implemented in undemocratic systems. There is no debate over orders. After all, not even the nationalist American president, who effectively gave up on a broader coordination of approaches in the context of the G8, for example, has been advantageous. On the other hand, it is many times more difficult to close off an open, multicultural metropolis like New York than a provincial city like Wuhan. With all respect to the Confucian ethic, which has many parallels to the Aristotelian one that birthed our culture of virtue, it is impossible to learn to stabilize society (as Czech president Miloš Zeman has recommended) where freedom – especially negative freedom, freedom from the state – is not a political value.

An epidemic of digital control

Of course, an epidemic has many faces. Those who live in urban agglomerations face greater risks, and the concentration of infections presents a psychological and emotional burden. There is also a demonstrable connection between coronavirus and the environment: the infection spreads more quickly in greater pollution. Greta’s wake-up call is the appeal of future generations to address the climate priorities expressed in the Paris Agreement and the European Green Deal.

In connection with increased digital oversight of social interaction and movement, the epidemic threatens the inviolability of the private sphere. Also contributing to this inconspicuous erosion is the personalized online communication of the virtual public sphere. Ultimately, data intended for the fight against coronavirus can also be used for political marketing to have an influence on the next generation, perhaps a “distancing” one, for whom the value of physical contact will not be a priority because they live on the internet.

As early as the 1990s, philosopher Gilles Deleuze used the prophetic term “dividual”, which indicates a person lacking individuality. People are turning into streams of information, data, and access codes, because they live in a society of oversight – or, if you will, surveillance capitalism – where, paradoxically, an invisible version of Orwell’s Big Brother is always present. The most vulnerable among us are slowly losing the outlines of their identity; all that is left is dependence on someone else, or the habit that everything must be permitted. The result is not just fear of infection, but fear of freedom, which opens us up to responsibility and criticism.

We all want the epidemic to retreat, whether by running its course, a cure, or a vaccine. But we must be alert to the retreat of freedom grounded in autonomy, so the longed-for return to normalcy does not degenerate into the reality of a new era of “normalization” – a term that, in the context of Central Europe, has always represented a fundamental restriction of civil and political freedoms by totalitarian powers.

The Foundation supported Babylon, a social and literary magazine published quarterly in a newspaper format with a print run of 6,000. The magazine is comprised of two parts: the first part is dedicated to interviews, journalism, and reviews of literature, art, and theatre. The second part focuses on literature and fine arts. Babylon has long surveyed cultural activity, in particular in Central Europe, and offers translations from world literature, especially from French and Spanish, including Cuban writers persecuted in their home country. The magazine has also had a long-time interest in issues of minorities in the Czech Republic (Roma, Ruthenian, Vietnamese).

Babylon was founded in 1992 by students at the Faculty of Arts at Charles University in Prague with the goal of supporting the activity of associations and independent non-commercial culture, which is an essential part of a free and open society.

Prague, 2020

The Foundation supported Salve, a magazine on theology and spiritual life. The magazine has been published once every three months since 1990. Every issue is monothematic, and the journal covers a wide range of themes from theology, liturgy, spirituality, philosophy, history, art, architecture, and more. Every issue is carefully designed to present the given theme from different perspectives while still forming a complete picture organically. The contributions are either original texts by local or foreign authors or suitably chosen translations from international sources. An integral part of every issue is the accompanying set of high-quality images. The editorial board comprises a score of experts from different areas of the humanities.

Prague, 2020, 2022

The Foundation provided support for Heretical Essays, a performance presented by the Studio Hrdinů theatre. The title of the production Heretical Essays refers to one of the most important works by philosopher Jan Patočka, who is also the play’s protagonist. Created by director Miroslav Bambušek, the play takes artistic license in focusing on the last stage of the philosopher’s life after the writing of Charter 77. Patočka’s attitudes toward truth and freedom of speech and his rejection of unwanted power, which led to a confrontation with the power that suppressed those values, are still very much relevant to this day and become the central theme of the performance. Heretical Essays is staged as an expressive but clearly arranged bustle, in which police interrogations mingle with poetic references to Mácha, Beethoven, and even Pavel Zajíček. The production’s aim is not to build a heroic cult of Jan Patočka, but to find strength is his life and work to stand up to all forms of oppression to this day.

Prague, 2020

A lecture was given by Eric Nelson, professor at Harvard University called “The Theology of Liberalism”.

Abstract:

We think of modern liberalism as the novel product of a world reinvented on a secular basis after 1945. In his lecture, Eric Nelson shows that we could hardly be more wrong. Eric Nelson contends that the tradition of liberal political philosophy founded by John Rawls is, however unwittingly, the product of ancient theological debates about justice and evil. Once we understand this, he suggests, we can recognize the deep incoherence of various forms of liberal political philosophy that have emerged in Rawls’s wake.

Eric Nelson, Matěj Cíbik

JAN PALACH SQUARE, FACULTY OF HUMANITIES, CHARLES UNIVERSITY, ROOM  217, FEBRUARY 13, 2020 AT 5:30 PM

The AutTalk Foundation was founded by Kateřina and Jan Sokol not just to talk about autism, but also to make parents better able to care for children with autism. The foundation offers financial assistance for individual families and organizations and helps families by organizing regular sessions of a parental support group and social and educational meetings at least twice a year. It also focuses on public awareness and education about autism in the Czech Republic (for example, sharing real family stories on its website and running campaigns about autism for the public).

Prague, 2020

The Foundation continues to support the Festival of Freedom, which celebrates the anniversary of November 17, 1989. The Festival’s events commemorate the events of November 1989 and promote the values associated with the festival. Specifically, the Foundation is supporting the closing Concert for the Future organized by the non-profit organization Nerudny fest.cz. The Concert for the Future is the Festival’s grand finale, and visitors can look forward to a full schedule of concerts and speeches by influential cultural and intellectual figures.

Photo: Petr Klapper, Jakub Červenka, Teki Shine, Tomáš Hejlek

Wenceslas Square, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021

The Foundation regularly supports the annual Central European Forum, which takes place each year in Bratislava. The Forum connects contemporary social scientists, writers, journalists, artists, and young civic leaders from Europe and the rest of the world with the general public. The debates are focused on topics such as democracy and the most challenging aspects of freedom. The Forum was attended by significant figures such as Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Masha Gessen, Natalie Nougayrède, Jiřina Šiklová, Timothy Garton Ash, László F. Földényi, Ivan Krastev, Ivan M. Havel, Marko Martin, and Chris Keulemans.

Photos are attributed to the Central European Forum.

Bratislava, 2018, 2019, 2020

Marko Martin, Natalie Nougayrède, Timothy Garton Ash, Irene van der Linde

Ivan M. Havel, Zuzana Čaputová (President of the Slovak Republic), Michal Hvorecký

Michal Hvorecký, Zuzana Čaputová

Ivan M. Havel, Zuzana Čaputová, Michal Hvorecký

Zafer Şenocak, László F. Földényi, Raphaël Glucksmann, Barbara Coudenhove-Kalergi, Michal Havran

Zuzana Fialová, Chimamanda Ngozi Adicie

Chimamanda Ngozi Adicie

Zafer Şenocak, László F. Földényi, Raphaël Glucksmann, Barbara Coudenhove-Kalergi, Michal Havran

Chimamanda Ngozi Adicie

Chimamanda Ngozi Adicie, Chris Keulemans

Ivan Krastev, Masha Gessen, David Graeber, Martin M. Šimečka

Ivan Krastev, Masha Gessen, David Graeber

Tomáš Halík

Tomáš Halík

Jiřina Šiklová

The Foundation continues to support EUROPAEUM, which unites a dozen of Europe’s leading universities. The association’s main aim is to bring together talented students and encourage academic mobility, especially in the humanities and social sciences in order to strengthen a “sense of Europe”. The Sekyra Foundation participates in this project and has provided funds for a student from Oxford to spend a month in Prague, and for a young research scholar from Charles University to spend a month in Oxford.

Prague, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021

Bringing together academic specialists from the fields of philosophy, literature, history and the arts with members of the wider public interested in moral responsibility and the grounds for political action. The Sekyra Foundation supported this evening arts event which is aimed at anyone passionate about the arts and the important contribution they make to a healthy society.

Jan Patočka (1907-1977) was a Czech philosopher. Thanks to his contributions to phenomenology and the philosophy of history, he is regarded as one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century. His philosophy forms a dialogue with many of the great philosophical thinkers of the 20^th century, including Husserl, Heidegger, Arendt, and Foucault—while also reaching back to ancient Greek philosophy. Like the ancient Greeks, he sees care for the soul as central to the task of philosophy, and insists that we include as part of this idea care for the polis, for social beings in a community. Like his hero Socrates he sought a basis for politics in a combination of constant questioning (and self-questioning), public participation in the polis, and private virtue. The call to champion freedom and truth also imposes upon us a huge burden of responsibility for our fellow citizens and our fellow human beings. Our challenge is to become more fully human by moving perpetually towards the idea of truth and meaning.

The Conference

This conference will explore the contributions of Czech philosopher Jan Patočka to our understanding of whether and how meaningful political action is possible—taking cues from his phenomenology, his essays on arts and culture, his writings on Europe, and his conception of sacrifice. The day will feature Patočka scholars and academics who worked underground in the former Czechoslovakia. A topical introduction to the ideas of this fascinating philosopher, offering novel ways of reflecting on our contemporary political crises.

The evening arts-based event, taking place in the evening after the close of the academic conference, will provide an opportunity to emphasise the important part played by the arts and culture in Patočka’s philosophy and to celebrate some of the great artists and great art which were a particular influence on him.

Publication of the new Selected Edition

The conference is also designed to promote wider awareness of Jan Patočka in advance of the publication of a new Selected Edition of his texts, including many being published in English for the first. It is intended that this new publication will be suitable for scholars and for the general reader, and capable of disseminating Patočka’s ideas far more widely in the English-speaking world.

The Selected Edition is due to be published by Bloomsbury Publishers Limited, one of the UK’s leading academic publishers, in both UK and American editions sometime in 2020.

Senate House, London, 8 November, 2019

The Foundation supported the publication of a three-part memoir by Dr. Emil Ščuka, who has played an important role in the emancipation processes of the Roma national minority in the Czech Republic and in the formation of the Roma nation in an international context. In the first part, “My God, It’s a Gypsy”, Ščuka shares his childhood, his law studies, and his experience as a Roma prosecutor in the last decade of the communist regime. The second part, “One Swallow Does Not a Summer Make”, addresses the emergence of the Roma political movement in Czechoslovakia after the Velvet Revolution. The third part, “Gypsy Baron”, describes Ščuka’s efforts internationally. It is concerned with the existence of the Roma people as a distinctive whole, which, although it does not have territory in which it could declare its sovereignty and implement its national program, nevertheless aspires to be an independent partner to other European nations in the European integration process and, in this context, to realize the long-term goals of its “national revival”.

Prague, 2019

The Foundation is supporting the 57th Annual Congress of Association of European Journalists, which will be held for the first time in Prague. The event, whose main organizer is Lída Rakušanová from the Czech section of the Association, is titled “Europe without Borders: A Reality or a Transient Illusion?”. Under this framework, European journalists in the Association, founded in San Remo in 1962, will look back on the way their continent has grown together, the role of Euroregions and the outlook for the European Parliament elections.
Correspondents from leading European media companies, Euroregion representatives and politicians from Brussels will take part in panel discussions. They will discuss the role of state borders in today’s Europe, map contradictions between theory and practice in the proclaimed protection of the Schengen Area, search for a common denominator of national interests in opposition to national egoisms, and debate about the extent to which Euroregions can defend themselves against isolationist tendencies.

“Philanthropy as a private initiative that contributes to the public welfare has countless forms. Most of these, however, do not reach beyond a narrow horizon. The Sekyra Foundation is exceptional in that it promotes an open society globally, whether by pursuing interfaith dialogue or by developing journalistic ethics. Because, as Luděk Sekyra, the founder of the Foundation, has described the threat to democracy in the contemporary world, ‘freedom of speech and religion begins to divide, the public sphere becomes an “interspace” between the closed-off worlds, with differing values, of national and religious communities,’ said Lída Rakušanová.

Photos are attributed to Jindřich Nosek.

Prague, 1/11–3/11/2019

Ulrike Guérot (Danube University Krems)

Gianni Bonvicini (EJ Honorary Member)

Ladislav Cabada, (Metropolitan University Prague)

Detmar Doering (Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom)

Eva Horáková (Member of Prague government)

Michael Jäger (Secretary-General of the German EJ Section VE)

Rotger H. Kindermann (EJ Vice-President)

Paolo Magagnotti (EJ President)

Luděk Niedermayer (Czech MEP, EPP Group)

Jiri Pehe (NYU Prague)

Lída Rakušanová (former EJ President)

Felicia Ristrea (EJ Deputy Secretary-General)

Ulrike Guérot (Danube University Krems)

On the planned day of “Hard Brexit”, a lecture will be given by Sir David Cannadine, President of the British Academy. Among other topics, he will speak about Margaret Thatcher’s relationship towards a united Europe and her historical legacy.

Moderator: Michael Žantovský, director of the Václav Havel Library

Entry is free, no registration needed.

Here you can find a link to the interview on Czech television.

Jan Palach Square, Faculty of Humanities, Charles University, room 104, October 31, 2019 at 5:30 PM

Sir David Cannadine

Sir David Cannadine, Michael Žantovský

Sir David Cannadine, Michael Žantovský, Jakub Jirsa

The Foundation began to cooperate with the Václav Havel Library, which spreads and protects the intellectual, literary, and political legacy of one of the greatest figures“ figure of modern Czech history – writer, playwright, thinker, fighter for human rights, and Czechoslovak and Czech President Václav Havel. For the general public, the Václav Havel Library offers a number of seminars, author readings, debates, concerts, and theatre performances. The Library also organizes a conference in honor of the Laureate of the Václav Havel Human Rights Prize, in which the Foundation will participate. The purpose of the conference is to highlight and reward the extraordinary achievement of human rights within and outside of Europe. Since 2013, the Prize has been awarded annually by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) in cooperation with the Václav Havel Library and the Charta 77 Foundation.

Prague, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

The Foundation has continued Luděk Sekyra’s long-term collaboration with the Institute for Human Sciences (Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen) in Vienna, an independent institute for advanced study in the humanities and social sciences. Since its foundation in 1982, it has promoted intellectual exchange between East and West, between academia and society, and among a variety of disciplines and schools of thought. The institute is considered an important center of intellectual life in Vienna.

The Foundation has provided support for the Annual International Editors’ Roundtable, which will bring editors together with freelance writers from the most prestigious non‐academic intellectual journals worldwide from across the spectrum of political orientations (among them The Point, The Economist, The Week, openDemocracy, Eurozine, Esprit, FAZ, and Süddeutsche Zeitung). This project is a part of the Vienna Humanities Festival, which is co-organized by the Institute. This year’s theme is “Hope and Despair” and will involve discussions focused on moving toward desirable futures in a time of interlinked global crises, in which longstanding principles of rational politics are giving way to ever-increasing emotionalism and democracies are weakened by authoritarian tendencies, fears of economic recession, and the effects of new technologies and automation.

Photos are attributed to the Institute for Human Sciences.

Vienna, 26/9–29/9/2019

Frederick Studemann, Katarzyna Wężyk, Jon Baskin

Ivan Krastev, Alexander Baunov, Cathrin Kahlweit

Réka Kinga Papp, Rachael Jolley, Toby Mundy

Alexander Baunov, Cathrin Kahlweit, Paschos Mandravelis

A debate with Mark Thompson, CEO of The New York Times 

Both journalism and democracy are in the process of transition – and many would say in crisis. Faced with the increasing dominance of digital platforms, majority of professional news media are fighting for economic survival as well as for regaining audience’s trust, while many countries are witnessing the rise of populism and growing polarization, threatening the very foundations of democracy. How do journalists and media organizations respond to these challenges, and what can they do to bridge the widening societal gaps that are often exploited by populists? How can they counter the influx of disinformation and “fake news” while still protecting free speech? What is the place and future of traditional journalistic norms such as objectivity, impartiality and balance in the allegedly post-truth age, and in an increasingly polarized media landscape?

Panellists: 

• Mark Thompson, CEO of The New York Times and former Director-General of BBC
• Jiří Hošek, journalist, SeznamTV
• Emma Smetana, journalist, moderator of DVTV
• Michael Žantovský, diplomat, Director of Václav Havel Library
• Moderator:  Václav Štětka, media scholar, Loughborough University

Admission is free on the basis of registration until capacity has been met. Link for registration is here.

A link to the video can be found here.

Mark Thompson gave a couple of interviews during his short visit. The links are below.

• Czech television
• Czech Radio 
• DVTV 

Video and photos are attributed to the Vaclav Havel Library.

Václav Havel Library, 23 September 2019, 5:30pm

Václav Štětka, Emma Smetana, Jiří Hošek, Michael Žantovský, Mark Thompson

Mark Thompson

Václav Štětka, Emma Smetana, Jiří Hošek, Michael Žantovský, Mark Thompson

Václav Štětka, Emma Smetana

Jiří Hošek, Michael Žantovský, Mark Thompson

The Foundation initiated its cooperation with Kultura Liberalna, a Polish NGO and liberal think tank. Its mission is to create a better Europe by renewing liberalism and stressing the importance of the rule of law, pluralism, and freedom and dignity for every individual. Kultura Liberalna is a platform with a political and cultural weekly magazine and daily blog that hosts public events devoted to Polish and European politics and social affairs, as well as publishing books on liberalism and democracy. It also functions as an observer of public debate and documents and analyzes instances of radicalization in public discourse.

The Foundation supported a Conference titled “Two Visions of Europe: What Sources of Hope for the Future?”, part of the Cracking Borders, Rising Walls series, which brings together a set of panelists from the ranks of academia and international media and encouraging the broader public to participate in the discussions as well. This year’s panelists include Yascha Mounk from Johns Hopkins University and representatives of important international media including Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Die Zeit, Der Tagesspiegel, The Spectator, The New York Times, and Le Monde.

Photos are attributed to Kultura Liberalna.

Rafał Trzaskowski (Mayor of Warsaw), Łukasz Pawłowski (Kultura Liberalna)

Karolina Wigura (Kultura Liberalna)

Jarosław Kuisz (Kultura Liberalna), Sylvie Kauffmann (Le Monde), Jakub Patočka (Referendum), Marek A. Cichocki (Collegium Civitas), Francesca Paci (La Stampa), Philipp Fritz (Die Welt)

Karolina Wigura (Kultura Liberalna), Bartosz Węglarczyk (Onet.pl), Yascha Mounk (Johns Hopkins University), Gaspard Koenig (GenerationLibre), Eva Oer (Die Tageszeitung)

Eva Oer

Yascha Mounk

Łukasz Pawłowski (KL), Michał Sutowski (Krytyka Polityczna), Paweł Musiałek (Klub Jagielloński), Tomasz Sawczuk (Kultura Liberalna), Mateusz Luft (Kontakt)

Warsaw, 19/9–20/9/2019

The Sekyra Foundation is the main partner for the conference called “Culture and Value after Wittgenstein” at The Queen’s College, Oxford.

The conference brought together an exceptionally large and diverse group of leading scholars in the study of Wittgenstein’s philosophy to share and discuss their latest research concerning the philosophy of culture and value, with a focus on contemporary issues of our modern global society.

Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (1889–1951) was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language. Wittgenstein’s life and work reveal a deep concern with questions of art, morality, religion and society, which he considered from both anthropological and critical perspectives. These phenomena frequently figured in his writing and lectures, and even elements of his philosophy not directly concerned with such matters arguably have implications for them.

The precise nature and extent of Wittgenstein’s legacy for the philosophical study of culture and value has been intensively studied in recent years.

The central aim of the conference was to facilitate objective progress in this dynamic area of study, including both the historical study of this seminal author of twentieth-century philosophy and the philosophical study of some of the important issues that are confronting our modern global society today. For this purpose, the conference was designed to be an intense, workshop-style meeting of experts with plenty of opportunities for formal and informal discussion, and with only a small number of selected participants including twenty invited speakers as well as twenty invited respondents.

On the day following the conclusion of the meeting in Oxford, a group comprising approximately half of the participants went on an excursion to Trinity College, Cambridge, together, where the Wren Library had prepared a special display for them of some of Wittgenstein’s original manuscripts, and Professor Arthur Gibson gave a lecture in which he offered an exclusive preview of mathematical and philosophical manuscripts from his forthcoming edition of the hitherto unpublished Wittgenstein–Skinner Archive.

The conference was very successful.

‘Thanks to the generous support of the Sekyra Foundation, leading scholars from across the world were able to attend the ‘Culture and Value’ conference in Oxford, and it proved to be the most intellectually exciting conference devoted to Wittgenstein’s philosophy for many years.’
John Hyman, Grote Professor of the Philosophy of Mind and Logic, UCL

‘I’m still in a state of euphoria from your spectacular conference. — Stimulating papers, insightful questions, wonderfully cooperative atmosphere, beautiful setting, impeccable hospitality, superb organization, every detail just right. I learned a lot, and enjoyed myself to boot. Well done! And thank you!’
Paul Horwich, Professor of Philosophy, New York University

‘With so many brilliant philosophers in one place, for more than three days, there was a strong sense of importance and momentum throughout the event. It really was an exceptionally productive, open-minded, diverse, and stimulating, conference—thanks to the vision of the organisers and the generous financial support of the Sekyra Foundation.’
Sandra Laugier, Professor of Philosophy, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne

The Queen’s College, Oxford, 30/8/1/9/2019

Hans Sluga (University of California, Berkeley), Luděk Sekyra

Sebastian Sunday (University of Oxford), Luděk Sekyra

Hans-Johann Glock (University of Zurich), Luděk Sekyra

Luděk Sekyra, James Conant (University of Chicago, University of Leipzig)

Wittgenstein’s Rooms at Whewell’s Court, Trinity College, Cambridge

Ludwig Wittgenstein's pocket notebooks, Trinity College, Cambridge

Queens College, University of Oxford

Ascension Parish Burial Ground, Cambridge

Gravestone of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Ascension Parish Burial Ground, Cambridge

Gravestone of Elizabeth Anscombe and Peter Thomas Geach, students of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Ascension Parish Burial Ground, Cambridge

On April 26, 2019, Ludek Sekyra’s article was published on the website of the Czech newspaper "Economic News" (Hospodářské noviny), which focuses on economics and is published by Economia.

In the public sphere today there is no lack of discussion about the crisis of liberal democracy, the rise of populism, and the nature of freedom in authoritarian regimes making use of technology in a way that resembles Orwell’s iconic dystopia. These discussions have not just a political dimension, but also an important academic one.

In January, a conference took place at Harvard University devoted to the legacy of John Rawls, the most important political philosopher of the 20^th century. It was organized by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics in cooperation with the Sekyra Foundation. The list of attendees included some of the greatest names of moral and political philosophy, such as Danielle Allen, Christine Korsgaard, and Thomas Scanlon (Harvard); Stephen Darwall (Yale); Samuel Scheffler and Jeremy Waldron (New York University); Partha Dasgupta (Cambridge); and Rainer Forst (Goethe University Frankfurt).

The goal was to elucidate the most pressing questions of contemporary discourse in light of Rawls’s theory of justice and liberalism.

In 1971, John Rawls published A Theory of Justice, which changed the course of political thought in the twentieth century.

Rawls’s critique of utilitarianism and his return to the tradition of the social contract and Kant’s universalism resulted in an original transformation of moral doctrine into the political conception of justice, which remains today an unsurpassed philosophical reflection of liberal society. His efforts culminated in the 1993 book Political Liberalism, which is an attempt to delineate the conditions under which stable coexistence is possible in a society that is pluralistic in its values. According to Rawls, this can be guaranteed only by an “overlapping consensus”, which is the common point of intersection, the basis of coexistence in an otherwise divided society. This takes the form of generally acceptable political principles of justice, which arise from the fact that humans are moral beings that have their own sense of justice and a rational conception of a good life.

The prestigious conference at Harvard identified the themes that are at the core of today’s moral and political debates. The first is the issue of justice, which, in the classic Rawlsian conception, is “the first virtue of social institutions”. This is an important definition. With it, Rawls precisely limited the concept of justice to the institutional structure of society. The discussion showed that Rawls’s conception of justice, seen through the lens of the current era, is relatively narrow; that is, it is often not a sufficient foundation for social cohesion in a polarized society.

A number of participants shared the goal of making Rawls’s central concept more inclusive, to broaden it from distributional justice to justice in the context of climate change, as well as intergenerational justice, beyond the original framing of a purely institutional theory. It seems that this tendency reflects Aristotle’s conclusion that justice is the welfare of others, not just the principle of giving to each their own (suum cuique tribuere).

Inequality and the least advantaged

Although Rawls’s conception of political justice as the foundation of an acceptable liberal consensus is probably the most influential legacy of political philosophy in the previous century, we need other principles as well, because, despite the efforts mentioned in the previous paragraph, justice is often one-sided, and from a certain viewpoint, the emphasis on institutions may be advantageous only for those who have the greatest influence on them.

I believe that the moral basis of justice should be the principle of reciprocity, which is a necessary precondition of social cohesion, both in its symmetric form – for example, participation in the public life of an open and inclusive society, where the members of the society repay the society for providing them with education or offering them other forms of social integration – and in its asymmetric form, in the shape of care for future generations who currently cannot repay that care, but who, it is assumed, will do so in the future, once they adopt a reciprocal stance that always respects the claims of others and future generations as well. By doing so, after all, they will fulfill the age-old ambition of justice to make a moral stance the foundation of both human and political behavior.

Another great philosophical theme is the question of inequality. In Rawls’s conception, everyone should have the same access to the set of fundamental rights and freedoms, and inequality is acceptable only when to the benefit of the least advantaged, those who are on the bottom rung of society. To put it concisely, improving the station of the poorest is the responsibility of those who are better off.

Given the rising level of inequality in both the Western countries, especially those using the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism, and the developing world, seeking ways to reverse this trend is an ever more pressing issue.

Wherever we see the middle classes growing poorer, becoming disillusioned, and facing destruction, people are radicalizing and turning towards populist negativism, which has been described many times before (examples include Brexit and Trump). What are – wrongly – proclaimed as the cause of inequality and enemies of the nation are migrants, minorities, globalization, and liberal politics. In this context, Piketty’s critique of capitalism, his call for regulation, redistribution, and global forms of taxation, has resonated widely, as has Scheidel’s cautionary analysis concluding that inequality is significantly reduced primarily through wars, revolutions, and epidemics. Arguments calling for greater distribution of assets are, of course, important and deserve respect. We must always keep in mind, though, that the market environment is not just one of the causes of economic inequality, but also the primary source of societal wealth.

How to properly distribute wealth

At the Harvard conference, this question was addressed by one of the greatest living moral philosophers, Thomas Scanlon, who is convinced that we must distinguish between different forms of inequality (whether in terms of wealth, race, or gender).

Each of these domains requires its own solution; nonetheless, a societal guarantee of fair equality of opportunities, as well as a certain form of redistribution of wealth, appears to be a universal means of reducing inequality.

A radical right to compensation for inequality was also brought up by young Harvard philosopher Lucas Stanczyk, who pointed out the problem of the working poor, where certain professions are insufficiently compensated regardless of their work performance. In his opinion, the asymmetry benefitting the wealthy – that is, those who set the rules – cannot be solved within the capitalist market economy. On the left, the concept of “universal basic income”, which would guarantee a dignified existential minimum to all, is ever more popular.

At the same time, some participants criticized meritocracy, the principle stating that positions and functions should be distributed in accordance with capabilities, performance and competence – for example, because the financial demands of a high-quality education have made it inaccessible for aspirants from lower classes (current estimates from the United States indicate that 82 percent of young people from the highest income quartile attain a bachelor’s degree, compared to just eight percent from the lowest quartile.)

This weakens social mobility, and certain positions thus still cycle among the same closed-off elites. For example, Joseph Fishkin (University of Texas) named his book on this topic Bottleneck.

Fishkin analyzes the crucial points along an individual’s path to success, which are often set up to be restrictive, a way of limiting equality of opportunity.

Nonetheless, despite the overwhelming tendency towards various forms of egalitarianism, most philosophers accept the idea that natural talent and the circumstances of one’s birth are random, “morally arbitrary”, and cannot be offset completely. Inequality also has other implications, though: money is a threat to the democratic process, primarily by being a source of political influence for modern oligarchs – but they are usually a bad representative of the public interest, because their real, if often skillfully concealed, interest is the protection of their own wealth.

The problem of inequality has proven to be the greatest challenge for political economy not just in our era, but probably in the near future as well. One path may be to implement the principle of reciprocal contribution, where each person contributes to the common good in proportion with their abilities and opportunities; this is what society should demand of its members. A precondition of this demand is that society be prepared to support the development of individuals’ natural abilities.

Respect for the opinions of others pays off

The final great philosophical theme is our responsibility towards future generations. Given the development of biotechnology and artificial intelligence and the impact of the modern way of life on climate change, we can have a significantly greater influence on the life of future generations than past generations could have on ours. Intergenerational solidarity has many layers; according to Anja Karnein (Binghamton University), though, it is our moral obligation to prevent significant climate change and pass down just institutions to future generations – and, I would add, respect for individual autonomy in a free public sphere. In other words, what we are passing down is the ideal of reciprocal autonomy, which includes respect for the opinions of others, their human dignity, and the fact that they are different from us as well.

According to Samuel Scheffler, our relationship with future generations is asymmetrical, but nonetheless has a reciprocal nature. Danielle Allen made a similar point that “human development will generate reciprocity”, because the opinion of others, their viewpoint, becomes the source of our own morality. In a certain sense, care for future generations is repayment for what we received from previous generations. This conception is near and dear to me, for the essence of society appears as an infinite chain of reciprocity, and not just towards those who are able to engage in immediate reciprocal behavior of their own.

The principle of reciprocity is the permanent effort to reconcile one’s own viewpoint with the position of others. It serves as the starting point of justice, the foundation of intergenerational responsibility, and also a tool for reducing inequality, and in that sense, it is a symbol of liberal stability.

In many respects, we today do not have any normative reflection of a rapidly changing world.  We need to reinterpret old terms like freedom, equality, justice, and reciprocity, concepts into which we must integrate new facts and events. Their current meaning obscures an absence of analytical thought, the loss of concentration on an essence hidden in a confusing deluge of information with neither author nor addressee. The rebirth of an ethics founded on universal values can show us the way; its principles and norms reveal not just the close borders of our freedom, but also the distant horizons stretching beyond our existence and, in this, provide it with meaning when brought face-to-face with the transitory nature of our lives.

Luděk Sekyra

On November 29, 2018, Ludek Sekyra’s article was published on the website of the Czech newspaper "Economic News" (Hospodářské noviny), which focuses on economics and is published by Economia.

The Sekyra Foundation’s priorities include, on the one hand, support for academic institutions and projects, and on the other hand, cultivating civil society, which is the primary source of our moral as well as political identity.The Foundation focuses on the identification and development of ideas that bring society together, contribute to social cohesion, lessen polarizing inequality, and maintain the balance between our inner and outer freedom. One such idea is the concept of moral reciprocity, which gives rise to principles like justice, equality, freedom, and altruism as well. The identification and current interpretation of these ideas and principles in different traditions of thought and philosophy is one of the Foundation’s missions. Our subjects include figures like Jan Patočka, John Rawls, and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Together with our partner, the Centre for Philosophy, Ethics and Religion at Charles University, we are supporting discussions focused on Patočka’s formative significance for Czech thought and the Czech public sphere, as well as translations and English editions of his work. Over the next year, we are organizing two large conferences on crucial figures of 20th century philosophy: the first in January at Harvard devoted to John Rawls, the other in August at Oxford on the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein. The Foundation’s other priority primarily emphasizes the relevance of the aforementioned principles of civil society. This is linked to our support of liberal democracy and interreligious dialogue, which is the core of our partnership with the Czech Christian Academy. We have long collaborated with the New York Times in organizing the Athens Democracy Forum, and in cooperation with Oxford University, we are also preparing another initiative focused on finding and preparing future leaders of civil society.

The Foundation provided support for the International Crisis Group (ICG), an NGO working to resolve crisis situations in a timely fashion and prevent. The ICG combines expert field research, analysis, and engagement with politicians across the world and includes all concerned parties in its discussions. The organization is helping in the formation of a peaceful and inclusive politics which creates the conditions for more creative and flexible international diplomacy. The Foundation gave support to the ICG’s program focused on Europe and Central Asia.

USA, 2019

In cooperation with The Rimbaud and Verlaine Foundation, the Foundation supported the translation of selected philosophical texts by Jan Patočka from Czech to English.

Jan Patočka (1907–1977) was a Czech philosopher. Thanks to his contributions to phenomenology and the philosophy of history he is regarded as one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century. He studied in Prague, Paris, Berlin, and Freiburg, and was one of the last pupils of the celebrated philosophers Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger.

The Rimbaud and Verlaine Foundation is one of the most significant arts organizations in the United Kingdom. The mission of the Foundation is to support the arts – not just poetry and literature, but also classical music, opera, jazz and rock music, theatre, visual art, and sculptures. It is a platform for many contemporary artists and producers, and it also offers educational internships.

The Rimbaud and Verlaine Foundation, Great Britain, 2019

The Foundation has continued Luděk Sekyra’s long-term collaboration with the University of Oxford. This conference was dedicated to public life and religious diversity, joining together perspectives from political theory, philosophy, and the history of political thought and raising political questions relevant to current times. The main speakers were Joseph Chan (Professor of Politics, University of Hong Kong), Cécile Laborde (Nuffield Chair of Political Theory, University of Oxford), and Pratap Bhanu Mehta (President and chief executive of the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi).

Harris Manchester College, Oxford, 7–9/9/2017

The Foundation held its first press conference to announce a strategic cooperation with The Czech Centre of the International PEN Club in 2019. One of the Foundation's main objectives is to support the publishing of major works, so this partnership was a logical result of the Foundation’s mission.

“It is a great honor for me that we are able to be the general partner of The PEN Club, whose activities I have always admired and which has had a significant influence on the country’s history. Figures such as Karel Čapek and T.G. Masaryk were present at its inception; people like Jaroslav Seifert, Václav Černý, and Václav Havel have been active in it; and its current members include Ivan Klíma and Jiří Stránský, who are rare examples of moral integrity and artistic originality,” added Luděk Sekyra, the founder of the Foundation.

“The PEN Club brings together writers who have committed themselves, to the greatest extent possible, to helping to eliminate racial, class, and national hatred, pursuing freedom of speech and respect for human rights, and promoting peace in the world. On the eve of World War II in 1938 at the Prague Congress, at a moment when these fundamental values were under threat, the PEN Club made its warning heard. If these values ​​are questioned in the present, too, it is important that writers can express their views in public debate so that they can be heard. The support provided by Luděk Sekyra’s Foundation to the PEN Club is an acknowledgment of the organization’s historical merits and a contribution to its current role,” said Daniel Kroupa, member of the Sekyra Foundation's Board of Trustees.

“I believe that the PEN Club will have a bright future. Surrounded by an intellectual elite represented on the board of directors of the Sekyra Foundation, one cannot help but feel hopeful. And as the new strategic partnership with the Foundation also leads us to the Werich Villa, for me this is like the triangle of my dreams, and in this environment I can work with my colleagues from PEN Club very well. The societal role of a writer will be strengthened by this cooperation and I look forward to it all,” said Jiří Dědeček, Chairman of the Czech Centre of International PEN Club.

“Jiří Dědeček informed me of everything in detail, and after almost 13 years of experience managing the PEN Club, I knew very well what it would mean. And I am also aware that the number of educated foundations is decreasing, and with it the willingness to have that rare virtue of participate in the growth (but also the stumble and fall) of the very culture that was originally led mostly by Václav Havel. I am not afraid to say publicly that, with your Foundation, things will be better for us,” said Jiří Stránský, former chairman of the Czech Centre of the International PEN Club.

Werich Villa, Prague, 15/4/2019

Petr Fischer (journalist), Jiří Dědeček (chairman of the Czech Pen Club), Daniel Kroupa (member of the Board of Governors)

Daniel Kroupa (member of the Board of Governors)

Tomáš Halík (member of the Board of Governors), Petr Fischer (journalist), Jiří Dědeček (chairman of the Czech Pen Club)

Tomáš Halík (member of the Board of Governors), Petr Fischer (journalist), Jiří Dědeček (chairman of the Czech Pen Club), Jiří Pospíšil (chairman of the Jan and Meda Mládek Foundation)

Irena Maňáková (National Library)

Ivan Klíma (writer)

Petr Fisher (journalist), Jiří Dědeček (chairman of the Czech Pen Club)

Jiří Dědeček (chairman of the Czech Pen Club)

Jiří Dědeček (chairman of the Czech Pen Club), Václav Štětka (member of the Board of Supervisors), Luděk Sekyra (chairman of the Sekyra Foundation)

Luděk Sekyra (chairman of the Sekyra Foundation), Tomáš Halík (member of the Board of Governors)

Václav Štětka (member of the Board of Supervisors), Luděk Sekyra (chairman of the Sekyra Foundation)

Jiří Dědeček (chairman of the Czech Pen Club)

The Foundation provided support to the Czech Junior Achievement project, part of an international non-profit educational organization. Its mission is to provide young people with practical economic education, develop their knowledge and skills, inspire and support them in an active approach to life, enabling them to successfully find employment and be well-prepared to enter the labor market. Additional value for the project derives from cooperation with companies. Managers give lectures to students and actively participate in teaching. The Foundation supported the Student Firm of the Year competition in 2019, specifically second place in the Financial Management category.

Prague, 2019

Martin Smrž (Executive Director of the Czech Junior Achievement)

The Foundation is a partner of the Athens Democracy Forum, an independent non-profit organization that collaborates with The New York Times.

This year’s Forum will be held on October 9–11, 2019, in Athens and the theme will be “Reinventing Democracy: New Models for our Changing World”. Respected speakers at the Forum will include E.U. Commissioner Margrethe Vestager; French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy; Ivan Krastev, political scientist and chairman of the Centre for Liberal Strategies; Syrian-Palestinian refugee Kassem Eid; Shiu Sin Por, the Executive Director of the New Paradigm Foundation; and many others.

Athens, Greece, 2019, 2022

Academic cooperation and support of university students belong to Foundation's main objectives.

Šimon Chvojka, a law student at Trinity College Dublin

“Experience from prestigious foreign universities is extremely valuable nowadays. I would like to thank the Sekyra Foundation for its generous support in enabling me to travel to Trinity College Dublin for a year, where I will undertake a program of courses combining the supreme courts, privacy (and human rights more broadly) and European law. I believe that this study will allow me to look at contemporary issues and challenges from a different perspective, contribute a bit to the body of academic knowledge and gain valuable international contacts that will undoubtedly enable me to further my professional and personal development.“

Šimon Chvojka, scholarship to study at Trinity College Dublin, 2023

Josef Skolka, a law student at Oxford

“Studying philosophy, in which I have always been inclined towards the analytic tradition and especially language-oriented approaches, in combination with linguistics will allow me to engage comprehensively with human thinking and concepts, which form the base of our decision-making and behaviour. The program at the University of Oxford will not only provide me with the desired content of study but also with extensive preparation for philosophy as an activity and for its writing, which is key for my future studies and career. The opportunity to study at one of the best universities in the world, which happens to be one of the historical centres of analytic philosophy, is unparalleled, and I am very grateful to the Sekyra Foundation for its generous financial support, without which I would be unable to undertake this opportunity.“

Josef Skolka, scholarship to study at the University of Oxford, 2023

Nela Černota, a human rights student at Oxford

“Studying MSc in International Human Rights Law at the University of Oxford has been my wish since the fourth year of my legal studies. It was then that I fell for human rights law, and especially the fields of business, environment and human rights and transitional justice. Both these areas have great potential for humanity in tackling climate change and preventing armed conflict. In the MSc, I will be able to learn about them from experts with extraordinary experience and from fellow students who are already working in them and are as passionate about them as I am.

I am convinced that the MSc will allow me to further develop my capacities in a way that will fundamentally influence my future professional steps. I plan to use them the best I can to make a positive impact on human rights. I believe that in this way, I will be able to contribute to fulfilling the values and goals of the Sekyra Foundation, to which I would like to express my immense gratitude for the generous financial support that will make my studies possible.“

Nela Černota, scholarship to study at the University of Oxford, 2022

Terezie Boková, a law student at Oxford

“I wholeheartedly thank the Sekyra Foundation for its generous financial support that will allow me to spend a year studying constitutional theory and human rights. I consider it a great privilege and, therefore, also an obligation, that I am able to study at a university known for its world-class academic community and deep and intensive exchange between tutors and students from various backgrounds. I am convinced that this demanding but intellectually stimulating environment will provide me a unique opportunity to explore challenges and problems of current society from a different perspective. I can only humbly promise to use this opportunity to the best of my abilities in my next professional and personal life.“

Terezie Boková, scholarship to study at the University of Oxford, 2022

Sarah Ouředníčková, a law student at Oxford

“I sincerely thank the Sekyra Foundation for its generous financial support, which will allow me to fully focus on the study of law - especially human rights, jurisprudence and political theory - at the world's best university for a full year. I will not only be able to deepen my knowledge, but especially my legal skills such as legal writing and argumentation under the guidance of top academics and thinkers. I consider the opportunity to become part of Oxford's academic culture and community, within which so many inspiring ideas have already emerged, to be a huge enrichment for which I am very grateful to the Sekyra Foundation.“

Sarah Ouředníčková, scholarship to study at the University of Oxford, 2022

Martina Grochová, a human rights student at Oxford

“During my Master studies, human rights became my passion and, thus, I decided to specialize, both in practice and in my doctoral studies, in the area after I graduated. A few years ago, I learned about Oxford University’s programme designed for mid-career professionals with a background in human rights. The MSt in International Human Rights law is specific in terms that it is offered to those who already work. It facilitates the possibility to continue practicing law while studying for a prestigious degree in Oxford and increasing competencies and skills in the area. The programme reunites young professionals all over the world.

I would like to express my thanks to the Sekyra Foundation for their generous help with the funding of my studies which enable me to take part in this unique programme whose graduates hold a number of important positions in the area of international human rights law. I believe that the completion of the programme will help me to contribute to the protection of human rights consistently with basic values of the Sekyra Foundation.”

Martina Grochová, scholarship to study at the University of Oxford, 2021

Marek Pivoda, a law student at Oxford

"Human behaviour and public affairs in general must be constantly subjected to straightforward criticism for political institutions to be able to fulfil their anticipated role in society. Academia represents the environment within which such criticism can be formulated cautiously and freely.

I am grateful to the SEKYRA Foundation for its exceptional financial support of my studies at Oxford University, which will allow me to think scientifically about the role of the courts in the European Union for the whole year. The MPhil in Law research programme is unique, mainly because I will be able to work and discuss the topic with various leading experts whose insight can help me see things from a different perspective. I am persuaded that I will use this opportunity to the fullest and that I might contribute to the enhancement of deeper scientific understanding as well as to fairer (i.e., more equal and liberal) conditions in our society."

Marek Pivoda, scholarship to study at the University of Oxford, 2021

Filip Jelínek, a law student at Oxford

“Studying law at Oxford – a renowned centre of the jurisprudential scholarship – is an extraordinary intellectual challenge. I thank the Sekyra Foundation for its generous financial support which allowed me to pursue it: to significantly broaden my horizons in legal and constitutional theory and related legal fields.

Oxford Law Faculty is an immensely inspiring and intellectually stimulating environment of excellent professors and talented fellow students. For me, an opportunity to study here means a commitment to intellectual honesty and an obligation to use my education to the benefit of society and its efforts of pursuing justice.”

Filip Jelínek, scholarship to study at the University of Oxford, 2020

Matěj Chytil studying in Oxford

“Striving for a better civil service in the Czech republic, we need courage to challenge our limits and cross our borders. Education is a strong tool to raise self-confidence and competence of civil servants. I could become the first Czech student of Public Policy at the Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford University, thanks to the exceptional support of the Sekyra Foundation. I believe I will get the opportunity to utilize the Oxford experience while working for the public institutions of this country.”

Matěj Chytil, Scholarship at Oxford University, 2020

Martin Madej studying in Oxford

"Studying in Oxford, as every student of law and legal philosophy knows, represents a huge opportunity to extend one’s knowledge where philosophers like H. L. A. Hart, Ronald Dworkin or Joseph Raz worked for years.. I'm very grateful to The Sekyra Foundation for making it possible for me. With its generous financial support I lived in the beautiful and intellectually stimulating Oxford environment, I acquired deeper understanding of law and I got to know many bright and interesting people from all over the world."

Martin Madej, Scholarship at Oxford University, 2018

Cooperation with Ondřej Černý

"My cooperation with Luděk Sekyra started in 2017, and was prompted by our common interest in Ethics and Political Philosophy, which we have been discussing ever since. I am grateful to him for supporting my doctoral studies at Oxford and my other philosophical activities, and indeed for his contribution to the development of the Humanities and Social Sciences in the Czech Republic and abroad; his work enables them to better fulfill their therapeutic role in the life of a liberal society. I personally appreciate Luděk Sekyra’s numerous initiatives that have been fostering the relationship between Oxford University and Czech intellectual life, especially in the domain of philosophical research. I came to recognize their positive impact on various occasions, and so did my Oxford friends. I am pleased that I can now take an active role in some of them, such as a series of conferences on the philosophy of Wittgenstein."

Ondřej Černý, BA, BPhil, Scholarship at Oxford University, 2017

Research support for Élise Rouméas

“I am thankful for the generous support I received from Luděk Sekyra for my research on religious diversity and public life. It allowed me to investigate the topic of religious claims arising in the workplace. I appreciate the special interest The Sekyra Foundation has in supporting academic endeavors, especially in political philosophy.”

Dr Élise Rouméas, Research Funding at Oxford University, 2016

Cooperation with Michal Staněk

"I have been cooperating with Mr. Sekyra on academic activities for more than 5 years. This cooperation has always been very inspiring, and through him I got into contact with the most inspiring speakers, both at Charles University and Oxford University , Harris Mancherster Colledge. I also appreciate his other local activities, such as contributing to the installing of the Vaclav Havel bench. Thanks to Mr. Sekyra, I have been fortunate to meet inspirational and stimulating speakers.”

Mgr. Michal Staněk, 2014

The Foundation supported a cultural website which focuses on the classical music world.

The portal contains not only reviews and reporting, but also columns dedicated to significant personalities and their themes, a gallery for artists and their “musical” ideas, a creative space for and about young people and other educational historical and geographical materials.

Prague, 2019

The Foundation supports Foyer, a non-profit organization based in Belgium with a strong focus on social cohesion and the integration of immigrants.

In their second grant, the Foundation financed an installation for the exhibition “Visualization of Globalization & Migration Movements in Brussels 1950–2017: Multi-Cultural, Multi-Ethnic, Multi-Religious”. The goal of the exhibition is to inform visitors about the three phases of globalization and spreading of migrants in Brussels since World War II.  The three phases include Southern Europe and Morocco, Turkey and Global migration and Superdiversity.

Foyer, Molenbeek, Belgium, 2019

The Foundation has supported the work of the Czechoslovak Documentation Centre, which includes collection of resources, research activities and the final publication of results.

The Center seeks to popularize historical research and, at the same time, participate in the formation of society’s historical consciousness.

Prague, 2019, 2022

The Sekyra Foundation supported the publication of the book An Introduction to the Study of Politics by a team of authors led by Miroslav Novák.

The book is intended primarily for university students of social and human sciences. In the Czech context, it is unique in ts concept and scope. The book is divided into four parts. In the first part, politics is interpreted through various disciplines – from political science, philosophy, psychology, anthropology to law, geography, economics and history. The second part contains introductions to selected sub-disciplines of political science, such as comparative political science, international relations theory and administrative science. The third part is made up of introductions of quantitative and qualitative methods in political science. The fourth part addresses some major policy themes such as party and electoral systems, nations and nationalism and democracy and undemocratic regimes.

In Prague, 2019

Preface

The Challenges of Political Science

Political science and the study of politics affects us all – not just because man is, in the spirit of Aristotle’s famous observation, a political animal, but also because politics makes decisions about the allocation of shared resources and shapes the public sphere. Politics has been, and still is, the most civilized and acceptable way to resolve conflicts. We thus assume that it should embody crucial moral and social principles like freedom, equality, reciprocity, justice, and altruism. Only by doing so can it serve as the keystone of not just a political community, but also a community of values, and represent the legitimate public interest, not a mere aggregation of the economic and social priorities of individuals, nor a mere tangle of private conflicts that devastate both the political arena and the consensus within a community.

The founder of the modern conception of politics, Machiavelli, wanted to teach its creators “how not to be good” and thus separated politics from morality. Under the influence of his own experiences, among other things, he came to the conclusion that the subject of politics is power—the effort to gain and hold onto it. In this conception, politics is a performance, a dramatic art with motives of power. But does this vision of politics suffice when brought face-to-face with the new challenges which the liberal order is now encountering? Is this conception of politics not the cause of many of today’s woes? Politics cannot be identical with morality, as it is limited in definition by “care” for power and “care” for deeds, actions, and behavior. As Kant put it, it is a “difficult art”; nonetheless, “true politics can therefore not take a step without having already paid  homage to morals”.

There are, of course, many reasons why the liberal model founded on democratic legitimacy is endangered. Undoubtedly playing a role was the growth of the internet and social media as the most influential communication platforms of the present day, in which, unlike traditional media, there is no content control and the anonymity of false news often holds sway. Here, in a context beyond that of totalitarian regimes, we are confronted with the question of truth in public discourse, which has become an intricate complex with virtual offline and real online dimensions interwoven with one another, and a substantial effort will need to be expended to prevent truth from becoming a rare commodity in this environment. The prevailing atmosphere is one in which populism is becoming an ever more dominant form of political communication. Its proponents pose primarily as authentic representatives of the people and successfully attack and marginalize the often ossified strategies of parties with traditional values. These attacks are often inspired by authoritarian regimes that pass off monopolization and the preservation of power as exemplary stability, and the circulation of power as a manifestation of chaos.

At the same time, there is another warning sign: inequality in Western societies, the consequence of which is the destruction and disillusionment of the middle class, especially in countries practicing the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism. This manifests itself in radicalization and a tendency toward negativistic populism. Alarming inequality has also given rise to a modern oligarchy for whom inequality is a source of economic influence. Its true, though often artfully concealed, interest is the protection of its own riches. Subsequently, other entities are identified as the proclaimed cause of inequality and enemies of the nation: migrants, minorities, globalization, and liberal politics. The efforts of parts of the oligarchy and their political offshoots to take control of power brings us, with a burning urgency, back to the problem of how to control it democratically, to the question of whether we hold power or power holds us, a question that tormented even the old liberals, chiefly de Tocqueville. It has ultimately become apparent that even the liberal icon of meritocracy can be a double-edged sword if, rather than social mobility, it leads to the closed-off continuity of elites. One important topic is the role of new technologies, the genesis of the “surveillance society” that grants public authorities control over individual lives. At the same time, global waves of migration have become a permanent phenomenon and have brought to the center of both political and theoretical attention the problem of a tolerant cultural and religious identity in, which should be inclusive rather than divisive—that is, rather than excluding those who do not fully share it. This inclusive identity becomes a condition of cohesiveness in multicultural societies. The radical rise of women’s education levels have, among other things, placed their role in society as well as their many-layered gendered identity in a new context. And, last but not least, also relevant is the issue of our relationship to future generations, to whom we are morally bound to hand down just institutions and whose lives may be negatively affected by irresponsible environmental and biotechnological policies.

We live in an era of deep polarization; thus, political science and its philosophical branches should not just focus on empirical, exact analyses of facts, but, at the same time, also place emphasis on the normative interpretation of principles that will help a divided public discover the lost minimal consensus and anchor itself in civil society, which is the primary source of democratic legitimacy. A normative approach is important for the universal formulation of principles that have a uniting function and support social cohesion and the stability of institutions, for their authority is primarily founded on reciprocal justice, on the linking of moral reciprocity with political justice.

Clearly, the most influential legacy of the 20^th century is Rawls’s political conception of justice as the foundation of an acceptable liberal consensus. Justice, however, is sometimes one-sided, and from a given viewpoint can set people apart and be divisive, advantageous only for those who hold the greatest influence over it. I have a feeling that the principle of reciprocity applied in all its dimensions is the cardinal factor of societal cohesion. And because reciprocity must be the moral foundation of justice: either in its symmetrical form, as for example participation in the public life of an open and inclusive society whose members repay it for providing them education or offering another kind of social integration; or taking an asymmetrical position in the form of responsibility for future generations, who cannot currently return the favor, but about who, it is assumed, will do so in the future once they themselves adopt the a reciprocal attitude, that always respects the claims of other people, as well as those of future generations.

This universal reciprocity is a manifestation of moral autonomy and respect for human dignity. Indeed, in politics it is a rarity to find autonomous stances, action in concord with one’s conscience, a strong desire for transcendence, or what Jan Patočka forcefully calledvzmach”: the ability to ascend above the struggle for everyday survival and live a more meaningful life.

This book is, in the Czech context, a praiseworthy achievement; its merit is so much the greater for being a textbook, and for this, its authors and editors deserve to be thanked. I hope that it will contribute to a more general awareness that politics should primarily be the subject of exact study, because although it is “a modest part of intellectual life”, it is a fundamental societal phenomenon that creates the space that we publicly share with others.

I am glad that my foundation was able to support the publishing of this work and I believe that readers and students, as well as active politicians, will find within it not just impulses for further thought, but also answers to the burning challenges of the present.

Luděk Sekyra

Book Launch Photos

Miroslav Novák (CEVRO Institut), Alena Miltová (SLON)

John Rawls was the most influential political philosopher of the twentieth century: modern political philosophy would be unthinkable without him.

The Sekyra Foundation was the main initiator and sponsor of this conference called “Inequality, Religion, and Society: John Rawls and After", enabling a range of distinguished participants to be brought together. Their diverse perspectives enhanced and shed light on one another in looking both at Rawls’ own thoughts and the problems of political theory that continue to confront his successors. As the location for such an important event, there was nowhere more appropriate than Harvard, where Rawls worked and taught for so long. Learn more.

The conference was very successful, and we are happy to share the lectures with you online. A link to the videos can be found here.

Photos are attributed to Melissa Blackall and Maggie Gates, the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University.

Harvard University, USA, 24/1/26/1/2019

Luděk Sekyra, Michael Rosen (Harvard)

Luděk Sekyra, Eric Nelson (Harvard)

 

Eric Beerbohm (Harvard), Luděk Sekyra, Matěj Cíbik, Dennis Thompson (Harvard)

 

Jeremy Waldron (NYU), Luděk Sekyra

 

Luděk Sekyra, Danielle Allen (Harvard), T.M. Scanlon (Harvard), Eric S. Gregory (Princeton)

Luděk Sekyra, Samuel Scheffler (NYU)

Luděk Sekyra, Stephen Darwall (Yale)

Christine Korsgaard (Harvard), Luděk Sekyra

Katrina Forrester (Harvard)

Leif Wenar (King’s College, London)

Eric Nelson (Harvard)

Michael Rosen (Harvard), Lucas Stanczyk (Harvard)

Samuel Scheffler (NYU), Eric Beerbohm (Harvard), T.M. Scanlon (Harvard), Michael Rosen (Harvard), Dennis Thompson (Harvard)

Rainer Forst (Frankfurt), Joseph Fishkin (Texas), Paul Weithman (Notre Dame)

Michael Rosen (Harvard)

Luděk Sekyra

John Rawls' notes

The Foundation has continued Luděk Sekyra’s long-term partnership with the University of Oxford. This three-day conference celebrating Parfit's life and work was supported by Ludek Sekyra and brought together many of Parfit’s friends, colleagues, and students. Their presentations aimed to make progress on issues that Derek believed to matter most and it was a special event, a fitting tribute to one of the twentieth century’s greatest philosophers and a towering figure in the history of Oxford philosophy.

Speakers included Elizabeth Ashford, Ralf Bader, Simon Beard, John Broome, Tim Campbell, Ruth Chang, Roger Crisp, Jimmy Goodrich, Nils Holtug, Brad Hooker, Frances Kamm, Rahul Kumar, Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen, William MacAskill, Andreas Mogensen, Michael Otsuka, Ingmar Persson, Theron Pummer, Wlodek Rabinowicz, Janet Radcliffe-Richards, Melinda Roberts, Julian Savulescu, Teru Thomas, and Patrick Tomlin.

Here you can find a link to an interview with Jeff McMahan (White’s Professor of Moral Philosophy, Professorial Fellow, Corpus Christi College) on why Derek Parfit was saintly.

The Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford University, 04/18-04/20 2018