Samozřejmost a ambivalence důstojnosti v (post)moderní medicíně
| Title in English | Self-evidence and ambivalence of dignity in (post)modern medicine |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Year of publication | 2022 |
| Type | Chapter of a book |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Attached files | |
| Description | As members of the species Homo sapiens sapiens, we have an intuitive sense that there is such a thing as human dignity, dignitas humana, human dignity. If it should be an entity inherent in this entire species and all its members, synchronically and diachronically, then it should be an entity that is the same, universal and common. Then, at the same time, we should all have a spontaneous preunderstanding of what this entity called "human dignity" means. Moreover, this pre-understanding should be shared and communicable together. The conditional of the preceding sentences may give the impression of doubt: after all, there can be no doubt that human dignity exists and that every single human being is its bearer. If we were to question such a foundation and such a commonplace as human dignity, what would we end up with? On what would we base our humanity? But the epistemic self-evidence of the existence of human dignity is in fact not self-evident at all. The initial intuitive self-evidence is only at the pre-reflective level and disappears when we get to reflection. Then human dignity is fragmented into a multitude of concepts and conceptions of different philosophical approaches. Human dignity, like many other entities and properties, is a primary self-evident and secondary hermeneutical problem. Like time. What is human dignity? I know if no one asks me; but if I am to answer what human dignity is, I do not know. And not only that. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) |
| Related projects: |