This paper examines Richard Hönigswald’s contribution to a philosophy of concrete subjectivity. Its starting point is the tension between the transcendental subject and the empirically situated human being. Central to this is Hönigswald’s critical concept of objectivity: objects are not things in the world, but normative conditions for valid judgements, which are polymorphic in nature depending on the domain of reference. The general meaning of objectivity therefore lies not in an abstract form, but in the given reality of the here and now. This gives rise to anthropological implications: psychological experience, the physical organism, intersubjectivity, language and historical community appear as concretisations of transcendental subjectivity.

The article analyzes Hannah Arendt’s concept of the banality of evil and addresses the controversies surrounding her interpretation of Adolf Eichmann’s attitude and behavior. The author presents the main criticisms directed at Arendt, particularly those concerning her depiction of Eichmann as an unreflective executor of orders, and discusses the views of selected critics and commentators of her thought. The text also explores issues of ideology, conformism, and lack of empathy as possible sources of evil. The article raises the question of the relevance and universality of Arendt’s concept in the context of contemporary analyses of genocide and mechanisms of dehumanization. It also considers whether the philosopher’s thesis can be examined independently of Eichmann himself.

The article Masarykova filosofie by Josef Tvrdý is the first translation into Polish. The philosophy of Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk arises from the conviction that philosophical thought must be closely connected with life and social practice. Combining rationalism with ethical and religious dimensions, Masaryk emphasizes the role of truth, morality, and work as the foundations of human and social development. He understands democracy not merely as a political system, but above all as an ethical ideal and a way of life based on freedom, equality, and justice. His philosophy of religion avoids dogmatism, stressing the importance of personal experience of faith and its close relationship with morality. Masaryk’s theism, oriented toward individualism and the immortality of the soul, stands in opposition to both pantheism and positivism. His thought as a whole can be described as concrete realism – a synthesis of science, religion, and ethics, subordinated to the idea of humanism and social renewal.

Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk’s article O studiu děl básnických presents a concept for the study of art, with particular emphasis on poetry, set in opposition to metaphysical aesthetics. The author treats the work of art as a distinct form of knowledge of the world, equal in status to scientific knowledge, yet different in method: art operates through a direct, sensory, and concrete apprehension of reality, whereas science is based on abstraction, analysis, and generalization. Masaryk emphasizes the psychological dimension of creativity, pointing to the importance of imagination, emotions, will, and the artist’s thorough education, which, however, in the creative act should be subordinated to artistic intuition. A special place is occupied here by the poet, whose medium is language and whose task is to capture the human being and the world in an image-based, synthetic, and universal form. The author’s reflections are supplemented by numerous analyses of examples from European literature, intended to demonstrate the value of the poetic work.

At the beginning of his philosophical journey, Masaryk took a critical stance toward Kant. Influenced by Brentano, Schopenhauer, and Comte’s positivism, he regarded Kant as a thinker too metaphysical and detached from science. He reproached him for his apriorism, the reason–senses dualism, and the lack of practical solutions. Although he appreciated Kant’s attempt to overcome Hume’s skepticism, he claimed it had ended in failure. At that time, he valued Locke’s empiricism and Comte’s concrete analyses more than Kant’s abstract critical system.

Over time, his attitude toward Kant softened. In Moderní člověk a náboženství, Masaryk – though still critical of apriorism – began to admire Kant’s authenticity and consistency in the pursuit of truth. He acknowledged that anyone who wishes to understand modern philosophy must grapple with Kant. He also noticed that Kant, better than Hume, demonstrated the organic unity of knowledge and the importance of critical reflection. For him, Kant became not only a point of reference but also an inspiration in debates about the meaning of rationalism and religion.

In his mature works, especially in Rusko a Evropa, Masaryk turned Kant into a symbol of criticism, reason, and democracy, setting him in opposition to Russian mysticism, irrationalism, and authoritarianism. In Masaryk’s eyes, the critique of Kant became a tool in the struggle against myth, aristocracy, and theocracy, while at the same time serving as a foundation for modern democratic consciousness. Ultimately, Kant – once regarded by Masaryk as a metaphysician – came to be recognized as a world-historical philosopher and one of the prophets of the future.