The Changing of Environmental Philosophical Thinking in the Czech Republic

                                          Slavomír Lesňák

Abstract: The ecological crisis affects every person and place on the planet. Environmental
thinking reflects on the causes of this crisis, the diversity of its consequences, as well as its
solutions and their perception by individuals in the past and present. The presentation of local
contexts of perceptions and solutions to the crisis emerging from lesser-known traditions helps to
complete a holistic picture of a human and to find answers to the question of how to act rightly.
Even Czech environmental thinking emerging from specific Central European traditions (J. Hus, J. A.
Comenius, T. G. Masaryk, V. Havel) has the potential to enrich the image of a human and the
perception of the morality of existing proposed solutions. In the following text, the author will
present the prehistory of environmental thinking in  Czech lands, the development of this thinking,
and the most important authors of the last 30 years. The presented research results are based on
historical and research methods, the most important monographs, and scientific articles in the
field of philosophy, history of philosophy, ethics, and sociology. Topics covered include the
introduction and problems of evolutionary ontology, the importance of philosophy and environmental
philosophy in times of ecological crisis, the issues of communities of people of voluntary
frugality, the socio-ecological approach, ecological rationality, etc. The article points to the
dominance of ecocentric views on the ecological crisis in Czech thinking, as well as to the causes
of the limits of environmental  thinking in the Czech environment.

Key words: environmental philosophy, Czech philosophy, ethics, history

Introduction

The aim of the article is to present a brief overview of the most important authors and concepts of
environmental ethics and philosophy in the Czech lands from its prehistory to the present. For a
better understanding, the article also introduces the local historical, political and philosophical
context that has influenced Czech environmental thinking up to the present day. In the first part,
I mainly draw on the history of environmental thinking in Bohemia and Slovakia through Petr
Jemelka’s unique work Reflection of environmental issues in the history of Czech and Slovak
philosophy (2016). In the second part, I present an overview of current environmental thinking in
proportion to its influence based on my research.

Before diving into environmental thinking in the Czech Republic, let us briefly consider the local
historical and philosophical context. Czech philosophical thought reflects the history of the Czech
lands (Hussitism, resistance to the German Empire, the defeat of these ideas and efforts at Bíla
Hora in 1621, etc.) to a large extent. Therefore, the so-called Czech question, i.e. the question
of the meaning of Czech history - the question of the self-evident existence of the nation, has
resonated quite strongly in Czech philosophical thought for the last two hundred years. Especially
the philosophical answer of Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk (1850–1937) transcended the nationalistic
dimension of the ideal of "Czechness" (1895). His ideal arises from the Czech Reformation tradition
(fraternity and universal humanism; a reference to John Amos Comenius). Masaryk also follows the
idea of the need for a moral politics of the nation (inspired by the national revivalists of the
19th century - Karel Havlíček: 1821–1856; František Palacký: 1798–1876). From the question of the
image of Czech history, he creates and promotes a political program in the Czechoslovak Republic
(1918–1939). This value framework was interrupted by the totalitarianisms of Nazism and Communism,
but it was not silenced. In 1968, the philosopher Karel Kosík (1926–2003) presented the idea that
"The mere existence of a nation cannot constitute the program and meaning of a nation" (Zouhar,
2001, p. 29). Jan Patočka (1907–1977) formulated these ideas very explicitly in the 1970s: he
distinguished between so-called small and great Czechness. Small Czechness focuses only on its own
(local) problems, great Czechness is oriented towards solving the problems of the world. (Patočka,
2007). In Czech philosophy, we witness a rethinking of the spiritual orientation of the small
nation in Central Europe towards broader thought and history (Zouhar, 2001, p. 33). The Czech
question is a specific local context that has influenced and is influencing the formation of
environmental thinking in Bohemia and Moravia in the past and present.[1]

1. Prehistory and history of environmental philosophical thinking


The most comprehensive history of ecological and environmental thinking in the Czech and Slovak
space so far was presented by Petr Jemelka (2002, 2015, 2016). The author maps both the direct
reflection of environmental issues and evaluates its prehistory. In his interpretation, he (rather)
cautiously intervenes also in older periods, which provide remarkable impulses, especially in the
field of reflection on nature. Petr Jemelka states that "some of these authors are so remarkable
for the originality of their ideas that they can rightly be described as the first pioneers of
environmental, philosophical thinking, who in many ways were many decades ahead of their time"
(Jemelka, 2016, p. 57), but as he adds, they did not find successors.

It is worth mentioning the allegorical interpretation of morality in the encyclopedia of the
medieval polymath Pavel Žídek (1413–1471), who includes man among the animals. Within the
prehistory of environmental thinking, Petr Jemelka also includes the first systematic botanical
works of Tadeáš Hájek (1525–1600), Adam Zalužanský (1555–1613), as well as the synthesizing
experiments concerning national history and geography of Bohuslav Balbín (1621–1688). In the 19th
century, Jemelka notes the Hegelian Augustin Smetana (1814–1851), according to whom human history
is a continuation of nature (Reflections on the Future of Humanity, 1848); both can be understood
only in their mutual connection, man belongs to both the animal and the ideal (Jemelka, 2016, pp.
35–36). Jan Evangelista Purkyně (1787–1869), a physician and physiologist who worked for a time
also at the University of Wrocław, transcends the herbartianism of his time towards a premonition
of vitalism (Excerpts from the notebook of a deceased naturalist, 1910) and an appreciation of
darwinism (acknowledging the external influence on the development of organisms). Typical of the
time is the presentation of nature as a field of human action (what we would nowadays describe as
man's masterly relationship to nature) (Jemelka, 2016, pp. 39–43). It is worth mentioning the
thinking of Josef Durdík (1837–1902), Czech philosopher who drew attention to the importance of
protecting forests (Attention to Woods!, 1874). Durdík argues for the usefulness of forests (their
stabilizing, health-preserving and also aesthetic factor). His anthropocentrism and adherence to
contemporary herbartianism is characteristic of him (Binka, 2015, pp. 9–25).

At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, environmental content was brought into Czech philosophy
by voluntarist inspirations: Jemelka notes the compassion for animals as a tool for overcoming
degenerate humanity in Ladislav Klíma (1878–1928), as well as a misanthropy stemming from the
destruction of the beauty of nature due to the boom of human civilization in the painter and writer
Josef Váchal (1884–1969). The poet and writer Otokar Březina (1868–1929) wanted to transform nature
into a perfect construction, to overcome and surmount it, so that in the end, the fulfillment of
the work of mankind would lead to the pacification of the universe and ultimate peace. Eva Pammrová
(1860–1945), an ecofeminist, maintained written communication with Otakar Březina. She lived a
Rousseauian return to nature: she retired to the countryside, where she supported herself and
shunned society. The masculinist distortion of the world must be overcome by the realization of
true humanity. The future will be saved by a woman, not subject to carnality and men, by giving
birth to a new human unencumbered by selfishness towards other living beings. From today's point of
view, her thought could be described as being especially close to deep ecology and feminism.
(Jemelka, 2016, pp. 90–104).

In the 1950s, the problem of the environment was not addressed in philosophy; in the 1960s, Radovan
Richta (1924–1983) reflected on technology as a tool of progress in the elimination of human
alienation (Civilization at the Crossroads, 1966). The opposite view on technology is evident in
the work of Josef Šafařík (1907–1992) published at the end of the 1960s - an existential reflection
on the alienation of man in the age of machines (Man in the machine age, 1969).

We close the decade with a short performance of the drama Minister of Food (1970) by the
underground writer and philosopher Egon Bondy (1930–2007).^^[2] The author draws attention to the
inhumanity of dictatorship in technical civilization and speciesism: in the search for sufficient
food resources, the world's Ministry of Food is switching from mass farming of animals to their
gradual mutilation (in order to save on energy expenditure due to their faster growth). Farmed
animals become mutated, living pieces of meat that are accessories to the machine. Interference in
the development of farmed animals takes place by means of mutation with the help of chemical
substances, which also affect the health of their consumers, but in percentage terms, the numbers
affected are 'statistically within the norm'. Finally, the Earth is discovered by aliens, who
generously promise to help humans in matters of nutrition: they will feed all humans if they don't
mind humans being made into food for their pets. The aliens have only one condition: humans won't
spend too much physical energy... (Bondy, 1970, 2007a). In one of the most famous novels, Bondy
draws attention to the power of consumerism, which suppresses any values, religion, or ideology
(Ramaz Brothers, 1985, 2007a). In another literary work, Bondy presents a lost faith in man: he is
capable of destroying the world (and all life and potential) because of consumerism, primitivism,
and innate aggressiveness. The world is saved from destruction at the last moment by artificial
intelligence, creating nature reserves for man. (The Untold Story, 1983, 1994).

In the 1970s, the first sociological researches related to environmental issues were published
(Hana Librová: 1943; Josef Vavroušek: 1944–1995), and the first philosophical reflections on the
environment appeared in the Philosophical Journal (1977, 1979). In these, the authors point to the
possible more objective character of environmental problems (Karel Bouček, Reinhard Mocek). A
reflection on the approach to the environment can also be found in Jan Patočka's Heretical Essays
in the philosophy of history (1975).

In the 1980s, the impact of the socialist regime's harsh industrialization on the environment was
visible, and this was reflected in events in both official and unofficial circles. In 1983 an
analysis of the situation, prompted by the government, was made in the document Rozbor ekologické
situace v Československu (Analysis of the ecological situation in Czechoslovakia), produced by the
staff of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. The document was not published because of its
sensitive nature, but it was obtained by the activists from Charter 77, who published it. The
government, therefore, adopted an official strategy to address the unsatisfactory situation, and
environmental issues were subsequently addressed more in dissident circles (the Ecological
Committee of Charter 77 was established, the Ecological Bulletin was published, and apartment
seminars on environmental issues were held, etc.). However, P. Jemelka assesses the dissent's
interest in the topic as low (Jemelka, 2016, pp. 191–194). In October 1989, a monothematic issue of
the Philosophical Journal was devoted to environmental problems (Vol. 37, No. 5). The authors
criticize the virulent attitude towards nature (Josef Mužík), present ecocentric viewpoints of
solutions (Rudolf Kolářský, Josef Šmajs), state the necessity of international cooperation (Václav
Mezřický), present basic environmental concepts from the world (Stanislav Hubík), the
responsibility of the individual towards future generations (Radim Bureš), the connections between
ecology and ethology (Jan Kamarýt, Rudolf Steindl), and the oikia in Greek philosophy (Milan Mráz).

In the free environment of the 1990s, more attention was paid to the topic of the environment -
even the first democratic president Václav Havel drew the attention of Czechoslovak citizens in his
speeches to the desperate state of the environment.  He also presented the idea of a socially and
environmentally friendly economy at a world forum. This idea was unfortunately never realized.

In the following lines, I will present the main authors dealing with environmental problems
philosophically, ethically, and sociologically (I will try to arrange them chronologically,
although this is difficult due to the relatively short period and their parallel work).

2. The most important authors

Erazim Kohák (1933–2020) was the author of the first and most popular survey of environmental
ethics for university students (Green Halo. A Bird's-Eye View of Ecological Ethics, 1998, which was
also published in English in 1999; he also co-edited the anthology of environmental thinking in
1996). Erazim Kohák spent half of his life in the United States, where he studied and taught at
Yale University and Boston University. His life story can also be likened to Henry David Thoreau
when he lived a similar life in the state of New Hampshire. According to Kohák, the ecological
crisis is a spiritual crisis - a crisis of our civilizational orientation (Kohák, 2000, p. 781).
The civilized person does not orient himself only to his own social group but understands people
from diverse groups - and, moreover, other living beings - as fellow human beings (his statements
are reminiscent of the approach of St. Francis of Assisi). The ethical rules resulting from
reciprocity leave out of our moral action those who do not influence us and do not have an effect
on us. "An age that is in thrall to the logic of its own technology can no longer afford to
experience nature as a living community. Empathizing with the feelings of cows or trees is
threatening to jobs. The consumer age protects itself by reducing nature to the position of
entities that do not evoke compassion or empathy - reservoirs of raw materials." (Kohák, 1995, p.
907). Europe in the 17th century chose a Cartesian path based on control and dehumanization of the
world instead of the path of respect and harmony (the path of Comenius) (Kohák, 1991). The Golden
Rule or even social contract theories leave out people on the other side of the world or other
living beings. However, this does not absolve us of responsibility for our actions, the
consequences of which are even more intense with the development of technology. Only the man who is
not influenced by the behavior of others but by his own inner principles, and at the same time is
not subject to the commonplaces of life, is responsible to himself and to God. It is time to end
the accumulation of deferred accountability (for example, the romantic proclamation of a return to
nature) (Kohák, 1997). As can be seen, Erazim Kohák does not deal with ecological ethics in
isolation; it belongs to the general relationship of man to the whole. Kohák's ethics is based on
his ontology, which is manifested in ecological ethics by the promotion of a systemic conception
where culture and nature are not in opposition; culture is based on and dependent on nature
(similar to Josef Šmajs). Kohák shares with Šmajs a similar view of rejecting the objectivity of
the natural sciences, which leads us to indifference. The task of humans is to care for existence
and help its self-realization and to care for the natural and cultural diversity that strengthens
this self-realization (Trnka, 2020, pp. 108–127).

The most important concept of ecological and environmental thinking in the last 30 years could
undoubtedly be the concept of evolutionary ontology, which has many supporters in the Czech
Republic and Slovakia. According to Josef Šmajs, the founder of the concept, everything around us
is either original - natural, or transformed - artificial. The artificial - cultural has, by its
very nature, an inherently anti-natural character; it has no choice but to transform itself from
the natural environment. The huge issue is that culture is out of the control of humanity and
continues to evolve in an unwanted direction. According to Josef Šmajs, culture as a sum of
people's cultivation activities has become a separate entity, an individuality with its own
information system, capable of its own action and direction (development) (Šmajs, 2006, pp.
94–105). In his book Endangered Culture, Josef Šmajs points out that culture, through this
uncontrollable anti-natural predatorial  process, does not threaten nature as such, but primarily
itself. The evolution of nature will continue even after the current culture has collapsed. The
goal of Šmajs' efforts is not just to redescribe the ontic systems around us but to modify them so
that a new biophilic culture emerges. The neglected social sciences, in particular, are meant to
serve this purpose: culture, after all, cannot be changed by the natural and technical sciences,
which focus on learning about and controlling (destroying) the natural world (Šmajs, 2013).

Šmajs is not only a theorist but also an engaged intellectual who tries to change the world by
popularizing, persuading the public, and formulating manifestos - e.g., the Earth Rental Contract
(2005), the Declaration of Dependence (2011), the Earth Constitution (2015), etc. In the
philosophical conception of his constitution, the creativity of the Earth is superior to the
creativity (and rights) of humans. Protecting the Earth from the selfish expansion of predatory
culture, Josef Šmajs and his supporters intend to enforce it by all necessary measures. Also,
because of this last point, Šmajs is criticized for his modernism (Lesňák, 2019; Šíp, 2014). In a
study on the concept of the Earth Constitution, contributing lawyer Vojtěch Vomáčka points out that
nature as a subject of law is not an uncommon phenomenon. In the Constitution of Ecuador (2008), he
finds a conception of the environment as Mother Earth-Pachamama, where it is guaranteed respect,
existence, restoration of its cycles, structure, and evolutionary processes, and the state is
obliged to apply preventive actions and prohibitions. The rights of Mother Earth were also declared
to be in the public interest by law in Bolivia (2010); in turn, some natural areas were also
declared to be subjects of rights in the New Zealand-Maori Agreement (2012); in Belize, a coral
reef was awarded compensation and restitution in 2012; in India, the Supreme Court in 2012 did not
accept the primacy of human interests over environmental protection, but instead declared natural
interests as independent (Vomáčka, 2015, pp. 31–37). As even the Constitution of the Earth has
already indicated, Josef Šmajs is as dismissive of the growth economy as the deep ecologist Arne
Naess; he, in turn, comes closer to Karl Marx and Erich Fromm in his critique of alienation and the
meaninglessness of work, and he shares an evolutionary approach with Konrad Lorenz. Anti-natural
culture does not only destroy nature; it also goes against the nature of Homo sapiens sapiens.
Humans today work in conditions to which they did not adapt thousands of years ago, which is the
source of both the unemployment and unhappiness of contemporary humans (Buchtová, Šmajs and
Boleboucký,  2013).

Among the most prominent figures of Czech environmental thinking is the sociologist and biologist
Hana Librová (1943), who has been researching the lifestyles of households founded on voluntary
modesty for three decades. Although after the regime change, the overwhelming majority of society
was oriented towards a consumerist way of life, there were also those who chose a modest life in
the countryside instead of a career and material prosperity in the cities. Librová visited the
communities, interviewed them, and published her findings successively in three books. In the book
The Colourful and the Greens. Topics in Voluntary Modesty (1994), Librová presents the reasons and
motivations of the voluntarily frugal: she refers to those who choose to live frugally for
ecological reasons as the Greens, and those who choose to live frugally for other reasons
(meaningful employment, solitude, art, family, etc.) as The Colourful (Librová, 1994). This life,
of course, entailed practical problems (poverty, transportation problems, homeschooling -
disconnectedness, and so on), which Librová noted in her book, The Half-hearted and the Hesitant:
Chapters on Ecological Luxury (2003). From voluntary poverty, the Greens and the Colorful have
moved to better security by mothers leaving for jobs and by asserting themselves in their
(meaningful) work as farmers, artists, etc. The Greens and the Colorful have improved, which has
been reflected in higher consumption, but also in persistence in their intentions - not succumbing
to opportunities. The Colorful and the Greens have gained luxury that other people do not enjoy
(Librová, 2003). In the most recent time-series research, The Faithful and the Reasonable, Chapters
on Ecological Foolishness (2017, 2021), Librová and her colleagues noticed that the children of the
Colourful parents returned to the cities (study and employment), but they did not compromise their
values (Librová, 2017). The authors also pointed out the presence of ecological grief resulting
from the continued decline of nature, the unending transformation of society, etc.

Rudolf Kolářský (1945) has continuously worked on environmental ethics since the 1980s. In his
article The Ecological Context of the Needs and the Need for Philosophy (1984), he considers how
philosophy can help solve the ecological crisis. He refuses to consider pollution only from an
anthropocentric perspective; the ecological problem is a problem of a misconceived relationship
between society and the biosphere, which has severe consequences for living beings and the free
development of human personality: "Ecological needs are at the same time needs of security and
needs of free development of personality; ecological needs are natural and social, as well as
material and spiritual... Ecological needs problematize every need and system of needs from the
point of view of the question of what relation they have to the balance between society and the
biosphere" (Kolářský, 1984, p. 47). In the 1990s and after the turn of the millennium, Kolářský
reflects on both anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric philosophies of the environment. He
defends the non-anthropocentric concepts as they face intense criticism in the Czech environment.
Kolářský notes the permanent challenge to reflect on the instrumental approach to the Earth, the
courage to view humans as part of a biotic community, the impulses to further develop human life,
etc. (Kolářský, 1997; Kolářský, 2000). The advantage of anthropocentrism, in turn, is that it is
directly related to Western culture, the ideas of human rights, freedom, and dignity. It offers a
sober and substantive approach without making impossible demands that lead to moralizing or
indifference to the environment. On the other hand, anthropocentrism overlooks man's unique
position in nature, reducing him to a creature who merely makes clever use of nature. By
implication, according to Kolářský, contrived anthropocentrism even falls into contradiction with
itself (Kolářský, 2011, p. 112). Like other authors, he blames this on biocentrism, which fails to
rid itself of the human gaze. Both concepts are internally contradictory; one passes into the other
and vice versa: "In the sense of the intentions that are contained in these concepts, we can say
that they are in principle identical" (Kolářský, 2011, p. 115). Environmental philosophy is
essential because the philosophical concepts that emerged before the ecological crisis do not bring
sufficient solutions to the new situation. Environmental philosophy directions have this potential
- they bring plurality and diverse argumentation of alternative perspectives. This contributes to a
critical perspective (on the ecological crisis). In this sense, Environmental philosophy is a
continuation of the Enlightenment philosophy - it contributes to the autonomy and
self-determination of humans in solving the problems of the environment (Kolářský, 2011, pp.
125–132). This does not mean that philosophy "has to be" present in the solution: legal,
technological, and economic measures do not need further ethical justifications, and generally,
shared moral values will suffice. The ecological crisis is, therefore, not a philosophical crisis;
it is a crisis of man - one must accept as part of its identity its earthliness, its belonging to
the place that constitutes its home (Kolářský, 1998; Kolářský, 2011).

Oleg Suša (1947) and Vlastimil Hála (1951) collaborated with Rudolf Kolářský at the Academy of
Sciences of the Czech Republic. Understanding the ecological crisis is impossible without social,
political, and cultural contexts, Oleg Suša wrote in their joint book Philosophy and the
Contemporary Ecological Crisis in 1998. The lordly manner toward the world manifests itself in the
fact that the exercise of political power and interventions in the environment is taken as a
technical matter and not sufficiently reflected morally. The current ethical foundations of
economics, technology, science, and politics should be harmonized with the needs of society and
sustainable development (ecological carrying capacity). Thus, a broader social and ecological
rationality should be applied in science, technology, economics, and politics (Suša, 1998, pp.
161–162). To articulate our relations with nature ethically is a practical and effective task of
the philosophy of ecological crisis (Suša, 1998, p. 166). The social critique is continued by Oleg
Suša also in his next publication (2016). Neoliberalism has conceptualized sustainability in terms
of rising resource prices, which, however, have not led to a reduction in extraction, but on the
contrary, to an increase in it. This is a further increase in inequality in a global society -
consumers ultimately pay higher prices, and the profits of the extractive business continue to
grow. The cause of both environmental problems and unemployment is, therefore, a minority depleting
the planet's resources, reproducing risks to exploit profits (Suša, 2016, pp. 72–73). This state of
affairs supports the perpetuation of the ideology of consumerism, which is falsely presented as a
universal cultural ideal. This ideology leads to further social and economic inequality, poverty
and exclusion concerning poor and rich countries (Suša, 2016, p. 78).

Vlastimil Hála, in the 1990s, criticized the path of voluntary modesty, also outlined by the former
Minister of the Environment Josef Vavroušek (1944–1995), as both utopian and ineffective
(ecologically shaken and conscious people are silent in society and therefore their interests are
drowned out by the consumerist majority). Change must be political - ecological goals must be
justified pragmatically and in an utilitarian way (the advantage of a long-term view, the necessity
of nature, Masarykian social policy, etc.) (Hála, 1997). The reliance on green capitalism and
voluntary modesty is also reflected in the last work Philosophy and the Endangered Earth (together
with R. Kolářský 2020). The current expensive green regulation of the economy helps to perpetuate
the disparity between prosperous Western and poor economies. While citizens of rich economies keep
their comfortable lives, citizens of poor economies have to give up consumerism (Vittorio Hösle's
critique). Thus, the non-consumptive citizens of developing countries (and the partially saturated
citizens of post-socialist countries) will again be left at the gates of consumerism. It is easy to
be moral if we have the means to do so, and at the same time, "nothing burns us." Maintaining the
widening of the scissors of inequality and wealth cannot be described as fair, concludes Hála
(Hála, 2020, pp. 103–119).

Milan Valach (1956–2013), an ethicist from the Department of Civics of the Faculty of Education of
the Masaryk University in Brno, a promoter of direct democracy, took a neo-Marxist approach to the
topic of the ecological crisis. He criticized biocentrism in depth in the book The World on the
Boundary. On the Political and Moral Crisis of Capitalism (2009). He saw it as totalitarian (like
Plato: for him, the community was more important than the individual, for biocentrism it was
nature, life), conservative (reproducing old unjust orders), theoretical (life in general),
unreflected egocentric (not admitting to an anthropocentric position), pseudo-religious (the
sacredness of God replaced by the sacredness of nature), misanthropic, hierarchizing (elitist) and
fascistic (Valach, 2009, pp. 228–255). He considered sustainable development as a starting point,
in which the ecological aspect of companies is ensured by ownership by employees living in the
locality of the firm's operations, which is the reason for the company's socially and locally
responsible actions. The participative enterprise allows equal access to all its members, helps to
eliminate alienation at work, and motivates greater participation in solving local environmental
and governance problems (the ideal of direct democracy). The project of humanistic Marxism, which
helps man to reorient himself from a one-dimensional consumer materialist to a self-realizing being
feeling his connection with the world, was unfortunately brought to an untimely end by Valach's
death (2013).

Peter Jemelka (1962), a younger colleague in the same department, is a philosopher, ecologist,
biologist, and bioethicist, who has long been involved in reflecting on the history of
environmental thinking in the Czech Republic and Slovakia (see the introductory historical section
of the article). Instead of the irrationality and sentimentality of biocentric conceptions, Jemelka
values philosophical rationality, which can help to constructively overcome the fear of the future
(instead of the flight from the responsibility of biocentrists) (Jemelka, 1997; 1999). However, he
also expresses concern that an abstract account of the categories of nature or culture may not
sufficiently fulfill the necessary biophilic cultural and educational role. As one of the few
authors on the Czech scene, he points to the importance of literature in the transformation of
anti-natural culture into a biophilic one: “The field of beautiful literature (and in it natural
prose) is only a small, yet important means of bringing the general values of life and beauty and
the importance of nature in a more concrete representation closer to a wider circle of readers than
philosophical or ethical texts can do” (Jemelka, 2022, p. 23). He proposes to supplement the
missing ethical dimension of evolutionary ontology with non-utilitarian consequentialist ethics of
social consequences developed by Slovak authors from the University of Prešov, with whom he has
long collaborated (Jemelka, 2018; 2017).

The ethicist Bohuslav Binka (1973) is particularly noteworthy for his critical analysis Green
Extremism: Ideas and Mentality of Czech Environmental Movements (2008), which refuted the
unjustified labeling of Czech environmental organizations as extremist. Binka examined the
documents and approaches in the media of the organizations criticized (Hnutí Duha; NESEHNUTÍ) and
found them to be neither dogmatic nor non-argumentatively radicalized. (Binka, 2008). Binka also
took an analytical approach to the history of Czech environmental thinking, refusing to approach
environmental thinking in the 19th century with superiority or a reductive calculation of facts. He
argues that a better way of contemporary understanding is to compare authors from the same period
in addressing the same problem, and in this way, we can avoid our blind spots (Binka, 2015).
Bohuslav Binka is one of the critical advocates (pressure on a premature expansion of the ready
evolutionary-ontological approach, 2013) and scientific organizers of both the concept and the
"school" of evolutionary ontology. Binka ranks the concept of evolutionary ontology among the more
moderate of the radical environmentalist concepts (Binka, 2013, p. 836). While also denouncing
"traditional" philosophy and "Cartesian" science, Šmajs (but also Jemelka), based on its own rules,
transcends the setting of Western thought from within (which is not the case for biocentrists and
ecocentrists, who often deviate from rationality and science (Binka, 2013, p. 838).

Conclusion

In the article, I have described the prehistory and present of environmental and philosophical
thought. In summary, it can be concluded that the strongest current within philosophical thinking
is ecocentrism (Šmajs, Kolářský, Jemelka, Binka) or even the affiliation or proximity of social
ecology (Suša, Valach). The center of environmental thinking in the Czech Republic could rightly be
described as the Brno intellectual milieu, where Librová and Šmajs gathered followers who were
continuing the efforts they started. The close academic cooperation between Czech and Slovak
philosophers helps to complement each other's missing streams of environmental thinking (e.g.,
missing ecofeminism or ontological anchoring of ethical concepts) or to create a formal space for
cooperation (for the last 30 years no scientific journal for environmental, philosophical thinking
has been established in the Czech Republic, the Journal of Medical Law and Bioethics is a journal
for bioethics conceived in a more narrow medical sense; the journal Envigogika is focused on
environmental education).


References

BINKA, B. (2008): Zelený extremismus: ideje a mentalita českých environmentálních hnutí [The
Environmental Extremism - Ideas and Mentality of Czech Environmental Movements]. Brno: Masarykova
univerzita.

BINKA, B. (2013): Pokus o novou interpretaci jedné “záslužné” teorie aneb nezaslouženě zamrzající
evoluční ontologie [Attempt to re-interpret one “meritorious” theory or the undeserved freezing of
evolutionary ontology]. In: Filosofický časopis, 61(6), pp. 827–843.

BINKA, B., JEMELKA, P. (2015): Počátky českého a slovenského environmentalismu - vybrané kapitoly
[The Origins of the Environmentalism - the Selected Chapters].  Brno: Masarykova univerzita.

BONDY, E. (1994): Nepovídka [Untold Story]. Brno: „Zvláštní vydání.”

BONDY, E. (2007a): Hry [Plays]. Praha: Akropolis.

BONDY, E.  (2007b): Bratři Ramazovi [Ramaz Brothers]. Praha: Akropolis.

HÁLA, V. (1997): Ekologická motivace etiky a morální kritika hodnotových orientací společnosti
[Ecological Motivations of Ethics and the Moral Critique of the Value Orientation of Society]. In:
Filosofický časopis, 45(3), pp. 393–410.

HÁLA, V., KOLÁŘSKÝ, R. (2020): Filosofie a ohrožená Země [Philosophy and the Endangered Earth].
Praha: Filosofia.

JEMELKA, P. (1997): Environmentální etika, antropocentrismus a racionalita [Environmetal Ethics,
Anthropocentrism and Rationality]. In: Filosofický časopis, 45(3), pp. 459–468.

JEMELKA, P. (1999): Racionalita a ekologická krize [Racionality and Ecological Crisis]. Brno:
Masaryk University.

JEMELKA, P. (2016): Reflexe environmentální problematiky v dějinách české a slovenské filosofie
[Reflection of environmental issues in the history of Czech and Slovak philosophy]. Praha:
Filosofia.

JEMELKA, P. (2017): Ethics of social consequences and its bioethical aspects as reflected in
potential criticism. In V. Gluchman (ed). Etické myslenie minulosti a súčasnosti (ETPP 2016/16):
Etika súčasnosti. Prešov: Filozofická fakulta Prešovskej univerzity v Prešove, pp. 109–119.

JEMELKA, P. (2018): Environmental Ethics in the Context of Ethics of Social Consequences. In: V.
Gluchman (ed.): Ethics of Social Consequences: Philosophical, Applied and Professional Challenges.
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 212–234.

JEMELKA, P. (2022): Environmentální hodnoty a přírodní próza [Enviromental Values and the Natural
Prose]. In: Studia philosophica, 69(2), pp. 7–26. https://doi.org/10.5817/SPh2022-2-2.

KOHÁK, E. (1991): Hovory se stromem [Speaking to Tree]. In: Filosofický časopis 39(6), pp. 903–913.

KOHÁK, E. (1995): Druhy ekologické zkušenosti [Types of Ecological Experience]. In: Filosofický
časopis, 43(6), pp. 899–919.

KOHÁK, E., KOLÁŘSKÝ, R. & I. MÍCHAL. (1996): Závod s časem: texty morální ekologie [The Race
Against Time: Texts of Moral Ecology]. Praha: Ministerstvo životního prostředí ČR.

KOHÁK, E. (1997): Fenomenologie a ekologie – opora a spoluzávislost [Phenomenology and Ecology –
Support and Interdependence].In: Filosofický časopis, 45(3), pp. 363–379.

KOHÁK, E. (2000): Poznámky k diskuzi o “duchovním rozměru ekologie” [Notes on the Discussion of the
‘Spiritual Dimension of Ecology’]. Filosofický časopis, 48(5), pp. 781–788.

KOLÁŘSKÝ, R. (1984): Ekologický kontext potřeb a potřeba filozofie [The Ecological Context of Needs
and the Needed Philosophy]. In: Filosofický časopis, 32(1), pp. 45–55.

KOLÁŘSKÝ, R. (1997): Hlubinná ekologie a její význam pro filosofické myšlení [Deep Ecology and its
Significance for Philosophical Thought]. In: Filosofický časopis, 45(3), pp. 411–425.

KOLÁŘSKÝ, R. &  SUŠA, O. (1998): Filosofie a současná ekologická krize [Philosophy and the Current
Ecological Crisis]. Praha: Filosofia.

KOLÁŘSKÝ, R. (2000): Sbližování antropocentrických a neantropocentrických koncepcí filosofie
životního prostředí [Reconciling of Anthropocentric and Non-anthropocentric Concepts of the
Environmental Philosophy]. In: Filosofický časopis, 48(5), pp. 717–729.

KOLÁŘSKÝ, R. (2011): Filosofický význam současné ekologické krize  [The Philosophical Significance
of the Current Ecological Crisis]. Praha: Filosofia.

LESŇÁK, S. (2019): Modernism and Nihilism of the Constitution for the Earth. In: Ethics and
Bioethics (in Central Europe), 9(1-2), pp. 57–63. https://doi.org/10.2478/ebce-2019-0005.

LIBROVÁ, H. (1994): Pestří a zelení: kapitoly o dobrovolné skromnosti [The Colourful and the
Greens. Topics in Voluntary Modesty]. Brno: Veronica.

LIBROVÁ, H. (2003): Vlažní a váhaví: (kapitoly o ekologickém luxusu) [The Half-hearted and the
Hesitant: Chapters on Ecological Luxury]. Brno: Doplněk.

LIBROVÁ, H., PELIKÁN, V., GALČANOVÁ BATISTA, L. & L. KALA. (2021): The Faithful and the Reasonable:
Chapters on Ecological Foolishness. Brno: Masaryk University Press.

PATOČKA, J. (2007): Češi. II. [Czechs. II.]. Praha: Oikoymenh.

PATOČKA, J. (1990): Kacířské eseje o filosofii dějin. [Heretical Essays in the Philosophy of
History]. Praha: Academia.

SUŠA, O. & SŤAHEL, R. (2016). Environmentální devastace a sociální destrukce [Environmental
Devastation and Social Destruction]. Praha: Filosofia.

ŠÍP, R. (2014): Proč raná moderna [Why Early Modernity]. In: Filosofický časopis, 62(6), pp.
939–945.

ŠMAJS, J. (2006): Ohrozená kultúra. Od evolučnej ontológie k ekologickej politike [Endangered
Culture – From Evolutionary Ontology to Environmental Policy]. Banská Bystrica: PRO Banská
Bystrica.

ŠMAJS, J. (2015): Ústava Země. Filozofický koncept [A Constitution for the Earth: a Philosophical
Concept]. Banská Bystrica: PRO.

VOMÁČKA, V. (2015): Země jako subjekt práv? Tendence v ekocentrickém pojetí právní ochrany
životního prostředí [The Earth as the Subject of Rights? Trends in Ecocentric Conception of the
Legal Environmental Protection]. In: Šmajs, J.: Ústava Země. Banská Bystrica: PRO, pp. 26–31.

BUCHTOVÁ, B., ŠMAJS, J. & Z. BOLEBOUCKÝ. (2013): Nezamestnanost [The Unemployment]. Praha: Grada.

TRNKA, J. (2020): Filozof Erazim Kohák [Philosopher Erazim Kohák]. Praha: Filosofia.

ZOUHAR, J. (2001): Nesamozřejmost národa a nesamozřejmost filozofie [Non Selfevidentness of Nation
and Non-Selfevidentness of Philosophy]. In: Sborník prací filozofické fakulty brněnské university.
Studia philosophica B 48. Brno: Masarykova univerzita v Brně, pp. 27–35.

________________________________

[1] For the readers that are not familiar with the situation in Central Europe, it is worth
mentioning that Czech philosophy is culturally, personally, and institutionally profoundly
intertwined with Slovak philosophy The common state of Czechs and Slovaks lasted more than 70
years. Intensive cooperation took place even before and after the establishment of this state.

^^[2]   Egon Bondy published from the 1940s until the end of his life - his work is not divided in
the text for the sake of preserving of clarity.