Hrvatska filozofska baština
U povodu 30. obljetnice časopisa Prilozi za istraživanje hrvatske filozofske baštine (1975-2005)

Zagreb, 12-14. svibnja 2005.

Milan Polić, Zagreb
ZAŠTO PAVAO VUK-PAVLOVIĆ NIJE NAPISAO ETIKU

Iako je kao pisac sustavno nadograđivao izlaganja o temama koje su bile predmet njegovog filozofskog zanimanja, Pavao Vuk-Pavlović nikada nije izložio svoju etiku. Čak nije napisao ni jedan članak o etici ili moralu. Štoviše, u njegovim djelima u kojima je središnja odgojna problematika, etika se i moral, ili uz njih nužno vezani pojmovi, dužnost, obveza ili “treba da” i ne spominju, osim sasvim usputno na nekoliko mjesta.
Usprkos toga neki su autori skloni Vuk-Pavlovića tretirati kao etičara ili moralističkog pisca i u njegovim djelima tražiti skrivenu etiku koju bi rado, kad to već filozof sam za života nije učinio, bar naknadno oni (re)konstruirali. Pri tome, međutim, valja odgovoriti ne samo na pitanje je li to moguće nego i je li opravdano. Jer, ne radi se isključivo o tome ima li u Vuk-Pavlovićevoj misaonoj ostavštini dovoljno materijala za kvalitetnu rekonstrukciju jedne etike, već i o tome, i prije svega o tome, ima li u njoj uopće mjesta za nešto takvo.
Pitanje je, naime, može li se u Vuk-Pavlovićevoj nesumnjivoj zaokupljenosti vrednotama naći filozofsko opravdanje za (re)konstrukciju neke njegove etike, ili možda takve nakane idu mimo njegove osnovne misli, pa čak nasrću na samu bit njegova djela.

WHY PAVAO VUK-PAVLOVIĆ DID NOT WRITE AN ETHICS

Although Pavao Vuk-Pavlović, as a writer, kept systematically adding to the themes that were the subjects of his philosophical interest, he had never expounded his ethics. Moreover, he never wrote a single paper on either ethics or morality. Furthermore, in those of his works in which educational issues are the central topic, ethics and morality, or the necessarily related notions of duty, obligation, or “one should” are never mentioned, except, quite marginally, in several places.
In spite of that, some authors are willing to consider Vuk-Pavlović as an ethics or morality writer and look for hidden ethics in his works that they would gladly (re)construct, after he had not done so in his lifetime. Two questions should be answered here, however, not only whether it would be possible, but also whether it would be justified. For the issue is not exclusively whether Vuk-Pavlović’s legacy of thought contains material enough to reconstruct an ethics in a high-grade manner, but above all whether there is in it a place for something like that.
That is, the question is whether Vuk-Pavlović’s quite evident interest in values contains a philosophical justification for a (re)construction of an ethics of his, or whether such intentions miss the essence of his thought, perhaps even reproving the very essence of his work.