@article {12503,
	title = {O epistemologickej v{\'y}hode porazen{\'y}ch: C. Schmitt a R. Koselleck},
	journal = {Filozofia},
	volume = {72},
	number = {10},
	year = {2017},
	pages = {789-799},
	type = {State},
	abstract = {The paper critically examines Carl Schmitt{\textquoteright}s and Reinhart Koselleck{\textquoteright}s contributions to the reflection of the epistemological advantage of the vanquished. Both authors claim that the experience of being defeated contains a unique potential for creation of innovative historical interpretations and historiographic procedures which have long-term usefulness. Adverse historical development intensifies explanatory pressure on the vanquished historian and directs his attention to long-term factors that have influenced this development. Non-ideological analysis of these factors facilitates the discovery of historical connections which are repeatable and will probably occur in later historical contexts. Both authors polemicize against the philosophical-historical principle <em>History is written by the victors</em> which does not prove itself in the long-term perspective. In this paper I especially focus on typological aspects of the analysis of the phenomenon of defeat.},
	keywords = {A. de Tocqueville, Anthropological constant, C. Schmitt, Epistemological advantage, Philosophy of history, R. Koselleck, Theory of defeat},
	url = {http://www.klemens.sav.sk/fiusav/doc/filozofia/2017/10/789-799.pdf},
	author = {Peter {\v S}ajda}
}
