@article {12708,
	title = {M{\'a} e{\v s}te pojem {\v l}udsk{\'a} prirodzenos{\v t} zmysel?},
	journal = {Filozofia},
	volume = {73},
	number = {10},
	year = {2018},
	pages = {777-789},
	type = {State},
	abstract = {When we investigate the historicity of humans, we must inevitably address the concept of human nature, since it seems that the historicity excludes the idea of ahistorical or transhistorical human nature. In this article, I will therefore, on the one hand, address the issue of the extent to which the consideration of human historicity can lead to questioning the concept of human nature, and, on the other hand, I will examine whether the concept of human nature has retained its meaning despite the strong criticism it has faced. In this context I will focus on the following three points: 1) I will explore the concept of human nature by examining two examples: the example of the theory of human nature, which is ahistorical, and the example in which the idea of human nature is compatible with the idea of human historicity. 2) I will demonstrate how some anthropologists have recently questioned the paradigm of human nature. 3) I will investigate whether the concept of human nature still makes sense to us today.},
	keywords = {Edgar Morin, Heidegger, Hobbes, Human condition, Human nature, J{\"u}rgen Habermas, L{\'e}vi-Strauss, Marshall Sahlins, Marx Nietzsche, Rousseau},
	url = {http://www.klemens.sav.sk/fiusav/doc/filozofia/2018/10/777-789.pdf},
	author = {Yves Charles Zarka}
}
