Monograph: On Contemporary Issues from the Perspective of the Humanities and Social Sciences (Švec, J. – Horemuž M. (eds.). České Budějovice: Vysoká škola evropských a regionálních studií, z. ú. 2025, 170 pp.)
The contemporary world faces many challenges from a wide range of areas, foremost among them social, political, cultural, and technological ones. The rapid development of these changes is causing the social sciences and humanities to reassess some of their basic theoretical premises in order to analyze these rapidly changing challenges and understand them comprehensively. This is evidenced by the creation of the new collective monograph "On Contemporary Issues from the Perspective of the Humanities and Social Sciences," which offers a comprehensive insight into a broad spectrum of themes arising from current societal and social challenges. The editors of the monograph are Mgr. Jakub Švec, PhD., from the Institute of Philosophy of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, p. p. i., working in the Department of Research on Normativity and Human Rights, and PhDr. Martin Horemuž, PhD., from the Department of Political Science of the Faculty of Arts of Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice. The collective of authors from Slovak universities (Faculty of Arts of the Catholic University in Ružomberok, Faculty of Arts of Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice, Institute of Mediamatics and Cultural Heritage of the University of Žilina, Faculty of Arts in Banská Bystrica) and from the Department of Research on Normativity and Human Rights of the Institute of Philosophy of the Slovak Academy of Sciences approach current global problems as an interconnected whole, not as isolated phenomena, and strive to identify cross-sectional lines between individual themes. The publication thus offers not merely a superficial overview but brings thoroughly elaborated analyses that reveal deeper connections and the complexity of the discussed problems. The collective monograph is based on the interconnection of several disciplines which, through mutual collaboration, can more comprehensively grasp current problems in the global world and broaden the perspectives from which phenomena are interpreted.
The publication is divided into four parts, which have a logical structure and internal coherence: from philosophical self-reflection of the humanities disciplines, through a diagnosis of social and political crises, to the issue of identity, education, and technologies. The publication offers thematic diversity while simultaneously maintaining disciplinary and methodological cohesion, which is relatively rare in collective works. After the editors' foreword, four separate parts follow, further divided into chapters in the following order: (I) Philosophical and methodological foundations of the crisis in the humanities; (II) Diagnosis of the crisis: From political power to the role of science; (III) Crisis at the level of the individual and institutions: Education and identity; (IV) The technological frontier: Crisis and promise of artificial intelligence. The foreword of the monograph presents reflections on how society has found itself in a tangle of crisis phenomena that outwardly manifest as technological progress, yet also as a clear weakening of the human ability to understand oneself and the world. Already in the opening of the foreword, the editors draw attention to the tension between the speed of development as determined by technological processes and the slower pace at which societal or cultural structures adapt. "These phenomena are not merely isolated problems; they are symptoms of a deeper tension that runs throughout our civilization" (Horemuž, Švec, 2025, p. 7). This disproportion causes contemporary humans, though equipped with a rich arsenal of tools, to often remain unable to grasp the deeper meaning of the events that affect their lives. In the foreword section, the editors explain that the monograph was created from an effort to present various interpretative frameworks through which current problems can be perceived today, while also emphasizing that the humanities and social sciences play a key role in this context. They present them as a tool of critical thinking, necessary for determining the boundaries between what merely appears new to society and what is genuinely new.
On the Crisis of Knowledge
After the introductory word by editors Jakub Švec and Martin Horemuž, the first part, which presents the philosophical and methodological foundations of the crisis in the humanities, is followed by the first chapter, dedicated to the essay "Humanities Knowledge on the Quicksand of the Age: And What Is Philosophy For?" by author Tatiana Sedová.
Tatiana Sedová's (2025) essay presents a robust philosophical-historical entry into the issue of the standing of the humanities in society. The author aptly captures the atmosphere of an age in which, as she shows, the natural and technical sciences have triumphed, while the humanities disciplines are forced to constantly defend their relevance in an environment that expects immediate measurable returns from knowledge. "I will say nothing new if I state that in the struggle for the interpretation of the world, the natural and technical sciences have triumphed, or, if you will, in the words of Husserl and Heidegger, technoscience, with a noticeable impact and reach on society, in whose shadow both the humanities and social sciences have found themselves" (Sedová, 2025, p. 11). Her argument rests on interconnected pillars. The first pillar is a historical-epistemological reflection from Weber to Lyotard, in which she shows that the status of science is not a given but the result of a long struggle for legitimization. In this context, she cites Weber's diagnosis: "It is appropriate to also recall the essay by Max Weber (Weber, 2009, pp. 108-132), in which he predicted the advancing professionalization and institutionalization of science and demonstrated the cultural and moral consequences of this development, which transformed science into a 'specifically godless force' contributing decisively to the disenchantment, the demythologization of the world" (Sedová, 2025, p. 12). The author thus shows that the current crisis of scientific knowledge follows a long tradition of criticism of modern rationalism. "The value of scientific knowledge is measured by its applicability and commercial use, and therefore it is no wonder that those fields which promise the prospect of profit and possibilities of commercial practical application are supported and exalted" (Sedová, 2025, p. 13). The second pillar is an analysis of the fragmentation of humanities knowledge. She emphasizes that the fragmentation of disciplines leads to a situation where "representatives of the social sciences and humanities hardly understand each other anymore and do not communicate with one another" (Sedová, 2025, p. 12). Fragmentation thus means not only a lack of social recognition but also an internal weakening of the ability of the humanities disciplines to respond to the complex challenges of today. The author also draws attention to the imbalance between the exact sciences and the humanities in the competition for societal resources, noting that "the natural and technical disciplines have succeeded" (Sedová, 2025, p. 13). Overall, she shows that contemporary society is experiencing not only political or economic crises but also a crisis of knowledge — a crisis that manifests itself in the marginalization of those disciplines that are key to understanding the cultural and value orientation of modern society.
The second chapter of the first part of the monograph, entitled "Individually Founded and Collectively Practiced Irrationality of 'Contractual' Rationality (On the Topicality of Tugendhat's Philosophy of Human Rights)," presents an analytical entry in which attention focuses on the tension between the modern model of the autonomous individual and the real consequences of this model for social practice. The author, Martin Muránsky, shows that a rationally constructed individualistic framework can paradoxically produce collectively irrational forms of behavior (Muránsky, 2025, p. 30). In the introduction to his contribution, he points out that the very ideological foundations of the social contract rest on a paradoxical conception in which a person acts as an autonomous and rational individual, yet the norms from which they proceed exist and function only within a society that is always broader than the horizon of individual calculation. These manifest themselves in the unequal distribution of power, in weakened normativity, as well as in the erosion of the ideal of human rights, which, as a result of their formalization, become merely an empty discursive reference. In this way, he follows the tradition of critical reflection from Hobbes and Locke to Tugendhat and notes that reducing politics to a contractualist framework makes it impossible to understand the social and cultural determinants of the normative order: "The critical problem of this conception is its instrumental rationality, that is, the fundamental limits of action whose first and last motive is one's own egoistic interest" (Muránsky, 2025, p. 27).
A fundamental contribution of the chapter is the deepening of the republican conception of human rights. "In it, everyone is not only negatively free from violence by other people but should also have a publicly guaranteed ability to acquire capabilities and opportunities for their exercise" (Muránsky, 2025, p. 34). Consequently, membership in a political community represents a prerequisite not only for negative freedom but also for the formation of the skills and opportunities necessary for individual autonomy. "The initial situation when signing the fictitious contract represents an asymmetrically divided world between those who not only have the means for an independent livelihood but can also more or less control the conditions for acquiring a livelihood for those who, apart from their labor, own little else" (Muránsky, 2025, p. 29). In this light, it becomes apparent that the inequalities implicitly present in the traditions of contractualism, utilitarianism, or Locke's natural law theories of property cannot be eliminated without revising the very concept of justice. The author mentions and simultaneously analyzes radical anti-egalitarian critiques (Nietzsche, Hitler) and points to their function in the history of modernity, where they represent a permanent challenge to an egalitarian understanding of the social order. "Nietzsche and Hitler, each for different reasons, reject the idea of equality, and with extraordinary sharpness" (Muránsky, 2025, p. 26). In conclusion, the author describes the limitation of the contractualist approach regarding economic and social rights. This model presupposes a relationship based on mutual reciprocity, as if all members of society were equally capable of contributing and receiving. "From the perspective of respecting the equal interests of all members, a relevant portion of people de facto falls out — those who do not primarily need conditions for activity but first need assistance and support from the community independent of the reciprocity of human use value in securing their elementary needs" (Muránsky, 2025, p. 34). The author points out that this way of thinking excludes a group of people who do not need conditions for activity first but rather basic, reciprocity-independent assistance from the community necessary to secure their elementary life needs. In the context of the entire monograph, his contribution creates a crucial bridge that prepares the ground for subsequent chapters, which already show the specific disruptions of late modernity in the political, educational (pedagogical), and technological spheres.
Both chapters in the first part of the publication open a fundamental question that is also one of the central lines of the entire monograph: what can the humanities and social sciences achieve in an age that does not trust them and which they themselves must interpret? Sedová (2025), together with Muránsky (2025), suggest that the contribution and significance of these disciplines lie not in offering solutions in the technocratic sense of the word, but in their ability to unmask the ideological layers of social narratives, to reveal the hidden assumptions of political rationality, and also to conceive a value framework without which neither political deliberation, nor education, nor technological progress can exist. The humanities thus do not serve as competitive actors to technology but provide interpretative horizons without which it is impossible to navigate the complexity of the contemporary world. Their neglect leads to what the authors term a crisis of understanding.
The second thematic part of the monograph, "Diagnosis of the Crisis: From Political Power to the Role of Science," naturally follows the philosophical foundations of the first part. The contributions of Martin Vavruš, Martin Horemuž, and Jakub Švec form a coherent framework for analyzing that part of social reality in which the tension between political power, democratic legitimacy, and the media or cognitive mechanisms shaping today's public discourse is concentrated. The ambition of the second part is not only a descriptive naming of crisis symptoms but also the identification of structural factors that enable these crises. Remarkably, the authors, whether explicitly or implicitly, build on the interpretations from the first part and show how philosophical constructs are translated into concrete social dynamics.
In the first chapter of the second part of the publication, entitled "Crisis of Representative Democracy: On the Influence of Economic Power on Political Power in the Space of Public Policy," author Martin Vavruš focuses on one of the most prominent issues of contemporary political discourse — the destabilization of representative democracy. He interprets this phenomenon not as a temporary fluctuation but as a deep structural transformation affecting the very core of democratic arrangement.
The analytical foundations of the chapter rest on an analysis of the state where, in today's democratic systems, there is a significant strengthening of economic power at the expense of political power. According to the author, disproportions between these two spheres manifest themselves in the growth of lobbying networks, the oligarchization of decision-making processes, and the promotion of policies that prioritize short-term economic benefits over long-term public interest. He considers the penetration of financial resources into political competition particularly problematic, as it affects not only the course of campaigns but also the shape of political programs and the very contours of public policy. The use of concepts from political economy and public policy theory gives the text an interpretative depth exceeding ordinary political science analysis. As Martin Vavruš notes: "In today's dynamically developing world full of more or less truthful information, a citizen should, when making their electoral decision, also take into account the method of financing a political entity, the composition of the candidate list, or the transparency of handling financial resources. However, this requires time, knowledge, and space" (Vavruš, 2025, p. 50). The contribution also provides an important empirical-theoretical basis for understanding why contemporary democracy appears increasingly less functional and trustworthy. Modern democracies presuppose the existence of a pluralistic public space and a citizen capable of critical deliberation, yet reality reveals the opposite trend — the weakening of participation, the fragmentation of public discourse, and polarization leading to closed communities incapable of mutual communication. The political process is reduced to a procedural act in which the vote is interpreted primarily technically, without the context of a value framework or conscious civic reflection. This process is further accompanied by the rise of populism, deepening distrust in institutions, and the weakening of expert knowledge. Although the author's chapter does not present unequivocally normative recommendations, its strength lies in the precise diagnosis of the symptoms that shape today's democratic environment.
At the same time, he emphasizes the need for critical thinking on the part of the citizen, verification of information and understanding of political financing, as well as the ability to evaluate public policy from the perspective of one's own value anchoring. Only in this way is it possible for representative democracy to remain not only a declared but also a relative tool of collective self-determination, capable of facing the pressures of economic power and carrying fundamental democratic ideals into the future (Vavruš, 2025, p. 49).
The second chapter, entitled "The Humanities and Social Sciences in Current Crisis Lines of Force – A Political Science Perspective on the Issue," is, from our perspective, among the most comprehensive contributions in the second part of the monograph. Its authors, Martin Horemuž and Jakub Švec, examine the position and standing of the humanities and social sciences in a world that both needs and marginalizes them. They point out that the humanities disciplines are often subjected to criticism of methodological ambiguity, although the difficulty of knowledge in the socio-political area naturally results from this very fact. "One of the very frequent and common critical objections regarding the humanities and social sciences is the area of insufficient methodology, a low degree of exactness – scientificity [...] This ultimately affects the very objectivity of the interpretation of reality (political, social phenomena and facts)" (Horemuž; Švec, 2025, p. 60).
The authors thereby build on the analytical lines outlined in the first part of the monograph, where both Sedová and Muránsky draw attention to the epistemic weakening of contemporary society. The text develops this diagnosis by asserting that we live in a period of epistemic fragmentation, in which, although information availability is unprecedented, the ability to distinguish between knowledge and pseudo-knowledge is declining. Orientation in truth, facts, and value contexts is being lost, and exposure to emotive narratives, expressive statements, and even populist shortcuts is increasing. It is precisely at this point that the chapter emphasizes a key thesis: the humanities are necessary for the restoration of society's ability to distinguish, interpret, and critically reflect. In the next part of the text, attention focuses on the transformations of political discourse, which, according to the authors, is marked by a radical acceleration of social changes. These affect the character of socio-political structures and institutions and lead to a crisis of legitimacy of the political system. "Politics is becoming increasingly distant from people and their real needs, appears too detached, thereby creating a vast chasm between the public and politics" (Horemuž; Švec, 2025, p. 60). From a political science perspective, the authors point to the concurrence of several crises: (A) a crisis of trust (in government, institutions, scientific authorities); (B) a crisis of the media space (polarization, algorithmization of discourse); (C) a crisis of identity (ideological and value disorientation of the population); (D) a crisis of normative foundations (society's inability to agree on basic values). The complexity of the situation lies in the fact that individual crises do not exist in isolation but form an interconnected and dynamic whole, in which economic, cultural, and political processes create new "crisis lines of force" determining the nature of today's society.
"A new style of thinking in the modern social sciences and humanities includes a change in the character of cognitive activity: the unity of processes and methods of scientific knowledge, flexibility and versatility of thinking, the interconnection of intuitive, emotional-sensory, visual-figurative, and logical thinking" (Horemuž, Švec, 2025, p. 62). The authors also note that the role of the media has changed significantly in recent years. While traditional media long acted primarily as information intermediaries and provided feedback to political power, today they are increasingly involved directly in political events and actively influence them. This shift is even more pronounced in the environment of social networks and the internet, which create a fast and effortless space for the dissemination of diverse content.
A fundamental contribution of the piece is its emphasis on society's need for a plurality of cognitive perspectives: political philosophy for identifying value foundations; the social sciences for analyzing power and social mechanisms; historiography for grasping continuity and collective memory; and ethics for navigating technological, biopolitical, or medical dilemmas. Within this conceptual framework, the humanities and social sciences emerge as an indispensable interpretative tool that enables society to understand its own crises and seek adequate forms of response.
The final closing chapter of the second part of the monograph is focused on "The Return of Political Philosophy: The Political Compass as a Corrective of Normativity in the Illusion of a Post-Ideological Age." The theme is placed in the context of the diagnosis of a post-ideological era that, after 1989, defined itself as a period of the alleged triumph of liberal democracy and the end of grand ideological narratives. The author convincingly argues that ideology has not disappeared; it has only moved into the background, lost its explicit form, and transformed into hidden assumptions that influence political action and public discourse. According to the author, modern society lives off value resources that it cannot itself renew, leading to ideological emptiness, disorientation, and susceptibility to extreme ideological positions (Švec, 2025, p. 69). Within this analysis, a defense of the need to restore space for political philosophy resounds. The claim that we live in an era without ideology is, according to the author, itself an ideological gesture. Liberalism, as the dominant norm of the contemporary West, has concealed its own ideological nature and convinced society that its principles — such as individualism, the market, competition, and capitalization — represent the natural order. Such neutralization of value foundations has weakened political philosophy, which has lost its normative voice and yielded to technocratic political science or media commentary (Švec, 2025, p. 71). The chapter therefore moves toward restoring its critical function. The key element of this return becomes the political compass, serving not merely as a technical analytical tool but as a philosophical model enabling the reconstruction of the value map of political space. "One of the tools through which individuals in civil-political society, the media, or the third sector can be ideologically oriented is the political compass, which represents a means capable of reconstructing the ideological map with a relatively high degree of accuracy and explanatory value" (Švec, 2025, p. 72). In this conception, the compass functions as an orientation mechanism that reveals implicit assumptions, helps identify ideological lines of conflict, and reminds that politics is always a space of values and conceptions of the good. The author points out in the chapter that without the rehabilitation of political philosophy, the restoration of democratic space cannot be expected either. A society that resigns from normative thinking loses the ability to argue and contextualize historical experiences, as well as to perceive the connections between individual and collective good. From this perspective, the author speaks of an ideological crisis, which is simultaneously deepened by the fact that the language through which today's society tries to grasp political and value concepts is losing its original carrying capacity. Traditional ideological categories continue to be used, but they often no longer refer to their original meanings; their content is gradually being emptied or adapted to current interests, until they acquire a different, sometimes even contradictory meaning. Švec describes this reality as follows: "The terms we cite, such as 'liberal,' 'conservative,' 'left-wing,' 'right-wing,' or 'progressive,' have become labels in a rhetorical contest, not tools of understanding. This leads to a paradoxical situation in which political actors, the media, and individuals declare a value affiliation, yet their actual ideological orientation or policy is a pragmatic combination of short-term strategic calculations" (Švec, 2025, p. 74).
According to the author: "The political compass restores the balance between individual and collective autonomy by reminding us that no normativity is natural — each is the result of an ideological and value choice" (Švec, 2025, p. 78). In this way, the author anchors the conviction that political philosophy must remain a reflection on what way of life we consider good and what social arrangement is capable of sustaining this ideal. The author's contribution thus aptly concludes the second part of the monograph while preparing the ground for subsequent chapters that shift attention from the political system to the individual and the institutions shaping their identity.
Third Part of the Monograph
The third part of the monograph, "Crisis at the Level of the Individual and Institutions: Education and Identity," shifts the lens from macro-structural phenomena to the individual experience of the person in the context of contemporary crises. Whereas the previous chapters thematized philosophical and political science frameworks, this part focuses on micro-social and personal manifestations of crisis dynamics. Its significance lies in showing how global civilizational pressures become concrete in the lives of individuals — in their psychological resilience, identity, educational habits, or gender categories. The authors (Lajčiaková, Pošteková, and Kollárik) in this part build on the systemic changes that ultimately always manifest themselves at the individual level.
The first chapter of this part focuses on "The Decisive Role of the School in Supporting Mental Health in Times of Global Crises," addressed by author Petra Lajčiaková. It concentrates on the role of the school in supporting the mental health of children and adolescents during periods of global crises. The contribution responds to the dramatic increase in psychological difficulties among the young generation growing up in an environment of climate anxiety, information overload, the omnipresence of social networks, and disrupted social relationships during the COVID-19 pandemic. As Katarína Brisudová states: "The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated this situation by showing the vulnerability of the traditional school system and revealing deep deficits in the area of children's and adolescents' mental health" (Brisudová, 2025, p. 32). Petra Lajčiaková emphasizes: "The COVID-19 prognosis concerning the psychosocial health of children and young people [...] can no longer be ignored" (Lajčiaková, 2025, p. 86). The author demonstrates that contemporary crises do not operate in isolation but cumulatively, thereby creating new forms of psychological burden. Anxiety thus becomes not only an individual phenomenon but also a collective experience affecting the broader educational environment. Lajčiaková therefore assigns schools a fundamental role, understanding them as a space where, in addition to educational competencies, students' psychological resilience and social support are also formed (Lajčiaková, 2025, p. 84). She emphasizes the need to connect schools with professional psychological services, build a positive school environment, prevent mental health difficulties, and support cooperation among parents, educators, and specialists. A significant contribution of the piece is pointing out that humanities knowledge can provide schools with value and methodological frameworks that go beyond technical solutions and allow for a sensitive response to the psychosocial needs of children and adolescents. The school thus represents a unique space where mental health can be systematically supported during the formative years of students. The author also reminds us of the essence of the crisis experience: "A person encounters an obstacle that they are unable to overcome using their usual problem-solving methods [...] Crises therefore become stressful [...] and require appropriate timing" (Lajčiaková, 2025, p. 85). It is also necessary to note that: "Schools often lack school psychologists, special and social educators, or guidance counselors, which makes it impossible to effectively address the complex needs of students" (Brisudová, 2025, p. 32). Insufficient professional support simultaneously increases the pressure on educators, who are gradually being burdened with tasks exceeding the scope of their original professional competencies. The challenges currently facing even Slovak education cannot therefore be addressed only partially, but through the broader understanding offered by the humanities and social sciences. As Horemuž and Švec state in the contribution: "One of the key features of the humanities and social sciences is undoubtedly their ability to be bearers of knowledge and of what was previously created in non-material social areas (upbringing, education, culture, art, language, identity) and at the same time to preserve this knowledge" (Horemuž; Švec, 2025, p. 57).
The chapter "Perspectives and Risks of Modern Teaching Trends in Contemporary Pedagogy" by Beáta Pošteková provides an overview of modern educational approaches that respond to the rapidly changing demands of contemporary society. The author emphasizes that activating methods should lead students toward cooperation, creative problem-solving, and a higher degree of engagement in learning tasks. According to her, modern approaches develop critical and creative thinking while responding to the increasing pressure placed on students in the area of cognitive, social, and communicative competencies. Pošteková understands modern trends as a dynamic transformation of education based on curricular innovations, new methods, and a change in the interaction between teacher and student (Pošteková, 2025, p. 97). However, modernization should not replace traditional practices but rather meaningfully renew them and connect them with the current needs of the school. In this context, the author introduces the topic into the broader context of contemporary pedagogy, in which digitalization, inclusion, diagnostics, critical thinking, and the professional readiness of teachers play a significant role. She pays special attention to alternative schools, which arise as a response to the limits of standardized education. At the same time, however, she notes that: "The current state of education may not be entirely prepared for the broad acceptance of alternative teaching techniques due to a number of practical, cultural, and structural problems. These obstacles need to be removed" (Pošteková, 2025, p. 107). The contribution in the monograph offers a balanced view of modern teaching trends, both as an opportunity for innovation and as an area full of risks requiring thoughtful implementation, prepared educators, and responsible institutional settings.
The last chapter of this third part is devoted to a contribution by Tomáš Kollárik entitled "On the Conditions of Knowing One's Own Gender." Kollárik's essay seeks to analyze the basis on which an individual decides about their gender identity and what reasons lead them to the conviction that their spatially-culturally or biologically ascribed gender does not suit them. Lutherová (2016, p. 281) considers the search for the desires of one's inner self as key in the maturation of children and youth, whether purely on a physical level or, especially, on a mental one. The author does not claim how people should act; his goal is to identify the conditions that must be met in justifying identity so that this socially sensitive topic finds greater understanding. He brings into the analysis examples of people who have undergone transition, emphasizing the emotional dimension of their experience. More significant than introspective certainty itself (a person knows) is the reaction of their surroundings. It is precisely rejection by those closest to them, rooted in traditional gender roles, that causes deep psychological pain and becomes one of the most difficult aspects of the transition process. "This behavior is subsequently rejected by the close environment on the grounds that it does not correspond with behavior stereotypically associated with the person's sex" (Kollárik, 2025, p. 117). He also points out that gender cannot be reduced exclusively to biological predetermination but must be understood in the context of societal expectations and stereotypes. He presents four conceptions of how an individual arrives at the knowledge that they do not belong to the gender originally assigned to them. The first connects inner experience with public expression. A person can arrive at a conviction about their identity by analyzing how they behave and what they feel while doing so. The problem, however, remains the deductive argument of the type: whoever behaves like a man is a man, which can lead to absurd consequences, for example, the incorrect labeling of women as men based on isolated behavioral manifestations. The second examines gender through feeling, which is, however, always tied to socially determined gender roles. Here Kollárik attempts to build on Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" in the sense of: "Whenever I feel like a man, I am a man" (Kollárik, 2025, p. 123), but adds that this approach does not offer a firm criterion for gender identification because it leaves room for the fluidity of identity (Kollárik, 2025, p. 122). "Descartes is certainly not seeking an indubitable confirmation of his own identity as the first truth upon which he could build further truths. On the other hand, an analogous dramaturgical situation connects both cases: to confront potentially deceptive external influences with the aim of identifying something truthful and real" (Kollárik, 2025, p. 122). Bosá and Minarovičová (2015, p. 17) similarly characterize gender, where the decisive factor in defining a person's gender identity is precisely their appearance and whether they resemble a man or a woman more. The third conception works with a constellation of manifestations, that is, with a combination of stereotypes that society attributes to individual genders. An individual can experiment with forms of address or visual expression to discover what suits them best. The pitfall lies in the fact that this method is still bound to stereotypes, which can paradoxically narrow the space for personal freedom: "The third interpretation insists on gender stereotypes, thereby depriving people of part of their freedom" (Kollárik, 2025, p. 126). In the fourth and final conception, attention is oriented toward the social need for recognition. In some cases, the motivation for identity change is more a long-term lack of acceptance by close ones than an internal incongruence. However, the author notes that in such situations, gender change may bring more complications than solutions if it is not based on authentic self-understanding. The entire contribution thus offers an analytical and balanced overview of arguments that illuminate how individuals experience and justify their gender identity, while showing that the process of its searching is deeply interconnected with emotional, social, societal, and cultural factors.
The final fourth part of the monograph, "The Technological Frontier: Crisis and Promise of Artificial Intelligence," focuses on a phenomenally current and multidisciplinary problem — the relationship between humans, society, and artificial intelligence. This topic today is not only a technical challenge but above all a philosophical-anthropological and ethical question that directly strikes at the core of what it means to be human in the 21st century. Both chapters that form this last part of the monograph, by authors Martin Foltin, Beáta Pošteková, and Katarína Brisudová, create an interesting dialogue — on the one hand, they follow technological changes in the area of societal knowledge; on the other hand, they open the question of identity and human dignity in an environment where technology is becoming an increasingly autonomous force.
The chapter "Social Sciences in the Era of Artificial Intelligence" by Martin Foltin focuses on the transformation of the social sciences under the pressure of rapid AI development. The author points to the need for a realistic view of AI that avoids any simplification. "Machine learning brings with it an effort to translate human-specific ways of learning onto computers" (Štalmachová; Strenitzerová, 2020, p. 53). This contribution focuses on the changing nature of research under the influence of machine learning and automated analytical tools. The gradual penetration of algorithms into both academic and everyday practice causes many social phenomena to be increasingly perceived through the prism of data models that simplify them into measurable patterns. While such an approach offers new possibilities for processing extensive information, it also weakens sensitivity to historical, cultural, and contextual connections that are crucial for understanding social reality.
The final chapter "Artificial Intelligence as a Tool of Dehumanization?" of the last part of the monograph, by Beáta Pošteková and Katarína Brisudová, expands the discussion on artificial intelligence from the methodological level to questions of anthropological and ethical impact. The authors build on the reflections of preceding authors about the weakening of humanities knowledge in a technocratic civilization and thus complete a central line of the entire monograph. They note that modern society tends toward the anthropomorphization of technologies, attributing emotions, intentions, moral qualities, or even personality to machines. According to them, this phenomenon represents a significant risk — namely, that humans begin to transfer their psychological and communicative expectations onto tools that do not actually possess these qualities (Pošteková; Brisudová, 2025, p. 160). Although it cannot be ruled out that technology such as AI may free up space for experts in scientific fields to focus on more specialized tasks by taking over time-consuming partial operations: "From our perspective, this extremely simplified view of the advantages of artificial intelligence so to speak does not see, or does not want to see, around the corner, and thus does not consider the possible consequences of this line of thinking. And while it is possible that this technology will enable representatives of science to devote attention to more specific research because it will save them a considerable amount of partial work, from the perspective of the humanities and social sciences it is possible to assume that, given that the overwhelming majority of society does not work in Science with a capital 'S,' this advancement will be used to simplify daily activities that force us, so to speak, to step out of our comfort zone, primarily in terms of thinking" (Švec, 2023, p. 25). Following on from this, the authors of the contribution suggest that the anthropomorphization of technologies is simultaneously matched by an opposite process in the form of dehumanization of humans. Beáta Pošteková and Katarína Brisudová show that there can be a reduction of interpersonal communication to technical interactions, a weakening of sensitivity to the vulnerability of others, and a strengthening of economic models that perceive humans primarily as a data source. This is accompanied by the risk of a gradual weakening of empathy and the ability for value discrimination (Pošteková; Brisudová, 2025, p. 153). "Although AI appears to be a tool with enormous potential for streamlining processes, increasing the availability of services, and supporting interpersonal interactions, its implementation brings with it a multitude of risks and ethical questions that cannot be ignored" (Pošteková; Brisudová, 2025, p. 153).
The argumentation of the chapter fits into the broader thesis of the monograph: that civilizational and technological progress without critical value reflection leads to a loss of orientation in what constitutes the essence of humanity. The authors therefore open fundamental questions — who bears responsibility for the actions of autonomous systems, whether AI can acquire moral status, and in what way society should determine the boundaries of its autonomy. The final contribution of the monograph thus moves the humanities-social sciences discussion on artificial intelligence from the technical "how it works" to the value-oriented "what it means for humans," thereby aptly concluding the entire monograph while also drawing attention to the need for ethical vigilance in an age in which technology is becoming one of the determining factors of our lives.
Conclusion
The entire publication has a current character with the benefit of stimulating discussions within the relevant fields of the humanities and social sciences regarding the viewing of society and its coping with the speed at which current events in society are changing. In the individual chapters, we find constructive perspectives on dynamic, rapidly changing social transformations, with regard to their philosophical character, impact on upbringing and education, as well as broader social consequences. Despite being a collection of contributions from various authors, the publication offers a monothematic interpretation of the observed phenomena in their mutual interconnections, not as isolated or unrelated phenomena. The authors point primarily to the need for interconnection for the purpose of better understanding global problems, as their complexity requires a perspective and solution from various branches of the humanities and social sciences. While reading the monograph, the reader is prompted toward an inner investigation of their own understanding of current events in the world of which they are a part, and at the same time finds in it information reflecting the latest movements and changes in the respective scientific fields. In conclusion, the publication can be perceived not only as a work with rich theoretical foundations but primarily as a work that stimulates the reader toward interdisciplinary and profound reflection on current societal problems.
Mgr. Nikola Hajná Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica
References
BRISUDOVÁ, K. (2025). Premeny pedagogického myslenia od filozofických základov k súčasným výzvam. In.: HOMOLOVÁ, M., POŠTEKOVÁ, B. (ed.) (2025). Premeny poznania Most medzi vedami I. Ružomberok: VERBUM – vydavateľstvo Katolíckej univerzity v Ružomberku. 23-35 s. ISBN 978-80-561- 1192-5
ŠVEC, J. (2023). K otázke poznávania v kontexte historických prameňov filozofie výchovy. In: Pedagogika.sk. Roč. 13, č. 1, s. 16-27. Online dostupné na: https://www.casopispedagogika.sk/rocnik-13/pedagogika_1_23.pdf
ŠVEC, J., HOREMUŽ, M. (ed.) (2025). K otázkam súčasnosti z perspektívy humanitných a sociálnych vied. České Budějovice: Vysoká škola evropských a regionálních studií, z. ú. 2025, s.170 ISBN 978-80-7556-166-4
ŠTALMACHOVÁ, K., STRENITZEROVÁ, M. (2020). Umelá inteligencia, strojové učenie a trh práce. In: Pošta, Telekomunikácie a Elektronický obchod [online], roč. 15, 2020, No. 2. Žilinská univerzita v Žiline: Katedra spojov - FPEDAS. s. 52-58 ISSN 1336-8281 DOI: 10.26552/pte.C.2020.2.7
LUTHEROVÁ, S. G., (2016). (Ne)viditeľní: Transrodové deti na základných a stredných školách. In: Slovenský Národopis [online], roč.64, 2016, No. 3. Bratislava: Ústav etnológie SAV. s. 280 – 294
BOSÁ, M., MINAROVIČOVÁ, K., (2015). 5 krokov k rodovo citlivému kariérovému poradenstvu (metodická príručka). Inštitút rodovej rovnosti: národný projekt. 2015. s.79.