Recent research suggests that corporate social responsibility is institutionalised amongst multinational corporations. Yet CSR scholarship faces considerable challenges. An agreed definition is lacking, even amongst researchers adopting aligned approaches. Studies remain heavily focused on making a business case for CSR, despite its widespread acceptance into business practice. Few studies examine CSR’s on-ground implications for the communities it purports to help, favouring instead a macro-level focus. And concerns about CSR’s sincerity, motivations and ethics perpetuate questions about its integrity. This article argues (...) that new institutionalism is well placed to respond to these core challenges for CSR, and that new institutionalist perspectives can complement and enrich other common theoretical approaches. It contributes a social mechanism-based framework for CSR, identifying and exploring the key social mechanisms that institutionalise it; namely, discourse, mimesis, normative learning and coercion. Understanding CSR as an institution facilitates new and different explorations of its causes and effects and opens new avenues for scholarly inquiry. Illustrative examples from a 3.5-year study of CSR in the global mining industry are presented to explore the implications of CSR as an institution and to suggest pathways for innovative research. (shrink)

This dissertation is about the structure of thought. Following Gottlob Frege, I define a thought as the sort of content relevant to determining whether an assertion is true or false. The historical component of the dissertation involves interpreting Frege’s actual views on the structure of thought. I argue that Frege did not think that a thought has a unique decomposition into its component senses, but rather the same thought can be decomposed into senses in a variety of distinct ways. I (...) extend Frege’s position and use it to develop an account of the hierarchy of senses, the senses expressed by indexicals and demonstratives, and the distinction between logical and non-logical structure. I also discuss various connections with the nature of meta-representation, our capacity for reflective judgment, some aspects of the structure of conscious experience, the way we perceive regions of space and durations of time, and our conscious awareness of our own perceptions and events of thinking. (shrink)

Two sets are said to be almost disjoint if their intersection is finite. Almost disjoint subsets of [ω]ω and ωω have been studied for quite some time. In particular, the cardinal invariants \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathfrak{a}}$$\end{document} and \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathfrak{a}_e}$$\end{document}, defined to be the minimum cardinality of a maximal infinite almost disjoint family of [ω]ω and ωω respectively, are known to be consistently less than \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} (...) \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathfrak{c}}$$\end{document}. Here we examine analogs for functions in \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathbb{R}^\omega}$$\end{document} and projections on l2, showing that they too can be consistently less than \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathfrak{c}}$$\end{document}. (shrink)

Despite the proliferation of works on the ‘global justice movement’ (GJM) in recent years, surprisingly little has been written on the intersections between feminist and anarchist strands within this ‘movement of movements’. In an effort to rectify this gap in the literature, this article seeks to explore in what ways and to what extent anarchist and feminist renditions of revolution, within the context of the GJM, are conceptually compatible and thereby potentially politically reinforcing. In order to ascertain the degree of (...) convergence between these two radical projects, in the first part of the article I examine what each camp is fighting for and against and whether their struggles for social justice are ideologically consonant. In the second part, I turn my attention to the types of practices being enacted and defended by these two activist constituencies and ask how they see their respective revolutions being brought about. What notions of social change are at work here and are their political practices, and the different temporalities sustaining them, reconcilable? After arguing in the first two parts of this article that anarchism and feminism are more compatible than is often acknowledged and that the considerable synergies between feminist notions of social justice and social change and anarchist conceptions of revolution merit far more attention than they currently receive, I end the piece by reflecting on some of the points of tension that still militate against merging their respective political imaginaries. I do so in an attempt to identify what I see as the conditions of possibility for a more integrated, mutually collaborative feminist anarchist revolutionary politics. (shrink)

This paper defends an interpretation of Gottlob Frege’s views on the structure of thought. I argue that Frege did not think that a thought has a unique decomposition into its component senses, but rather the same thought can be decomposed into senses in multiple, distinct ways. These multiple decompositions will often have distinct logical forms. I also argue against Michael Dummett and others that Frege was committed to the sense of a predicate being a function from the sense of a (...) name (or names) to a complete thought. I defend my Frege interpretation against a puzzle often discussed in the Frege literature; namely, that the Multiple Decompositions Thesis is incompatible with Frege’s stated view that a thought is built up out of its component senses as parts. I provide textual evidence and argument that Frege thought of the part/whole relation in such a way that a whole can be analyzed into (or built up out of) parts in multiple, distinct ways, thus dissolving the puzzle. I conclude with discussion of every sort of example of multiple decompositions that can be found in Frege's work. (shrink)

This book explores and critically reflects on the theory and practice of political agency in contemporary global politics. In light of the changing relationship between the state, the market and the society, it seeks to map both theoretically and empirically contemporary forms of global political agency. This book reflects on the theory and practice of political agency in contemporary global politics. More specifically, it empirically analyses a range of different forms of political agency and explores their significance for understanding and (...) enacting global politics. Reflecting the efforts of scholars from a variety of disciplines from political theory and Sociology to Geography and International Relations, it brings into conversation a wide spectrum of theoretical approaches including Marxism, feminism, post-structuralism and historical institutionalism. The contributors compare a range of forms of political agency; exploring their significance for the theory and practice of global politics; and reflect on the tensions and synergies generated by recent efforts to conceptualise them.Demonstrating an innovative and interdisciplinary approach Contemporary Political Agency will be of interest to students and scholars of international relations, sociology, political economy and political theory. (shrink)

War is invariably accompanied by debate, if not controversy, over the legitimacy of using force. Alongside the longstanding state practice of justifying use of force is the increasing codification of legal rules on the use of force. In this volume a leading group of international authorities consider the issues surrounding the legitimation of force from several distinct disciplinary perspectives, including political science, law, history and philosophy. In particular, they examine the underlying question of whether and how international society's traditional norms (...) of sovereignty and non-intervention can coexist both with the new norm of humanitarian intervention and with an increasingly hegemonial role played by the United States. What is the difference between 'legality' and 'legitimacy'? Is the latter a truly universal concept or mainly a Western one? Are earlier ideas about 'just war' still relevant? (shrink)

The emergence of global governance in several key areas calls into question conventional understandings of world politics in terms of conflicts of interests between sovereign states under conditions of anarchy. At the same time the new phenomena of anti-globalisation demonstrations, transnational social movements and an emergent global civil society point to developments in international relations that are both of profound importance and analytically complex. This volume's starting point is the hypothesis that one way of thinking about these processes is in (...) terms of a dichotomy between the politics of governance and the politics of resistance. Leading scholars from several perspectives reflect on the usefulness of this dichotomy and consider its application to several crucial areas of international relations. (shrink)

Rad se sastoji od dva dijela. U prvom dijelu, tragom prethodnih istraživanja, prvenstveno Petrovićevih i Marottijevih, ispitujem sadržaj i primjenu temeljnog filozofijskog pojmovlja zasnovanoga na riječi i pojmu biti, pri čemu je glavna primijenjena strategija filozofijsko tumačenje mišljenja tvorenog putem mehanizama hrvatskoga jezika. U drugom dijelu, tragom Veljakovih istraživanja o metafizičkim utvarama, ispitujem opasnosti usvajanja moguće nepotpuno razumljenog pojmovlja pomoću kojega oblikujemo predodžbe o (društvenoj) zbilji i po njoj djelujemo. Sidrište je razmatranja problem hipostaze jednoga, a u dijalogu s Veljakovim (...) razmatranjima hipostaziranja partikularnih bića nastojim raščistiti polazišno mjesto za mišljenje promjena u odnosu prema zbilji opstojanja. (shrink)

U ovom clanku bice izlozena polemika o kalam kosmoloskom argumentu, koja je razvijena u srednjovekovnoj islamskoj teologiji i filozofiji. Glavni momenti ove polemike bili su izlozeni stolecima pre u Filoponovoj kritici Aristotelove teze da je svet vecan i da nije moguca aktuelna beskonacnost. Filopon prihvata tezu da je aktuelna beskonacnost nemoguca, ali on misli da, upravo zbog toga, svet ne moze biti vecan. Naime, prema Filoponu, nesto ne moze da nastane ako njegovo po?stojanje zahteva prethodno postojanje beskonacnog broja drugih (...) stvari, od kojih jedna dolazi posle druge. Filopon i njegovi sledbenici u srednjevekovnoj islamskoj teologiji, zvani kalam teolozi, ponudili su argumente protiv koncepcije temporalno beskonacnog univerzuma, koji bi bio shvacen kao sukcesivni kauzalni lanac. S druge strane, srednjovekovni islamski mislioci, zvani falasifah /filozofi/ ili aristotelijanci ponudili su argumente u prilog Aristotelove koncepcije vecnosti univerzuma. Odlucujuci problem u raspravi izmedju kalam i falsafa srednjovekovnih muslimanskih mislilaca bio je problem beskonacnosti. U ovom clanku bice prikazani neki od krucijalnih momenata tih argumenata. (shrink)

Čovjek je biće dijaloga, biće komunikacije, te se upravo na ovome području najuočljivije manifestiraju znakovi moguće krize. Cornelio Fabro, analizirajući komunikacijsku situaciju današnjeg čovjeka, uočava kako je tišina zamijenila govor. Razgovor sa samim sobom, bez kojega nema niti dijaloga sa drugima, supstituiran je čovjekovim pokušajem da putem umjetnosti, kulture ili filozofije uspostavi izvanjski dijalog sa svijetom koji ga okružuje. Kultura nastala u ovakvom okružju »duhovne pustinje«, kako kaže Fabro, također sama postaje kulturom egzistencijalno-duhovnog kolapsa.U radu se kritički propituje teza po (...) kojoj je čovjek osamljen, predan duhovno-kulturnoj pustinji isključivo zbog toga što se udaljio od svoga temelja, što prvenstveni interes njegova cjelokupnog istraživanja ne leži u području bitka i realnosti, nego u području mogućeg i virtualnog.Man is a being of dialogue, being of communication, and this is the area where signs of possible crisis most visibly manifest themselves. C. Fabro, analysing communicational situation of contemporary man, notices how silence have replaced speaking. Dialogue with him/herself, which is the condition for dialogue with others, is substituted by man’s endeavour in establishing external dialogue with the world around him/her, by means of art, culture and philosophy. Culture, made in circumstances of so called »spiritual desert«, itself becomes a culture of existential-spiritual collapse.This article critically examines thesis on man’s solitude, or his/hers devotion on spiritual-cultural desert, exclusively because he/she has distanced him/heself from his/her foundations, i. e. because primary interest of his/hers does not lay in the area of Being and reality, but in the area of possible and virtual. (shrink)

In this paper, the author considers five basic understandings of metaphysics as a philosophical discipline that 1) studies the most general characteristics of everything that is, 2) investigates beings as beings, 3) considers what goes beyond the framework of experience, 4) analyses the most general terms and 5) provides an explanatory theory. In addition, the author considers a number of relevant ideas and distinctions, the distinction between reality and appearance, the distinction between the apparent and scientific picture of the world (...) (Wilfrid Sellars), the idea that philosophy is the queen of science (Moritz Schlick), the distinction between descriptive and revisionist metaphysics (Peter Frederick Strawson), the synoptic view, the idea of naturalised metaphysics, etc. The author accepts the first point of view, the one according to which metaphysics is understood as a philosophical discipline that studies the most general characteristics of everything that is, and accordingly believes that categorical ontology best fits into that picture. After that, the author briefly presents the most famous criticisms of metaphysics (David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and logical positivists), as well as the positions that led to the formation of modern metametaphysics (Rudolf Carnap and Willard Van Orman Quine). Finally, the author considers verbalism and trivialism and tries to determine whether these two positions can represent a basis for the elimination of metaphysics. The author tries to show that these positions do not eliminate metaphysics, but rather set the framework for contemporary metaphysical discussions. (shrink)

According to directionalism, non-symmetric relations are distinct from their converses. Kit Fine (2000) argues that the directionalist faces a dilemma; they must either (i) reject the principle Uniqueness, which states that no completion (fact, state of affairs, or proposition) is a completion of more than one relation, or (ii) reject the principle Identity, which states that each completion of a relation is identical to a completion of its converse (e.g., Dante’s loving Bice is identical to Bice’s being loved (...) by Dante). Fine’s argument has been regarded as a decisive blow to directionalism. But new strategies for replying to it can be developed with the tools of the postmodal metaphysician, who is comfortable individuating relations and their completions hyperintensionally, allowing for necessary connections between distinct entities, and making use of hyperintensional notions like essence and grounding. In what follows, I develop postmodal strategies for denying both horns of Fine’s dilemma, concluding that the postmodal directionalist need not be concerned with Fine’s argument. (shrink)

Transformation of the philosophy of science during the last three decades is largely based on the philosophers? insights in the experimental side of science. Central issues in this new field, such as classification of basic elements and types of experimentation, are still developing. Subject of this work will be one of these types, Steinle?s?exploratory experimentation?, and its place in taxonomy of experimentation. After presenting an array of historical cases of experimentation, I analyze Elliott?s systematization of EE subtypes. I will claim (...) that it does not represent development of Steinle?s ideas, although it can be used to improve taxonomy of experimentation in general. Special attention will be dedicated to the development of this taxonomy and understanding forms of experimentation not focused on theory testing - specifically EE. Preobrazaj filozofije nauke tokom poslednje tri decenije dobrim delom zasniva se na uvidu filozofa u eksperimentalnu stranu nauke. Centralne stvari u ovom polju, kao sto su klasifikacija osnovnih elemenata i vrsta eksperimentisanja, jos uvek su u povoju. Predmet rada bice jedna ova vrsta, Stajnleovo?istrazivacko eksperimentisanje?, i njeno mesto u taksonomiji eksperimentisanja. Nakon predstavljanja niza istorijskih slucajeva eksperimentisanja, analiziracu Eliotovu sistematizaciju podvrsta IE. Tvrdicu da ona ne predstavlja razvoj Stajnleovih shvatanja, ali da se moze iskoristiti za unapredjenje opste taksonomije eksperimentisanja. Posebna paznja bice obracena na isprepletanost razvoja taksnomije eksperimentisanja i razumevanja oblika eksperimentisanja koja nemaju za cilj testiranje teorije - specificno IE. (shrink)

Ovaj rad odgovara na argument modalnog kolapsa protiv božanske jednostavnosti ili klasičnog teizma koji nude neoklasični ili kompleksni teisti. Argument modalnog kolapsa tvrdi da ako je Bog apsolutno jednostavan i apsolutno neophodan, tada je Božji čin stvaranja apsolutno neophodan, pa je stoga postojanje stvorenog svijeta također apsolutno neophodno. To znači da se Bog i njegova kreacija urušavaju u jednu modalnu kategoriju apsolutne nužnosti bez ikakvih kontingentnih bića. Moj odgovor je utemeljen na islamskoj neoplatonstičkoj filozofiji Ibn Sine i islamskoj tradiciji. Nudim (...) četiri argumenta koji dopuštaju muslimanskom neoplatoničaru da apsorbira modalni kolaps u modalitetu mogućih svjetova koji istovremeno može negira modalni kolaps unutar avicenovskog modaliteta: Prvo, prigovor modalnog kolapsa temelji se na okviru mogućih svjetova čiji je pojam nužnosti preširok; ovaj okvir ne uspijeva napraviti razliku između Boga kao ontološki nužnog po sebi, stvorenog bića kao nužno ovisnog o drugome i puke logičke nužnosti, kao što to čine Ibn Sina i islamski mislioci. Drugo, argumenti modalnog kolapsa samo pokazuju da je kreacija neophodna kroz drugost, ali ne uspijevaju dokazati da kreacija ima ontološku nužnost ili aseity––što se odnosi samo na Boga; prema tome, ne dolazi do posljedičnog modalnog kolapsa kada nečiji modalitet prepozna kreaciju kao "ovisno nužno biće" unatoč tome što je modalno nužno. Treće, islamski filozofi imaju nelibertarijanski pojam Božje volje i slobode koji je imun na prigovore modalnog kolapsa. Konačno, tvrdim da svi klasični i neoklasični teisti moraju prihvatiti modalno nužnu kreaciju jer libertarijanski modeli Božje volje za sobom povlače neuzrokovane i primitivno kontingentne učinke. (shrink)

Avicennino razumijevanje bitka je određeno religijskim kontekstom njegove misli i jezikom u kojem je ta misao ostvarena.Ideja Prvoga počela kao Počela bitka utemeljena je na poimanju da su bića u svijetu kontingentna: biće može postojati, ali može i ne postojati, jer njegovo postojanje ovisi o nekom uzroku. A budući da lanac uzrokâ ne može biti beskonačan, mora postojati neki prvi uzrok, čiji bitak – budući da prvi uzrok nije uzrokovan – mora biti nužan. Taj prvi neuzrokovani uzrok nužnoga bitka jest (...) podarivatelj bitka svemu kontingentnome. Odatle i Avicennina ideja o bitku koji se »pridružuje« bîti.No arapski jezik također upućuje na takovu ideju. Budući da u arapskome nema glagola koji znači ‘biti’, arapski logičari nisu mogli formulirati čisti egzistencijalni iskaz. Zato su umjesto egzistencijalnog iskaza rabili atributivni iskaz koji se po dogovoru smatrao egzistencijalnim. U takovu iskazu bitak uistinu jest »nešto« što se atribuira bîti bića, a ta konceptualizacija bitka osnova je Avicennine ideje o bitku kao svojevrsnom prigodku bîti.Avicennas Seinsverständnis ist durch den religiösen Zusammenhang seiner Gedanken und die Sprache, in der diese Gedanken zum Wort gekommen sind, bestimmt.Die Idee des ersten Prinzips als des Seinsprinzips gründet sich auf der Auffassung, dass das Seiende in der Welt kontingent ist: das Seiende kann existieren, aber auch nicht existieren, weil seine Existenz von einer Ursache abhängt. Da die Kette von Ursachen nicht unendlich sein kann, muss eine erste Ursache existieren, die selbst nicht verursacht ist. Diese erste unverursachte Ursache des notwendigen Seins gibt allem Kontingenten das Sein. Daher stammt Avicennas Idee des dem Wesen „zukommenden“ Seins.Auch die arabische philosophische Terminologie weist auf eine solche Idee hin. Da es im Arabischen kein Verb in der Bedeutung ‘sein’ gibt, konnten die arabischen Logiker nicht die reine existenziale Aussage formulieren. Deshalb haben sie statt der existenzialen Aussage die attributive Aussage in der existenzialen Bedeutung verwendet. In einer solchen Aussage ist das Sein tatsächlich „etwas“ was dem Wesen des Seienden attribuiert wird. Diese Konzeptualisation ist bei Avicenna die Grundlage für die Idee des Seins als des eigenartigen Akzidenz des Wesens. (shrink)

Concerning the differences between Ernst Cassirer and Martin Heidegger with reference to Descartes one must point out their different ideological-historical and phenomenological approach on the one hand and on the other hand their diverging understanding of history, science and subjectivity. Cassirer and Heidegger agree that Cartesian thought is fundamental to both the contemporary understanding of the self in which man features as an autonomous subject and the contemporary understanding of reality in which being is analysed with the help of modern (...) science. Nevertheless, differences are manifest in the diverging representation of the new image of man and the world. While Heidegger in the revolt of man as subject seeks to get at the root of the existing dominant power relations and the implicit scientific discourse that ultimately excludes from that scope all that cannot be mathematically verified, Cassirer emphasises the nurturing of individuality and autonomy of the human mind. In man‘s successive self-liberation he sees the fundamental principle of anthropological ideal. From Descartes onward, and in particular from the Age of Enlightenment, man has been considered as an end in himself; he may maturely decide on his action, but he must also assume responsibility for it. According to Cassirer, these epistemological and ethical principles constitute the real foundation of our culture. According to him, modern-day progress does not necessarily flow into dominating subjectivism, since responsibility for the wrongful developments of the 20th century does not lie with the inherited models of man and reality, but rather with the disregard of the modern principles such as individuality, freedom and rationality.Anhand der unterschiedlichen Bezugnahmen Ernst Cassirers und Martin Heideggers auf Descartes sollen einerseits die Differenzen zwischen einem ideengeschichtlichen und einem phänomenologischen Zugang und andererseits ein divergierendes Verständnis von Geschichte, Wissenschaft und Subjektivität aufgezeigt werden. Cassirer und Heidegger stimmen darin überein, dass das cartesianische Denken sowohl für unser heutiges Selbstverständnis, in dem der Mensch als autonomes Subjekt fungiert, als auch für die gegenwärtige Wirklichkeitsauffassung, in der das Seiende mittels der modernen Naturwissenschaften analysiert wird, grundlegend wirkte. Die Unterschiede manifestieren sich jedoch in den voneinander abweichenden Auslegungen dieses neuen Menschenund Weltbildes. Während Heidegger im Aufstand des Menschen als Subjekt die Wurzel für die bestehenden Herrschaftsverhältnisse und den darin implizierten Wissenschaftsdiskurs, der letztlich alles mathematisch nicht Verifizierbare aus diesem Bereich ausschließt, festzumachen sucht, legt Cassirer den Akzent auf die Ausbildung der Individualität und Autonomie menschlicher Vernunft. In der sukzessiven Selbstbefreiung des Subjekts erblickt er das Grundprinzip der anthropologischen Ideale. Seit Descartes und insbesondere seit der Aufklärung gilt der Mensch als Selbstzweck, der mündig über sein Tun bestimmen kann, aber für dieses auch Verantwortung übernehmen muss. Diese epistemologischen und ethischen Grundsätze bilden für Cassirer das eigentliche Fundament unserer Kultur. Für ihn mündet der moderne Fortschritt nicht zwangsläufig in einen herrschaftlichen Subjektivismus, denn für die Fehlentwicklungen im 20. Jahrhundert sind nicht die überkommenen Modelle von Mensch und Wirklichkeit zur Verantwortung zu ziehen, sondern die Missachtung moderner Grundsätze wie Individualität, Freiheit und Rationalität.Temeljem različitih pozivanja Ernsta Cassirera i Martina Heideggera na Descartesa treba ukazati s jedne strane na razlike između idejno-povijesnog i fenomenološkog pristupa a s druge na divergentno razumijevanje povijesti, znanosti i subjektiviteta. Cassirer i Heidegger suglasni su da je kartezijansko mišljenje temeljno za naše današnje samorazumijevanje, u kojemu čovjek fungira kao autonomni subjekt, jednako kao i sadašnje shvaćanje stvarnosti, u kojem se biće analizira pomoću modernih prirodnih znanosti. Ipak, razlike se manifestiraju u izlaganjima te nove slike čovjeka i svijeta, koja odstupaju jedna od drugih. Dok Heidegger u uspostavljanju čovjeka kao subjekta pokušava ustvrditi korijen postojećih odnosa moći i implicitni znanstveni diskurs, koji naposljetku iz tog područja isključuje sve što se ne može matematički verificirati, Cassirer polaže akcent na izobrazbu individualnosti i autonomije ljudskoga uma. U sukcesivnom samooslobođenju čovjeka uočava on temeljni princip antropološkog ideala. Od Descartesa, a poglavito od prosvjetiteljstva, čovjeka se smatra samosvrhom; on može zrelo određivati svoje djelovanje, no mora na sebe preuzeti i odgovornost za njega. Ta epistemološka i etička načela tvore za Cassirera pravi fundament naše kulture. Za njega se moderni napredak ne ulijeva neizbježno u vladajući subjektivizam, budući da za pogrešan razvoj u 20. st. nisu odgovorni naslijeđeni modeli čovjeka i stvarnosti, nego prezir modernih načela poput individualnosti, slobode i racionalnosti. (shrink)

Freedom as an authentic and willed process, characteristic of man as a human rational being, enables the individual to act in accordance with the principles of morality, since the individual can choose between good and evil, and in this way to get out of the sphere of the given to which the rest of the living world is limited. We should recall the forgotten Marx and his famous text on the essential difference between the animal world and humanity as a (...) genus: "The animal is immediately united with its vital activity. It does not differ from it. It is vital activity. Man makes his own vital activity the subject of his will and consciousness. He has conscious vital activity. This is not a determination with which he merges immediately. Conscious vital activity distinguishes man directly from animal vital activity. It is exactly in this way alone that he is a generic being. Or a conscious being, i.e. his own life is a subject for him precisely because he is a generic being. It is only for this reason that his activity is free activity...". In other words, while animals live just the life of their species and cannot choose anything else, since the choice has been made by the fact of their belonging to a species, man can choose the world in which to live, overcoming in this way the natural givens. Here lies the core of the anthropological explanation of the principle of morality, inconceivable without man's ability to be an authentic free being. Sloboda kao autenticni voljni proces, svojstven coveku kao ljudskom umnom bicu, omogucuje individui da postupa u skladu sa nacelima moralnosti, buduci da individua moze da bira izmedju dobra i zla i da na taj nacin izadje iz sfere datosti na koju je ogranicen ostali zivi svet. Podsetimo se zaboravljenog Marxa i cuvenog teksta o sustinskoj razlici izmedju sveta zivotinjskih vrsta i coveka kao roda:?zivotinja je neposredno jedinstvena sa svojom zivotnom delatnoscu. Ona se od nje ne razlikuje. Ona je zivotna datost. Covek cini samu svoju zivotnu delatnost predmetom svoga htenja i svoje svesti. On ima svesnu zivotnu delatnost. To nije odredjenost s kojom se on neposredno stapa. Svesna zivotna delatnost razlikuje coveka neposredno od zivotinjske zivotne delatnosti. On je upravo samo na taj nacin genericko bice. Ilije samo svesno bice, tj. njegov vlastiti zivot mu je predmet upravo zato sto je genericko bice. Samo zato je njegova delatnost slobodna delatnost...". Drugim recima, dok zivotinjski svet zivi samo zivotom svoje vrste i ne moze da izabere nista drugo, on je srastao sa vrstom kojoj pripada, covek moze da bira svet u kojem ce ziveti prevazilazeci na taj nacin prirodnu datost. Ovde je sadrzana bit antropoloskog objasnjenja principa moralnosti, koji se bez sposobnosti coveka da bude autenticno slobodno bice ne bi mogao pojmiti.. (shrink)

The history of the idea of biological progress shows that it is not a selfexplanatory category, so a clear definition is required. Biological progress exists if: “more progressive” is defined as “more complex” – in that case evolution is synonymous with progress, i.e. development from simple to complex, from homogeneous to heterogeneous; we perceive the expression “more progressive” as more successful in relation to the environment, in these terms some groups in the history of life were more progressive because/so that (...) they survived, while others were retrogressive or less progressive because/so that they died out; on the other hand, within their ecological niches, certain forms of life are perfectly adapted to their environment as long as it is stable ; we take the span or reach of a potential adaptation of populations as a measure . However, there is no active, innovative problem solving in relation to the environment either with plants or animals – only the variability mechanism / selection is in place, automatism, instinct. In the light of the above-mentioned biological criteria, man is the most complex living creature by his constitution , he is the least dependent on the environment and can be innovative in relation to the environment. Man is the only living creature capable of establishing an active relationship with the environment through his special tool – culture. Considering the level of organization and quantity of information, the mammal genome is more progressive than the bacterium genome, while the human genome comprises most information which makes man the most progressive living thing. We can talk about biological progress if we define progressiveness as advancement toward complexity of organisation, but sometimes thesimplification of structure enables survival. It seems that we can talk about progressivenessin biology only if we accept the anthropic principle – that is why only cultural progress is possible. Information is the link between biological and cultural-anthropological successfulness . Biological information is a “complete” piece of information to an animal . To a human being, it is only a condicio sine qua non for the reality of human spirit which receives, keeps and generates information. Progress can be measured according to the capability ofestablishing an active and innovative relationship with the environment, but only within some sort of anthropocentric outlook which is a criterion of value. It is not possible to talk about progressiveness of life if man is not the measure of all things.Povijest ideje biološkog napretka pokazuje kako to nije samorazumljiva kategorija, pa se traži jasna definicija. Biološki progres postoji ukoliko: “naprednije” definiramo kao “složenije” – evolucija je tada sinonim napretka, tj. prelaženja iz jednostavnijeg u složenije, iz homogenog u heterogeno; “naprednije” shvatimo kao “uspješnije” s obzirom na okoliš; u tom smislu neke skupine u povijesti života bile su naprednije jer/pa su opstale, dok su druge bile nazadnije ili manje napredne pa/jer su izumrle; s druge strane unutar svojih ekoloških niša pojedini oblici života savršeno su prilagođeni svojem okolišu dokle god je on stabilan ; kao mjerilo uzmemo raspon ili širinu moguće prilagodbe populacija jer tada postoje razlike; ipak ni u biljaka ni u životinja tu nema aktivnog inovatorskog rješavanja problema okoliša, nego djeluje samo mehanizam varijabilnost/selekcija, automatizam, nagon. U svjetlu gore navedenih bioloških mjerila čovjek je svojim ustrojstvom najsloženije biće , najmanje je ovisan u odnosu na okolinu, može se novativno nositi spram okoline. Čovjek je jedini kadar za pravi aktivni odnos prema svom okolišu putem specifičnog oruđa kulture. S obzirom na stupanj organizacije i količinu informacija, genom sisavca je napredniji od genoma bakterije, a genom čovjeka raspolažes najviše informacija, pa je on po tome najprogresivnije biće u prirodi. O biološkom progresu možemo govoriti ako progresivnost definiramo kao porast složenosti organizacije, no ponekad pojednostavljenje građe omogućava preživljavanje. Čini se da o progresivnosti u biologiji možemo govoriti samo usvajajući princip antropičnosti, zato je u svijetu moguć samo kulturni progres. Posjedovanje informacije je veza između biološke i kulturno-antropološke uspješnosti . Posjedovanje biologijske informacije za životinju je “potpuna informacija” , dok je za Čovjeka samo condicio sine qua non za zbiljnost ljudskog duha koji dobiva, posjeduje i stvara informaciju. Progres je moguće mjeriti prema sposobnosti aktivnog i inovativnog odnosa spram okoliša jedino u nekoj vrsti antropocentričnog obzora koji u središtu ima mjerilo vrijednosti. Nemoguće je govoriti o progresivnosti života ako svemu nije mjera sam čovjek. (shrink)

U članku se kritički promišlja predaja katoličkog ethosa iz vlastitih pretpostavki. Tematizirajući katolički ethos iz mišljenja bitka suvremenog čovjeka na temelju umjetnosti u modernom i postmodernom dobu pokušava se razumjeti katolički ethos u horizontu ljudske egzistencije post-modernog doba. Time nam je otvoren prostor za njegovo razumijevanje iz postojanja umjetnosti u post-modernom dobu. Problematizirajući katolički ethos i umjetnost u post-modernom dobu iz njihovog ontološkog statusa unutar položaja u bitku suvremenog čovjeka bilo je potrebno distingvirati i naznačiti razliku i korespondenciju ova dva (...) pojma kao jednih od temeljnih oblika ljudskog duha. Čovjek kao onto-antropološko biće logosa postoji jedino kao povijesno onto-antropološko biće koje ima potrebu za svetim koje određuje njegov izvorni odnos prema postojanju. Sveto kao sveto, naime, povezano je s egzistencijalnom biti čovjeka. Umjetnost se na temelju svetoga pruža kao otvoreno medijacijsko polje prema katoličkom ethosu, otvarajući mu istinu epohe, posredujući egzistencijalnu istinu s epohalnom istinom. Time umjetnost kao forma suvremenog čovjekovog duha, uz znanost, tehnologiju, filozofiju i religiju, otkriva i oblikuje jednu novu stvarnost, koja u svojim najvišem potencijalima korespondira s najdubljim pitanjima čovjekove povijesne egzistencije kao njegove istine.The article critically reflects upon the tradition of Catholic ethos from its own assumptions. Considering the Catholic ethos from the thought of Being of modern man based on art in modern and postmodern age, we are trying to understand the Catholic ethos in the horizon of human existence in the postmodern age. Through this we have open space for understanding it from the existence of art in the postmodern age. In raising the issue of the Catholic ethos and art in postmodern age from their ontological status inside modern man’s position in Being, it was necessary to distinguish and note difference and correspondence of these two notions as one of the ground forms of human spirit. Human as an onto-anthropological creature of logos exists only as a historical onto-anthropological creature which has the need for the sacred which determines his original relation towards existence. The sacred as sacred is connected to the human existential essence. Art grounded on sacred is extended as an open mediation field towards the Catholic ethos, revealing the truth of epoch, mediating the existential truth with the epochal truth. By this art as a form of modern human spirit, with science, technology, philosophy and religion, reveals and shapes a new reality which in its highest potentials corresponds with the deepest questions of human historical existence as his truth. (shrink)

Rasprava tematizira osnovne značajke ontologijskog prilaza umjetnosti u djelu Ivana Fochta, jednog od naših najvećih estetičara i ontologa umjetnosti. Problematskog je karaktera i obuhvaća četiri bitne teme njegova mišljenja: Istina i biće umjetnosti uvodi u središnju Fochtovu ˝pred-postavljenost˝, njegov ontologijski prosedê, pitanjem: Što je to biće umjetnosti?; Moderna umjetnost kao ontološki problem raspravlja problematiziranje ontoloških pitanja moderne umjetnosti i njezin promijenjeni status u bitku suvremenog svijeta: umjetnost više nije ˝Schein˝ nego ˝Sein˝ i spoznaje smisao bitka tako što ga pravi; Bit (...) književnosti ispituje ontološke pretpostavke književnog djela kao predmet specijalne ontologije umjetnosti : njezine ontološke ˝planove˝, mjesto među drugim umjetničkim vrstama i u modernoj umjetnosti; Bit glazbe suočava se s ˝tajnom glazbe˝: pitanje Što je glazba? jedno je od najtežih pitanja koja su se postavljala filozofiji umjetnosti; u glazbi, misli Focht, krije se odgovor na pitanje o tajni umjetnosti.The article places its interest on basic characteristics of ontological approach to artin the work of Ivan Focht, one of the greatest aestheticians and ontologists of art. Itconsists of four essential themes in his thought. The Truth and Being of art introducesus into central Focht’s »vor-stellung«, into his ontological procédé,with a question: ‘What is the being of art?’. Modern art as ontological problem discussesthe themes of ontological issues of modern art and its changed status in the Being of contemporary world; the artwork is no more Schein but Sein and it knows the meaning of Being by making it. TheEssence of Literature challenges ontological presuppositions of literary work , as an issue of special ontology of artwork – its ontological »landscapes«, its place amongother artistic forms and in modern art. The part Essence of Music confronts itselfwith »secret of music«; the question ‘What is Music?’ is one of the most complicatedquestions which were asked by philosophy of art. In the music, says Focht, is the hiddenanswer to the question on the secret of art itself. (shrink)

Author considering, appearing and existing modern idea about university like one of the most important institution of knowledge which is arise in modern epoch. In this work particular attention will be initiated on considered different ideas and conception university which were before so-called Himbolt?s idea of university which has global disposition and which is in the last two centuries regardless on period of crisis, had dominant position in contemporary high school education.. The second part of work is consecrated on analysis (...) constitute the first Serbian university. In this part of work will be analyze different treatise and projects of university which are during 19. and on the beginning of 20. century arise in circle of Serbian intellectual elite in which are essentially influence at form of institutionally profile the first Serbian university. The third part of work surround there different phase of develop on university and university education in Serbia in XX and on the beginning of XXI century. The first phase present the time between two war; the second phase is consecrate the time of and the third phase consecrate the last decade of XX and the first decade of XXI century in which are tempestuous changes in society announce new searching and fundamental over questioning the state in our high school institution with primary target that theirs work coordinate with standard of European universities and that way accomplish theirs integration in net of European universities. Autor razmatra uslove nastanka srednjovekovnog univerziteta, shvacenog kao korporacije fakulteta, i govori o filozofskim idejama koje su uticale na stvaranje i sirenje moderne ideje univerziteta, sigurno jedne od najznacajnijih institucija znanja koja je nastala u modernoj epohi. U ovom radu posebna paznja bice posvecena razmatranju razlicitih filozofskih ideja univerziteta koje su prethodile stvaranju tzv. Humboltove ideje univerziteta koja je u poslednja dva veka, bez obzira na periode krize, imala u savremenom visokom skolstvu dominantnu poziciju. Drugi deo rada posvecen je razmatranju procesa konstituisanja prvog srpskog univerziteta. U ovom delu rada bice analizirane razlicite rasprave i projekti univerziteta koji su tokom 19. i pocetkom 20. veka nastali u krugovima srpske intelektualne elite i koji su bitno uticali na institucionalni karakter i obrazovni profil prvog srpskog univerziteta. Treci deo rada obuhvata razmatranje cetiri razlicite faze razvitka modernog univerziteta i univerzitetske nastave u Srbiji u XX veku. Prvu fazu cini period od osnivanja Beogradskog univerziteta do pocetka Prvog svetskog rata. Druga faza je posvecena razmatranju univerzitetskog obrazovanja u medjuratnom periodu, a treca i cetvrta faza obuhvataju analizu razvitka i funkcionisanja univerziteta u doba komunizma i pocetak tranzicije. Burne promene u nasem drustvu devedesetih godina XX veka, najavile su nova traganja i temeljna preispitivanja stanja na nasim visokoskolskim institucijama s osnovnim ciljem da se njihov nacin i program rada uskladi sa savremenim evropskim univerzitetskim standardima i na taj nacin pripremi njihovo integrisanje u mrezu evropskih univerziteta. (shrink)

Kao i sva živa bića, čovjek je djelomično genetski predodređen, tj. određen i prije nego što se u potpunosti razvije kao ljudsko biće. Ali ono što čovjeka bitno razlikuje od svih nam poznatih živih bića, jest upravo to što je, u odnosu na njih, njegova predodređenost bitno manje u-rođena, a znatno više pri-rođena. A to znači da su ljudi u odnosu na druge žive vrste manje predodređeni na genskoj, a više na memskoj, upravo kulturnoj razini. Kulturni, a to znači povijesno (...) oduhovljeni okoliš u koji se djeca rađaju i koji zatiču pri-rođenju bitan je čimbenik njihova daljnjeg razvitka. Stoga se čovjek i ne rađa kao čovjek, nego kao dijete koje čovjekom tek mora postati. Za razliku, naime, od bićâ koja već pri rođenju imaju sve bitne odlike svoje vrste i koja se stoga mogu razvijati i uzgojem, tj. poticanjem na rast i pridizanjem onoga što im je biološki već dano, djeci je za ljudski razvitak potreban odgoj koji će ih tek uvesti u određenu kulturu kao njihov duhovni – i samo takav istinski ljudski – zavičaj. Čitavo čovjekovo biće, dakle i ono tjelesno, raste u duhu određene kulture i izrasta iz njega. Kako i koliko kultura određuje čovjeka – predmet je ove rasprave.As all other living beings, man is partially genetically predisposed, that is, determined even before it completely develops as a human being. However, the thing that differentiates man from all other known living beings is the fact that, compared to them, his predisposition is significantly less natured, and significantly more nurtured. This means that humans compared to other living species are less determined on a genetic, and more on a memetic, cultural level. Cultural, meaning a historically spiritualized environment, children are born into and find with birth, is an important factor of their further development. Thus, humans are not born as humans, but as children that have yet to become human. Namely, unlike the beings that have all the important characteristics of their species at birth, which are thus able to develop through breeding, that is, through encouragement of growth and nurturing of what is biologically given, for human development children need raising that will only introduce them into a specific culture as their spiritual – and truly human – environment. The entire human being, including the physical, grows up in a spirit of a specific culture and springs from it. How and how much culture determines man is the topic of this discussion. (shrink)

Petrić motivira svoj pokušaj deheleniziranja filozofije i kršćanske teologije činjenicom da su oko četiri stotine godina nakon »starih teologa«, koji su bili pod utjecajem Platonove filozofije, skolastički teolozi počeli u teologiju uvoditi Aristotelovu filozofiju i uzimati njegove »bezbožnosti« kao temelje vjere. Ispričava ih što nisu poznavali niti mogli poznavati stare teologe jer nisu znali grčki i stoga su im bili nepoznati Platonovi i Aristotelovi izvorni tekstovi u kojima se ti stari mudraci spominju. Ne oprašta im, međutim, što su pokušali »bezbožnošću (...) poduprijeti pobožnost«. Stoga Petrić nastoji pokazati da je Aristotel našao sve problemske motive svoje metafizike, fizike i etike u prastarih egipatskih i kaldejskih mudraca, i to najvećim dijelom posredovanjem Platona. Isto tako nastoji pokazati kako je spomenute probleme Aristotel preformulirao, pretumačio u duhu starogrčkog jezika i duha, ali djelomično i prešućivao.Heideggerov analogni noviji pokušaj dehelenizacije filozofije i kršćanske teologije polazi od teze o »zaboravu pitanja o bitku«, odnosno o »smislu bitka«. Taj »zaborav« skrivila je tradicionalna metafizika koja je tretirala bitak kao »najopćenitiji« i stoga »najrazumljiviji« pojam i na taj način dispenzirala filozofiju da ponovo promišlja pitanje o bitku. Pitanje o bitku blokirala je metafizika i time što je bitak tretirala kao »biće« i navela teologiju da i Boga tretira kao »biće«, doduše kao »najviše«, ali ipak kao biće. To je omogućilo da se teologija razumije kao »pozitivna« znanost i time se uvrsti među druge »pozitivne« znanosti. Heideggerov motiv da »destruira« tradicionalnu metafiziku jest da usmjeri mišljenje prema njegovoj zaboravljenoj bitnoj zadaći, a time i teologiju da se, oslobođena od tradicionalne metafizike, uputi novim putovima.Najnoviji poticaj kritičkom tematiziranju dehelenizacije kršćanske vjere, i uopće europskog duha, dao je teolog i sadašnji papa Joseph Ratzinger, posebno u svom predavanju na Sveučilištu u Regensburgu, u kojem je desetak puta kritički apostrofirao dehelenizaciju. Podvrgnuo je kritici tri vala dehelenizacijskog programa u kršćanskoj teologiji: od izgona metafizike iz teologije u Reformaciji, preko historiziranja u liberalnoj teologiji 19. i 20. stoljeća, do brisanja tragova helenizacije kršćanske vjere u ideji inkulturacije. Ratzinger podvrgava kritici ograničavanje uma , započeto matematizacijom europske znanosti u renesansnom platonizmu, koje je Kant kanonizirao. Posljedice toga ograničavanja uma nisu relevantne samo za kršćanstvo koje teži suprotnome, tj. proširenju uma , nego i za zapadnoeuropski duh u cjelini.Petrić’s attempt at dehellenizing philosophy and Christian theology was motivated by the fact that about four centuries after the “ancient theologians”, who were influenced by Plato’s philosophy, scholastic theologians began to introduce Aristotle’s philosophy into theology and adopt his “impieties” as the foundations of faith. He justifies their ignorance and inability to learn about the ancient wise men by the fact that they had no knowledge of Greek and were thus not familiar with the original texts of Plato and Aristotle in which the wise men were mentioned. He does not forgive them, however, for trying to “support piety by impiety”. Thus Petrić attempts to demonstrate how Aristotle found all the problem motives of his metaphysics, physics and ethics in the wise men, drawing mostly upon Plato. He also attempts to show how Aristotle reformulated the mentioned problems, reinterpreted them in the spirit of the old Greek language and thought, but also ignored some of them.Heidegger’s more recent similar attempt at dehellenizing philosophy and Christian theology is grounded on a thesis of the “neglect of the question of being” – that is, the “meaning of being”. This “neglect” is the result of traditional metaphysics which treated being as “the most general” and thus “the most understandable” notion, and in such a way dispensed philosophy to reconsider the question of being. The question of being was blocked by metaphysics in that it treated being as an “entity”, prompting theology to treat God as an “entity” as well, though “the supreme” but still an entity. This led to the understanding of theology as a “positive” science and its eventual classification among the “positive” sciences. Heidegger’s motive to “destroy” traditional metaphysics is to stream thought towards his forgotten major goal, and thus prompt theology, once freed from traditional metaphysics, to seek new strands.The most recent attempt at critical thematization of dehellenization of Christian faith and European spirit in general has been made by the theologian and present pope, Joseph Ratzinger, particularly in his lecture delivered at the University in Regensburg in which he repeatedly criticized dehellenization. Three stages of dehellenization program in Christian theology are the subject of his criticism: from the banishment of metaphysics from theology in the Reformation, through historization in liberal theology of the nineteenth and twentieth century to the erasing of the traces of Hellenization of Christian faith in the idea of inculturation. He also argues against mind limitation started by mathematization of European science in Renaissance Platonism and canonized by Kant. The consequences of mind limitation are not only relevant to Christianity which strives towards the very opposite – broadening of the mind , but to the Western spirit on the whole. (shrink)

Tekst je prvi deo obimnije studije u kojoj je analizirano delo Aleksandra Radisceva, vodeceg predstavnika Prosvetiteljstva u Rusiji XVIII veka. Polazeci od odnosa Voltera i Didroa prema ruskoj imperatorki Katarini Velikoj, autor u uvodnom delu rada formulise razloge za bavljenje ruskom recepcijom Prosvetiteljstva. U prvom poglavlju interpretirane su razlicita tumacenja fenomena 'ruske inteligencije' jer se Radiscev smatra njenim rodonacelnikom. U drugom delu izlozena je biografija Radisceva koja olaksava razmatranje njegovih ideja. Analiza tih ideja, kao i 'prosvecenog apsolutizma' Katarine II, (...) class='Hi'>bice predmet razmatranja u nastavku ovog rada. (shrink)

Dans cet article l?auteur situe le sujet de sa recherche et donne un aper?u des th?ories dominantes qui examinent le processus de la transformation du champ acad?mique dans les pays ayant adh?r?? la D?claration de Bologne, aussi bien que des th?ories qui peuvent contribuer? expliquer l??tat actuel du champ de l?enseignement sup?rieur. L??laboration de ce sujet a pour son but principal la construction d?un instrument analytique ad?quat pour la conceptualisation et la recherche sur la r?forme du syst?me de l?enseignement sup?rieur. (...) Une attention particuli?re sera consacr?e? l?analyse du champ acad?mique en Serbie. U ovom clanku autorka daje obrazlozenje svoje istrazivacke teme i pregled dominantnih teorija koje se bave transformacijom akademskog polja u zemljama koje su se obavezale na primenu Bolonjske deklaracije, ali i teorija koje mogu doprineti objasnjenju aktuelnog stanja polja visokog obrazovanja. Glavni cilj realizacije ove teme jeste konstruisanje adekvatnog analitickog instrumenta za promisljanje i istrazivanje reforme sistema visokog obrazovanja. Posebna paznja bice posvecena analizi akademskog polja u Srbiji. (shrink)

Kako se danas može zamisliti plodonosan dijalog između kršćanske teologije i psihologije? Autor pokušava odgovoriti na to pitanje iz teološkoga motrišta. Povijest odnosa između teologije i psihologije vidi se unutar širega konteksta stoljetne rasprave o odnosima između vjere i znanosti, o načinu znanstvene i teološke spoznaje.Rad je podijeljen u tri dijela. U prvom dijelu članka autor predstavlja dva načelno različita oblika ili modela odnosa između teologije i psihologije, a to su: model isključivosti i model poistovjećivanja.U drugom dijelu rada dijalogu teologije (...) i psihologije pristupa se iz perspektive integralne antropologije, u kojoj se čovjek promatra kao tjelesno-psihičko-društveno-duhovno biće. Teološka antropologija, za razliku od filozofijske, medicinske, psihologijske ili biologijske antropologije, bavi se definitivnim osmišljavanjem čovjeka.U završnom dijelu članka autor nabraja neke izazove interdisciplinarnoga dijaloga teologije i psihologije za pastoralni rad, gdje svaka od dviju disciplina unosi u međusobnu razmjenu svoju vlastitu praksu – dušobrižništvo, odnosno psihoterapiju.How to conceive a fruitful dialogue between Christian theology and psychology? The author is trying to answer the question from theological point of view. The history of relationship between theology and psychology is evident in a wider context of centuries old dispute on the relations between faith and science and on the method of scientific and theological cognition.The work consists of three parts. In the first part the author presents two in principle different possibilities of determining the relationship between theology and psychology, and these are: “the model of exclusiveness”, and “the model of identification”.In the second part of the work the relation between theology and psychology is viewed from the perspective of integral anthropology in which man is observed as a physical-psychicalsocial- spiritual being. The theological anthropology, as different from philosophical, medical or biological anthropology, deals with definite. In the final part, the author counts some challenges of interdisciplinary dialogue between theology and psychology for pastoral work, where each of the two disciplines brings its own praxis into mutual exchange – spiritual charge, i. e. psychotherapy. (shrink)

Empirijsko terensko istrazivanje obavljeno je u 20 gradova n Srbiji metodom dubinskog intervjua sa ciljem da se ispita kako su sami gradjani doziveli poslednje godine rezima Slobodana Milosevica i nastale promene posle 5. oktobra 2000. Paznja je bila usmerena na stavove ispitanika o uzrocima pada bivseg rezima, o razlozima koji su ih motivisali da se (ne)angazuju u borbi za drustvene promene, o dozivljaju 5. oktobra, o promenama nastalim posle demokratskog prevrata, pretnja novoj vlasti, kao i prema medjunarodnoj zajednici i odnosu (...) prema ratnim zlocincima, sa posebnim osvrtom na stav prema Haskom sudu. Dokumentacija koja je prikupljena bice obradjena kvalitativnom metodom koja omogucuje da se odgovori razmatraju u kontekstu svakodnevnog zivota ispitanika i sacuvaju originalni stavovi koji se razlikuju od uobicajenih shema iz dnevne stampe i zvanicnih izvestaja. (shrink)

U Metafizici Γ. 3 počelo neproturječnosti otkriva se kao počelo mišljenja, ali i počelo svih bića. Prema tome, PN ima svoja dva aspekta – ontički i logički. Ti su aspekti izraženi različitim formulacijama počela neproturječnosti koje nalazimo u Γ. 3. Ne može se govoriti o primatu nekog od aspekata, jer su oni upućeni jedan na drugoga: mišljenje je mišljenje bića, a biće je ono što se u mišljenju misli. PN se ističe time da je najpostojanije počelo jer je ono nužno (...) najspoznatljivije. Spoznatljivost ovoga počela ne ovisi o nekim subjektivno- psihološkim uvjetima već o tome da je PN ono konstitutivno svakog spoznavanja, što proizlazi iz njegove onto logičke naravi.In Metaphysics Γ. 3 the principle of non-contradiction is revealed as the principle of thought but also as the principle of all beings. Thus, it has two aspects – ontical and logical. These aspects are expressed by different formulations of PN which can be found in Γ. 3. It cannot be said that any aspect has primacy, because each one bears necessary relation with the other: thinking is the thinking of being and being is that which is thought in the thinking. PN is distinguished as the firmest principle because it is that which is necessarily the most knowable. Knowability of this principle does not depend on some subjective-psychological conditions, but on the fact that the PN is that which is constitutive in every knowledge, and that follows from its onto-logical nature. (shrink)

Jedna od istaknutih teorijskih koristi pojma utemeljivanja jeste njegova sposobnost da ujedinjuje različite slučajeve metafizičke zavisnosti i determinacije. To pretpostavlja da je sam ovaj pojam jedinstven. Jedinstvo utemeljivanja uobičajeno se prećutno pretpostavljalo među teoretičarima utemeljivanja, ali je s vremenom postalo predmet diskusije usled različitih skeptičkih izazova. U ovom radu ispitaćemo tri najopštije teorije jedinstva utemeljivanja: 1) singularizam − gledište po kojem je je dinstvo utemeljivanja zasnovano na ideji da postoji samo jedna relacija utemeljivanja; 2) generalizam − gledište po kojem utemeljivanje (...) treba razumeti kao generički pojam; i 3) gledište koje tvrdi da jedinstvo utemeljivanja počiva na objektivnim sličnostima među različitim relacijama utemeljivanja. Posebna pažnja biće posvećena trećoj opciji koja je bila u velikoj meri zanemareno gledište. Naša razmatranja će ukazati da ovo stanovište, zahvaljujući svojim inherentnim teorijskim vrlinama, zaslužuje mnogo oz biljniji tretman u metafizičkim raspravama o utemeljivanju. (shrink)

Kako je moguće baviti se Platonom danas, ukoliko je filozofija „svoje vreme obuhvaćeno mislima“? Autor Platonovom delu ne pristupa kao dogmatskom štivu, već kao tekstu prožetom paradoksima, koje izmiče svakom unapred pripremljenom, šematizovanom modelu čitanja. Obratiti se Platonu kao filozofskoj paradigmi isplativo je ukoliko filozofi koji progovaraju iz dubine vremena mogu nešto važno da nam saopšte i ukoliko smo kadri da im postavimo autentično pitanje. Zato filozofi moraju imati dah delfskog ronioca, jer biser se ne nalazi u svakoj školjci. Knjiga (...) Iz Platonove filozofije ulazi u red značajnih knjiga posvećenih Platonovoj filozofiji. Veći deo knjige je objavljen u časopisima od svetskog ugleda (na nemačkom i engleskom jeziku). Time je njen kvalitet potvrđen recenzijama koje su nastale van domaćih koterija, a delo se samerilo sa aktuelnim pristupima Platonu. Knjiga se bavi problemima koji su formulisani u drugoj polovini prošlog veka (napisano i nenapisano učenje), preko naizgled klasičnih tema (dvostruki paradoks, utemeljenje istorijskog i političkog, eros), do tekstova koji pogađaju fenomen aktuelnosti Platonove teorije i prakse (problemi kongitivne dispozicije i bioetike u Platonovoj filozofiji). Ispred nas je Platon u dijalogu sa filozofskim strujanjima s kraja dvadesetog i početkom ovog veka. Za Irinu Deretić smisao filozofskog dijaloga leži u procenjivanju i odmeravanju stanovišta u raspravi, kako bi se vlastito stanovište preciznije artikulisalo. Ne radi se o utopijskoj komunikativnoj zajednici - već o karakteru filozofskog dijaloga, koji je upućen na unutrašnji, a ne na spoljašnji agon. Platon iz sasvim nesofističkih razloga preuzima metodu sofista kada „slabiju stvar čini jačom“. Tome je suprotna eristička (ne)kultura, u kojoj strasti imaju prevagu na davanjem bilo kakvih, „a kamoli valjanih razloga“, piše Irina Deretić. Iz problematičnosti jezika i sučeljavanja sa bliskim granicama pojmljivosti, ne mora da proizađe i slabost logosa. Naprotiv, snaga logosa je obrnuto proporcionalna sposobnošću da se odredi njegova nemoć. Granicu Platonove misli Irina Deretić jezgrovito formuliše: „Platonov jezik je sav okrenut biću, i usmeren je na saznajno ovladavanje njime. Snaga argumenta učesnika u Platonovim razgovorima upravo se sastoji u njihovoj sposobnosti da tačno pogode stvarnost na koju se odnose i koju nastoje da izraze“. Ali to vodi oblikovanju samog karaktera dijaloga: sagovornici se podređuju vođstvu „same stvari“ mišljenja. Međutim, logos nije svemoćan, i inače, a pogotovo ne za Platona. Irina Deretić insistira na autentičnom smislu nemoći logosa kao racionalnog diskursa, koji se pokazuje na odlučujućim mestima, tamo gde njegove refleksije o idejama, posebno o Ideji Dobra bivaju suočene sa granicama njihove saznatljivosti i saopštivosti. Napokon, Platonova okrenutost biću nije dovela do teorije adekvatnosti između bića i jezika, nego do isticanja paradoksa i metafore. A šta je iza njihovog vela - ništa, ili su oni, naprotiv, konstitutivni za biće, da li uopšte može biti odlučeno? U skladu sa filozofskim vjeruju Nikolaja Berđajeva, može se formulisati karakteristika ove važne i lepe knjige: Iz dubine vremena izvire sposobnost da se filozofski misli, a to onda nije u koliziji sa aktuelnim „primenama“ filozofske refleksije. Naprotiv. (shrink)

The article is devoted to the analysis of the?Pussy riot? case and the peculiarities of Russian postsecularism. Special emphasis is placed on the phenomenon of post-secular hybrids, i.e. the overcoming of the situation of social differentiation between religion and other social subsystems. It is claimed that the materials of the trial against?Pussy riot? make evident the appearance in Russia of at least three post-secular hybrids: 1) the blending of religion and politics; 2) installation of religious norms into the public order (...) of the secular state; 3) significance of confessional legal experts as part of the new?ideological state apparatus?. Slucaj?Pusi rajot? postao je glavni religijski, ako ne i drustveno-politicki dogadjaj u Rusiji u 2012. godini. Autor ce na osnovu analize materijala koji se odnosi na navedeni slucaj i diskusije koje su potom usledile, pokusati da pokaze specificnosti ruskog iskustva desekularizacije i prelaza prema novoj situaciji postsekularizma. Kroz prizmu sudjenja ucesnicima pank molebana bice razmotreni postsekularni hibridi nastali kao rezultat desekularizacije, u kojima su cudnovato isprepleteni religijski i svetovni elementi. Radi se o tri postsekularna hibrida: ukrstanju religijske i sekularne sfere, ukrstanju religije i javnog poretka i pojavi konfesionalnih religiologa - eksperata. (shrink)

U radu na ovom individualnom projektu bice razmatran odnos interesa i morala u politici s posebnim osvrtom na proces razbijanja Jugoslavije i projekat globalizacije. Osnovna istrazivacka hipoteza koja se u radu nastoji potvrditi jeste da je remoralizacija svetske politike kojom su se na retorickom nivou legitimisali pomenuti procesi ostala na nivou na kojem se i zacela, odnosno da su u odnosima politickih aktera na globalnom, bas kao i na lokalnom nivou, i dalje na snazi moderni principi real-politike sa interesom (...) kao centralnom kategorijom politickog zivota i moci kao vrhovnom politickom vrednoscu. U tom kontekstu posebna paznja bice posvecena razmatranju kljucnih elemenata spoljnopoliticke tehnologije SAD kao glavnog aktera pomenutih procesa. U zakljucnom delu rada obrazlaze se potreba za jednim novim konceptom i praksom globalne politike koja bi uspesnije resavala krupne probleme pred kojima se covecanstvo naslo na razmedju dva veka i dva milenijuma. (shrink)

Antropontologija kao filozofski diskurs razlikuje se od klasične ontologije, fenomenološke ontologije, ontologije biti i nove ontologije. Poznato je da su različiti ontološki pogledi doveli do različitih prijelomnih točaka u povijesti filozofije. Antropontologija nudi novi tip ontologije koji se ustvari usredotočuje posebice na ljudska bića kao početnu točku. Što obuhvaća filozofski napor koji nastoji analizirati veze između ljudskog bića i znanja svijeta u svjetlu antropontologije? Što antropontologija razmatra u vezama između bića? Prije svega je nužno razjasniti ova pitanja. Tvrdimo da svako (...) biće egzistira u svijetu života ili općenito u svijetu kao singularno i konkretno biće. No ono se razumijeva pomoću pojma, tj. riječi ili termina; drugim riječima, bića egzistiraju kroz intelektualne i lingvističke činove ili u granicama jezika. Svako biće je partikularno ili singularno, međutim može doseći univerzalnu poziciju pomoću ljudskog bića i kroz obrasce mišljenja, govorenja ili pisanja, drukčije rečeno, kroz misleći svijet i lingvistički svijet. U ovome slučaju, ‘ontologija’ kao dio termina ‘antropontologija’ odnosi se na nominalističku ontologiju koja tvrdi da svako biće egzistira u okviru singularnosti. Općenito, antropontologija kao filozofski diskurs fokusira se na napetost između singularnosti i univerzalnosti.Anthropontology as a philosophical discourse distinguishes itself from the classical ontology, phenomenological ontology, the ontology of essence and the new ontology. It is well known that the different ontological views have given rise to different breaking points in the history of philosophy. Anthropontology offers a new kind of ontology which, in fact, focuses especially on human being as a starting point. What does the philosophical effort which tries to analyze the relationships between the human being and the world-knowledge contain in the light of anthropontology? What does anthropontology take into consideration in the relationships between the entities? First of all, it is necessary to explain these points. We claim that every entity exists in the world of life or generally in the world as a singular and concrete entity. But it is understood by the concept and a word or term; in the other words, they exist through the intellectual and linguistic acts or in the limits of the language. Every entity is a particular or singular one, however it can reach the universal position by the human being and through the pattern of thinking and saying or writing, in the other words, through the thinking world and the linguistic world. In this case, the ‘ontology’ part of the term of ‘anthropontology’ refers to the nominalist ontology which asserts that every entity exists in the framework of the singularity. Generally, anthropontology, as a philosophical discourse, focuses on the tension between the singularity and the universality.L’anthropontologie, en tant que discours philosophique, se distingue de l’ontologie classique, de l’ontologie phénoménologique, de l’ontologie de l’essence et de la nouvelle ontologie. Il est bien connu que différents points de vue ontologiques ont mené à différents points de rupture dans l’histoire de la philosophie. L’anthropontologie propose un nouveau type d’ontologie qui, en fait, se concentre en particulier sur l’être humain comme son point de départ. Que comprend l’effort philosophique qui cherche à analyser les rapports entre l’être humain et les connaissances du monde à la lumière de l’anthropologie ? Que l’anthropontologie prend-elle en considération dans les rapports entre entités ? Tout d’abord, il est nécessaire d’expliquer ces points. Nous affirmons que toute entité existe dans le monde de la vie, ou de manière générale dans le monde comme entité singulière et concrète. Mais elle se comprend par le concept, c’està- dire le mot ou le terme ; autrement dit, les entités existent à travers des actes intellectuels et linguistiques ou dans les limites du langage. Si toute entité est particulière et singulière, elle peut cependant atteindre une position universelle par l’être humain et à travers les schémas de pensée, d’énonciation et d’écriture ; autrement dit, par le monde pensant et le monde linguistique. Dans ce cas, « l’ontologie » en tant que partie du terme « anthropologie » se rapporte à l’ontologie nominaliste qui affirme que toute entité existe dans le cadre de la singularité. De manière générale, l’anthropontologie en tant que discours philosophique se concentre sur la tension entre la singularité et l’universalité.Die Anthropontologie als philosophischer Diskurs weicht ab von der klassischen Ontologie, der phänomenologischen Ontologie, Ontologie des Wesens sowie der neuen Ontologie. Bekanntermaßen hatten die verschiedenartigen ontologischen Gesichtspunkte quer durch die Geschichte der Philosophie unterschiedliche Wendepunkte zur Folge. Die Anthropontologie verleiht ein neues Gepräge der Ontologie, das tatsächlich speziell das Menschenwesen als Ansatzpunkt zum Kernstück macht. Was umschließt das philosophische Bemühen, das die Beziehungen zwischen Menschenwesen und Weltwissen zu analysieren sucht, im Lichte der Anthropontologie? Was berücksichtigt die Anthropontologie bezüglich der Relationen zwischen den Entitäten? Zuallererst gilt es, die obigen Sachverhalte darzulegen. Wir behaupten, jedwede Entität existiere in deren Lebenswelt bzw. gemeinhin in der Welt als singuläre und konkrete Entität. Sie wird jedoch mithilfe des Begriffs bzw. des Wortes respektive Terminus verstanden. Mit anderen Worten: Die Wesen bestehen durch intellektuelle und linguistische Akte oder im Rahmen der Sprachgrenzen. Jegliches Wesen ist partikular oder singulär, allerdings kann es vermöge des Menschenwesens und per Denk-, Sprach- bzw. Schreibmuster die universale Position erlangen; oder umgeformt – durch denkende Welt und linguistische Welt. Im vorliegenden Fall rekurriert das „Ontologie“- Glied der Zusammensetzung „Anthropontologie“ auf die nominalistische Ontologie, die asseriert, ein jedes Wesen existiere in der Sphäre der Singularität. Im Großen und Ganzen konzentriert sich die Anthropontologie als philosophischer Diskurs auf die Spannung zwischen Singularität und Universalität. (shrink)

Prema Foucaultovom razumijevanju posve specifični, ali svakodnevni, kontekst čini da jezik, život i rad određuju bit modernoga čovjeka, a u konsekvencijama uvjeta tako shvaćene ontologije i »znanost o čovjeku«. Habermas će pak, posve se koncentrirajući na komunikativni potencijal jezika, shvatiti antropologiju svakodnevlja posve različito Foucaultovoj poststrukturalističkoj kritici metafizike i tradicionalnom poimanju uzročnosti, identiteta, subjekta i istine. Ovdje bismo otvorili debatu Foucault/Habermas da bismo ispitali u kojem je odnosu praksa svakodnevlja s jezikom. Tvrdimo da je veza jezika, epistemologije i društvenopolitičkoga svakodnevlja (...) temeljna kad je u pitanju teza da čovjek u političkom smislu postoji kao jezično biće. To ćemo pokušati utvrditi na nekim Habermasovim točkama racionalizacije društva i komunikativnosti za koja ćemo ponuditi i tri kritička mjesta: poststrukturalističko i postmoderno, feminističko, i mediološko.According to Foucault’s understanding quite specific but the everyday context makes it possible that language, life and work define the essence of modern man, and in consequences in terms of such understood ontology also the “science of man”. Habermas would, however, completely concentrating himself on the communicative potential of language understand the anthropology of everyday life quite different from Foucault’s poststructuralist critique of metaphysics and traditional notions of causality, identity, subject and truth. We would like to open the Foucault/Habermas debate in order to examine the relation between practice of everyday life and language. We claim that the relationship nature of language, epistemology and sociopolitical everyday life is fundamental when it comes to the thesis that in the political sense human exists as a linguistic being. We will try to determine that thesis with few points of Habermas’ rationalization of society and communication for which we offer three critical places: poststructuralist and postmodern, feminist, and perspective of mediology. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: The Historical Context The Life of Dante Later Writings The Commedia Dante's Death Aims of this Book Dante as Moral Philosopher.