Search

Analyzes the relationship between science and education. Develops a four-level model for teaching and understanding scientific systems: (1) inner-scientific, (2) socio-historical, (3)transcendental-critical, and (4) practice-philosophical. Building from the ideas of several key theorists, suggests clarity is possible only beyond the dualism of natural science and humanities. (CH)

Defines terms, discusses the scope and content of educational history and its relation to history, the social sciences, and the humanities. Related fields such as educational philosophy, educational sociology, and comparative education are discussed. Concludes that the study of educational history is fundamental to an understanding of the development of man and society. Provides qualifications of the educational historian. (KC)

In this response to an article by Kurt Greiner on «Psychotherapy as text medicine», two aspects are put up for discussion. The first is the question of whether, in the current developments in psychotherapy, which is strongly dominated by a medical-technical world view, the two word components «text» and «medicine» do not reinforce this view – also criticized by Greiner – and whether these two terms are therefore rather unfortunate choices (even if they are interpreted differently by Greiner). This raises the question of whether it is not necessary to differentiate more clearly between (a) psychotherapy as an object of science – which is thus located in the area of cultural-objective symbol systems – and (b) psychotherapy as a relationship-forming activity – which must first of all or at least also focus on bodily-pre-linguistic experience. The second aspect that is put up for discussion is the relationship between different scientific cultures. Greiner’s contrast between the humanities and the natural sciences is shared in terms of method, but questioned in terms of content, as the objects and principles of the phenomena treated by the natural sciences are ultimately also creations of the human mind, as emphasized, for example, in the Pauli-Jung dialogue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Studii de Ştiintă şi Cultură is the property of Studii de Stiinta si Cultura and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

As many theoretical psychologists turn to the humanities to construct a psychological science that does not shortchange human subjectivity, many humanities scholars have turned to the sciences to bolster their declining standing in the academy. In juxtaposing these trends, I consider how epistemic and methodological wars in the humanities echo those that have plagued psychology and so call into question their use to remedy an allegedly scientistic “mainstream” psychology. By failing to grapple with this most relevant controversy, theoretical psychologists may be jeopardizing their efforts to put a more human face on scientific psychology.

In the context of the present experiment in philosophy of psychotherapy, psychotherapeutic practice is interpreted across modalities as a healing art related to text. This attempt at a general functional paradigm, which is intended as an offer for discussion, is based on the premise that the psychotherapeutic subject is «subjective experience», which is articulated in both verbal and non-verbal «text», which in turn needs to be understood. Before doing so, however, it is necessary to outline the philosophical discourse context, which for over 100 years has revolved around the contentious question of what kind of research psychotherapy represents: science or humanities? After all, the text hermeneutical reading of psychotherapy can only be coherently understood against this background, as it is embedded in this discussion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Internationales Archiv für Sozialgeschichte der deutschen Literatur is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Warum sie für Universität, Gesellschaft und den mündigen Menschen wichtig ist, kann die Theologie gut begründen und greift dabei auf soziologische, philosophische, kulturanthropologische, historische, psychologische und bildungstheoretische Hintergründe zurück. Gleichwohl hat sich die Wirkung solcher Begründungsskizzen als sehr kurzreichweitig erwiesen. Das Erklären nach außen hin, warum Theologie wichtig ist, führt nicht dazu, dass Rektorate oder gesellschaftliche Akteure besorgt sind bezüglich eines Rückbaus der Theologie an Universitäten. Auch der Rückgang der Zahl der Studieninteressierten bleibt davon unberührt. Offenkundig ist das Problem nicht in der theoretischen Selbstmodellierung des Faches zu suchen, vielmehr wird die Theologie als Wissenschaft nicht so erlebt, wie es ihre Wissenschaftstheorie und ihre gesellschaftliche Selbstbegründung erwarten ließen.Daher ist es notwendig, einen Blick auf die Wahrnehmung von Theologie in der Gesellschaft zu werfen. Dabei zeigt sich, dass unterbestimmt ist, wer „Religion“ im öffentlichen Diskurs repräsentiert: Welche Rolle kommt dabei Kirche, Theologie und erkennbar religiösen Personen zu? Umgekehrt ist zu fragen, wie die Theologie dieses „Außen“ des öffentlichen Diskurses wahrnimmt und wie sie ihre eigene(n) Rolle(n) darin professionell ausgestaltet. Mit dieser Verhältnisbestimmung von Außen- und Innensicht lassen sich Bedarfe ausmachen, von denen die Zukunft der Theologie an staatlichen Universitäten abhängt, und Wirkfaktoren identifizieren, um diese Bedarfe zu beeinflussen.

By rereading Krämer and Bredekamp’s “Culture, Technology, Cultural Techniques” (2003/2013), this article aims at appropriating and evaluating the significance—and philosophy—of the mathematical and computer science elements in it. This contribution aims to answer the following questions: How do we understand, interpret, and evaluate the notion that symbol and technology interpenetrate and that their functional processes can mutually substitute for one another? How do we evaluate this theologically? This article provides a basic building block for a liturgical theology of the digital, the computer, calculations, and algorithms. After an introduction, I consider four aspects from the article of Krämer and Bredekamp: the relationship between technological creativity, imagination, and the metaphysical; the convertibility of the symbolic and technical; the connectivity of technical machines in a network; and the new knowledge order associated with these developments. In a concluding paragraph, future developments regarding technology, liturgy, and ritual are outlined and considered.

Over the past few decades, research article abstracts have been receiving increased attention of scholars. While abstracts in English have been extensively researched, there are few studies on abstracts in Russian and no studies on abstracts in Lithuanian. This study investigates the rhetorical structure and linguistic features of research article abstracts across different humanities disciplines in Lithuanian, English and Russian. My aim is to detect similarities and differences in abstract structure and corresponding linguistic features within the three different academic writing traditions. I seek to answer the question which writing tradition, the Anglo-Saxon or the Continental, is closer to Lithuanian academic writing. This study employs contrastive qualitative and quantitative analysis and corpus-based methodology. The results highlight aspects of abstract writing that may be relevant for researchers while preparing abstracts of their research articles in these three languages.

This piece makes a claim for the transformative power of hermeneutics by seeing in the tradition places of undischarged Utopian potential, which are often found in a close hermeneutic engagement with poetry. All such readings, it is argued, ought to meet the four watchwords of any contemporary interpretation viz., that such readings be non-orthodox, non-nostalgic, non-rejectionist, and non-apocalyptic. Such a reading is attempted of Langston Hughes’s poem “Let America Be America Again” against the backdrop of an interpretation of insights from Gianni Vattimo. All this is meant to be evidence as well of the dire necessity of the Humanities.