Search

Na osnovi pojma svijet kao cjelina, kako je oblikovan kod Kanta i Hegela, moguće je artikulirati jednu dinamičnu viziju svijeta pomoću koje se adekvatno predočuju međusobne veze različitih faktora. Na taj bi način svaka strana »računice«, s obzirom na koju se promišljaju problemi mainstream bioetike, bila problematizirana u jednom kompleksnom kontekstu međusobnog uvjetovanja. Dijalektička ideja svijeta kao cjeline pomogla bi bioetici steći uvid u način na koji se njeni principi posreduju s principima ostalih poredaka čovjekova djelovanja, što predstavlja pokušaj teorijske podrške svijesti bioetičara o potrebi za globalnim pristupom svojem predmetu. Time što će svoje principe formulirati s obzirom na prijeko potreban globalni pristup, na primjer u vezi s globalnom ekološkom katastrofom, izvjesnije je da će moći postati jednim mehanizmom radikalne promjene naše svakodnevice., Based on the notion of the world as a whole, as formulated by Kant and Hegel, it is possible to articulate a dynamic vision of the world in which the interrelationships between various factors are adequately represented. In this way, each side of the “calculus” would be problematised in the face of the problems of mainstream bioethics in a complex context of mutual conditionality. The dialectical idea of the world as a whole would help bioethics gain insight into the way its principles are mediated with the principles of other orders of human action, an attempt to theoretically support bioethicists’ awareness of the need for a global approach to their subject. By formulating its principles in the light of a much-needed global approach, for example, concerning a global environmental catastrophe, it is more likely that it will be able to become one mechanism for radically changing our daily lives.

Pitanje odnosa između osobe i prirode je modernoga porijekla, no ima svoje korijene u problemu (autentičnog) bitka (Sein), naročito ljudskog bitka (Dasein), što je ustvari jedno antropološ- ko pitanje. Osoba kao biće s logosom vlada sobom kao i drugima te prirodom. Kao simboličko biće osoba je suočena s teškim zadatkom pronalaska ravnoteže između nje i prirode. Ovo pitanje veze eskaliralo je u modernome dobu zbog isključive brige društva za znanost i tehniku, politički i ideološki vođenu prvenstveno kroz medijsko-tehnološki ovladan svijet, pri čemu nedostaju uvjeti za autentičan dijalog između osoba. No logos sâm mora održavati ravnotežu s obzirom na njegovu pravu prirodu a to je moguće jedino ako je osoba otvorena prema (svim) drugim osobama te dijaloški otvorena rješenjima svjetskih problema u kontekstu šire ljudske prirode. Ovaj tip odgovornosti ukorijenjen je u odgovoru: odgovaranje uključuje slušanje, a čuti znači ne samo slušati glasove drugih, nego i čuti njihova srca te osjetiti ih u punini vlastitoga bića. Ova simbolička zadaća duboko je duhovna., The issue of the relationship between person and nature is a modern one, but it has its roots in the problem of (genuine) Being (Sein), particularly the problem of the human being (Dasein), which is actually an anthropological question. Person as a being with logos governs herself as well as others and nature. As a symbolic being, she is confronted with the difficult task of finding a balance between herself and nature. The issue of this relationship escalated in the modern era because of society’s exclusive concern with science and technology, which is primarily guided both politically and ideologically by a world ruled by media and technology. This world lacks the conditions for a genuine dialogue among persons. Yet logos itself has to maintain balance regarding its own true nature and this is possible only if a person is open to (all) other persons and dialogically open to solutions about the issues of the world in the context of a broader human nature. This type of responsibility is rooted in response. Responding includes hearing, and to hear means not only to listen to the voices of others, but also to hear their hearts and to feel them with one’s entire being. This symbolic task is also deeply spiritual., Bien qu’elle ait ses racines dans le problème de l’(authentique) Être (Sein) et plus précisément dans celui de l’être humain (Dasein), la question de la relation entre la personne et la nature est un problème contemporain qui, à vrai dire, relève de l’anthropologie. En effet, une personne en tant qu’être doué de logos qui se gouverne, se gouverne aussi bien elle-même que les autres et la nature. En tant qu’être symbolique, la personne est confrontée à la difficile tâche de trouver un équilibre entre elle et la nature. Le problème de cette relation s’est intensifié dans l’ère moderne en raison de l’intérêt exclusif accordé par la société à la science et à la technologie, guidées toutes deux par une politique et une idéologie appartenant à un monde dirigé par une technologie médiatique qui néglige les conditions favorables pour un dialogue authentique entre les personnes. Or le logos lui-même doit maintenir cet équilibre en regard de sa véritable nature et cela est possible uniquement dans la mesure où la personne est ouverte aux autres personnes (dans leur totalité) et au dialogue, afin de trouver des solutions aux problèmes du monde dans un contexte plus large de nature humaine. Ce genre de responsabilité s’enracine dans une réponse : le répondre inclut l’écouter ; écouter ne signifie pas seulement entendre la voix des autres, mais aussi leur cœur en les ressentant dans la totalité de leur être. Cette tâche symbolique est profondément spirituelle., Die Frage der Beziehung zwischen einer Person und der Natur ist eine zeitgenössische Frage, jedoch schlägt sie ihre Wurzeln im Problem des ((eigentlichen) Seins), insbesondere des menschen (Dasein), was eigentlich eine anthropologische Frage ist. Eine Person als ein Wesen mit Logos regiert sich selbst ebenso wie die anderen und die Natur. Als ein symbolisches Wesen ist sie mit der diffizilen Aufgabe konfrontiert, ein Gleichgewicht zwischen sich selbst und der Natur zu finden. Dieses Beziehungsproblem eskalierte in der modernen Ära infolge des exklusiven Interesses der Gesellschaft an der Wissenschaft und Technologie, die politisch und ideologisch in erster Linie von einer medientechnologisch geregelten Welt gelenkt werden, wobei es an Voraussetzungen für einen echten Dialog zwischen den Personen mangelt. Jedoch muss der Logos selbst in Bezug auf dessen eigene wahre Natur das Gleichgewicht aufrechterhalten und dies ist nur möglich, wenn eine Person für (alle) andere(n) Personen und dialogisch für Lösungen der Weltprobleme in einem breiteren Kontext der menschlichen Natur offen ist. Diese Art von Verantwortung ist in einer Antwort verwurzelt: Eine Beantwortung umfasst das Zuhören, und zuhören heißt nicht nur, auf die Stimmen der anderen zu hören, sondern auch auf deren Herzen zu hören und sie mit dem ganzen eigenen Wesen zu fühlen. Diese symbolische Aufgabe ist zutiefst spirituell.

This work elaborates the existing spatial organization of World Tourism Organization (WTO) from the geographical point of view, and tries to explain the logic of the scope of particular spatial units. The first part of the work elaborates the history and conditions of the origin of the existing WTO official spatial organization and explains the basic differences between the WTO and geographical approach. The largest part of the work includes geographical analysis of particular regions and subregions according to the WTO, and includes some suggestions of the most appropriate solutions besides the critical approach. In the concluding part the author plead for appreciation of the WTO spatial organization by geographers in spite of the logic and the circumstances of the original formation and many exceptions from the common geographical regions. The author considers that understanding of the spatial organization of World Tourism Organization is essential for the qualified use and understanding of the various data and analysis published by the WTO as the basic data source in world tourism.

Znanstvena ovjera sekularizacije u ovome članku je okvirno područje istraživanja religiologijski relevantnih društveno-kulturalnih promjena, s posebnim naglaskom na značenju tih promjena za kršćanstvo i u samome kršćanstvu. Način na koji se promišlja o sekularizaciji pretpostavlja se kao prikladan za uvažavanje višeznačja i složenosti sekularizacijskih procesa u pogledu aktualizacije njihove hermeneutičke valjanosti za novije analize i tumačenja položaja i uloge kršćanstva i religije u suvremenom društvu i svijetu današnjice. Istodobno se nastoji oko aktualizacije relevantnih istraživanja Željka Mardešića, kako u pogledu samoga fenomena sekularizacije, tako i s obzirom na novije usporedive društveno-kulturalne procese u sadašnjosti., Scientific verification of secularization in this paper is taken as a general research framework investigating socio-cultural changes relevant in religiology, especially its consequences for Christianity and also within Christianity itself. The way secularization is here considered seems to be adequate for taking into account the polyvalency and complexity of some processes of secularization concerning its hermeneutical validity in due to further analyses and explanations of state and role Christianity and religions take in contemporary societies and in nowadays world. At the same time there is also endeavour to actualize some relevant Željko Mardešić’s researches, concerning both the phenomenon of secularization and some of comparable contemporary socio-cultural processes.