Search

U ovom diplomskom radu napravljen je pregled područja te su analizirani radovi koji se bave prepoznavanjem i izdvajanjem registarskih oznaka. Temeljem pregleda područja opisana je struktura ALPR sustava koja je podijeljena na tri dijela: način akvizicije slike, metode lokalizacije tablica te metode prepoznavanja znakova. Uspoređene su i testirane metode za lokalizaciju te prepoznavanje znakova registarskih oznaka. Cilj rada je da se na temelju analizirane literature i testiranih metoda da prijedlog ALPR sustava za slike prikupljene za izradu ovog diplomskog rada. Važno je voditi računa o položaju kamere prilikom akvizicije slike. Da bi se riješio problem osvjetljenja, potrebno je koristiti dobre metode predobrade. Ono u čemu se metode lokalizacije registarske oznake najviše razlikuju je način pretrage oznake na slici. Ono što se pokazalo najuspješnije je pretraga znakova. Kod prepoznavanja znakova najviše grešaka se javljalo zbog loše kvalitete slika, nagiba i kuta. Najčešće greške su zamjena sličnih znakova., This thesis reviews the field of ALPR and analyses the literature published on it. Based on the area overview, the structure of the ALPR system is divided into three parts: image acquisition, localization methods, and character recognition methods. Methods for localization and character recognition were tested and compared. The aim of this paper is to use the analyzed literature and tested methods to propose an ALPR system for the image collection of this thesis. Camera position is important when capturing the image. To solve the problem of brightness, good pre-processing methods should be used. The way in which the licence plate localization methods most differ is the way the licence plate is searched. The most successful method was the search for characters. The majority of mistakes in identifying the characters were due to poor quality images, inclines, and angles. The most common mistake was the of similar characters replacement.

Polarizacija između rata i mira u tradiciji filozofijske misli, poglavito u ontološkoj artikulaciji, često se veže za razlikovanje dobra i zla. U tome smislu, mir kao apsolutno i nepromjenjivo stanje zadobiva kategoriju dobra, dok rat kao promjenjivo stanje uz sebe veže nesavršenost ljudskoga svijeta i njemu pripadno metafizičko zlo (Leibniz). No shvati li se zlo kao praktičan problem (Svendsen), moguć je razgovor o inteligenciji zla (Baudrillard) te se postavlja pitanje o tome do koje se mjere treba uključiti u borbu za njegovo suzbijanje. Na tome tragu, u ovome radu promotrit će se neka od suvremenih tumačenja zla s naglaskom na novonastala sredstva borbe koja su često posredovana i potencirana različitim vrstama medijske manipulacije (terorizam). Istraživanje će poslužiti za pobliže određenje ontološkog statusa rata u medijski posredovanoj zbilji

Klasični balet tip je fizičke umjetnosti strogih estetskih zahtjeva. Baletu pogoduje vitka i mršava, ali i mišićava fiziologija tijela, stoga su balerine od rane dobi bavljenja ovim sportom zahtijevane održavati takav izgled tijela. Obzirom da baletni svijet teži mršavosti i lakoći, balerine su izravno ili neizravno poticane na gubitak tjelesne mase, a posljedično se javlja neprestana zabrinutost oko manipuliranja kalorijskim unosom. Dugoročno gledano ova težnja može rezultirati pojavom trijasa. Pod pojmom trijas sportašica podrazumijeva se međusobna povezanost nedostatnog unosa energije, poremećaja menstruacijskog ciklusa i niske gustoće kostiju u sportašica koje se bave sportovima koji zahtijevaju vitku građu tijela, kao što je balet. Cilj rada bio je primjenom jednokratnog upitnika, utvrditi prehrambene navike skupine balerina, a sastav tijela analiziran je na uređaju MC-180-MA (Tanita). Dobiveni rezultati prikazani su kao grupni. Trijas nije zabilježen u trenutku provedbe ispitivanja ali uočeni su rizični elementi koji mogu rezultirati njegovim razvojem u narednom razdoblju. Clasical ballet iz physical art with high estetic demands. It strives towards lean and flexible but at the same time muscular body and as a result ballet dancers are keep such body shape from the early years. Having in mind this lightness and thinness, ballet dancers are encouraged directly and indirectly to lose weight. On the long run that developes constant preocupation with caloric intake and can result in female athlete triad development. The term female athlete triad refers to the interconnection of insufficient energy intake, menstrual cycle disorders and low bone density in female athletes in sports that require slim body composition, like ballet. The goal of this thesis was to determine nutritional habits of ballerinas using questionnaire and body composition was analyzed on MC-180-MA (Tanita) analyzer. Data would be presented as group results. Ultimately, a triad risk assessment would be made after considering data collected by questionnaire and the body composition. Obtained results were presented for the group. Triad was not recorded at the moment of study but there were some risk elemnets which could indicate its dev elopment in the future period.

In this paper, the mode in which the self reveals itself in the contemporary world- historical situation will be analysed. Hence, the focus will be on a particular form of technological mediation of the self by examining a recent phenomenon commonly referred to as the s e l f i e . Unlike most psychological studies suggest, it will be argued that selfies enable a human epistemological need to realize self-knowledge. Thus, they are not a mere result of narcissistic disorder. Furthermore, I will claim that the self-knowledge achieved via the selfie does not necessarily offer a lower level of aesthetic perfection as a means of self- knowledge gained via other “classical” art forms, and that the prejudice that this is the case is a result of a surpassed dualistic view of human nature. In the conclusion of the paper the investigation will be extended to the question of what the selfie can teach us about the essence of (modern) technology and, inversely, what from (modern) technology we can tell about the (modern) self. In doing so, Gehlen’s and Heidegger’s views on the essence of technology will be employed. Finally, to answer the question of whether the self can be revealed in the selfie, Heidegger’s criticism of modern technology will be emphasized and the difference between technology as a way of revealing and technology as a purpose will be underlined.

U ovom radu će se promotriti što se događa kada smrt izlazi iz okvira pojedinačnog, a njezina se prijeteća blizina nadvije nad cijelu zajednicu u Camusovu romanu Kuga.

In this paper we will investigate the adequacy of a split between science and religion. Transhumanist movement, as a movement that promotes rational humanism instead of religious authority and usage of scientific methods in order to enhance our biology will be taken as an example of the scientific approach to human nature. Comparison of transhumanism and religious positions will show that they share the same metaphysical background. This similarity between them can also be seen in an eschatological approach to the existence and in the need for the body abandonment. Furthermore, “progressive” transhumanist have another mutual characteristic with religious thinking in the way they observe the relation between free will and determinism. In their common metaphysical hierarchical approach to the order of the being, transhumanists see Man as an absolute being on the top of this hierarchy, while monotheistic religions traditionally advocate for the government of God. Therefore, the question which remains opened is what kind of metaphysics is more adequate for human beings: theo-ontology or anthropo-ontology?

U ideji nadilaženja ljudskih bioloških ograničenja uporabom tehnike, tijelo se često promatra kao privremeni i ograničavajući prirodni zaostatak koji je potrebno nadvladati. Time se pokušava umanjiti opasnost koja proizlazi iz tehničkog usavršavanja čovjeka te zadiranja u njegovu biološku prirodu. Opravdavanje »odtjelovljenja«, koje je prisutno u transhumanističkoj misli, u novije je vrijeme radikalizirano u ideji metahumanizma. Metahumanizam je filozofsko-umjetnički koncept koji su osmislili Jaime del Val i Stefan Lorenz Sorgner, a koji ujedinjuje aspekte transhumanizma i posthumanizma. U metahumanizmu tijelo se promatra kao metatijelo, odnosno kao relacijsko tijelo, što njegovim promicateljima služi kao argument za prevladavanje kartezijanskog rascjepa između tijela i duha. No, metahumanistički »progresivni« proces »odtjelovljenja« vrhuni u raskidanju veze čovjeka sa svijetom, prirodom te drugim ljudskim i ne-ljudskim živim bićima. Stoga će se u ovom izlaganju pokušati ukazati na njegove destruktivne posljedice.

Neki od najpoznatijih promicatelja biomedicinskog poboljšanja čovjeka u pogledu ideje biomedicinskog moralnog poboljšanja našli su se na suprotnim stranama. Dok ga Ingmar Persson i Julian Savulescu smatraju najvažnijim oblikom biomedicinskog poboljšanja čovjeka, John Harris oštro je protiv. Harris, koji je inače veliki pobornik kognitivnog biomedicinskog poboljšanja čovjeka, moralno biomedicinsko poboljšanje smatra prijetnjom slobodi. U ovom će se izlaganju ukratko izložiti navedena debata s namjerom ukazivanja na to da u njoj niti jedna strana ne pobjeđuje. Naime, nemoguće je izbjeći međuovisnost svih vrsta poboljšanja, gdje su jedna sredstva drugih, jednako kao što je nemoguće reći da postoji dio ljudskog tijela čije stanje ne utječe na cjelinu ljudskog bića. Stoga će se u završetku rada otvoriti pitanje pozadine cjelokupne ideje tehno-znanstvenog pokušaja »oslobođenja« čovjeka.

In the contemporary historical process of the turn of the epochs, indeed, for the first time in history, one can observe the issue of a man's conscious turn. Technological development and the associated human creative power enabled the man to change (or, as it is often said, enhance) his nature. A new man as a programmatic (=regulative, utopian) idea as an expression of a man's legitimate wish for overstepping himself in the biological sense is often represented through the transhumanist movement. In this paper this idea will be seen in relation to the idea of a new man overstepping himself in an ideal way (embodiment of a theological or a political ideal). Therefore the fate of humanity after the turn of epochs in the context of technological development (Extinction, Recurrent collapse, Plateau and Posthumanity) will be opposed to the theological- moral perspective ; the idea of the birth of the New Middle Ages (N. A. Berdjajev) which implies spiritual enhancement taken as a man's return to the inner as opposed to the outer enhancement.

Rad predstavlja kritički prikaz međunarodne konferencije "Enhancement : Cognitive, Moral and Mood", koja je održana u Beogradu od 14. do 16. svibnja 2013. godine.

U analizi duhovne situacije vremena i proučavanju znakova dolaska nove epohe može se uočiti ponovna potreba za uspostavom cjeline. Stoga se pojam svijeta, kao obuhvatni pojam, nameće kao temeljni pojam nove epohe. Prilikom potrage za suvremenim mišljenjem koje već uzima pojam svijeta kao središnji pojam, integrativna bioetika pokazuje se kao mogući odgovor, čime ujedno postaje znakom nastupanja nove epohe.

Technological development has enabled humanity to change (or, as it is often said, enhance) its nature. The idea of human enhancement, as a contemporary theoretical example of a human desire to transcend itself biologically, poses the question of human nature. In this paper the idea of human nature will be examined in terms of its continuity and volatility, especially in light of the conception of man/woman as a “defective being (mangelhaftes Wesen), which appears in philosophy under different versions (Anaximander, Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant, Johann Gottfried von Herder, Arnold Gehlen, Erich Fromm etc.). This understanding of human nature suggests that humanity is biologically imperfect (for example if we compare it with non-human animals, the former is biologically less equipped for the life in nature), but precisely this insufficiency is what enables it to construct a “human world” (culture and institutions). Therefore, this idea reveals a crucial contradiction in an encounter between the human person and technology. On one side, because it derives from his/her biological imperfection, the interpretation of the human person as a “defective being” can exculpate the desire to technologically enhance itself. On the other hand, human accomplishments, especially culture, may also be interpreted as a product or compensation of this same “imperfect” nature. From this perspective technological improvement of biological “imperfection” does not reveal as salutary anymore, but, on the contrary, as a destruction of a possibility of a “human” world.

Glavna je tema ove knjige proces prelamanja svjetsko-povijesnih epoha koji se u suvremenim prilikama prvi put odvija pod vidom otvorene mogućnosti “prijeloma” unutar ljudske prirode. Naime, napredak tehnike i shvaćanje znanja kao moći omogućilo je čovjeku mijenjanje vlastite prirode. U tom se smislu, reaktualiziranjem pitanja o biti ljudske prirode i biti tehnike, u ovoj knjizi pokušalo pridonijeti suvremenoj raspravi o uporabi tehno-znanosti u svrhu nadilaženja ljudskih bioloških ograničenja. Naglašavanjem drugačijih, a također prisutnih, promišljanja koja uključuju znanstvene, ali i neznanstvene perspektive, ponuđena je alternativa redukcionističkom pristupu svijetu i čovjeku, što je potenciralo pitanje ulaska u novu epohu u kojoj su temeljni elementi drugačije strukturirani, a znanje se razumije kao odgovornost. Knjiga se sastoji od dviju većih cjelina te njima pripadnih poglavlja i odjeljaka, uvoda i zaključka. U prvoj cjelini postavljeno je pitanje o biti ljudske prirode u sklopu čega je izloženo razumijevanje ideje ljudske prirode kroz povijest i njezino artikuliranje unutar filozofske antropologije. Zatim se pristupilo interpretaciji čovjeka kao manjkavog bića, pri čemu je posebna pažnja posvećena interpretaciji čovjeka kao manjkavog bića u Herderovoj, Gehlenovoj i Frommovoj filozofiji. Taj dio istraživanja stvorio je pretpostavke za razumijevanje moderne tehnike kao pokušaja kompenzacije biološke manjkavosti čovjeka, nakon čega je bilo neophodno sagledavanje suvremenih pokušaja samoprekoračenja čovjeka u biološkom smislu, koji se mogu prepoznati u ideji biomedicinskog poboljšanja čovjeka. Kako bi se nanovo otvorilo pitanje o konstantnosti i promjenjivosti ljudske prirode, razmotrena su transhumanistička i biokonzervativna stajališta u pogledu pokušaja biomedicinskog usavršavanja čovjeka, čime je otkrivena metafizička pozadina ideje biomedicinskog poboljšanja čovjeka. U drugoj cjelini, na pretpostavci mogućnosti tehno-znanstvenog “dovršenja” čovjeka, otvoreno je pitanje procesa prelamanja svjetsko-povijesnih epoha u kojem su uočena dva moguća ishoda: zasnivanje nove epohe unutar ljudske povijesti ili objavljivanje kraja ljudske povijesti te zasnivanje transpovijesti i ulazak u transhumano doba. U sklopu istraživanja smjene epoha uspostavljen je odnos između promišljanja povijesti i razumijevanja ljudske prirode te je ustanovljen pojam epohe kao svjetsko-povijesne cjeline i etape svjetsko-povijesnog razvoja, koja se zasniva na dominantnom tipu znanja. U tom je smislu, u suvremenoj svjetsko-povijesnoj situaciji uočeno suprotstavljanje dvaju paradigmi znanja, shvaćanje znanja kao moći i shvaćanje znanja kao odgovornosti. Time su stvorene pretpostavke za analizu duhovne situacije vremena i proučavanje znakova nastupanja nove epohe, gdje je uočena ponovna potreba za uspostavom cjeline te je zaključeno da bi pojam svijeta, kao obuhvatni pojam, trebao biti temeljni pojam nove epohe. Kako je pojam svijeta u dosadašnjim filozofijskim istraživanjima bio znatno manje zastupljen od pojma bitka, neophodan je bio pokušaj njegove rekonstrukcije. Navedeno je učinjeno analizom razumijevanja pojma svijeta u Augsburško- zagrebačkim filozofskim razgovorima, Kangrginoj i Löwithovoj filozofiji. U traganju za suvremenim formama mišljenja koje podrazumijevaju ili mogu razviti pojam svijeta kao svoj središnji pojam, integrativna bioetika nametnula se kao mogući izbor jer je razvijenom metodologijom pluriperspektivizma postala ne samo jednim od znakova nego i jednim od aktera u procesu nastupanja nove epohe. Na kraju je još jednom otvoreno pitanje antiteze metafizičkog i povijesnog mišljenja u sklopu čega su uspoređene spekulacije o budućnosti: Berdjajevljevo predviđanje dolaska “novog srednjovjekovlja” i transhumanistički scenariji budućnosti. Usporedna analiza je dovela do zaključka da ishodi prijelomnosti u duhovnoj situaciji našeg vremena nisu određeni lažnom dilemom između metafizike i povijesnog mišljenja nego istinskom dilemom između prijeloma epoha unutar ljudske povijesti ili prijeloma povijesti same, u sklopu koje metafizika i povijesno mišljenje ostaju na istoj strani dileme.

U antici je čovjek sebe shvaćao kao dio kozmosa, kružnog kretanja, prirode. U srednjovjekovlju se čovjek podvrgavao Stvoritelju i čekao dolazak spasenja. Moderni je čovjek zamijenio religijska obećanja idejom napretka, a vjera u tvorca ustupila je mjesto vjeri u Čovjeka. Današnji čovjek pokušava prisvojiti prava i moć koja pripada "sili samostvaranja ili Tvorcu", što je vidljivo u ideji poboljšanja čovjeka putem tehnike. Time se razotkriva metafizička pozadina suvremene svjetskopovijesne situacije u kojoj čovjek preuzima ulogu apsolutnog bića – Stvoritelja, ali ono metafizičko i dalje nesmetano nastavlja postojati. Problem "metafizikacije" čovjeka pokazuje se problematičnim iz dva razloga. Prvi je to što klasična metafizika podrazumijeva bitak kao vječan, nepromjenjiv, kao "jest" koje bićima omogućuje da budu i time determinira što mogu postati. Drugi se problem nalazi u tome što čovjek ne posjeduje apsolutno znanje, čime se razotkriva destruktivno naličje novooslobođene moći u kojoj nije moguće predvidjeti posljedice njezine uporabe, a time ni preuzeti odgovornost za njih.

U ovom će se izlaganju naznačiti rasprava koja se vodila između Milana Kangrge i Gaje Petrovića u pogledu hrvatske filozofske terminologije, a koja proizlazi iz različitog shvaćanja pojma bitka. Gajo Petrović u svome djelu Prolegomena za kritiku Heideggera navodi kako je upravo (i jedino!) Milan Kangrga pokušao osporiti njegovo mišljenje jer njemu „riječ bitak odgovara pojmu koji je njome iskazan jer bitak određuje upravo dovršenost, gotovost, danost, fiksnost, postojanost stvari i bića, a ne njegovu procesualnost“. Kangrga naime kritizira metafiziku koju shvaća u danosti (gotovosti) bitka te odbacuje svaku mogućnost afirmativne konotacije tog pojma iz čega proizlazi njegova antiteza metafizike i povijesnog mišljenja. S druge strane, Gajo Petrović smatra da bi dobar naziv za „jestanje“ trebao ispuniti dva uvjeta: da znači radnju ili stanje (a ne rezultat ili sredstvo radnje) i da ne znači svršenu nego nesvršenu radnju te uvodi sintagmu „autentičnog bivstvovanja“ koja je jedan od ključnih pojmova u njegovu „mišljenju revolucije“.

Kako bi se odnos umjetničkog djela i njegove interpretacije još jednom doveo u pitanje, u ovom će se radu kroz analizu predgovora (kao sastavnog dijela svakog kataloga izložbe) pokušati preispitati granice i mogućnosti predgovora. Imajući na umu da razlika između živog i umjetnog, kojom se nekada nastojao razgraničiti i život od umjetnosti, danas više nije tako jasna, u pogledu granica predgovora sagledat će se biopolitičko razumijevanje predgovora i dokumentacijski tip predgovora kao primjer stvaranja života iz umjetnosti. Mogućnosti predgovora bit će prikazane kroz umjetničko razumijevanje predgovora i poetski tip predgovora gdje dolazi do stvaranja umjetnosti iz života. U navedenoj analizi otvorit će se pitanje što se događa s onim trećim, posjetiteljem kao receptorom izložbe, koji je, zapravo, u doživljaju umjetničkog djela trebao biti onaj prvi. Je li on zbog postojanja predgovora uskraćen za neposredni doživljaj samog djela ili mu predgovor služi kao sredstvo, možda bolje reći kanal, da bi taj doživljaj mogao zaživjeti?, In this paper the analysis of preface (as an integral part of every exhibition catalogue) will be used to once more question the relation between the work of art and its interpretation. Therefore, boundaries and possibilities of prefaces will be examined. Since in contemporary times the border between living and artificial became vague, bio-political understanding of preface and documentational type of preface will serve as an example of creation of life from art. On the other hand, the artistic understanding of preface and poetic type of preface will be used as an example of creation of art from life. This analysis will also open the question what happens with the third one, a visitor as a receptor of exhibition, who supposed to be the first one experiencing the work of art. Does the existence of preface deprive him direct experience of the work of art or the preface can serve him as means to have a vivid experience?

Post-modern understanding of the Being as plurality is usually given as an alternative to the horizon of classical metaphysic (reduced on monistic or factual understanding of Being in a sense of something that is given, firm and/or unchangeable). Precisely that post-modern understanding is often appreciated as a solution of feminist issues. One of the most famous theoretical examples of this presents Donna Haraway’s “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century”. Haraway’s cyborg metaphors aim to show that universal, totalizing theories are wrong and fail to give an account of the reality and that we should take responsibility for social, scientific and technological relations means to reject antiscientific metaphysics and demonization of technology. Therefore, she believes that she manages to abolish the Western selfhood with the postmodern fluid concept of selfhood embodied in the idea of cyborg. In this paper cyborg’s “promise of a brighter future” will be examined in order to answer the question have we really managed to find the alternative to the western metaphysical comprehension of the world or, on the contrary, in the idea of cyrborg this understanding reaches its peak?

Promišljanje znanstveno-tehničke epohe i govor o potencijalno razornom utjecaju tehnike na čovjeka i svijet vrlo često preskače jedno od osnovnih pitanja. To je, dakako, ono najočitije, odnosno pitanje što uopće tehnika jest. U ovom će se radu pitanje tehnike pokušati promisliti kroz njezinu spoznajnu vrijednost. Shvaćanje tehnike kroz njezinu spoznajnu vrijednost možemo promatrati na dva načina. Ontološki (spoznaja bitka) i epistemološki (samospoznaja). Prvi je put spoznaja bitka gdje dolazi do raskrivanja istine putem tehnike. Kao ilustraciju prvoga uzet ćemo Heideggerovo ontološko promišljanje tehnike. Drugo, epistemološko, pripada filozofiji Arnolda Gehlena. Naime, Gehlen smatra da je čovjek u središnjim područjima svoje prirode automatizam (kucanje srca i disanje, primjerice), stoga motivacija za objektivaciju rada dolazi iz naše prirode. Za Gehlena je stoga priroda sredstvo kojim čovjek izlazi iz sebe i iz nje se ponovo razumije. Dakle, u prvom, Heideggerovu, tumačenju čovjek pomoću tehnike sudjeluje u raskrivanju istine u smislu raskrivanja bitka, dok u drugome, Gehlenovu promišljanju čovjek uz pomoć tehnike sebe spoznaje-prevodi, te se epistemološka vrijednost nalazi u raskrivanju sebe/svoje vlastite prirode. Namjera je ovog epistemološkog promišljanja tehnike da nas, zaključno, od pokušaju naznačivanja odgovora na pitanje što tehnika jest dovede do otvaranja pitanja u čemu se krije opasnost ovakvog pristupa tehnici.

U ovom će se radu, imajući na umu budućnosno orijentirane probleme ekofeminizma, preispitati uloga tehnike u njihovom mogućem rješavanju. Naime, kritiziranom se obzorju klasične metafizike (ograničenom na monističko ili faktično shvaćanje bitka u smislu onoga što je dano, čvrsto i/ili nepromjenjivo) kao alternativa (što već u sebi podrazumijeva određeni dualizam) nameće postmoderno, nazovimo ga fluidnim, shvaćanje sebstva kao mnoštva. Upravo se takvo postmoderno shvaćanje često razumijeva kao svojevrsno rješenje i ekološke i feminističke problematike. Nudi li sjedinjenje čovjeka i stroja, ono isto sjedinjenje čiji je pokušaj proizveo ekološke i ine probleme s kojima se sada suočavamo, uistinu njihovo rješenje ili se pak stari odnosi dominacije nad ženom i dominacije nad prirodom preslikavaju i u ideju transhumanih bića? Je li svijet informacija kao suština kulturnog (čovječjeg) svijeta rješenje 'problema' prirodnog ili put u novo, perpetuirajuće, ropstvo? Kako bi se pokušao dati odgovor na ova i ostala postavljena pitanja, promišljanje će se ideje transhumanizma (na liniji Bostrom - Sloterdjik) u feminističkom diskursu (Harraway) dovesti u vezu s epistemološkim tumačenjem tehnike (Heidegger, Gehlen) kao krajnjim provođenjem dominantnog 'tvrdog' metafizičkog razumijevanja svijeta, odnosno prirode (kao onog spoznatljivog).

In his famous work Being and Time Heidegger defines death through the possibility of existence (Dasein) and states that death is always one's own. In this paper Heidegger's understanding of death will be challenged by placing death in a relation with the notion of love. The notion of love will be exposed as a modern notion that can be briefly defined as an affirmation of one person (myself) in the another (loved one) (Hegel). By examination of love and death in their obvious crossroad - in a case of a death of a loved person the obvious question will be raised: does a death of a loved person really mean his death or rather my own? Having in mind that by a death of a loved person I also die (as a one that has existed in him), and, on the other hand, the one that has died arises in me and his existence even exceeds my own (this is usually revealed through suffering and missing), seems that Heidegger was right after all. But, in order to finally affirm or decline this position the notions of death and love and therefore the possibility of existence at all will be, in conclusion, examined in their most important dimension - dimension of time.

One of the most present bioethical debates in media is the one concerned with the use of technology in enhancing human creative and biological possibilities. Transhumanist movement, which is supporting the idea of human enhancement, has expanded from science fiction to mainstream thinking and even has become a subject of scientific evaluation (Bostrom). Ethical positions concerning human enhancement technologies range from transhumanism to bioconservatism. While on one side transhumanists believe that human enhancement technologies should be made widely available and that individuals should have the right to choose which they want to use, bioconservatives are generally opposed to modifying human nature. This presentation, in questions concerning human dignity and moral judgement, will show both, transhumanism argumentation (Bostrom) on one side and bioconservatism thinking (Fukuyama, Habermas) on the other. Also, to demonstrate actuality of transhumanist-bioconservative debate, the one of the media most accompanied moments of this debate (Sloterdjik - Habermas case) will be discussed and the populist rhetoric of transhumanist supporters (Bostrom) will be shortly reviewed.

Umijeće razgovora ima dugu filozofsku tradiciju koja se sastoji od posjeta i od uzvraćanja posjeta, navodi Alexander Thumfart. Upravo su tako izgledali Augsburško-zagrebački filozofski razgovori vođeni u Augsburgu 1988., Zagrebu 1990. i ponovo u Augsburgu 1993. godine. Augsburško-zagrebački filozofski razgovori bavili su se problemom svijeta u filozofiji, odnosno problemom filozofije u svijetu, čime je pojam svijeta dospio u središte filozofskog promišljanja. U ovom će se izlaganju kozmološko i antropološko određenje pojma svijeta izložiti na temelju proučavanja znanstvenih radova proizašlih iz Augsburško-zagrebačkih razgovora, naknadno objavljenih u časopisu Filozofska istraživanja. S druge strane, može se reći da je danas, dvadeset godina nakon Augsburško-zagrebačkih razgovora, proširenjem predmetnog polja bioetike od medicinske etike do integrativne bioetike, promišljanje pojma svijeta reaktulizirano. Naime, promišljanje se pojma svijeta kao ideje cjeline čija je temeljna odrednica sveobuhvatnost, a temeljni princip građenje, nameće kao odgovor na znanstveni partikularizam i monoperspektivizam. Kako je upravo integrativna bioetika nastala kao alternativa takvoj, isključivo znanstvenoj, slici svijeta, možemo reći da filozofija svijeta koja nastaje u okviru Augsburško-zagrebačkih filozofskih razgovora daje još jedan poticaj njezinom daljnjem razvijanju i artikuliranju.

Since problems of ecofeminism are orientated not only towards contemporary times, but also towards future, this paper will examine the role of technique in an attempt of their resolving. Post-modern, lets call it fluid, understanding of the Being as plurality is given as an alternative to often criticized horizon of classical metaphysic (reduced on monistic or factual understanding of Being in a sense of something that is given, firm and/or unchangeable). Precisely that post-modern understanding is often appreciated as a solution of ecological and feminist issues. Does a unity of a man and the machine, the same unity which bare attempt has produced ecological and other problems that we are affronting, truly offer their solution or do the old conditions of domination over women and domination over nature transfer in the idea of transhuman beings? Is the world of information as the essence of a cultural (human) world a solution of a „problem‟ of natural or is it a path to a new, repetitive, slavery? As an effort of answering this and other questions, reasoning of the idea of transhumanism (Bostrom – Sloterdijk) in a feminist discourse (Haraway) will be related to epistemological understanding of technique (Heidegger, Gehlen). This appreciation will be comprehended as the finalization of a dominant „stiff‟ metaphysical understanding of nature (as something that can be realized).

It is the precisely contemporary ; let's call it 'technological situation', which brought the investigation of human nature back to the surface. If we recognise the existence of something that all people possess, which we could say is a necessary ingredient of human nature, the use of technology in order to enhance human beings becomes questionable. On the other hand, if there is not something that is specific for human nature and that can be violated with the use of technology, there is no reason to stop the merge between the man and the machine. With this investigation of man’s relation with technology in the idea of human enhancement and through transhumanist-bioconservative debate, this paper will try to find an answer to the question where does our need for biological improvement come from. By responding to this question we do not intend to discover ‘the amazing code of human nature’, but to illuminate one of its possible characteristics.

Prikaz konferencije 6. Bioetički forum za jugoistočnu Europu.

Bioethical review of the idea of human enhancement There are several possibilities for accomplishing the idea of overstepping the man in the biological sense. The most controversial and the prevailing ones are including the implementation of technology. It is considered that precisely with the use of technology it will be possible to overcome human biological limitations. Transhumanist movement is one of the most recognised supporters of that idea. Ethical positions in this debate are ranging from transhumanist to bio-conservative. Transhumanists argue that human enhancement technologies should be made widely available and that individuals should be able to choose which technology they would like to implement on themselves. Also, parents should have the ability to enhance their children. On the other hand, bio-conservatives are generally against biological change of human nature conducted by men. They consider that, by executing this, the idea of human dignity will be questioned. Transhumanist and bio-conservative positions will be confronted in this paper. In addition, both positions will be evaluated from the perspective of intergrative bioethics. In his paper In Defense of Posthuman Dignity transhumanist supporter Nick Bostrom argues that the notion of human dignity should be applicable on posthuman beings. Opposed to him, bio-conservatives Francis Fukuyama and Jürgen Habermas believe that purposely changing human nature has severe consequences, not only medical, but also for our understanding of law and moral. Jürgen Habermas is emphasizing this concern by arguing that this change could disable individuals to act as independent political beings.

Prikaz konferencije "Bioetika i dijete – moralne dileme u pedijatriji".

Opisana je struktura KM- rješenja i njena primjena u organizaciji.

Pojam autoriteta, napose kako ga vidi Hannah Arendt, nužno je jasno odijeliti od pojmova vlasti i moći. Autoritet pojmovno dolazi prije vlasti i predstavlja njeno utemeljenje. Pojam je nastao od latinske riječi auctoritas, a svoje izvorište ima u antičkomu Rimu u kojem su autoritet, religija i politika bili snažno povezani. U kasnijim povijesnim razdobljima autoritet se iz polja transcendentnoga spuštao u polje svjetovnoga, što je rezultiralo pozicioniranjem autoriteta u narod. To se nije odvijalo u skokovima nego u dugom nizu stoljeća. Takav pomak može biti okarakteriziran kao progresivan, no istraživanjem filozofijske literature dolazi se i do zaključka da je jedna od posljedica bila ta da se moderni autoritet našao u krizi. Razlog je tomu što narod, kao nositelj autoriteta u smislu vezivanja za temelj, ima pravo od političara, koji su birani na određeni mandat, u obnašanju vlasti zahtijevati izvršenje svih zahtjeva koji se pred njih postave. Ukoliko političari ne riješe spomenute zahtjeve naroda, utoliko ih je lakše nego ikada prije u povijesti smijeniti s pozicije obnašanja vlasti. Radi se o svojevrsnoj krizi modernoga autoriteta kojoj se na prvi pogled ne nazire rješenje. Ova kriza, također, još jednom iznosi na vidjelo ontološke temelje autoriteta koji su tek prividno prevladani u demokratskom društvu. Stoga, da bi se ona razriješila treba još jednom razmotriti temelje same demokracije. Početci demokracije ustanovljeni su u antičkoj Grčkoj, a demokraciju kakvu poznajemo danas uvelike su kroz njenu povijest oblikovale ideje slobode, jednakosti i ekonomske proizvodnje. Isprva sramežljivo, potom sve snažnije, te ideje su od pojavljivanja do čvrstoga etabliranja prošle put koji je trajao gotovo nekoliko stoljeća. Međutim, poduzetim istraživanjem demokracije postaje jasnije da se dijagnoza o napetosti modernoga autoriteta iznova potvrđuje. Čini se da odgovor na krizu modernoga autoriteta ne može doći iz postojeće paradigme demokracije, pa ga upravo zato treba tražiti izvan nje. Upravo u pojavi tehnike, koja prodire u pojam demokracije putem tehnike povezanih blokova (eng. blockchain) pronađena je naznaka koja bi mogla trasirati put do razrješavanja krize modernog autoriteta. No prije istraživanja tehnike povezanih blokova valja istražiti i sâm pojam tehnike. Istraživanjem navedenoga pojma ustanovljeno je da potencijal oslobođenja krize modernoga autoriteta ne dolazi po tehnici povezanih blokova ni iz tehnike po sebi, nego iz odnosa čovjeka i tehnike. Čovjek i tehnika u dihotomičnom su odnosu te kao takvi usko povezani od sâmih začetaka ljudskoga roda. Naime, čovjek je oduvijek živio s alatima (grč. tekhne) i konstantno je morao učiti o njima i njihovoj primjeni. Bitno je naglasiti da čovjek nikada nije zaboravio da tehnika, iako mu olakšava život, ne smije nad njime preuzeti primat. Čovjek se u tomu suživotu konstantno podsjećao da je tehnika u položaju objekta, a da je on sâm subjekt koji njome upravlja. Isti je slučaj i kod tehnike povezanih blokova koja predstavlja tehničku okosnicu digitalne demokracije – čovjeku se valja podsjetiti da je on politički subjekt i da je, u tom kontekstu, on taj koji je nositelj političkoga autoriteta, a ne tehnika. To znači da vezivanje za temelj završava na čovjeku koji na sebe preuzima odgovornost odlučivanja. Prilikom toga podsjećanja, čovjek preuzima individualnu odgovornost za djelovanje u zajednici, a njegova aktivna participacija može djelovati na decentralizaciju autoriteta, u smislu decentralizacije odgovornosti. Na taj se način moderni autoritet može izvesti na put izlaska iz trenutne krize i primaknuti korak bliže autentičnijoj aktualizaciji demokracije, ali i njezinog osnaživanja jer decentralizacija podrazumijeva aktivniju participaciju većeg broja subjekata koji tako konačno aktualiziraju svoju ulogu u demokratskom procesu. In the beginning of this doctoral thesis, I will discuss the difference in meaning of authority and political authority. For that purpose, I will use Platonʼs Crito, debate between Huemer and Layman, as well as works of Renaut, Arendt and Weber. The semantic difference between terms of authority, power and political authority has its roots, as Hannah Arendt pointed out, in ancient Rome. The concept of authority among the Romans was strongly connected to the concepts of religion, tradition and politics. The term authority comes from the Latin auctoritas which means ʻbinding to the foundationʼ and is opposite from power (lat. potestas). In Rome, the source of power is positioned in the Senate, and the senators present themselves as reincarnations of the founders of Rome. Also, Senators can interpret the Roman constitution as the founders of Rome would have done it back then. Furthermore, Arendt points out that auctoritas comes from the Latin verb augere, which means ʻto increaseʼ, because it was the responsibility of the senators to increase the foundations of authority. The concept of authority, as Romans knew it, was incorporated into a political institution, the Roman Senate. There was a saying – potestas in populo, auctoritas in senatu sit, which means that, while power resides within the people, Senate has all the authority. Romans separated authority from power, which leads to the conclusion that those two terms were established as opposite concepts. Namely, authority has its roots in the past and power in the present. Religion also played an important role in ancient Rome and it was the connective tissue between power and authority. The term religion comes from the Latin re-ligare, which means ʻbindingʼ (to the foundation). Politics, religion and tradition, as Arendt suggests, were closely intertwined in ancient Rome. After beforementioned analysis, I will present definitions of power, authority and political authority. Political authority, therefore, means having the legitimacy of making a decision which the majority of citizens obey. Power is the very act of making and implementing a decision that affects the lives of people in a particular state. Political authority and power are different concepts, and they also differ with regard to the concept of authority. Authority does not only represent an influence on someone, but based on the concept of auctoritas, the very foundation of political authority. Conceptually, it comes before political authority and before power, and its origins are derived from the Romans. The Greeks did not have anything similar to Roman notion of auctoritas and that can be partly confirmed with analysis of Aristotleʼs Politics. Aristotleʼs notion of authority in Politics is similar to three terms in Greek – archē, kurios and crisis. However, that is nowhere near the meaning Romans produced and because of that we can only talk about reconstruction of the similar concept within Aristotleʼs Politics. Reconstruction can be done in three directions: authority as protection from evil people, authority as an improver and promoter of interactions in society and authority as a result of common interest. At this point of discussion, we might ask ourselves why is it that the concept of authority is so important. In order to get an answer to that question, it will be researched what happens to authority when it is inverted and what consequences this inversion carries with it. For that purpose, thoughts of Hannah Arendt on totalitarian government will be consulted. Arendt points out that one of the symptoms of totalitarianism indicates the absence of hierarchy. The lack of hierarchy creates an impersonal system where disrespect for the law is the modus operandi. Arendt claims that authority cannot function within totalitarianism because there is no hierarchy as a prerequisite, there is no structure, there is just lack of real power and general weakness of the Government. Moreover, Selak Raspudić, a Croatian philosopher, will add to this topic that totalitarianism implies the rule of disorder, a world in which authority is invisible, which inevitably leads to self-destruction of man. The rest of the symptoms of totalitarianism include: the absence of hierarchy, cruel formlessness, disrespect for the law and the accumulation of official apparatus. However, these are not the worst consequences, as the cruelest manifestations of totalitarian regimes are concentration camps. Arendt will conclude that those camps are the true central institutions of totalitarian organizational power. All of these symptoms are the direct result of inversion of authority which clearly indicates the importance of its existence in society. That is why it is interesting to notice how Max Weber and Arendt somehow direct the discussion about authority towards the framework of democracy. In order to better understand how authority acts within democracy, Alain Renaut introduces the authority of the Ancients and the authority of the Moderns. He argues that at one point in history the authority of the Ancients was replaced by a new, modern authority. Wilhelm von Humboldt was among the first philosophers who pointed out this phenomenon by dividing states on the Ancient and Modern ones. Ancient states were most concerned about the overall development and upbringing of a human being in accordance with virtue ethics, while modern states, writes Humboldt, paid most attention to prosperity and productivity. The main question facing the Moderns became how to increase the power that has weakened itself by setting limits in order to establish the foundation of power. Modern government guarantees freedom to people who can use it not only to question it but also to destroy it. According to Renaut, this is the principle of modern-day democracy that is constantly subjected to judgment, change or even overthrowing the elected Government. How did this happen? The people (Greek demos) became the successor of the Roman auctoritas. The foundation of authority positioned itself in demos, and apart from the substantial positional shift of authority, demos is in a constant pursuit to increase its authority based on the Roman principle. On the other hand, elected officials are initially limited in exercise of their power, which makes them unable to do their task properly. Also, elected officials have the power to make decisions, but they cannot increase authority as it is positioned in the demos and not in the Government (which would be the senators in ancient Rome). With regard to the described, the situation of modern authority could be characterized as a state of crisis, namely, as a crisis of modern authority. Arendt agrees that the traditional form of authority has experienced a breakdown and believes that authority can best be rehabilitated through revolution, highlighting the example of the American Revolution. However, a careful study of her thought leads to the conclusion that she too could agree that modern authority is in crisis. Democracy seems to be a system that simultaneously enables the emergence of authority and its crisis. We will try to answer why this is so in the next chapter, where we will try to find the essence of democracy and what this term represents. The research quest will begin with Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and Thomas Aquinas. For Plato, democracy represents wrong form of organization of the state. Other wrong forms include timocracy, oligarchy and tyranny. Plato points out that democratic rule arises as a result of the degradation of oligarchy. Plato was followed by Aristotle, who believed, in regards of the exercise of power, that power can be exercised by one person, a group of people or a multitude. With this in mind, Aristotle distinguishes between the correct and incorrect types of government. The right types of government strive to work for the common good and they are kingdom, aristocracy and constitutional government, while their opposites are tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. Cicero has a significant impact in the beginnings of the concept of democracy. In Ciceroʼs work De re publica, Scipio Africanus states that the state (Latin res publica) is a matter of the people. Scipio adds that if the nation wants to survive, it must necessarily adopt some kind of decision-making process. Decision-making in the state could be managed by one, a few or many. Although he admits that in case of necessity he would give primacy to the royal government, Scipio claims that the best type of decision-making is composed of all three decision-making types. Additionally, in this context it should be mentioned that democracy represents an incorrect type of government for Thomas Aquinas as well. Philosophers of the Antiquity and the Middle Ages are responsible for establishing the beginnings of the framework of democracy. In the works of Aristotle, Plato, Cicero and Thomas Aquinas, two key features of democracy are clearly outlined – freedom and equality. Although the ideas of equality and freedom in the context of democracy appeared in the Classical period, there were no thinkers who would recognize the people as an essential and unavoidable component in the exercise of power until the Early Modern period. This changed with Machiavelliʼs Il Principe where he tried to somewhat persuade Lorenzo Medici of the importance of winning the people over in the exercise of power. By carefully reading Il Principe, it can be established that Machiavelli tried to direct Medici with recommendations to exercise power with the support of the people, or to rule in popular-democratic direction, so to speak. A few centuries later, Rousseau praises Machiavelli for skillfully serving Il Principe to rulers presenting it as an aid to their rule, when in fact it was a first book of the Republicans. Machiavelliʼs Il Principe for the first time puts the people in a more equal position with the ruler, a position with more respect and recognition. Centuries later, from the idea of more equality between the people and the ruler emerged the concept of republicanism from Rousseau. Rousseau placed equality within the framework of law and considered it to be the crucial element in governing the state. Rousseauʼs contemporary, Montesquieu, pointed out that in a republic, the sovereign power rests with the people as a whole and it is mediated by democracy. For Montesquieu, democracy represents a subtype of republicanism. He also argues that there are two basic laws in democracy. The first one regulates how ballots are submitted, and the other basic law of democracy is that the people should make laws by themselves. In the context of the idea of equality with a focus on laws, Kant is also one of the philosophers worth the mention. His doctrine of the state is based on law, but even more importantly, on eternal peace. For Kant, the equality of all citizens with subordination to legislation is one of the fundamental principles of the republican constitution whose ultimate purpose is to achieve eternal peace. The equality of all citizens is most important in Kantʼs philosophy, which is slightly opposed to Tocqueville who emphasizes the equality of conditions that helps shape the laws in a state, sets maxims for the holders of power to follow and at the same time creates favorable habits of citizens resulting in positive public opinion. Tocqueville went on the study visit to USA where he found a lot of positive elements in its democratic system. When he will emphasize the positive elements of American democracy, he will mention that the reasons for greatness of the American people derive from its laws and customs. Along with the universal right to vote, Tocqueville singles out the jury system as a powerful tool that Americans use to establish democracy. Machiavelli, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Kant and Tocqueville made contributions to the idea of equality that eventually ended up as a significant element of modern-day democracy. One of the ideas that also made impact on democracy as we know it today is the idea of liberty. English philosopher John Locke is largely responsible for paving the way for this idea. Locke argues that a human being possesses liberty on the basis of which he can decide to unite with other free people and set up the first Government. This idea created what we now know as liberalism and in its first years of existence it was used as an argument opposing absolutism. In this line of thought, just many centuries later, the modern thinker John Rawls appeared. Key question which concerns him is how is it possible that over time there exists a fair and stable society of free and equal citizens who remain deeply divided by reasonable religious, philosophical and moral doctrines. This question also shows how liberalism evolved from Locke to Rawls. In the discussion about the modern intellectual contribution to liberalism, another important thinker is mentioned in this doctoral thesis, a man who also undoubtedly left a great mark in this context – Isaiah Berlin. Berlin argues that there are two concepts of liberty, namely negative and positive one. Berlin proposes the thesis that the negative concept of liberty is to be free from and consists in ensuring protection from the interference of others in private affairs. Positive freedom, on the other hand, represents freedom to decide for something. Berlin, therefore, believed that political liberty represents the domain of action without interfering from others, that is, if someone prevents one from doing what he wants, then he is not free. The third idea that shaped democracy as we know it today is that of economic production that shapes the political superstructure of the world. Origin of the idea can be traced back to Karl Marx. Accordingly, Abensour claims that it would be wrong to conceptually limit oneself in the study of Marx and consider only his thoughts on the bourgeoisie, the family or civil society, because by doing so one would ignore his effort to find the root which would be authentically political subject in whose place lies demos. According to Abensour, the center of all meaning of the state for Marx is located in the demos. He also points out that the concept of a democratic state is an illusion, and the fullness of democracy is achieved in its establishment against the state. In the Communist Manifesto Marx presents the idea that the structure of society is based on economic production which constitutes political and intellectual history of each historical epoch. History, according to Marx, is nothing but the history of the class struggle between those who exploit, i.e., the bourgeoisie, and those who are exploited, i.e., proletariat. Marx thinks that the proletariat should overthrow the bourgeoisie from power and win the battle of democracy which would essentially mean to centralize production in the hands of the state. In doing so, favourable conditions for communism would be established and that would mean the abolition of private property. Furthermore, according to Marx, the communists are the most advanced and the most resolute section of the proletariat and based on this, they have the ability to place political power in the hands of the proletariat who would go on to work for the interests of the majority. Marxʼs theory of economic production also means harsh criticism of liberalism as liberalism favours right to own and protect private property. Years after Marx, one who would agree with him on certain points would be Jacques Rancière. Rancière thinks that we as a society do not live in a democracy but in states that have oligarchic laws. The hatred, instead of being directed at the oligarchic system that stands masked behind democracy, turns to democracy as a concept. Hatred, however, can only be used to support an oligarchic system, and in that case, democracy serves as a great tool. Democracy can take a large amount of criticism without offering a solution because the democratic paradox is impossible to solve. To sum up the research about democracy, modern perspectives of democracy are also considered. There will be analysis of Aron on democracy and totalitarianism, Lijphartʼs thoughts on concept of consociational democracy, Dahlʼs perspective that could be considered as a political science aspect on democracy and deliberative perspective of Habermas. However, after an extensive analysis of the concept of democracy and an attempt to penetrate into its essence, no answer was obtained on how to solve the crisis of modern authority. For this reason, in the continuation of the paper, the concept of technology paired with democracy is considered as a possible solution. Heidegger points out that the essence of technology has two meanings. Technology threatens manʼs relationship with the essence of truth, and at the same time directs man to stand next to that essence of truth. It seems that Heideggerʼs statement leads to the conclusion that the use of technology has a dual character. Namely, technology can be dangerous and that must never be forgotten, but at the same time it can enable many things that have a positive effect on the human race. Following Heidegger, Stieglerʼs definition of technology is also analysed in the doctoral thesis. According to Stiegler, technology is the skill by which a certain material is transformed into a product. With this in mind, one can rightfully ask the question: Does the technology serve humanity or does it serve tekhne itself? Stiegler claims that there is a historical dichotomy between the evolution of man and tool (or tekhne which is the root of technology), and in his thoughts he goes so far as to state that the Greek polis also arose because of the tekhne. Stiegler then goes on to criticize Heidegger, considering that his thought about technology was carried out through an instrument that had already been instrumentalized. In other words, man is already thrown into the world of pre-existing technology through which he himself exists and confirms this by using tools, and Heidegger failed to see this. Basically, Stieglerʼs criticism of Heidegger boils down to the fact that Heidegger already thinks of technology through the technological. In addition, Stieglerʼs criticism of Heidegger more clearly demonstrated his thought on the co-constitutional relationship between logos and tekhne. At this point, we might rightfully ask what is the connection between technology and democracy. The answer to that question is that in the merge of technology and democracy digital democracy arises. Digital democracy represents a technical innovation that combines aspects of direct and representative democracy. First of all, it means digital platform, software tool, that aims to allow its users to express their opinion in order to make a final decision for the benefit of the community. Expressing opinion or voting stands out as the most important element of digital democracy. Voting takes place via digital platform and must be safe, transparent and anonymous. Technology that is considered as a possible provider of these values is blockchain. Blockchain represents a distributed and decentralized peer-to-peer network of computers that enables direct data transactions between nodes within the system, thus eliminating the need for mediation and a third party. The system remembers all data transactions and stores them in a distributed ledger. Transactions are stored in blocks that stack on top of each other in a chain form, hence the name block-chain. This technology aims to build and preserve trust and integrity in the system which is achieved through two components: hash technology and cryptographic technology. For the blockchain technology to be considered as the technical backbone of digital democracy, it must enable voting to be carried out safely, anonymously and transparently. After a detailed analysis of its comparative advantages and technical and nontechnical limitations, it is determined that it has the technical capacity to be used as the backbone of digital democracy. However, there is also a possibility that the blockchain will take place of authority in digital democracy. In that case, foundation of political authority is not drawn from the people but from technology. Man is given the possibility to shift the responsibility of decision-making and social action from himself to technology, and if this possibility is accepted, then man dislocates himself from the position of a political subject. The only obstacle in positioning as a political subject is man himself. Blockchain belongs to the probabilistic technology and works on a principle designed by man. In order for the people to truly manifest their freedom and for the crisis of modern authority to be solved, it is necessary to focus on the relationship between man and technology. In this relationship, if a person refuses to become an object of technology, namely tekhne, this person re-establishes itself as a political subject. Hence, the foundation of authority in digital democracy is created in beforementioned relationship between man and technology. One of the most important elements of beforementioned relationship is how technology will be used. What is meant by that? Blockchain as the technical backbone of digital democracy is part of a long and well-known diachronic process of human adaptation to the world around them. The emergence of new technical discoveries represents a challenge that requires adaptation anew, and one of the ways of adaptation is the distinction between good and bad use of technology. In this context, good use implies the use of technology as a tool that achieves efficiency in solving certain problems. It means that technology does not assume primacy in the relationship between man and technology, but represents an equal member of the co-constitutional equation. Bad use, on the other hand, would indicate the predominance in the human-technology equation on the side of the technological, which implies that technology takes primacy in decision-making, and man absolves himself of this responsibility by transferring it to a tool. In order to use the technology well, one of the proposed options is to start with how-to education from young age in the school system. In this case the process of epiphylogenesis, that is, learning mediated by technology, is very important. The goal of epiphylogenesis is to ensure that the memories of our ancestors are not lost and forgotten, but embedded in technology. If we translate Stieglerʼs thought into the context of this work, the crisis of modern authority can be resolved in the relationship between man and technology. The point is to maintain the balance of the relationship, whereby there must be no predominance on the side of technology. According to Stieglerʼs philosophy, authority in digital democracy does not require return to the political, since the political and the technical are one. However, the place of political authority can very easily be taken over by technology, which would lead to an even greater default of modern authority, whereby its crisis would not be resolved. By conducting epiphylogenetic education on the responsible use of technology, it is possible to promote the establishment of balance in the relationship between man and technology, thereby enhancing the path of liberation and not the path of default. However, the path of education about responsible use is not at all easy to reach and depends as much on systematic as on individual efforts. According to Selak Raspudić on this matter, the epiphylogenetic process is increasingly difficult to maintain because modern technology causes a loss of memory, which is crucial for man to be reminded of his role in relation to technology. One of the consequences of aforementioned issue is that technology has enabled man to escape from himself. Such modern man is constantly a subject to a fast-paced lifestyle and is looking forward to new adventures that he will be able to share on social networks. Taking into account all of the above, a solution to the crisis of modern authority can be found in the relationship between man and technology. Reaching this solution would also mean the decentralisation of authority and more authentic version of democracy, but reaching this point is by no means one-dimensional process. That conclusion can be partly confirmed through Berardiʼs work as he mainly criticizes modern technology in conjunction with politics and economics. Berardi reaches the conclusion that politics is technical in its core, what he considers to be a negative trait and in further research he turns to economics, wondering if politics is turned towards itself and if it became technical, can economics be the science that will save the system. Berardi points out that the economy has become a hyper-reality, an artificial world that has lost touch with the real conditions of production. He explains that with the digitization of production, capital becomes more abstract which makes it more obscure and with that it reinforces hermeticity and alienation from the real world. In the conclusion of the thesis, relationship between man and technology represents key component for solving the crisis of modern authority. Technology offers great number of options in digital democracy, and as long as individual treats and uses technology as a tool, a person will establish itself as a relevant political subject. Namely, through epiphylogenetic learning about the responsible use of technology, man positions himself in relation to technology as a political subject who does not give technology the place of authority. By maintaining balance in beforementioned relationship, man will have a chance to realize that it is his responsibility to be an active individual in the society, what will turn democracy into more authentic system and authority will become more decentralised.

Filozofski svjetonazor Nikolaja Aleksandroviča Berdjajeva (1874. – 1948.) nadilazi metafiziku jedinstva i spekulativne konstrukcije utemeljene na ideološkim igrama. Sam mislilac ga je okarakterizirao kao filozofiju predmeta, filozofiju duha, filozofiju slobode, dualističko-pluralističku filozofiju, kreativno-dinamičku filozofiju, personalističku filozofiju i eshatološku filozofiju. Centralno mjesto u njemu zauzima doktrina o ljudskoj slobodi koja se odvija kao povijesna drama borbe između prirodnih i duhovnih principa u čovjeku i njegove povijesti. Čovjek je misterija u svijetu, a možda i najveća misterija. Čovjek je misterija ne kao životinja i ne kao društveno biće, ne kao dio prirode i društva, već kao osoba. Čitav svijet nije ništa u usporedbi s ljudskom osobom, s jedinim čovjekovim licem, s njegovom jedinom sudbinom. Čovjek je u agoniji i želi znati otkud je došao i kamo ide. Da bi utemeljio svoje filozofske konstrukcije, Berdjajev se obraća kršćanskoj doktrini, vidjevši u njoj metafizički izraz istinske teogonije svijeta, tajnu koju nastoji razotkriti i predstaviti u svojoj verziji filozofije kršćanskog egzistencijalizma s pristupom nauci o čovjekovoj sudbini i značenju povijesti. Berdjajev, kao kršćanski filozof, nije mogao a da ne postavi pitanje utemeljenja „stvorenog“, tj. stvorio Bog, svijet u koji je čovjek ukorijenjen. Odgovori ortodoksne teologije nisu mu mogli odgovarati. Nastanak bića ne može se zaključiti iz svega što već postoji. U ovom slučaju stvaranje svijeta bilo bi suvišna kreativnost, a svijet – temeljna novost. Na temelju učenja njemačkog mistika J. Boehmea o postojanju vječnog ništavila ili ponora (Ungrund), koji karakterizira početni kaos, koji je u stanju intenzivne borbe i muke, Berdjajev razvija ideju o „neutemeljenosti“, odnosno o „meonalnosti“ svijeta i ljudske slobode bez ikakvih granica. Stvaranju svijeta prethodi vječno ništa, ponor iz kojeg se u vječnosti rađa Sveto Trojstvo – Bog Otac, Bog Sin i Duh Sveti. Iz ponora, uz njezin prešutni pristanak, Bog stvara svijet. Dakle, čovjek nije samo rezultat božanske kreacije, već je i dijete vječne slobode, bez koje ne bi bio nalik Bogu. Osobno mora iskusiti sva iskušenja i opterećenja slobode, odgovornost za to pred vlastitom savješću i pred Bogom. Prema Berdjajevu, prvi rezultat testa slobode bio je gubitak osobe iz carstva duha u „objektivirani“ i izobličen, „pali“ svijet. „Objektivizacija“ je jedna od središnjih kategorija Berdjajevljeve metafizike. Objektivizacija je otuđenje i razdvajanje. Objektivizacija je pojava „društva“ i „zajedničkog“, umjesto „komunikacije“ i „zajednice“, „carstva Cezara“, umjesto „kraljevstva Božjeg“. Međutim, čovjek je u svojoj egzistencijalnoj dubini još uvijek u komunikaciji s duhovnim svijetom i s čitavim kozmosom. To je onaj „drugi“ svijet koji on smatra svojim istinskim svijetom. Nikolai Alexandrovich Berdjajev's philosophical worldview (1874-1948) goes beyond the metaphysics of unity and speculative construction based on ideological games. The thinker himself characterized it as the philosophy of the subject, the philosophy of the spirit, the philosophy of freedom, the dualistic-pluralistic philosophy, the creative-dynamic philosophy, the personalistic philosophy and the eschatological philosophy. Central to it is the doctrine of human freedom, which takes place as a historical drama of the struggle between natural and spiritual principles in man and his history. Man is a mystery in the world, and perhaps the greatest mystery. Man is a mystery not as an animal and not as a social being, not as part of nature and society, but as a person. The whole world is nothing compared to a human person, with the only human face, with his only fate. The man is in agony and wants to know where he came from and where he is going. In order to establish his philosophical constructions, Berdjajev turns to Christian doctrine, seeing in him a metaphysical expression of the true theogony of the world, a secret he seeks to unravel and present in his version of the philosophy of Christian existentialism with access to the science of man's destiny and the meaning of history. Berdjajev, as a Christian philosopher, could not but question the foundation of the "created", that is, created God, the world into which man is rooted. The answers of orthodox theology could not suit him. The origin of a being cannot be deduced from everything that already exists. In this case, creating the world would be superfluous to creativity, and the world would be a fundamental novelty. Based on the teachings of German mystic J. Boehme on the existence of eternal nothingness or abyss (Ungrund), which characterizes the initial chaos, which is in a state of intense struggle and anguish, Berdjajev develops the idea of "groundlessness", that is, the "meonality" of the world and human freedom without any boundaries. The creation of the world is preceded by eternal nothing, the abyss from which the Holy Trinity is born in eternity - God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit. Out of the abyss, with her tacit consent, God creates the world. Therefore, man is not only the result of divine creation, but also a child of eternal freedom, without which he would not be like God. He must personally experience all the temptations and burdens of freedom, responsibility for it before his own conscience and before God. According to Berdjajev, the first result of the test of freedom was the loss of a person from the realm of the spirit into an "objectified" and distorted, "fallen" world. "Objectification" is one of the central categories of Berdia's metaphysics.Objectification is alienation and separation. Objectification is the appearance of "society" and "commonality", instead of "communication" and "community", the "kingdom of Caesar", instead of the "kingdom of God". However, in its existential depth, man is still in communication with the spiritual world and the entire cosmos. It is that "other" world that he regards as his true world.

Dubrovački renesansni filozof i pjesnik Miho Monaldi (1540. – 1592.) u svojoj je estetičkoj raspravi Irena, iliti o ljepoti (Irene, overo della belleza, Venecija, 1599.) glazbenoj problematici posvetio čitavo poglavlje – Dialogo ottavo (fol. 135–153) – da bi predstavio svojevrsnu opću teoriju glazbene umjetnosti. U tom se poglavlju Monaldi detaljno bavio pojedinim aspektima glazbe, a to su: podjela glazbe na različite vrste, intervali, značenje u glazbi, funkcije glazbe, modusi, glazbala, odnos između glazbe i politike, odnos između glazbe i drugih »predmeta sluha« te kriteriji za postizanje »ispravne glazbe«. Radi se, dakle, o prilično velikom broju tema vezanih uz glazbenu problematiku, zbog čega se to Monaldijevo djelo smatra najznačajnijim doprinosom refleksiji o glazbi na hrvatskom području u renesansnome razdoblju. U svojoj klasifikaciji glazbe Monaldi je prednost dao vokalnoj glazbi (u odnosu na instrumentalnu), što je u potpunome skladu s općim renesansnim poimanjem glazbe., The work Irene, overo della bellezza (Venice, 1599), written by the Renaissance philosopher and poet Michele Monaldi (1540–1592) from Dubrovnik, is considered to be the first aesthetic treatise that originates from Croatia. In that dialogue, Monaldi devoted a whole chapter to music and presented his version of the general theory of it. Monaldi’s thoughts on beauty and music originate primarily from the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. He was mainly theoretically oriented, thus his ideas on music are primarily based on Plato’s philosophical thoughts, and only partially on Aristotle’s. In the greater part of this chapter, Monaldi does not consider the changes that occurred in the field of music in the second half of the 16th century and on the turn of the 17th century. Thus, his ideas on music and art, in general, can be interpreted almost as a purely theoretical model, without any indications of its possible use in practice. Monaldi’s Platonic orientation is also evident in the form of his work, which is the dialogue form modelled after similar dialogues written by Plato. In some aspects of his discussion on music, though not numerous, Monaldi still relies on Aristotle, especially when it comes to functions of music. In his chapter devoted to music (Dialogo ottavo, fol. 135–153) Monaldi rather thoroughly discusses several aspects of music: the divisions of music into different branches, the intervals, the meaning in music, the functions of music, the modes and the instruments, the relationship between music and politics, the relationship between music and other "objects of hearing", as well as criteria necessary to achieve "proper music". Given the fact that Monaldi treated quite a large number of music issues, his work Irene, overo della bellezza is considered to be the most valuable contribution to the reflection on music from Croatia in the Renaissance period. This paper presents Monaldi’s understanding of music, based on the example of his classifications of it into different categories.

U kontekstu suvremenog znanstvenog izričaja, a s vremenskim odmakom od gotovo pola stoljeća – nezahvalno je i možda nepravedno raspravljati o normativnoj vrijednosti pojma duše u Petrićevim spisima. No, upravo kroz Panspsi­hiju Petrić pokazuje bezvremenu filozofijsku aktualnost, što će u izlaganju biti prezentirano ukazivanjem na određene konstrukte, potencijal no itekako interesantne i iskoristive u odnosu na suvremenu »znanost psihe« – psihologiju, te filozofski kritički pristup navedenoj. Fokus rasprave bit će na drugoj knjizi Panpsihije, te na »umocentričnosti« duše o kojoj Petrić vješto reflektira

Od antike, kada žena nije imala pravo glasa, a glavna joj je uloga bila ona rađalice, do suvremenog doba, kada je žena uz ulogu majke i novostečena prava, također postala i misliteljica, uloga žene nije se bitno promijenila. Ovdje prikazujemo način na koji su tijelo žene i ženski atrinuti poput ljepote i tjelesnosti promatrani kroz povijest.