Search

U svojim poznim tekstovima Fuko je ponudio jedno tumačenje Kanta koje mu daje povlašćeno mesto u istoriji mišljenja kao osnivaču naše modernosti. Fukoovi protivnici (Frejzer, Habermas i drugi) su to protumačili kao dokaz nedovoljnosti Fukoove ranije kritike Kanta, kao i kritike modernosti. Sam Fuko je uglavnom insistirao na razlikama između Kantove kritike i svog istraživanja o istorijskim uslovima znanja. Cilj ovog rada je da koriguje tezu Fukoovih kritičara, ali i Fukoovo samorazumevanje, i to kroz razmatranje njegovog pojma „istorijskog a priori“. Fukoov pokušaj da predstavi Kanta kao začetnika épistémè čoveka, koja je obeležena mešanjem empirijskog i transcendentalnog, podložan je kritici. Pored toga, neke teme Kantove kritičke filozofije: kontingencija ljudskih moći saznanja, definicija znanja u terminima odnosa između „vidljivog“ i „iskazivog“ i, na opštijem planu, pitanje granica znanja, znatno su uticale na Fukoa. S druge strane, Fukoovi kritičari su propustili da primete da se on distancirao od kantovskog ispitivanja uslova mogućnosti „istinitog saznanja“ zarad održivosti sopstvenog istraživanja faktičkog znanja i mogućnosti prevazilaženja njegovih granica. Slično tome, Fuko se u svojoj nestandardnoj interpretaciji Kantovog spisa o prosvećenosti ograđuje od univerzalističkih tendencija njegove filozofije i naglašava motive hrabrosti, individualne autonomije i otpora autoritetu koji su prisutni u Kantovom pozivu: „Imaj hrabrosti da se služiš sopstvenim razumom!“.

Los servicios sociales son un campo de las políticas públicas sometido a cambios y tensiones importantes. Estas tensiones y transformaciones tienen sus raíces tanto en cambios sociales profundos como en dificultades internas del sector. Este artículo trata de aportar al debate una aproximación a las raíces de estas tensiones, y algunas de las posibles vías de desarrollo. Solo trata de algunos de los problemas institucionales o estructurales del sector, sin entrar en los problemas de la práctica y la acción concreta que desarrollan los servicios sociales. Abordaremos, en primer lugar, algunos elementos generales sobre el origen y la naturaleza de las tensiones; en segundo lugar, trataremos de discutir si tiene sentido hablar de los servicios sociales con un único espacio o sector, o si se trata de un conjunto de cosas muy diversas; en tercer lugar, intentaremos identificar algunas de las posibles vías de desarrollo futuro de estos campos. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Croatica et Slavica Iadertina is the property of University of Zadar, Department of Croatian & Slavic Studies 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.)

Kultura laži Dubravke Ugrešić premašuje konvencionalne dosege kulturne kritike. Ona hoće dovesti u pitanje samu bit kulture, hoće izreći istinu o kulturi laži. Za to potrebno je osmisliti jezik koji će kultura razumjeti, ali koji će na osobit način biti neovisan o njoj. Samo se na taj način dva međusobno oprečna gledišta mogu dovesti u vezu. Ovdje se mora postaviti pitanje kako je moguće napraviti kategorički rez između dvaju iskustava i dvaju svjetova, osobito u kontekstu postmoderna brisanja fiksiranih uporišta. Je li kritika ono drugo ili ono drukčije od kulture, i otud, je li istina ono drugo ili ono drukčije od laži? Dosadašnja istraživanja ne idu dalje od upućivanja na razliku između izopćeničke i normativne perspektive. Stoga će se u ovome radu problematizirati: a) osnove jedne kritike koja istodobno ima namjeru biti različita i sveobuhvatna i b) osnove jedne kulture čija sveobuhvatnost istodobno ima namjeru isključiti ono što se od nje razlikuje. Pritom će se, s jedne strane, koristiti nazori feminističke epistemologije, a, s druge, semiotike i semiologije, jer se upravo u njima uvjerljivo prelama proturječna narav autoričine kritike kulture. Na taj će se način, u konačnici, steći uvidi u kritičku metodu Dubravke Ugrešić.

Početak austrougarske vladavine, ujedno je i početak ozbiljnijih naučnih istraživanja o prošlosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Iako je nova vlast imala politički interes u brojnim kulturnim poduhvatima, taj politički aspekat je u kritikama istih prenaglašen i izvađen iz konteksta vremena i naročito onoga što se radilo u susjedstvu na polju kulture. Pored toga, pozitivan doprinos u očuvanju kulturne baštine i općenito istraživanju Bosne i Hercegovine je nešto što su kritičari uglavnom ignorirali. Ovaj rad kroz analizu književne kritike, nastale kao osvrt na pojedine izdavačke pothvate, i historiografije, koja se bavila kulturnom historijom Bosne i Hercegovine za vrijeme austrougarske vladavine, pokušava dati doprinos upoznavanju motiva za kritiku austrougarske kulturne politike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of HUM: Journal of the Faculty of Arts at the University of Mostar is the property of University of Mostar, Faculty of Arts 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.)

Copyright of Hercegovina. Journal of Cultural Heritage & History (Since 2018) is the property of Sveuciliste u Mostaru, Filozofski fakultet 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.)

Монографија Снежане Милојевић Закон земље, како сама ауторка наводи у предговору, настала је као скуп њених већ објављених студија обједињених заједничком темом у референтним зборницима и научним часописима. Публикована поводом стогодишњице читања опуса нашег нобеловца, ова научна синтеза осветљава, пре свега, статус женских ликова у Андрићевом стваралаштву, уз методолошку апаратуру савремених књижевних теорија. Иако и сама скептична кад је реч о савременом приступу опусу једног модернисте, Снежана Милојевић у својим студијама показује аргументовану оправданост теза које заступа. Једна од лајтмотивских, која се јавља већ и у самом наслову књиге, указује на човекову предиспонираност на пад, ка земљи, која „тражи своје“, што ће и сама ауторка, цитирајући Андрића, поновити на више места у својој монографији.

A pszi-komplexum diszciplínái – pszichológia, pszichoterápia, pszichiátria – a modernitás egy mély ellentmondásának képződményei. Létük egyszerre alapul azon a belátáson, hogy a lélek ontológiailag különböző státuszú, mint az anyag. Ugyanakkor mind a három diszciplína fő sodra osztozik azon a tudományos-technikai attitűdön, amely a lélek jelenségeinek megismerését a természettudományos módszerből eredezteti, befolyásolásukat pedig technikai-technológiai módszerekkel véli megvalósítani. Az írás célja, hogy ezen ellentmondás néhány fontosabb következményére felhívja a figyelmet.

A generációkutatás témakörében az elmúlt években nagy mennyiségű – ugyanakkor változó minőségű – írás született. A téma iránt töretlen az érdeklődés, noha egymásnak egyre inkább ellentmondó és módszertani szempontból is megkérdőjelezhető eredmények látnak napvilágot. A médiából tájékozódás nyomán az emberekben előítéletek, hiedelmek alakulnak ki, amelyeket tudományos igényű munkák ellensúlyozhatnának, ám ezekkel szemben számos, megalapozott kritika vonul fel. Mindmáig kérdés, hogy a generáció válasz-e egyes jelenségekre, vagy ezt csak „generáltuk” magunknak és a háttérben például életkor-függő, vagy az emberi életciklushoz kötődő jellegzetességek lapulnak? A körültekintő kutatás bonyolult, hosszadalmas, ezért sokan felszínes vizsgálatokat végeznek, vagy épp túlzottan elmélyedve nem tudják megválaszolni a problémákat, visszajutnak az egyéni különbségekhez, esetleg teljesen el is vetik a generációs megközelítést. E helyzetben leginkább egyfajta „felelős generációkutatás” javasolható, amely a már bejárt tévutak helyett a tudományos megalapozottság felé fordul és a megközelítés kritikáit is szem előtt tartva igyekszik megtalálni végre a „rációt a generációkban”. Munkám ezen irány megtalálásához összegzi a szempontokat.

Autor předkládá svůj pohled na nedávno publikovaný článek autorského kolektivu pod vedením Jiřího Říčana. Stavbu článku, jeho obsah i odborné pojetí považuje za vadné, příslušnou argumentaci a jednotlivé námitky jsou v článku uvedeny. Tyto námitky jsou řazeny v posloupnosti čtenáře textu, nikoli podle jejich vnímané závažnosti.

Copyright of Phainomena is the property of Phenomenological Society of Ljubljana 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.)

This study deals with the practice of art criticism in the Politik, a daily German-language periodical of the National Party (Národní strana, also known as the staročeši, or ‘Old Czech Party’) whose readership included both (ethnic) Czechs and Germans of the bourgeois middle-class during the 1870s. Based on the example of Viktor Guth’s regular reporting on Czech and German theatrical presentations in Prague, the study examines the position of the Politik straddling the boundary between these two language cultures. In particular, it aims to better understand intercultural crossover as carried out within the editorial practices of the periodical vis-à-vis the cultural sector, and through communication with the model reader, giving vocal support, at the political level, to the Czech national program. Through an analysis of an 1873 article by Emanuel Bozděch, in which the critic offers his evaluation of the work of Franz Grillparzer (set in the context of Grillparzer’s reception in the Czech lands during the 19th century), the study also considers the possibilities presented by the Politik for bringing cultural impulses into the Czech-speaking environment, as well as the role it played in the field of literary criticism vis-à-vis that of autonomous Czech artistic production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Pediatrie pro Praxi is the property of SOLEN sro 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.)

In Announcement of the Programme of his Lectures for the Winter Semester 1765-1766, Immanuel Kant outlined his views of how philosophical education ought to be conducted. According to him, the method of instruction in philosophy should be zetetic, which means that students should first learn to philosophize rather than (as they typically expect) to learn philosophy, that is, that learning how to think for oneself ought to be preferred over learning particular philosophical systems. Kant argued for this view by claiming that philosophy at his time was not yet a complete discipline, and accordingly, that there was no philosophical book which might be said to contain definite solutions to the main philosophical problems. Given that the claims above had been stated in 1765, and that later on (in the 1780s and 1790s in particular) Kant thought that he had practically solved (or resolved) all the important philosophical questions, it is interesting to see whether his views of philosophical education remained the same, even more so because at that time he still claimed (for example, in Critique of Pure Reason and according to some transcriptions of his lectures) that his age was the age of critique and therefore it had to be seen what will come of it. I argue in this paper that there are good reasons to believe that Kant's aforementioned claims are compatible and that the continuity of his thoughts on these things can be preserved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Studia Ethnologica Croatica is the property of Studia Ethnologica Croatica 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.)

Copyright of Athena: Filosofijos studijos is the property of Lithuanian Culture Research Institute 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.)

The study looks at Karel Sezima's (1876--1949) criticism during the Great War, 1914--1918. It seeks to demonstrate how Sezima opposed concepts that tried-- from the outbreak of war -- to identify the impact that current epoch-making events had on literature. Sezima preserved this mindset throughout the war, ignoring or criticizing the later changes in public discourse, the ethical shift in literature, and changes in other critics' approaches. His insistence on the autonomy of art and his rejection of everything even suspected of putting pressure on the creative act were manifested as a continuation of the analytical model of criticism, which focuses on form. It resembled conservatism, enshrining modernistic attitudes to literature at a turning point in history. The author also seeks to explain how Sezima's approach differed from Arne Novák's (1880--1939). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article deals with the beginnings of the magazines Tvar (Form) and Obrys -Kmen (Contours-Stem), which were founded on the vestiges of defunct periodicals Kmen and Obrys. What they present, for the most part, are editorial statements and positions, as well as metacriticism and profiles on various publications from the diverse medium of literary journals in the context of the newly democratized literary sphere of the 1990s. The aim of this article is to show, using the examples of Tvar and Obrys- -Kmen, how the prominent position and status of official literary criticism and its representatives changed after 1989, as they were cast to the (apparent) periphery of the field.

Copyright of Filozofija i Drustvo is the property of University of Belgrade, Institute for Philosophy & Social Theory 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.)

Copyright of Journal for the Critique of Science, Imagination & New Anthropology / Časopis za Kritko Znanosti, Domišljijo in Novo Antropologijo is the property of Institute for the Critique of Science 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.)

Copyright of Filozofija i Drustvo is the property of University of Belgrade, Institute for Philosophy & Social Theory 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.)

Copyright of Metszetek is the property of University of Debrecen 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.)

Copyright of Acta Humana - Human Rights Publication is the property of National University of Public Service 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.)

V luči poudarjenega pluralizma raziskovalnih metod in perspektiv v sodobni humanistiki sta v članku prikazana in problematizirana postkritični pristop in metodologija ter njuna relevantnost v preučevanju književnosti. Na podlagi tez Rite Felski in ob upoštevanju nekaterih drugih predstavnikov postkritične prakse (Christopher Castiglia, Matthew Mullins) posebno pozornost namenjamo interpretaciji književnosti oz. predpostavkam njenega razumevanja v tej raziskovalni perspektivi: »sumničava interpretacija«/»odpiranje« besedilu, »hiperkritični analitični stil«/»afektivna hermenevtika«, »zadovoljstvo v kritiki«/»zadovoljstvo v branju«.

A Rendészettudományi szaklexikon vezető szerkesztője írásában reflektál a Korinek László akadémikus által utólag, a szaklexikonra vonatkozóan megfogalmazott konkrét észrevételekre, véleményekre. Bizonyos résztények alátámasztásával egyetemben kifejti a megállapításokkal kapcsolatos reflexióit. Érkezett: 2020. november 8. Elfogadva: 2020. december 12.

This article deals with the beginnings of the magazines Tvar (Form) and Obrys-Kmen (Contours-Stem), which were founded on the vestiges of defunct periodicals Kmen and Obrys. What they present, for the most part, are editorial statements and positions, as well as metacriticism and profiles on various publications from the diverse medium of literary journals in the context of the newly democratized literary sphere of the 1990s. The aim of this article is to show, using the examples of Tvar and Obrys-Kmen, how the prominent position and status of official literary criticism and its representatives changed after 1989, as they were cast to the (apparent) periphery of the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Science of Gymnastics Journal is the property of Science of Gymnastics Journal 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.)

The development of a professional network, as well as long-standing disputes, among the most prominent representatives of Czech modernism at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries — F. X. Šalda on the one hand, and Arnošt Procházka and the Moderní revue (especially Jiří Karásek) on the other — can be traced through several stages. First, 1893–1895, a period of mutual curiosity and emerging factions, from the earliest meeting up to the formal manifestation of Česká moderna, which was preceded by the establishment of the Moderní revue as first independent literary platform of the 1890s. Second, 1895–1900, a period in which various trends converged in the connection of art to life and society, and in a confrontation with other emerging, alternative concepts of modernism, namely Synthetism. Third, 1900–1910, a period that looks back, from the strata of generational polemics, culminating in the controversy surrounding Šalda’s pseudonyms, to the accusation of Karásek in what has come to be known as the anonymous letters affair. Fourth, 1910–1925, when each side declared hostility towards, or simply ignored, the other’s role in Czech modernism, from the conclusion of the anonymous letters affair to Procházka’s death. This study focuses in particular on the two initial periods, on the roots of the polemic, and on key moments in the 1890s: that is, on the onset and gradual differentiation of modernist literary creation and criticism in all its forms, on the transformations and extremes of the polemic as the example of a genre whose essence is dialogue and misunderstanding in equal parts. While the polemic is often rife with personal attacks, it also tends to crystallize in a mirror that reveals the collisions and transformations of Czech modern aesthetic thinking, and that illuminates connections and transitions in the field of literary and cultural production.

Copyright of Slavistična Revija is the property of Slavisticno Drustvo Slovenije 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.)

Copyright of Menotyra is the property of Lithuanian Academy of Sciences Publishers 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.)

The term and concept "physiological music" sprang up in the early 1920s from the soil of German phenomenological music aesthetics. Paul Bekker employed it in defining the fundamental principle of New Music where it consists in the discovery of new beauty in an autonomous universe of sounds. The debate on "physiological music" then came to represent one of the crucial impulses for the development of Czech musical culture in the 1920s. Czech critics and composers of the modernist generation (B. Vomáčka, V. Petrželka, J. Bartoš a.o.) viewed Bekker's concept and its collateral tendency of New Music - which they would often bracket as "asentimentalism" - on the whole negatively, even cautioning that for Czech music to follow this road could be fatal. In the fluid and disorientating situation prevailing in the first half of the 1920s, they took exception to the most extreme of what they knew of contemporary music, German in particular (notably the output of E. Krenek, P. Hindemith, as well as A. Hába's works from the early 1920s), which they associated with the notion physiological music. In any case, for them the only possible option for Czech music lay in the sphere of "psychological music" which, it should be pointed out, they did not regard uniquely as Romantic music (which had by then been surpassed), but rather as a living tradition which could and ought to be further meaningfully developed. There, an important role was played by the national aspect. Critics pertaining to the modernist generation believed physiological music to be quintessentially German: sharp-edged, hard, intellectual, élitist, asentimental, technicist, and therefore utterly unsuitable as a model for new Czech music whose essential tendency, as they saw it, was to appeal to "hearts and souls", and consequently could develop solely along the lines of "psychological music". In contrast to that, avant-garde projections concerning a new face of Czech music, which cropped up in the late 1920s (I. Krejčí, F. Bartoš, C. Blattný, E. F. Burian a.o.) would include as one of its prerequisites a physiological quality, in the sense of music which was set to immediately attack the human senses and stimulate the body to motion - i.e., a sense different from that outlined by Bekker. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Filozofski Vestnik is the property of Scientific Research Centre of Slovenian Academy of Sciences & Arts 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.)

Copyright of Filozofski Vestnik is the property of Scientific Research Centre of Slovenian Academy of Sciences & Arts 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.)

Copyright of Filozofski Vestnik is the property of Scientific Research Centre of Slovenian Academy of Sciences & Arts 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.)

Copyright of Historical Journal / Historijski Zbornik is the property of Drustvo za Hrvatsku Povjesnicu 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.)

Copyright of Colloquia is the property of Institute of Lithuanian Literature & Folklore 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.)