Šiame straipsnyje aptariamas vienas iš mokslinės pažangos aspektų, būtent konceptualinių priemonių pažangos atvejis, susijęs su momentinių dydžių skaičiavimo įvedimu aprašant netolygų kitimą. Parodomas šio konceptualinio žingsnio vaisingumas bei aptariami keli svarbūs mokslo istorijos epizodai, vedę prie naujojo skaičiavimo: daugiausia dėmesio skiriama Mertono koledžo filosofų ir Oresme'o naujovėms bei Newtono darbams, kuriuose jau sistemingai taikomas naujasis skaičiavimas. Be to, pabrėžiamas grafinių reprezentavimo priemonių efektyvumas gamtotyroje.

Ovaj članak istražuje neke usporednice novoplatonističke tradicije filozofskih komentara uz Platōna i Aristotela. Uz to istražuje egzegetske metode usuglašivanja tih dvaju velikih antičkih mislilaca. Ako prihvatimo Sorabjijevu tvrdnju da je cilj novoplatonističkoga usuglašivanja obrana poganskih filozofa od kritike kršćanskih mislilaca možemo vidjeti jasnu usporednicu s vedāntom koja je branila koherenciju svetoga upanišadskog kanona od buddhističke kritike. Ovaj se članak usredotočuje na novoplatonističkoga komentatora Amonija koji je pokušao usuglasiti Aristotelov nauk o Nepokrenutom pokretaču s Platonovim naukom o Demijurgu i Ideji dobra. (...) S druge strane u Indiji možemo vidjeti sličan pokušaj usuglašivanja različitih upanišadskih učenja o najvišem biću.This article explores some parallels between neoplatonist tradition of philosophical commentaries on Plato and Aristotle and explores some exegetical techniques of harmonisation of these great ancient thinkers. If we accept Sorabji’s claim that the aim of this reconciliation is neoplatonist defence of pagan thinkers from the attack of Christian philosophers than we can see a clear parallel with Vedānta which was defending the coherence of upanishadic sacred canon against Buddhist attack. The paper is focusing on neoplatonist commentator Ammonius who is trying to reconcile Aristotle’s Unmoved mover with Plato’s Demiurge and the Idea of good. On the other side, in India we can see very similar project of harmonisation of the different upanishadic teachings of the highest being. (shrink)

U Rozencvajgovom tekstu?Das?lteste Systemprogramm des deutschen Idealismus. Ein handschriftlicher Fund?, iznenadjuje nepostojanje komentara jednog od najmisterioznijih fragmenata tog kratkog dvostranog rukopisa koji je Rozencvajg otkrio 1914. godine u Pruskoj drzavnoj biblioteci u Berlinu. Rozencvajg detaljno analizira svaki njegov deo dokazujuci cinjenicu da rukopis kojim je napisan ovaj dokument ne podrazumeva da je Hegel i autor tog teksta, potpuno stavljajuci u drugi plan onaj slavan, sasvim anarhistican i radikalan fragment o drzavi. Dakle, moje pitanje je zasto izostaje Rozencvajgova argumentacija o Selingovom (...) razumevanju drzave ili preciznije, kako su Selingovi stavovi o drzavi inkorporisani i transformisani u tekstovima Franca Rozencvajga? Kako Rozencvajg upotrebljava ove fragmente i zasto nigde ne tematizuje Selingove refleksije o drzavi ili Selingovo revolucionarno ucenje o drzavi, kako ga naziva u pomenutom tekstu? (shrink)

Iš lotynų kalbos vertė, įvadinį komentarą ir pastabas parašė Kristijona Čerapaitė.

Abstract in English, German, French and Croatian -/- In the paper “The ‘Bubbling Up’ of Subterranean Politics in Europe”, which was published in 2013 in the Journal of Civil Society, Mary Kaldor and Sabine Selchow attempted to reveal the specific qualities of the uprisings which emerged after the year 2010 in some European countries, such as Germany, Spain, Italy, England etc. According to the authors, the mode of organization which forms the main body of these emancipatory movements obtains its basic (...) logic from the world of the Internet. The use of the Internet requires a re-evaluation of negative philosophical commentary regarding technology. In the context of twentieth-century philosophy, Martin Heidegger and Herbert Marcuse are the most influential philosophers who studied the negative aspects of technology. Heidegger portrayed the destructive effects of scientific reasoning and technology on the Western culture through the criticism of the traditional Western metaphysics on a phenomenological-ontological level. Marcuse, belonging to the tradition of Western Marxism, formed his critique of technology in the context of the concept of instrumental rationality and the critique of advanced industrial society and capitalism. Although the starting points of their perspectives on technology and the underlying purposes of their critiques of technology were different, it may be asserted that both have a rather negative and almost entirely pessimistic disposition towards technology. Heidegger’s and Marcuse’s criticisms of technology will be discussed in this context and the differences and similarities between these criticisms will be shown. Finally, the paper will emphasise the question of the possibility of a positive role of technology. Technology can serve as an alternative to negative uses by shedding light on the relation between the current uprisings and the Internet. Keywords technology, rationality, freedom, enframing, criticism, revolt movements, Internet, politics //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////// Ist die Emanzipation des Menschen durch Technologie möglich? Zusammenfassung In dem Artikel „The ‘Bubbling Up’ of Subterranean Politics in Europe”, veröffentlicht im Jahre 2013 im Journal of Civil Society, versuchten Mary Kaldor und Sabine Selchow die spezifischen Qualitäten der Aufstände zum Ausdruck zu bringen, die nach 2010 in den europäischen Ländern ausbrachen – Deutschland, Spanien, Italien, England usw. Nach Ansicht der Autoren erhält der Modus der Organisation, der den Hauptkörper dieser emanzipatorischen Bewegungen bildet, seine grundlegende Logik aus der Welt des Internets. Die Analogie mit dem Internet erfor- dert eine Neubewertung der negativen Kommentare über die Technologie aus philosophischer Perspektive. Martin Heidegger und Herbert Marcuse sind die einflussreichsten Philosophen, die sich mit den negativen Aspekten der Technologie in der Philosophie des 20. Jahrhunderts befasst haben. Heidegger schilderte die zerstörerischen Auswirkungen der wissenschaftlichen Vernunft und Technologie auf die westliche Kultur durch die Kritik an der traditionellen abend- ländischen Metaphysik auf der phänomenologisch-ontologischen Ebene, während Marcuse, ein Mitglied des westlichen Marxismus, seine Kritik an der Technologie im Rahmen des Konzepts der instrumentellen Rationalität und der Kritik der fortgeschrittenen Industriegesellschaft und Kapitalismus geformt hat. Obgleich die Ansatzpunkte ihrer Perspektiven über die Technologie und die zugrunde liegenden Zwecke ihrer Kritik an der Technologie unterschiedlich waren, kann behauptet werden, dass beide eine eher negative und fast völlig pessimistische Einstellung zur Technologie hatten. In diesem Zusammenhang werden Heideggers und Marcuses Kritiken an der Technologie diskutiert sowie Unterschiede und Ähnlichkeiten zwischen den beiden Kri- tiken aufgezeigt. Abschließend unterstreicht das Paper die Frage nach der Möglichkeit einer positiven Rolle für die Technologie, die als Alternative zur negativen Perspektive dienen kann, indem sie Licht in das Verhältnis zwischen aktuellen Aufständen und Internet bringt. Schlüsselwörter Technologie, Rationalität, Freiheit, Gestell, Kritik, Revoltebewegungen, Internet, Politik //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////// L’émancipation humaine est-elle possible à travers la technologie ? Résumé Dans l’article « The “Bubbling Up” of Suberranean Politics in Europe » publié en 2013 dans Journal of Civil Society, Mary Kaldor et Sabine Selchow tentent de mettre en lumière les caractéristiques spécifiques des révoltes qui ont fait jour après 2010 dans certains pays européens – Allemagne, Espagne, Italie, Angleterre, etc. Selon nos auteures, le mode d’organisation qui a formé le corps essentiel de ces mouvements émancipatoires tire sa logique de base du monde de l’internet. Cette analogie avec l’internet requiert une réévaluation, à partir d’un point de vue philosophique, des commentaires négatifs sur la technologie. Martin Heidegger et Herbert Marcuse sont les philosophes les plus influents ayant travaillé sur les aspects négatifs de la technologie au sein de la philosophie du XXe siècle. Heidegger a dépeint les effets destructeurs de la raison scientifique et de la technologie de notre culture occidentale à travers son criticisme de la métaphysique traditionnelle occidentale à un niveau phénoménologico-ontologique, tandis que Marcuse, membre du « communisme occidentale », a formé une critique de la technologie au sein du concept de rationalité instrumentale et une critique de la société industrielle avancée et du capitalisme. Bien que le point de départ de leur perspective sur la technologie et que le but sous-jacent de leur critique diffèrent, il est possible d’affirmer que leur point commun est d’avoir posé un regard négatif et presque entièrement pessimiste sur la technologie. À cet égard, le criticisme d’Heidegger et de Marcuse vont être abordés afin d’en soulever les différences et les similarités. Enfin, cet article mettra l’accent sur la possibilité d’un rôle positif de la technologie qui pourrait servir d’alternative aux perspectives négatives en faisant la lumière sur le lien entre les révoltes actuelles et l’internet. Mots-clés technologie, rationalité, liberté, mettre en forme, criticisme, mouvements de révolte, internet, politique //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////// Je li moguća ljudska emancipacija kroz tehniku? Sažetak U članku »The ‘Bubbling Up’ of Subterranean Politics in Europe«, objavljenom 2013. u časopisu Journal of Civil Society, Mary Kaldor i Sabine Selchow pokušale su otkriti specifične značajke pobuna koje su se javila nakon 2010. godine u europskim zemljama poput Njemačke, Španjolske, Italije, Engleske itd. Prema autoricama, način organiziranja koji čini glavno tijelo ovih emancipatornih pokreta preuzima svoju osnovnu logiku iz svijeta Interneta. Analogija s Internetom zahtijeva ponovnu evaluaciju negativnih komentara o tehnici iz filozofske perspektive. Martin Heidegger i Herbert Marcuse najutjecajniji su filozofi 20. stoljeća koji su se bavili negativnim aspektima tehnike. Heidegger je prikazao destruktivne učinke znanstvene racionalnosti i tehnike na zapadnu kulturu kroz kritiku tradicionalne zapadne metafizike na fenomenološko-ontološkoj razini, dok je Marcuse, kao predstavnik zapadnoga marksizma, oblikovao svoju kritiku tehnike u kontekstu pojma instrumentalne racionalnosti te kritike razvijenog industrijskog društva i kapitalizma. Iako su polazišne točke njihovih pogleda na tehniku, kao i osnovne svrhe kritike tehnike, različite, može se reći da obojica imaju poprilično negativno i gotovo u potpunosti pesimističko shvaćanje tehnologije. U tom će se kontekstu razmotriti Heideggerova i Marcuseova kritika tehnike kao i razlike i sličnosti između tih dvaju pristupa. Zaključno će rad naglasiti mogućnost pozitivne uloge tehnike, koja može služiti kao alternativa negativnoj perspektivi osvjetljavajući odnos između nedavnih pobuna i interneta. Ključne riječi tehnologija, racionalnost, sloboda, postav, kritika, pobunjenički pokreti, Internet, politika. (shrink)

Tehnofobija je iracionalan strah od utjecaja tehnologije ili tehnoloških artefakata. Filozofski interes za tehnofobiju leži u tri sfere: spoznajnoj, egzistencijalnoj i filozofsko-antropološkoj. U posljednjih pet desetljeća računala su uvelike promijenila i filozofiju. Autori polaze u ocrtavanju problema tehnofobije u filozofiji od pojave tehnofobijskih komentara sa svakim skokom naprijed u sredstvima komunikacije. Sljedeće područje analize je spekulativna fikcija. Utvrdivši značaj spekulativne fikcije za filozofiju, nudi se pregled tehnofobijskih teza u nekim antologijskim djelima spekulativne fikcije.

Based on archival documents, regulatory and other official materials, as well as the press of that time, the article attempts to shed some light on the complex beginning of Lithuanian Roman legal system research. Since the beginning of theUniversity law degree in 1922, the Roman law courses (then divided into history and dogma, the system) were taught with an exclusive focus. However, while assembling the faculty of professors at the Lithuanian university, in the beginning they had to content mainly with (...) practitioners, therefore it was particularly difficult to solve the problem of the Roman legal system researcher that required very specific knowledge. (shrink)

Prvi deo ovog rada, objavljen u prethodnom broju casopisa, bio je posvecen razmatranju religijskog porekla dvojnosti 'duha' i 'slova', a zatim i pitanju njenog znacenja u kontekstu filozofije ranog nemackog idealizma. Ovaj, drugi i zakljucni deo rada usredsredjuje se na eticke implikacije tog pitanja, posto je suprotstavljanje 'duha2 Kantovog sistema njegovom 'slovu', uz cesta pozivanja na novozavetno ispunjenje mojsijevskog zakona ljubavlju i verom predstavljalo jednu od osnovnih strategija kriticara Kantove teorije morala. Krajnja konsekvenca ovog pravca kritike Kanta lezi u ukidanju (...) autoriteta transcendentne moralne norme. Ovaj korak, kojim se istovremeno ponistava autoritet teksta kao takvog, a time i stav komentara kao literarnog zanra moze se uociti vec u Hegelovim mladalackim teoloskim spisima, u kojima se zastupa ukidanje transcendencije moralnog zakona njegovim inkorporiranjem u slobodnu subjektivnost koja egzistira u zajednici verujucih hriscana. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to shed light on different aspects of the hermeneutical problem in post-Kantian philosophical 'constellation'. In this domain, the problem of the relationship between the text and its commentary is theorized in terms of the antithesis between 'Spirit' and 'Letter', which clearly has religious roots. Therefore, the first part of the paper examines the historical origins of this antithesis, as well as its application in philosophical discussions which developed by the end of the 18th century (...) about the problem of finding the 'true' interpretation to Kant's philosophy. The second part of the text, which is to be published in the next issue of this review, brings the duality of spiritual and literal interpretation into closer connection with the topics of Kant's moral philosophy. Namera ovog rada je da osvetli razlicite aspekte hermeneutickog problema u poslekantovskoj filozofskoj 'konstelaciji'. U ovom podrucju, problem odnosa izmedju teksta i komentara postavlja se u terminima antiteze izmedju 'duha' i 'slova', koja ima prepoznatljive religijske korene. Zato prvi deo rada istrazuje istorijsko poreklo ove antiteze, kao i njenu primenu u filozofskim diskusijama koje su se krajem 18. veka razvile povodom problema pronalazenja 'pravog' tumacenja Kantove filozofije. U drugom delu rada, koji ce biti objavljen u sledecem broju casopisa, dvojnost duhovnog i doslovnog tumacenja dovodi se u uzu vezu sa tematikom Kantove teorije morala. (shrink)

I analyze Wittgenstein’s criticism of several assumptions that are crucial for a large part of cognitive science. These involve the concepts of computational processes in the brain which cause mental states and processes, the algorithmic processing of information in the brain (neural system), the brain as a machine, psycho physical parallelism, the thinking machine, as well as the confusion of rule following with behavior in accordance with the rule. In my opinion, the theorists of cognitive science have not yet seriously (...) considered Wittgenstein’s criticism so they, quite surprisingly, frequently confuse the question “how does it work?” with “what does it do?” But their most “deleterious” mistake is their confusion of the internal computational (or parallel) processes taking place in the brain (which possibly cause mental states) with socially-based, everyday criteria of recognition and classification of, and knowledge about, the content of mental states. (shrink)

I analyze Wittgenstein’s criticism of several assumptions that are crucial for a large part of cognitive science. These involve the concepts of computational processes in the brain which cause mental states and processes, the algorithmic processing of information in the brain (neural system), the brain as a machine, psycho physical parallelism, the thinking machine, as well as the confusion of rule following with behavior in accordance with the rule. In my opinion, the theorists of cognitive science have not yet seriously (...) considered Wittgenstein’s criticism so they, quite surprisingly, frequently confuse the question “how does it work?” with “what does it do?” But their most “deleterious” mistake is their confusion of the internal computational (or parallel) processes taking place in the brain (which possibly cause mental states) with socially-based, everyday criteria of recognition and classification of, and knowledge about, the content of mental states. (shrink)