1,721,020 research outputs found
Tko, što, kako? Ideja napretka i društvena promjena
Full text linkIN CROATIAN: U ovom će radu biti riječi o odnosu između novovjekovne ideje napretka i društvenih promjena. Premda je s negativnom kritikom čovjekovih intelektualnih i, značajnije, moralnih kapaciteta u kreaciji boljega društva i svijeta dovedena u pitanje utopijska ideja o svijetloj budućnosti, ideja napretka još uvijek egzistira u suvremeno doba. Ono što ostaje problematičnim, što se i dalje može s pravom smatrati podbačajem ideje napretka, nalazi se u odgovorima na tri pitanja: o subjektu napretka (tko se razvija?), o objektu napretka (što se razvija?) i o sredstvu napretka (kako se razvija, tj. na koji se način napredak ostvaruje?). U beskompromisnom suočavanju kako s odgovorima na njih tako i s posljedicama pronalaženja boljih alternativa davno zadanim premisama napretka leži, po našem mišljenju, rehabilitacijski potencijal ideje napretka i terapijski potencijal društvenih promjena. --------------- IN ENGLISH: This paper discusses the relationship between the modern idea of progress and social change. Although the negative criticism of man's intellectual and, more importantly, moral capacities in the creation of better society and the world have put in question the utopian idea of a bright future, the idea of progress still exists today. What remains problematic and can rightly be considered a shortfall of the idea of progress, lies in the answers to three questions: about the subject of progress (who is progressing?), about the object of progress (what is progressing?) and about the means of progress (how is progressing?, i.e., how is progress achieved?). In an uncompromising confrontation with their responses and with the consequences of finding better alternatives to the long-standing premises of progress, lies the rehabilitation potential of the idea of progress and the therapeutic potential of social change
Mlade žene i rodna ravnopravnost u postjugoslavenskim društvima: istraživanja, prakse i politike: Međunarodna znanstvena konferencija, Zagreb, Hrvatska, 26. - 27. studenoga 2013.: participacijski program UNESCO-a za 2012.-2013. = Young women and gender equality in post-Yugoslav societies: research, practice and policy: International scientific conference, Zagreb, Croatia, November 26-27, 2013: the participation programme of UNESCO for 2012-2013
Full text linkU knjižici je publicirano 26 sažetaka autora/ica sudionika/ca međunarodne znanstvene konferencije. Konferencija je održana u okviru participacijskog programa UNESCO-a za 2012. - 2013
Foreword
Full text linkThe publication of the proceedings “Young Women in Post-Yugoslav Societies: Research, Practice and Policy” is a result of the project “Young Women and Gender Equality in Post-Yugoslav Societies: Research, Practice and Policy”, supported by UNESCO within the framework of the Participation Programme for 2012-2013. The project is based on the synergy of scientific interests of two research teams at the Institute for Social Research in Zagreb: the team for cultural and gender research and the team for research of youth. They were joined by researchers from the Department of Sociology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of Zagreb and the Human Rights Centre at the University of Sarajevo, the partner institutions and co-organizers of this project. The readers of this publication have 5 chapters before them which cover various anthropological, psychological, sociological, political, and legal foundations and perspectives of gender equality of young women. The proceedings discussed gender relations and the ways in which they are formed within the ideal-type sections: education, labour market, family, violence against women, and culture
33. Dani Frane Petrića, Cres, Hrvatska, 21. – 27. rujna 2025 = 33rd Days of Frane Petrić, Cres, Croatia, September 21–27, 2025
No full textIN CROATIAN: Hrvatsko filozofsko društvo, nadahnuto geslom njemačkog filozofa Ernsta Blocha (1885.–1977.), 2025. godine u Cresu organizira međunarodni znanstveni simpozij Pojam budućnosti u filozofiji, znanosti i društvu. Na njemu će se okupiti osamdesetak sudionika iz Hrvatske i inozemstva. Zašto, uopće, simpozij o budućnosti? Zaoštrene globalne rasprave o sudbini svijeta i civilizacije čine filozofskim i znanstvenim imperativom tematizaciju pojma budućnosti, razotkrivanje zamki njegove kolokvijalne (samo) razumljivosti i njegovo smještanje u širi, spram budućnosti ambivalentan društveni kontekst. Promišljati budućnost ujedno znači otvoriti je mnoštvu perspektiva: ontološkoj, epistemološkoj, etičkoj, estetičkoj i političkoj, ali i onima koje tek čekaju da budu otkrivene. U ontologiji i metafizici jedno je od temeljnih pitanja može li budućnost imati vlastiti ontološki status te kako promišljati njezinu zbiljnost u terminima potencijalnosti, mogućnosti ili nužnosti. Može li se govoriti o postojanju onoga što još nije postalo? Prema eternalizmu, budućnost postoji istodobno s prošlošću i sadašnjošću, što nadilazi naše iskustvo linearnog protoka vremena, ali pronalazi uporište u teoriji relativnosti. Nasuprot tomu, prezentizam i teorija rastućeg bloka odbacuju postojanje budućnosti, a time i mogućnost da budući događaji utječu na prošle (retrokauzalnost). Iz perspektive filozofije vremena budućnost se često promatra kao rezultat protoka vremena, koji slijedi prošlost i sadašnjost i čije se konture dohvaćaju tek spekulativnim putem. U kontekstu filozofije povijesti budućnost dobiva na značaju paralelno s prosvjetiteljskim razumijevanjem povijesti kao linearne i vođene idejom napretka. Za Kanta, primjerice, budućnost predstavlja vrijeme odrastanja koje prati odbacivanje svih autoriteta – političkih i religijskih, dok za Hegela budućnost obećava slobodu u punini ljudskoga. Budućnost, kako ističe Bloch, egzistira u području »još-ne-svjesnog, još-ne-postalog«, pa je prepuna potencijala, golicajući čovjekovu maštu, hraneći njegovu nadu i izazivajući njegove strahove. Težnja prema neostvarenome, a onda i budućem, univerzalno je obilježje ljudskosti: oblik je to nadilaženja i transcendiranja postojećega u smjeru ostvarenja potpunije slobode čovjeka i boljega svijeta koji ga okružuje. Otuda čovjekova usmjerenost na »vizije budućih mogućnosti«, utopije, budućnosne imaginarije ili scenarije budućnosti. No tko su realizatori tih vizija, arhitekti budućnosti? Reformatori ili revolucionari? Najugroženiji i najnesretniji, kojima promjena sadašnjosti znači egzistencijalnu nužnost? Filozofi? Ili pak oni koji imaju na raspolaganju alate promjene – znanstvene, tehničke, tehnološke, političke, duhovno-religijske, umjetničke i druge? Koja je uloga mašte u zamišljajima budućnosti i zahtijeva li naziranje njezinih kontura dobro poznavanje i kritiku društvene stvarnosti? U razmatranjima budućnosti u etici i filozofiji politike, suvremena kriza mišljenja (bolje) budućnosti ili »pristranosti za budućnost« često je praćena kritikom ideje napretka kao zapadnjačke ideologije koja vodi u kolonizaciju i destrukciju života, gubitkom vjere u čovjekove intelektualne i moralne sposobnosti oblikovanja boljega svijeta te sumnjom u alate – prije svega znanstvene i tehnološke – koji umjesto u utopiju vode u apokalipsu. To osobito dolazi do izražaja u kontekstu dalekosežne moći suvremenih znanstvenih dostignuća i njihova spasiteljskog potencijala s jedne strane, te destruktivnih implikacija s druge, otvarajući brojna etička pitanja odgovornosti prema čovjeku budućnosti i budućnosti čovječanstva. Pritom se neizbježno postavlja pitanje dolazi li s krizom mišljenja budućnosti i do krize čovjeka kao takvog te je li time historija, svedena na niz ponavljajućih sadašnjosti, došla do svojeg kraja. S druge strane, na tragu Berdjajeva i suvremenih duhovnih pokreta, kao i Hansa Jonasa i njegove ekološko-etičke kritike utopije, otvara se pitanje vodi li orijentacija spram budućnosti instrumentalizaciji sadašnjosti, odnosno njezinu žrtvovanju u ime još-ne-postojećeg čovjeka budućnosti. U determinističkom (i fatalističkom) ključu postavlja se i pitanje treba li možda mišljenje i kreiranje budućnosti prepustiti nekom drugom – ne-ljudskom, onostranom, bilo da je riječ o božanskoj ili umjetnoj inteligenciji. Slojevitost samog pojma budućnosti pokazuje, međutim, da ga ni filozofija, uključujući i svoje etičke i političke dimenzije, ne može iscrpiti u potpunosti. Njegovo razumijevanje traži širi dijalog sa znanošću, umjetnošću, tehnologijom i društvenom praksom. Upravo stoga simpozij Pojam budućnosti u filozofiji, znanosti i društvu otvara prostor interdisciplinarnim raspravama. U tom će se okviru razmatrati bioetika, pedagogija budućnosti i uloga znanja u kapitalizmu, umjetničke i urbanističke vizije nadolazećeg te teološke refleksije o nadi, konačnosti i eshatološkim horizontima. Posebna se pozornost posvećuje tehnici i tehnologiji – umjetnoj inteligenciji, biotehnologiji i digitalnoj kulturi – kao i utopijama i distopijama koje oblikuju kulturno pamćenje i društveno sanjanje. Filozofska refleksija tako se povezuje s aktualnim izazovima, od klimatske krize i održivog razvoja do novih oblika digitalne i medijske stvarnosti. 1 Sve se to odvija u sklopu 33. Dana Frane Petrića u Cresu, koji se ove godine održavaju uz suorganizaciju Instituta za društvena istraživanja u Zagrebu. Sudjelovanje Instituta dodatno naglašava interdisciplinarni karakter simpozija: filozofske uvide o budućnosti nadopunjuju empirijska i društveno-znanstvena istraživanja, osobito u području odgoja i obrazovanja, ekologije, urbanizma, mladih i društvenih promjena. Osobitu težinu programu simpozija daju doprinosi dvojice plenarnih izlagača: profesor Roberto Poli sa Sveučilišta u Trentu, nositelj UNESCO-ove Katedre za anticipatorne sustave i utemeljitelj poslijediplomskog studija društvenog predviđanja, te profesor emeritus Gregory Claeys s Royal Holloway, Sveučilišta u Londonu, međunarodno priznati istraživač utopijskih i distopijskih tradicija i autor niza knjiga, među kojima je i Utopianism for a Dying Planet (Princeton, 2022). Njihova izlaganja usmjeravaju raspravu u dva ključna smjera: teorijsko-metodološki okvir budućnosnih studija te kritičko suočavanje s aktualnim globalnim prijetnjama i mogućnostima. Dodatni okvir dijalogu pruža okrugli stol Tehnobudućnosti i granice ljudskog, posvećen istraživanju granica egzistencije, slobode i odgovornosti u doba nadolazećih tehnologija – od umjetne inteligencije i njezine podrške neurodivergentnim osobama, preko rodno uvjetovanih povreda deepfake pornografije, do bioetičkih dvojbi oko surogatstva. U susretu različitih perspektiva nastoji se rasvijetliti na koje sve načine nove tehnologije razotkrivaju i uznemiruju granice bivanja čovjekom. Kulturno-umjetnički dio programa donosi i filmsku dimenziju: prikazat će se dokumentarni film Blum – Gospodari svoje budućnosti nagrađivane bosanskohercegovačke redateljice Jasmile Žbanić. Film kroz životnu priču Emerika Bluma, vizionara i utemeljitelja sarajevskog Energoinvesta, istražuje pitanje kako pojedinac može preuzeti vlast nad vlastitom sudbinom i ostvariti ono što se u jednom trenutku činilo tek utopijskim snom. Na taj način, projekcija ne nudi samo umjetnički doživljaj, nego i snažan poticaj za promišljanje odnosa između osobne hrabrosti, društvene odgovornosti i mogućnosti da se budućnost oblikuje iznutra, vlastitim djelovanjem i stvaralačkom energijom. Zaključno vrijedi podsjetiti da se upravo 2025. godine obilježava 140. obljetnica rođenja Ernsta Blocha, filozofa nade i utopije. Njegova filozofija nas i dalje podsjeća da budućnost nije tek zastrašujući prizor od kojeg treba odvratiti pogled, niti laka i sigurna nagrada na dohvat ruke, već izazov koji zahtijeva aktivno, kritičko i stvaralačko mišljenje te (su)djelovanje u sadašnjosti. Ovaj simpozij predstavlja korak u tom smjeru. -------------- IN ENGLSIH: Inspired by the maxim of the German philosopher Ernst Bloch (1885– 1977), the Croatian Philosophical Society is organizing in 2025, in the town of Cres, an international scholarly symposium The Concept of the Future in Philosophy, Science, and Society. The event will bring together around eighty participants from Croatia and abroad. Why a symposium on the future, after all? The sharpening global debates about the future of the world and civilization make it imperative to philosophically and scientifically address the concept of the future, to uncover the pitfalls of its colloquial (self-)evidence, and to situate it within a broader social and cultural context marked by ambivalence toward the future. To reflect on the future also means to open it to a multitude of perspectives: ontological, epistemological, ethical, aesthetic, and political, as well as those still awaiting discovery. In ontology and metaphysics, one of the fundamental questions is whether the future can have its own ontological status and how to think about its reality in terms of potentiality, possibility, or necessity. Can we speak of the existence of what has not yet come to be? According to eternalism, the future exists simultaneously with the past and the present, which goes beyond our experience of the linear flow of time but finds support in the theory of relativity. In contrast, presentism and the theory of the growing block reject the existence of the future and, with it, the possibility that future events might affect the past (retrocausality). From the perspective of the philosophy of time, the future is often viewed as a result of the passage of time, following the past and the pre16 sent, and whose contours can only be grasped speculatively. In the context of the philosophy of history, the future gained prominence alongside the Enlightenment understanding of history as linear and guided by the idea of progress. For Kant, for example, the future represents the time of maturation that entails the rejection of all authorities – political and religious – while for Hegel, the future promises freedom in the fullness of the human. The future, as Bloch emphasized, exists in the realm of the “not-yet-conscious, not-yet-become,” and is therefore full of potential: teasing human imagination, feeding hope, and provoking fear. The striving toward the unrealized, and thus toward the future, is a universal feature of humanity: it represents a form of overcoming and transcending the present in pursuit of fuller human freedom and a better world. Hence, humanity’s orientation toward “visions of future possibilities,” utopias, imaginaries of the future, or scenarios of what is to come. But who are the realizers of these visions, the architects of the future? Reformers or revolutionaries? The most vulnerable and the most afflicted, for whom changing the present is an existential necessity? Philosophers? Or those who hold in their hands the tools of change – scientific, technical, technological, political, spiritual-religious, artistic, and others? What role does imagination play in conceiving the future, and does anticipating its contours require profound knowledge and critique of social reality? In ethical and political philosophy, the contemporary crisis of thinking about (a better) future, or of having a “bias toward the future”, is often accompanied by a critique of the idea of progress as a Western ideology that leads to colonization and the destruction of life, by a loss of faith in humanity’s intellectual and moral capacities to shape a better world, and by suspicion of the very tools – above all scientific and technological – that, instead of leading to utopia, may lead to apocalypse. This is particularly evident in the far-reaching power of modern scientific achievements and their salvific potential on the one hand, and their destructive implications on the other, opening numerous ethical questions of responsibility toward the human being of the future and the future of humanity itself. This inevitably raises the question: does the crisis of thinking about the future also entail a crisis of humanity as such, and has history, reduced to a sequence of recurring presents, thereby reached its end? On the other hand, following Berdyaev and contemporary spiritual movements, as well as Hans Jonas17 and his ecological-ethical critique of utopia, one may ask whether orientation toward the future leads to the instrumentalization of the present – its sacrifice in the name of the not-yet-existent human being of the future. From a deterministic (and fatalistic) standpoint, one may also ask whether thinking and shaping the future should perhaps be entrusted to another – non-human, transcendent entity, whether divine or artificial intelligence. The very complexity of the concept of the future shows, however, that philosophy, including its ethical and political dimensions, cannot exhaust it on its own. Understanding it requires a broader dialogue with science, art, technology, and social practice. It is for this reason that the symposium The Concept of the Future in Philosophy, Science, and Society opens a space for interdisciplinary debate. Within this framework, discussions will address bioethics, the pedagogy of the future, and the role of knowledge in capitalism, artistic and urban visions of what is to come, as well as theological reflections on hope, finitude, and eschatological horizons. Special attention will be given to technology – artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and digital culture – and to the utopias and dystopias that shape cultural memory and social imagination. Philosophical reflection thus connects directly with contemporary challenges, from the climate crisis and sustainable development to new forms of digital and media reality.2 All of this takes place as part of the 33rd Days of Frane Petrić in Cres, which this year are being held in co-organization with the Institute for Social Research in Zagreb. The Institute’s participation further underscores the interdisciplinary character of the gathering: philosophical insights into the future are complemented by empirical and social-scientific research, especially in the fields of education, ecology, urbanism, youth, and social change. Adding particular gravity to the program are the contributions of two plenary speakers: Professor Roberto Poli of the University of Trento, holder of the UNESCO Chair in Anticipatory Systems and founder of the postgraduate program in social forecasting, and Professor Emeritus Gregory Claeys of Royal Holloway, University of London, an internationally recognized scholar of utopian and dystopian traditions and author of numerous works, including Utopianism for a Dying Planet (Princeton, 2022). Their 2 Symbolically, artificial intelligence was also used in preparing this book of abstracts, primarily for translation and proofreading, which confirms its ubiquitous role in scientific work.18 lectures guide the discussion in two key directions: the theoretical and methodological framework of futures studies, and the critical confrontation with current global threats and opportunities. An additional framework for the dialogue is provided by the roundtable Techno Futures, Human Limits, dedicated to exploring the boundaries of existence, freedom, and responsibility in the age of emerging technologies – from artificial intelligence and its support for neurodivergent individuals, through gender-based harms of deepfake pornography, to bioethical dilemmas surrounding surrogacy. By bringing diverse perspectives into conversation, the roundtable seeks to illuminate the many ways in which new technologies reveal and unsettle the boundaries of being human. The cultural and artistic part of the program also brings a cinematic dimension: the documentary Blum – Masters of Their Own Destiny by awardwinning Bosnian director Jasmila Žbanić will be screened. Through the life story of Emerik Blum, visionary and founder of Sarajevo’s Energoinvest, the film explores the question of how an individual can take command of their own destiny and realize what once seemed to be no more than a utopian dream. In this way, the screening offers not only an artistic experience, but also a powerful stimulus for reflecting on the relation between personal courage, social responsibility, and the possibility of shaping the future from within, through one’s own action and creative energy. Finally, it is worth recalling that the year 2025 marks the 140th anniversary of the birth of Ernst Bloch, the philosopher of hope and utopia. His philosophy continues to remind us that the future is not merely a terrifying vision to turn away from, nor an easy and certain reward within reach, but a challenge that demands active, critical, and creative thinking as well as (co-)action in the present. This symposium represents a step in that direction
Reformacije i revolucije
No full textIN CROATIAN: Godine 2017. Hrvatsko filozofsko društvo obilježilo je dvije obljetnice: 500. obljetnicu protestantske reformacije i 100. obljetnicu Oktobarske revolucije. Početkom protestantske reformacije simbolično se određuje 31. listopada 1517. godine kada je Martin Luther na vrata crkve u Wittenbergu objesio svojih 95 teza o oprostima grijeha. Događaji koji su uslijedili, predvođeni pozivom više društvenih i vjerskih pokreta na crkvenu reformu, doveli su do raskola Zapadne crkve, nastanka protestantizma te brojnih drugih političkih, ekonomskih i društvenih promjena. Oktobarska revolucija 1917. godine predstavlja drugu i posljednju fazu Ruske revolucije kao odgovora carskom politikom nezadovoljnih seljaka, radnika i vojnika. Njezine su neposredne posljedice bile ukidanje apsolutističke monarhije na čelu s carem Nikolom II., a posredne inauguracija sovjetskog režima i nastanak Sovjetskog Saveza kao vodeće svjetske sile. Premda navedena povijesna zbivanja ne dijele ni mjesto ni trenutak, zajednička osobina protestantske reformacije i Oktobarske revolucije odnosi se na njihov neizmjeran politički, kulturni, ekonomski i intelektualni utjecaj na suvremenu sliku svijeta. Također, njihova je zajednička ontološka pretpostavka sadržana u društvenom momentumu, čiji su pokretači nezadovoljstvo i kritika postojećih okolnosti te nada (naivna ili učena) u mogućnost njihove promjene. Drugim riječima rečeno, u prirodi je reformacija i revolucija transgresija (za)danoga, pri čemu se reformacijske promjene najčešće određuju kao usmjerene k popravljanju, a revolucijske k rušenju postojećih društvenih struktura.Ova je distinkcija ujedno opterećena brojnim normativnim određenjima. S jedne strane, npr. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Karl Marx, Hannah Arendt, Rosa Luxemburg i Gajo Petrović – premda, dakako, iz bitno različitih teorijskih ishodišta – promoviraju vrijednost revolucija i njihovu neumitnost za ostvarenje boljeg društva i svijeta. S druge strane, teoretičari poput Edmunda Burkea, Karla Poppera i Francisa Fukuyame revolucijama odriču trajnu i pozitivnu ulogu u promjeni postojećega jer one, u svojim krajnjim konsekvencama, parafraziramo li čuvenu Büchnerovu rečenicu, poput Saturna, jedu svoju djecu. Pritom oni revolucijama najčešće suprotstavljaju reformacije kao mirne i postupne mijene (obnove, poboljšanja ili usavršavanja), koje ne riskiraju pad u bezvlađe i kaos. Unatoč ovakvim analitičkim distinkcijama, granice između revolucija i reformacija propusne su, o čemu najbolje svjedoči upravo protestantska reformacija, a nerijetko su spoznatljive tek post festum.
Imajući u vidu navedeno, interdisciplinarni simpozij s međunarodnim sudjelovanjem "Reformacije i revolucije. Povodom 500. obljetnice protestantske reformacije i 100. obljetnice Oktobarske revolucije", održan u Zagrebu 14.–16. prosinca 2017. godine, nije samo predstavio izlaganja u kojima se promišljalo filozofsko, geopolitičko, kulturno i ekonomsko nasljeđe protestantske reformacije i Oktobarske revolucije nego i izlaganja u kojima su se razmatrali pojmovi reformacije i revolucije kao takvi, njihovo značenje, položaj danas te njihove perspektive u budućnosti.
Izbor radova koji su nastali na osnovi izlaganja sa spomenutog simpozija donosimo u ovoj knjizi. --------------- IN ENGLISH: In 2017, the Croatian Philosophical Society marked two anniversaries: the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation and the 100th anniversary of the October Revolution. The beginning of the Protestant Reformation is symbolically set on October 31, 1517, when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses on indulgences on the door of a church in Wittenberg. The events that followed, driven by the call of several social and religious movements for church reform, led to the schism of the Western Church, the emergence of Protestantism and many other political, economic and social changes. The October Revolution of 1917 represents the second and last phase of the Russian Revolution policy as a response of peasants, workers and soldiers dissatisfied by the tsarist policy. Its immediate consequences were the abolition of the absolutist monarchy led by Tsar Nicholas II, and indirect the inauguration of the Soviet regime and the emergence of the Soviet Union as the world's leading power.
Although these historical events do not share a place or a moment, the common feature of the Protestant Reformation and the October Revolution relates to their immeasurable political, cultural, economic and intellectual impact on the contemporary image of the world. Also, their common ontological assumption is contained in the social momentum, whose drivers are dissatisfaction and criticism of existing circumstances, and hope (naïve or educated) in the possibility of their change. In other words, in the nature of the reformations and the revolutions is a transgression of the given, where the reformation changes are most often defined as aimed at repairing, and the revolutionary changes at the destruction of existing social structures.
The latter distinction is burdened by numerous normative denotations. On the one hand, for example, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Karl Marx, Hannah Arendt, Rosa Luxemburg and Gajo Petrović – although, of course, from fundamentally different theoretical starting positions – promote the value of revolutions and their inevitability in the creation of a better society and world. On the other hand, theorists like Edmund Burke, Karl Popper, and Francis Fukuyama deny revolutions a lasting and positive role in changing the existing because they, in their ultimate consequences, to paraphrase Büchner’s famous sentence, like Saturn, devour their own children. At the same time, they usually position revolutions in contrast to reformations, peaceful and gradual changes (renewals, improvements or refinements), which do not risk falling into anarchy and chaos. Despite such analytical distinctions, the boundaries between revolutions and reformations are blurred, as best demonstrated by the Protestant Reformation, and are often recognizable only post festum. With this in mind, an interdisciplinary symposium with international participation "Reformations and Revolutions. On the occasion of the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation and the 100th anniversary of the October Revolution", held in Zagreb on 14-16 December 2017, not only presented talks reflecting on the philosophical, geopolitical, cultural and economic heritage of the Protestant Reformation and the October Revolution, but also those discussing the concepts of reformation and of revolution as such, their meaning, contemporary position and their future perspectives. The selection of papers from the mentioned symposium is presented in this book
Gordana Bosanac - ženska ki je uspela misliti
Full text linkIN SLOVENIAN: Besedilo predstavlja življenjepis ugledne hrvaške znanstvenice in filozofinje Gordane Bosanac. Predstavljene so tudi njene najpomembnejše filozofske teme, ki jih je obdelala v knjigah Utopija i Inauguralni paradoks ter Visoko čelo. --------------- IN CROATIAN: U radu se iznose biografski podaci o znamenitoj hrvatskoj filozofkinji i sociologinji Gordani Bosanac, zaposlenici Instituta za društvena istraživanja u Zagrebu.Također, autorica se osvrće na najznačajnija znanstvena i filozofska djela Gordane Bosanac kao i na njezinu feminističku ostavštinu. --------------- IN ENGLISH: The paper presents biographical information about the famous Croatian philosopher and sociologist Gordana Bosanac, an employee of the Institute for Social Research in Zagreb. The author looks back at the most significant scientific and philosophical works of Gordana Bosanac as well as her feminist legacy
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
- …
