
We kindly inform you that, as long as the subject affiliation of our 300.000+ articles is in progress, you might get unsufficient or no results on your third level or second level search. In this case, please broaden your search criteria.
The presented text constitutes the literary basis of my lecture given to the students of philosophy at Sofia University. Of course, the transcript only transmits schematically the actual content of the course. The living atmosphere of communicating with the audience remains unbearable. Stylistically, the text follows Étienne Gilson's recommendation to read the studied author with a pencil in hand. At the same time, he, in some way, stylized the discussed contraversion, ignoring the ecclesiastic, ideological, political, and other contexts of discussion. This is done for the sole purpose of demonstrating the philosophical substance as much as possible in the intellectual disturbances of the last decades of Byzantium. The hope is that such an "extract" will show how inherently inappropriate and misleading is the question often asked: "Is there such a thing as Byzantine philosophy?" For several years now, studies have confirmed the immanent philosophical character of Byzantine culture. This book is a modest attempt to add a few more arguments in this direction. - Tzotcho Boiadjiev
More...
The cultural approach is based on the belief that - despite even the most dramatic contradictions between strict and disciplined theory and the hardly perceived detachment and disparity of human habitation - philosophy is nothing but the life itself in the logos. To reconstruct the past philosophical system means not only to correctly restore the logical scheme of the respective doctrine, but above all, to manifest its living flesh, its beyond logical element.
More...
Recently, reduced interest in the diplomatic struggle for the recognizing of the new Yugoslav state in the Russian historiography. The reason is that in Soviet times the topic of relations AVNOJ and the USSR in this period has been given sufficient attention. And despite some discussion, the topic is fairly investigated. However, the problem of international recognizing of the new Yugoslavia is beyond the scope of relations between the USSR and the partisan commanders. It includes a set of international issues related to the struggle between the great powers for the organization of the postwar European order. In the Soviet historiography begins researching of this topic in a short time after the Second World War end. But the majority of researcher studied the soviet struggle for new Yugoslavia recognizing only. Moreover owing to peculiarity of the soviet archive system were almost all of the soviet sources without attention. Besides were not well-known the British sources. Consequently there are some questions, which are some discussion and now there about. The Soviet-Partisans relations in November–December 1943 connected with the summit in Jajce The Change of the British-American strategy towards Yugoslavia and their Michailovich give up The Tito summits with Churchill and Shubashich in the summer of 1944 The Tito secret visit to Moscow in September 1944 and the contents of his speaking to Stalin The British-Soviet negotiations in autumn of 1944 and the „procent agreement”. Consequently is this topic of present interest. But its researching isn’t possible without renovating of source base, especially without using the sources of the soviet foreign policy on the end of the Second World war. Moreover is also necessary to change the methodology and examine this problem in the context of relations between the great powers.
More...
In the postsocialist regimes the rehabilitation of the quislings is a part of the useful new past. The article deals with the Serbian conservative attempts to rehabilitate serbian quislings in WW 2. The paper presents some forms of actually anti-antifascism. The former prescribed communist antifascism is replaced by anticommunist anti-antifascism. It was supposed the connection between economic privatization and a strong shift to the right awareness of the past. Quislings should be rehabilitated not only for normalizing nationalism but also because of the suppression of the Left, which should deprive her important moralpolitical capital – antifascism.
More...
This article is an attempt to determine three different concepts of historiographical explanations of the history of Yugoslavia during the period of socialism (1945-1991), and how those concepts and different paradigms over history of socialistic Yugoslavia: paradigm of historicism, paradigm of modernization, and totalitarian paradigm - are changing scientific contextualization of contemporary history of socialistic Yugoslavia.
More...
Kada čovek uđe u špenglerovsku misao i odomaći se u njegovoj viziji istorije, odista se u našoj istoriji otvaraju nove i verovatno plodne perspektive, koje su kadre da osvetle naše probleme na jedan nov i svež način. Kada kažem "naši problemi", mislim na istoriske probleme Južnih Slovena uopšte, koji čine jednu nesumnjivu celinu, naročito pod špenglerovskom perspektivom; jer tu ne može biti govora o nekim "posebnim kulturama", imajući u vidu pojam i značaj kulture u smislu Špenglerovom, kao velike i moćne morfološke istoriske jedinice. I pitanja o mogućim pseudomorfozama, o felaštvu, i pitanja o "uticajima" velikih kultura špenglerovskih, o sferi njihovoj, o pritisku njihovom na naše ljudstvo, i pitanja o više ili manje problematičnoj samosvojnosti i originalnosti – jednaka su i ravnoznačna za sva južnoslovenska plemena, koja u tom smislu čine neodvojivu celinu aspekta. Posle jedne špenglerovske "revije" naših južnoslovenskih istorisko-kulturnih problema, uveliko se mora promeniti uobičajeni aspekt pod kojim su oni, u većini slučajeva, dosada promatrani; tu se ne radi o više ili manje direktnoj primeni stranih evropskih formulacija na naše probleme, budući da špenglerovska vizija istorije oslobađa od uske i jednostrane evropske perspektive (u čemu i jeste njen veliki prinos modernoj istoriskoj misli) i stavlja ljudstva, plemena, nacije duhovna stremljenja njihova pod šire vidike, dopuštajući da se obazremo po šiem istoriskom terenu no što, je to običavalo biti dosada. T
More...
The core of the volume is the texts dealing with Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911). Although his texts could be interpreted from point of view of cultural history, the author tries to make a philosophical interpretation. Although they may seem thematically distant, the other texts are based on the development of Dilthey motifs. Kantian inspiration was evident in the analysis of the Enlightenment concept of woman and family, as well as in the interpretation of the Central European tradition of aesthetic formalism. The emergence of the philosophy of history and sociological theory in the philosophy of language and the theory of communicative behavior is shown in an analysis of the most important texts by Jürgen Habermas and Karl-Otto Apel.
More...
Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine i njen Odbor za istorijske nauke, organizirao je u saradnji sa Orijentalnim institutom, Filozofskim fakultetom i Institutom za istoriju u Sarajevu međunarodni okrugli sto posvećen naučnom djelu akademika Branislava Đurđeva koji je održan 4. decembra. 2009. Na skupu su učestvovali i svoje referate podnijeli učesnici iz Albanije, Bosne i Hercegovine, Bugarske, Crne Gore, Hrvatske Njemačke, Sjedinjenih Američkih Država i Srbije. Knjiga “Naučno djelo akademika Branislava Đurđeva” predstavlja zbornik radova sa ovog skupa, uz napomenu da neki od referata podnesenih na skupu nisu dostavljeni redakciji Zbornika te nisu našli svoje mjesto u ovoj knjizi. U sadržaj zbornika je naknadno uvršten rad Muhameda Filipovića. Stavovi izneseni u pojedinim radovima u ovom Zborniku isključivo reflektuju mišljenja njihovih autora. Održavanje skupa i izdavanje zbornika finansijski su omogućili Ministarstvo civilnih poslova Bosne i Hercegovine, Grad Sarajevo i Federalno ministarstvo obrazovanja i nauke.
More...
In seinem Beitrag betont der Autor die Tatsache, dass in der bosnischherzegowinschen Historiographie, aber auch im ganzen Raum des ehemaligen gemeinsamen Staates, Professor Đurđev einer der wenigen Wissenschaftler war, die sich mit den Problemen der Geschichtsphilosophie auseinandersetzte, indem er versuchte, methodologische Ansätze dieser Wissenschaft aus dem Verständnis der Geschichte und deren Charakter herauszuarbeiten. Der Autor ist der Ansicht, dass gerade dieses Segment seines Schaffens, im Sinne der Aktualität und Weritgkeit des Beitrags zu unserer Geschichtswissenschaft, das bedeutendste im ganzen Opus von Professor Đurđev ist. Der Autor stimmt einigen Kritikern zu, dass jenes Segment seines Werks, das sich auf die Rolle der Serbisch-Orthodoxen Kirche zur Zeit der osmanischen Herrschaft in unserer Region, auch auf die Probleme der Wallachen, insbesondere im Rahmen der Geschichte Montenegros, bezieht, weniger bedeutend ist als der Beitrag, den Đurđev mit seinen Erörterungen zum Begriff der Weltgeschichte, zur Natur der Geschichtswissenschaft und der Methdologie der Geschichte und zu ihrer Beziehung zu anderen Wissenschaften leistete.
More...
Die marxistische Lehre stellt eine der komplexesten Fragen der modernen Zeit dar, vor allem deswegen, weil nach dem Tod von Karl Marx (1883) eine ganze Reihe von Historikern auftauchten, die sich als seine konsequente Anhänger darstellten. Unter ihnen gab es “verfehlte” oder “falsche Marxisten”, deren Einstellungen völlig von den grundsätzlichen Position des Marxismus abwichen, es gab auch solche, die diese Lehre nur in Ansätzen annahmen, aber auch konsequente Historiker, die in ihre ganze Wissenschaftsphilosophie originäre marxistische Prinzipien einführten. Einer der Protagonisten der letzten Gruppe war auch der bosnisch-herzegowinische Historiker Branislav Đurđev. Seine marxistische Geschichstauffassung brachte er in einer Reihe von Aufsätzen, Studien und Abhandlungen zum Ausdruck, in welchen er explizite seinen Standpunkt verteidigte und jene heftig kritisierte, die von dieser Auffassung abwichen.
More...
Diese Arbeit versucht eine Übersicht über die langwierige, umfassende und teilweise scharfe Polemik über theoretische Fragen der Geschichtswissenschaft, die zwischen der kroatischen Historikerin Mirjana Gross und dem bosnisch-herzegowinischen Geschichtswissenschaftler Branislav Đurđev geführt wurde, zu geben. Die Polemik begann nach Đurđevs Kritik des Buchs von Mirjana Gross unter dem Titel “Historijska znanost” („Geschichtswissenschaft”) aus dem Jahr 1976 in der Sarajevoer Zeitschrift Prilozi (Beiträge). Die Polemik kulminierte kurze Zeit nach dem Auftrit der Mirjana Gross am Kongress der jugoslawischen Historiker 1977 in Novi Sad, in den polemischen Schriften beider Autoren in der Zagreber Zeitschrift für moderne Geschichte (Časopis za suvremenu povijest) 1978 und wurde schließlich 1980 beendet. Der Haupteinwand Branislav Đurđevs war, dass Gross ini hren theoretischen Arbeiten und Auftritten von der ursprünglichen marxistischen Geschichtslehre abgewichen und unter den Einfluss der westlichen nichtmarxistischen theretischen Tendenzen, vor allem des Strukturalismus und Funktionalismus geraten ist. Gross beschuldigte wiederum Đurđev des marxistischen Dogmatismus.
More...
This collection of nineteen essays written by prominent historians demonstrates the diversity of academic approaches. Their work with historical sources, the foundation stone of research, is combined with ethical and aesthetic decision-making, which forms an indisputable part of their work. This is often surprising - both for the readers and themselves. It represents a great intellectual adventure. They cannot invent sources or set arbitrary rules, plots, and twists and turns, as a novelist might. However, they can write a scientific work which is the result of a creative approach.
More...
I first met Josef Sebastian in 2008. Actually, that wasn’t the very first meeting. I had previously been drawn to a study from the mid-20th century by the Brno historian Michael Vaňáček dedicated to admirers of the French Revolution among the clergy in the Znojmo region. It is rare enough to find revolutionary sympathisers among the Catholic clergy, but the fact that this story was also set in my native region meant that I couldn’t ignore it. However, I’d never wanted to get involved in ecclesiastical history and in any case this was only of marginal interest. In the spring of 2009, my friend Jarda from the Catholic Theological Faculty and I were organizing the biennial for the Czech Society of 18th Century Studies, which we decided would focus on the Catholic Enlightenment. We were working with our friend Claire on a project about the dissemination of information on the French Revolution and so it occurred to me that I could have a closer look at these troublesome south-Moravian priests and thus connect the theme of the biennial with that of my own research. This would also satisfy the curiosity which is always awoken in me by such ‘red priests’. There was no doubting though that it would be in the form of a brief paper, as such a marginal issue was certainly not allowed to divert me from my central theme of the dissemination of information on the French Revolution, propaganda strategies and the formation of public opinion which I wanted my book to be about! Anyway, I said to myself, his ‘ideas’ will no doubt be naïve and predictable. What could a village priest at the other end of the world, as the Znojmo region was at the time, know about the French Revolution!
More...
It is almost bordering on the banal to state that historical research often involves a great deal of chance. Of course, seldom does a document turn up that pushes the boundaries of a discipline, as happened to Carlo Ginzburg in the Venice archives, which became the starting point for his study of the ‘benandanti’. However, sifting through collections which are not directly related to the researcher’s current project might bring unexpected stimuli.
More...
Jan Zouhar describes the development of Patočka’s stance on Masaryk and his philosophy in his paper “Jan Patočka and T. G. Masaryk”. The author shows the contradictions in Masaryk’s philosophy discovered by Patočka. In particular, he presents Masaryk’s attempt for scientific objectivism together with his conviction of the personal governance of the world by Providence. He also deals with Patočka’s criticism of Masaryk’s dissociation from Cartesian rationalism and his transition to Comte’s principals of the philosophy of history. The author finds the principal divergence between Patočka and Masaryk in the issue of the construction of Czech history and its evaluation (the climaxes of Czech history), as well as in the search for the sources of crises and their solutions. Petr Jemelka focuses on the beginnings of Patočka’s philosophical career in the first Czech philosophical journal Česká mysl (The Czech mind) in his paper “Jan Patočka and Česká Mysl”. Jemelka’s text is based on the detailed analysis of Patočka’s articles and reviews published in the journal since 1928. He also notes the problem of the critical acceptance of phenomenology in Czech philosophy. Michal Černý’s paper: “Caring for the soul as the basis of phenomenological pedagogy in the context of educational technologies” deals with phenomenological concepts of pedagogy by Patočka and Fink in connection to the new technological alternatives in education. The author confronts Patočka’s pedagogical style and Fink’s philosophy of education with the new forms and methods of education such as self-organised learning, connectivism etc. Lucie Divišová describes in her paper: “The French World of Jan Patočka” Jan Patočka’s French experience during his studies at Sorbonne (and lectures of Edmund Husserl) through his reflections on French philosophy (especially existentialism) to the interest of the French in Patočka as a philosopher and a dissident. Lucie Divišová maps out those Patočka’s themes that contribute to French thinking in the (not only contemporary) “European community of (sympathetically) shaken” In “Patočka’s Concept of Responsibility as a Non-orgiastic Overcoming of Everydayness” bases Dalibor Hejna his analysis on a distinction made by the Czech philosopher Jan Patočka between demonic, orgiastic experience of the sacral and responsibility connected to the philosophical questioning as the two forms of overcoming servitude. Dušan Hruška interprets Patočka’s idea of negative Platonism from the 1950s as a reconstruction of Greek metaphysics with the far-reaching theoretical and practical consequences. He points out Patočka’s non-traditional perception of connections among Jewish, Greek and Christian origins of Europe as well as Patočka’s effort for inner pluralism of modern discursive universe instead of unifying (metaphysically well-founded) alternative. The author completes the paper by pointing out the hidden metaphysical themes of the philosophical problem of freedom in a confrontation with Nietzsche’s and Heidegger’s opinions on these issues. Slavomír Lesňák analyses the possibilities of Patočka’s ethical ideal of combatants and ascetics in his paper called: “Solidarity of the Shaken in Times of Ecological Crisis.” He compares it to the ideal of the temporary autonomous zone of Hakim Bey. He concludes that Patočka’s solidarity of the shaken by an ecological crisis is intensified by the crisis’ increased severity. The author believes that the applicability of Patočka’s ethical concept of solidarity of the shaken will be more topical during an ecological catastrophe. Katarína Mayer confronts Patočka’s and Rorty’s approach to the question of the timeless ideal of human freedom in her paper “Patočka and Rorty (Few Comments on the Question of Freedom).” Mayer finds differences in notions of these authors concerning the concept of freedom as a random possibility, which were refused by Patočka. On contrary, as the author claims, the freedom is underpinned on history. The historical context reveals meaningfulness of freedom and acting in present. Radovan Rybář attempts to define Patočka as the Socratic figure in his paper: “Timelessness and Limitlessness of Jan Patočka’s Ideas”. The author interprets Patocka’s understanding of phenomenology by drawing inspiration from content analyses of selected texts on Patočka. Patočka’s caring for soul is noted by the author not only in philosophy but in politics as well. In the context of the European crisis of meaning (in modern times), he concludes that man enters history only by living in defiance to any present arbitrarily ruling power. Róbert Stojka analyses in his paper “The Concept of History and Historicity in Patočka’s Philosophy” the main line of Patočka’s philosophy of history – especially the relationship of man and history and historicity. According to the author the principle on which Patočka introduces his periodicity of history is the rise from decadence. Patočka’s idea of caring for soul that aided to the forming of the spiritual European man as well as Europe as a spiritual structure is a part of his understaning of history. According to Radim Šíp, Patočka’s philosophy of history and his concept of European time have limits, which are based on the lack of reflection of the neo-Hellenistic Enlightenment myth. As a consequence of this is not only Patočka’s loss of sense of reality when constituting phenomenological philosophy of history, but also a problem with distinguishing between formulating the ideal of freedom, responsibility and democracy and their actual fulfilment. Serious shortcomings, emerging from applying this approach that Radim Šíp calls „nostalgic romanticism”, also manifested in philosophy of education of Patočka’s follower R. Palouš. Radim Štěrba attempts to define Patočka’s contribution to the interpretation of the pedagogical legacy of Comenius in the context of the contemporary theory of education in his paper: “To Patočka’s Reflection of Pedagogical Ideas by J. A. Comenius”. He analyses pivotal Patočka’s Comenius-related texts and finds the problems both Comenius and Patočka faced with implementing the concept of the openness of soul. He presents the necessity of an authentic conversion to the open soul, deep inner transformation towards true humanity, which might be one of the few ways how to escape out of the crisis of contemporary society. The paper: “At Home? Phenomenology, Jan Patočka and the Meaning of Home” written by Barbora Vacková searches for phenomenological inspiration for Social science research of the meaning (and nature) of home in Jan Patočka’s work. The author uses Patočka’s perspective, as presented in his text “Prostor a jeho problematika (Space and its issues)” written in 1961 (however the first print was in 1985), while interpreting the empirical data gathered from the research project focused on making home more meaningful construction and experiencing it. The author considers in this adjusted phenomenological context the meaning of concepts of home and homeland for forming a relationship with “Others” and cohabitation with them. Erika Vonková describes in her paper “Jan Patočka as a Guide on the Journey to the Underworld” Jan Patočka as a possible guide from the world of shadows to the real world. The fate of Jan Patočka’s spiritual man is to live in a community and as such is of the opinion that he cannot resign, must abandon fear and become the man of politics. Such man in demonstrative and purposeful fashion casts the result of his own restless philosophical spirit in the face of his community – indeterminate reality. The political task of spiritual man is to destroy the image of the complete and known world of his fellow citizens and by doing so help them rebuilt it.
More...
The second volume of Jaroslav Střítecký’s Studies and Essays contains a total of 40 texts. Both extensive studies with notes and loose texts are represented. These include, in particular, the author’s forewords and afterwords accompanying his belles-lettres, journal articles and short glosses. Thematically, they cover all the important disciplines in which Střítecký contributed during his life: philosophy, history, sociology, musicology, aesthetics and literary science.
More...
The proceedings before you brings together the collected works based on a smaller part of the presentations at the round table "Historiography/History in Contemporary Society". The meeting was held on October 11 and 12, 2011 as part of the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the scientific work of the Croatian Institute of History. The aim of the meeting was to determine historiographical trends over the past half century and to question the diverse research perspectives and methods of using and processing information about historical heritage, to examine different historiographical discourses and the interaction of these discourses with political and educational discourses and to consider their relationship to the phenomenon of memory. Our desire was also to assess the contribution of the Croatian Institute of History and the scientific work of its employees to historical research.
More...
The first part of this text focuses on revision of epistemological postulates, theoretical conceptions and methodological procedures of historical discipline which have been generated by the linguistic and cultural turns during the last two decades. On the epistemological level, these revisionist tendencies are marked by an attempt to establish a dialectic relationship between discursive and non-discursive practices as well as to “embody” historical actors and “materialize” culture. Alongside, “experience” and “practice” have been inaugurated as dominant metatheoretical categories of the contemporary historical discipline. Second part of this text deals with the impulses that historical discipline can absorb from transdisciplinary exchange with various approaches and paradigms of humanities and social sciences (cultural theory, sociology of emotions) as well as of life-sciences (neuroscience) on the example of neurohistory and history of emotions. It is argued that, in this manner, history will be able to increase its own cognitive and interpretative potentials and become creative and imaginative research practice.
More...
A great discussion about the notion of revision of history can recently be followed. Many researchers (Thomas Kuhn, Michel Foucault, Michel de Certeau, Ronald Hutton, Arthur Marwick, Ernst Nolte, Deborah Lipstadt, François Furet, Gabrielle Spiegel, Jonathan Gorman, Ethan Kleinberg etc.) approach this problem from theoretical and methodological point of view. Even the notion of revision itself is under discussion. Other topics include methods of revisionism, evolutionary / revolutionary aspects of this process of history revision, (un)necessity of consensus among historians and other researchers regarding the change of paradigm, problem of interpretation, and territorial / temporal framework of revision. On the other hand, the problem of historical revision in the Croatian historiography has not been discussed theoretically as legitimate part of historiography, but only as a part of ideological or political paradigms. Namely, the notion of revisionism is tightly connected with negation of notorious historical facts, primarily in relation to (war) crimes. Such aspects of revisionism in fact can be covered by some other terms such as negationism, misuse, distortion, falsification, ideologization, and political manipulation / control of history. By the same token, with such a precise usage of terminology regarding the notion of revisionism one could avoid misunderstanding and misusage of terms. At the same time, historiography would not be burdened with political or ideological boundaries that limit scholarly investigation and interpretation of historical facts. However, disapproving of historical revisionism often does not argue impartiality of historical facts but aims at defending of some historical interpretations, treating them as historical truth, which basically leads to ideologization that cannot be scholarly acceptable since such approach prevents scientific development of historiography. Of course, history has its social and political role, but as a scholarly discipline it must not become “storage” of historical facts and “acceptable” interpretations. The basic meaning of term “revision” is “re-view”, that is interpretation and re-interpretation, thinking about history from different angles and perspectives and such an approach is distinctive scholarly tool of historiography. New scholarly methodologies and methods enable historiography to detect new historical facts, sources and other testimonies of the past times. However, this does not mean that we should avoid reinterpretation of existing interpretations and theses, since new methods impose new sets of questions that can change / broaden our perspective of research of the historical events / past. Some of historical sub-disciplines have already empirically demonstrated what new can be done if we only take a different angle of monitoring the historical facts. For example, women’s history has completely redefined modernists’ paradigm of the European male political elite history. Similarly, reinterpretation of the Middle Ages, renaissance, French revolution, American civil war, Eurocentric historiographical approach opened a completely new vision of global historical development, and, as we speak, discussion about revisionism regarding the World War One, World War Two, and Cold War period goes through tremendous change. Regarding theoretical discussion one can notice the recent examples of post-modern revision of post-structuralism, and such radical position of post-modernist supporters mainly was provoked by an unjustified glorification of objectivism in historiography, since post-modernists have revealed that “objective discourse” is basically another ideological construction. Namely, modernists’ empiricism thought of historical facts as something that was “found” in the past, unrelated to any interpretation, and consequently that historical cognition is absolute and independent from our perspective. However, such point of view basically leads to the instrumentalization of historiography with imposition of absolute essential concepts, often heavily burdened with political and ideological positions. Istrumentalization of history for some political reasons produces questionable and limited knowledge that is subjected to a political power. Various political and socially engaged groupations seek in history their own “acceptable past”, their identity, legitimacy and continuity. Historiography in their eyes represents only a tool for their non scholarly shaped goals. Such an approach towards history can be traced within dominant and marginal parties equally, but it is particularly evident among those who control institutions and educational system. Consequently, historical events and processes are put into present-day context, and historiography becomes a kind of tool and authority for legitimacy of the past. As George Orwell said: He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.
More...