The great revolutions of modern times have been analysed from various angles, but their civilizational aspects and contexts have on the whole been neglected. More specifically, the major 20th-century revolutions can be seen as particularly important cases of intercivilizational encounters. They represent different responses to the ascendant and challenging civilization of the West. The Western civilizational trajectory (or set of trajectories), based on a shift from fideism to empiricism and on multiple social dynamics fuelled by this cultural reorientation (such as (...) those of the capittalist economy and the one-nation-state), is selectively appropriated by non-Western societies which at the same time reject the less adaptable parts of the West in the name of traditional or invented alternatives. Russia, China, Turkey and Iran are analysed as variations of this recurrent pattern. At one end of the spectrum, the Russian revolution aspired to transcend Western models on the basis of a more radical interpretation of their own principles; at the other, the Iranian revolution, made up of several episodes with intervals in between, has been characterized by an exceptionally tenacious - and in some ways inventive - defence of a pre-existing civilizational identity. (shrink)

In this ambitious exploration of humanity and civilizations throughout history, major historical events and processes in the history of mankind are looked at in order to understand the "currents" of history. Jaroslav Krejc analyzes the whole history of civilization and considers historical events such as feudalism and the development of science. By bringing both sociological and historical insights to this broad subject, and particular attention to different types of knowledge (such as religion and its impact state law labor and (...) ownership), the book offers insights into the future of civilization and shifting global power. (shrink)

Modern sociology has set itself up as a specialised discipline dissociating itself from the broad-ranging theories of development of the early sociologists and breaking the links with economics, social anthropology and politics which had formed such an exciting unity in their works or at least in their lives.

[An important attempt to explain the development of civilized humanity].

The Civilizations of Asia. Before the European Challenge. Jaroslav Krejcí. Macmillan Press, London 1990. xiv, 348 pp. £37.50.

A review of deVries' and O'Shea's books, both titled "Wilfrid Sellars". By Jaroslav Peregrin.

We investigate several ideal versions of the pseudointersection number \(\mathfrak {p}\), ideal slalom numbers, and associated topological spaces with the focus on selection principles. However, it turns out that well-known pseudointersection invariant \(\mathtt {cov}^*({\mathcal I})\) has a crucial influence on the studied notions. For an invariant \(\mathfrak {p}_\mathrm {K}({\mathcal J})\) introduced by Borodulin-Nadzieja and Farkas (Arch. Math. Logic 51:187–202, 2012), and an invariant \(\mathfrak {p}_\mathrm {K}({\mathcal I},{\mathcal J})\) introduced by Repický (Real Anal. Exchange 46:367–394, 2021), we have $$\begin{aligned} \min \{\mathfrak (...) {p}_\mathrm {K}({\mathcal I}),\mathtt {cov}^*({\mathcal I})\}=\mathfrak {p},\qquad \min \{\mathfrak {p}_\mathrm {K}({\mathcal I},{\mathcal J}),\mathtt {cov}^*({\mathcal J})\}\le \mathtt {cov}^*({\mathcal I}), \end{aligned}$$ respectively. In addition to the first inequality, for a slalom invariant \(\mathfrak {sl_e}({\mathcal I},{\mathcal J})\) introduced in Šupina (J. Math. Anal. Appl. 434:477–491, 2016), we show that $$\begin{aligned} \min \{\mathfrak {p}_\mathrm {K}({\mathcal I}),\mathfrak {sl_e}({\mathcal I},{\mathcal J}),\mathtt {cov}^*({\mathcal J})\}=\mathfrak {p}. \end{aligned}$$ Finally, we obtain a consistency that ideal versions of the Fréchet–Urysohn property and the strictly Fréchet–Urysohn property are distinguished. (shrink)

In his proof of the first incompleteness theorem, Kurt Gödel provided a method of showing the truth of specific arithmetical statements on the condition that all the axioms of a certain formal theory of arithmetic are true. Furthermore, the statement whose truth is shown in this way cannot be proved in the theory in question. Thus it may seem that the relation of logical consequence is wider than the relation of derivability by a pre-defined set of rules. The aim of (...) this paper is to explore under which assumptions the Gödelian statement can rightly be considered a logical consequence of the axioms of the theory in question. It is argued that this is the case only when the all the theorems of the theory in question are understood as statements of the same kind as statements of arithmetic and statements about provability in the theory, and only if the language of the theory contains logical expressions allowing to include certain predicates of meta-language in the language of the theory. (shrink)

Growth modelling is of interest to scientists in various disciplines. In our article, we will collect 17 models designed for growth modelling, appraise these models and contribute to the discussion of their applicability. The merit of the paper lies in studying the convergence properties of nonlinear regression in selected models. Our studies will be performed mainly concerning the quality of the obtained estimates, which are closely related to the intrinsic curvature of the model according to Bates and Watts. This curvature (...) determines the size of the linearization domains. Only if the initial solution is in this domain, then the convergence of the estimate in nonlinear regression is guaranteed. The primary goal is to design a methodology for selecting a growth model. We will demonstrate fruitfulness of our methodology on the weight measurements of 10 calves under 25 months of age from cowsheds in the village Záluží in the Czech Republic. Estimated parameters of growth curves, sizes of linearization domain, calculated residues and coefficients of determination indices will be the subject of discussion. (shrink)

The topic of this paper is the question whether there is a logic which could be justly called the logic of inference. It may seem that at least since Prawitz, Dummett and others demonstrated the proof-theoretical prominency of intuitionistic logic, the forthcoming answer is that it is this logic that is the obvious choice for the accolade. Though there is little doubt that this choice is correct (provided that inference is construed as inherently single-conclusion and complying with the Gentzenian structural (...) rules), I do not think that the usual justification of it is satisfactory. Therefore, I will first try to clarify what exactly is meant by the question, and then sketch a conceptual framework in which it can be reasonably handled. I will introduce the concept of 'inferentially native' logical operators (those which explicate inferential properties) and I will show that the axiomatization of these operators leads to the axiomatic system of intuitionistic logic. Finally, I will discuss what modifications of this answer enter the picture when more general notions of inference are considered. (shrink)

The paper presents an argument against a "metaphysical" conception of logic according to which logic spells out a specific kind of mathematical structure that is somehow inherently related to our factual reasoning. In contrast, it is argued that it is always an empirical question as to whether a given mathematical structure really does captures a principle of reasoning. (More generally, it is argued that it is not meaningful to replace an empirical investigation of a thing by an investigation of its (...) a priori analyzable structure without paying due attention to the question of whether it really is the structure of the thing in question.) It is proposed to elucidate the situation by distinguishing two essentially different realms with which our reason must deal: "the realm of the natural", constituted by the things of our empirical world, and "the realm of the formal", constituted by the structures that we use as "prisms" to view, to make sense of, and to reconstruct the world. It is suggested that this vantage point may throw light on many foundational problems of logic. (shrink)

Filozofické pojednání vysvětluje z hlediska marxistického pojetí dějin základní otázky společenského dění, úlohu materiálních činitelů ve vývoji společnosti, protiklad materiálního a ideálního ve společnosti. Druhé vydání je upraveno s přihlédnutím ke kritickým připomínkám.

Cognitive Science, Volume 46, Issue 7, July 2022.

V tomto článku se zabývám konceptem SI (superinteligence) a s ní spojeným problémem kontroly. Podle určité skupiny teoretiků umělé inteligence stojíme na prahu události, která může radikálně změnit povahu technologického pokroku a lidské společnosti obecně. Touto událostí má být takzvaná technologická singularita, která je často spojována se vznikem první větší než lidské inteligence. Lidé jako Nick Bostrom varují před nebezpečím, které pro nás vznik SI znamená a upozorňují, že musíme co nejdříve najít metody kontroly této inteligence. Podle Bostroma a dalších (...) nebezpečí SI vyplývá z její povahy. Já na jedné straně posuzuji, jak SI může vzniknout, a na druhé straně soudím smysluplnost problému kontroly. Vznik SI vyplývá ze vzniku umělé inteligence. Proto soustřeďuji podstatnou část textu argumentům pro její vznik. Ukazují jak se Bostrom a další nechávají unést jedním problematickým argumentem. Dále podrobuji jejich pozici klasické kritice umělé inteligence. Prezentuji, jak stále lpí na problematických domněnkách svých předchůdců. Zejména soustřeďuji svoji kritiku na tvrzení, že SI bude mít jeden konečný cíl, který bude interpretovat. Toto tvrzení označuji jako antitetické, a to představě, že SI bude obecnou inteligencí. V závěru z mojí argumentace vyvozuji, že problém kontroly zaměňuje dva jiné různé problémy „kontroly.“. (shrink)

Odborná práce z oboru hudební teorie. Navazuje na knihu téhož autora "Teoretické základy harmonie s hľadiska vedeckej filozofie", jež vyšla r. 1954. Soustřeďuje pozornost k oněm názorům a teoriím, které jsou z hlediska filosofického ovlivněny idealistickým postojem. V první části sleduje a hodnotí vlivy idealismu na nauku o harmonii v 19. a 20. století, v druhé se obírá předpoklady dialektického materialismu v hudební teorii.

In a memorable paper, Donald Davidson (1986, p. 446) insists that "there is no such thing as a language, not if a language is anything like what many philosophers and linguists have supposed". I have always taken this as an exaggeration, albeit an apt exaggeration that might be philosophically helpful. Now when it comes to predication, what I would have expected to hear from the same author would be along the lines of "there is no such thing as predication ... (...) ". But instead of this I hear something very different (Davidson, 2005, p. 77): [I]f we do not understand predication, we do not understand how any sentence works, nor can we account for the structure of the simplest thought that is expressible in language. At one time there was much discussion of what was called the "unity of proposition"; it is just this unity that a theory of predication must explain. The philosophy of language lacks its most important chapter without such a theory, the philosophy of mind is missing its crucial first step if it cannot describe the nature of judgment; and it is woeful if metaphysics cannot say how a substance is related to its attributes. I find myself at odds with just about everything written in this paragraph; and what is worse, my disagreement stems from a notion of language which I believe I have acquired also by reading Davidson. Reading this passage, I desperately sought for an indication that it was leading up to some catch, and not meant to be taken at face value. But, alas, I am afraid there is none. To avoid misunderstanding: I see nothing wrong in understanding predication as a clearly delimited linguistic phenomenon. We put together one kind of expression, which we have come to call the subject, with a different kind of expression, called the predicate, possibly.. (shrink)

There may be various reasons for claiming that meaning is normative, and additionally, very different senses attached to the claim. However, all such claims have faced fierce resistance from those philosophers who insist that meaning is not normative in any nontrivial sense of the word. In this paper I sketch one particular approach to meaning claiming its normativity and defend it against the anti-normativist critique: namely the approach of Brandomian inferentialism. However, my defense is not restricted to inferentialism in any (...) narrow sense for it encompasses a much broader spectrum of approaches to meaning, connected with the Wittgensteinian and especially Sellarsian view of language as an essentially rule-governed enterprise; and indeed I refrain from claiming that the version of inferentialism I present here is in every detail the version developed by Brandom. (shrink)