Odgovornost pripisujemo sa namerom da postignemo neki cilj. Jedno od opših mesta u filozofskoj literaturi je da osobi možemo pripisati moralnu odgovornost ako su zadovoljena bar dva uslova: da subjekt delanja ima kontrolu nad svojim postupcima i da je u stanju da navede razloge u prilog svog postupka. Međutim, četvrtu industrijsku revoluciju karakterišu sociotehnološke pojave koje nas potencijalno suočavaju sa tzv. problemom jaza u odgovornosti. Rasprave o odgovornosti u kontekstu veštačke inteligencije karakteriše nejasna i neodređena upotreba ovog pojma. Da bismo (...) razumeli problem jaza u odgovornosti, njegove domete, kao i eventualna rešenja, u radu razmatramo različite vrste pojma odgovornosti. Identifikujući uslove primene ovih pojmova uviđamo da problem jaza u moralnoj odgovornosti dobija na značaju utoliko što nije očigledno na koji način bi mogao biti premošćen. (shrink)

U ovom prilogu izlazu se dva konkurentska prosvetiteljska modela tolerancije i iskusava njihov status i domet. U prvom delu rada se ukazuje na granice one?religijske tolerancije? umerenog toka prosvetiteljstva koju reprezentuju Lok i Volter i koja do danas dominira u javnom i akademskom diskursu. Drugi deo kroz likove Spinoze, Bejla i Didroa, izlaze koncepciju?univerzalne? ili?filozofske? tolerancije radikalnih prosvetitelja. Zakljucuje se da, uprkos njenoj teorijskoj nadmoci, izgledi drustvene implementacije potonje, srecom ili ne, i dalje nisu veci nego sto su bili (...) u sedamnaestom i osamnaestom veku. (shrink)

Druga knjiga Petrićeve Pancosmije potpuno nam otkriva što je Petrić mislio de continuo ili de divisibilitate quantitatis te nam ujedno nudi mnoge detalje Petrićeve neuspješne strategije pri osporavanju Aristotelovih pojmova neprekidnine i potencijalne beskonačnine. Prigovarajući Aristotelu, Petrić i ne htijući upozorava na glavne domete Aristotelova nauka o neprekidnini, ali nudi svoja, drugačija rješenja, poput zamisli o najmanjoj nedjeljivoj crti. Iako svojim rješenjima ne uspijeva postići ono što je Aristotel blistavo postigao pojmom neprekidnine u tumačenju prirode i matematike, Petrić unutar polemike (...) s Aristotelom postavlja nova pitanja kad se bavi računom s beskonačninama i genealogijom znanosti.The second book of Pancosmia provides full insight into Petrić’s view of the continuum or de divisibilitate quantitatis, offering us many details on Petrić’s futile strategy in refuting Aristotle’s notions of the continuum and the potential infinite. In his objections to Aristotle, Petrić implicitly points the major contributions of Aristotle’s doctrine of continuum, but also submits his own solutions such as the idea of the minimal indivisible line. Although his solutions failed to bring him the results as brilliant as those of Aristotle with the notion of the continuum in the interpretation of nature and mathematics, within his polemic with Aristotle, Petrić comes forward with new questions dealing with the calculus of infinite quantities and genealogy of science. (shrink)

This article intends to critically envisage limits and values of philosophy of art of Arthur Danto and to point out the main problems of the theory of supstitutional representation, when placed within wider theoretical frame of traditional aesthetics, such as the notion of meaning in the philosophy of art of Arthur Danto. The article focuses on the notions of exteral and interal representation and denotation of non-existent and existent entities substituted by representation. This article intends to question the validity of (...) Danto?s position. Ovaj tekst pokusava da kriticki sagleda domete i vrednosti filozofije umetnosti Artura Dantoa i da istakne osnovne probleme sa kojima supstituciona teorija reprezentacije mora da se suoci, kada se ona zastupa u sirem teorijskom okviru tradicionalne estetike, kakav je pojam znacenja u filozofiji umetnosti Artura Dantoa. Posebnu paznju tekst usmerava na pojmove eksteralne i interalne reprezentacije i denotacije nepostojecih i postojecih entiteta, koji se reprezentacijom supstituiraju. Autor nastoji pokazati da je stav koji Danto zastupa apsurdan. (shrink)

S'étonnant qu'un simple physicien sache traiter des rapports de la physique et de la métaphysique, Edmond Domet de Vorges s'était demandé si Pierre Duhem n'avait pas bénéficié de l'aide de quelque théologien dans l'élaboration de son articulation de ces deux disci­plines. Faisant suite à cette question très perti­nente, cet article liste d'abord les intellectuels catholiques qui étaient en relation avec Duhem avant la publication, en 1893, de son article Physique et métaphysique et qui auraient effec­tivement pu l'aider à concevoir (...) une telle articulation. Se con­sacrant ensuite spécifiquement à l'un d'entre eux, à savoir Maurice Blondel, il étudie les similitudes et divergences existant entre les pensées du physicien bordelais et du philosophe d'Aix pour conclure que Blondel ne peut pas être celui qui aurait inspiré Duhem. À l'appui de cette conclusion, il fait notamment état d'une lettre inédite adressée par Duhem à Ambroise Gar­deil et dans laquelle celui-ci porte un jugement sévère à l'en­droit de son «pauvre ami» Blondel. ––– One might be surprised to find that a simple physician could be able explain with clarity the subtle relationship between physics and metaphysics. It is with this question in mind that Edmond Domet de Vorges asked himself if it might not have been with the aid of theologians that Pierre Duhem was able to find and express his subtle articulation between the two disciplines. Following in the footsteps of this pertinent question, this article begins by listing the catholic intellectuals who were acquain­tances of Pierre Duhem before the publication in 1893 of “Physique et métaphysique”, who may have been able to help him arrive at the relationship between the two sciences expressed in his publication. This line of questioning is followed by a specific study of one of these men, namely Maurice Blondel. The similarities and differences in the opinions of the physician from Bordeaux and the philosopher from Aix are explored with the resulting conclusion that Blondel could not have been he who inspired Duhem. This conclusion can be confirmed by a previously unpublished letter from Duhem to Ambroise Gardeil which contains a very severe judgement with regards to his “poor friend” Blondel. (shrink)

Le Père Ignace Carbonnelle, l'un des principaux fondateurs de la Société scientifique de Bruxelles en 1875 et son secrétaire général depuis cette époque, décède inopinément en 1889 après une quin­zaine d'années durant lesquelles il fut «l'homme fort» de ladite Société. Aussitôt, la Revue des questions scienti­fiques annonce la triste nouvelle, promettant, pour un prochain numéro, une étude détaillée de sa vie et de son œuvre. Elle ne paraîtra jamais, de sorte que sa mort ne fut pas saluée avec l'ampleur qu'on (...) était en droit d'attendre. Et pour cause ! Au ter­me d'une enquête digne d'un roman policier, cette étude révèle que Rome, agacée par l'atomisme de Carbonnelle, profita de sa mort pour rappeler à l'ordre la Société en l'invitant à marcher dans les pas de l'Aquinate. En réponse à cette pressante invi­tation et par un excès de zèle non requis, la Société élut comme président le célèbre thomiste français Edmond Domet de Vor­ges, cependant que le mathématicien Paul Mansion s'attacha d'établir, à partir des publications de Pierre Duhem prônant un retour à une physique des qualités, que la Société se conformait bien, mais à sa manière, aux injonctions romaines. ––– Fr. Ignace Carbonnelle, who founded the Brussels Scientific Society in 1875 and was from this date onwards her Secretary General, passed away suddenly in 1889, after fifteen years during which he was the leading figure of the aforementioned Society. “La Revue des Question scientifique” announced the sad news but promised that their next publication would include a detailed article on the great man and his works. Sadly this article never appeared, meaning that the passing of Fr. Carbonnelle was not marked with the importance which we might have otherwise expected. For what reason, you may well ask? After a detailed investigation, worthy of Agatha Christie herself, it would appear that Rome had been rather alarmed by the “atomism” present in Fr. Carbonnelle's reflections, and had taken the opportunity of his death to invite the Scientific Society to opinions more in line with those of St Thomas. In response to this firmly worded invitation, and with overzealous spontaneity, the Society elected the celebrated French Thomiste Edmond Domet de Vorges as their new President. At the same time the mathematician Paul Mansion relied on the publications of Pierre Duhem, which advocated a stronger adhesion to a physics of an object's qualities, to establish that the Society was, in fact, well aligned with the desires of Rome. (shrink)

Od svih suvremenika Praxisa, koji je nesumnjivo najsnažnija pojava u novijoj povijesti filozofije i kulture na ovim prostorima, Blaženku Despot treba smatrati onom izuzetnom osobnošću koja, ni formalno niti konceptualno, ne pripada tom krugu, iako s njime dijeli problematsku suštinu prijepora kojim se svi oni u to doba intenzivno bave. Ona, kao i Praxis , oštro i bespoštedno kritizira »socijalističku zbilju«, ali pritom ide dalje, propitujući i promišljajući odnos misaonih, idejnih izvora na koje se »realizacija socijalističke zbilje« poziva, kao i (...) kvalitetu, domet i istinitost same realizacije. Tako su u žarište njezinih preokupacija postavljeni misaoni korpus Hegela i Marxa, njihove razlike i istovjetnosti, granice i nepotpunosti u odnosu na povijesnu zakrivljenost našeg vremena. Poduzimajući filozofsku analizu tzv. društvenih pojava ona poduzima suočavanje »socijalističke stvarnosti« s idejama njezinih marksističkih uzora. Stoga poduzima »ponovno čitanje Hegela«, koje znači i ponovno čitanje Marxa, naročito na onim mjestima na kojima ih je »socijalistička stvarnost«, kao i cjelokupna povijest, potpuno demantirala, a to je područje humanističkog dometa emancipacije žena. Otvarajući među prvima u nas upravo ovo teorijsko-filozofsko polje, Blaženka Despot slijedi svjetske trendove teorije i filozofije feminizma, u čemu je ostavila ne samo neizbrisivi trag doprinosu produbljavanja filozofije slobode nego je u nas postavila temelje feminističke filozofije.Blaženka Despot should be regarded as an extraordinary person among all Praxis’s contemporaries, because she was concerned with the same themes, although she did not belong to the group, neither formally nor conceptually. She, like the philosophers closely associated with Praxis , harshly and without pity criticizes the so called “socialist reality”, but goes on even further to examine and rethink the conceptual foundations on which it is based, as well as its quality, range and truthfulness of the whole project. Therefore, Hegel and Marx lie in the very centre of her interest – the differences and similarities between them, and their limitations and insufficiencies regarding the historical context of our times. Putting effort into the philosophical analysis of social phenomena , she puts “socialist reality” and the ideas of its Marxist role-models side by side. Thus, she “re-reads Hegel”, and thereby also unavoidably Marx, in the context completely neglected by both “socialist reality” and the entire history of ideas – in the context of humanistic emancipation of women. Opening that theoretic-philosophical field of investigation, Blaženka Despot follows the world trends in theory, including also dealing with the philosophy of feminism, where she left an indelible mark concerning her efforts to deepen the “philosophy of freedom” and to establish feminist philosophy in Croatia. (shrink)

The author re-examines Hare's multiple ways of connecting his metaethical with his normative doctrine, which is in formal sense determined as "Kantian utilitarianism", and in substantive sense as "preference-utilitarianism". Critical references to both dimensions of utilitarian doctrine aim at indication on scopes and limits of Hare's ambitious redefinition of the doctrine. Further on he discusses about so-called "necessary ingredient" of moral reasoning under the name of "sympathetic imagination", which Hare grasps in his developed theory not only as a normative demand (...) but also as a logical thesis. Finally, he considers kinds of preferences that can or cannot be recognized as morally relevant. Autor preispituje Herove visestruke pokusaje povezivanja metaetickog i normativno-etickog ucenja, koje je u formalnom smislu odredjeno kao "kantijanski utilitarizam", a u supstantivnom kao "utilitarizam preferencija". Kriticki osvrti na obe dimenzije utilitaristicke doktrine ciljaju na to da ukazu na domete i granice Herove ambiciozne redefinicije ove teorije. Potom se raspravlja o tzv. "nuznom sastojku" moralnog rasudjivanja pod imenom "simpateticka imaginacija", koju Her u svojoj razvijenoj teoriji poima ne samo kao normativni zahtev vec i kao izvesnu logicku tezu. I najzad, razmatraju se vrste preferencija koje, uz pomoc odredjenog niza kriterijuma, mogu ili ne mogu biti priznate kao moralno relevantne. (shrink)