Search

The book contains a collection of historical and systematic studies on metaphors and related topics, in German and English, that were first drafted as initial elaborations of the author's research project on the historical and systematic philosophy of language at the University of Tübingen in two periods (1992–1994 and 1996–1999). About half of the essays have been published before in some form but for this edition they have been improved upon or revised to fit better with the book as a whole. The groundwork for this collection was laid in the mid-1990s by the first review paper, written in Croatian, devoted to the topic. The papers collected in this volume are only in German and English. Grouped in sections, they do not represent different language versions of the same text but provide individual elaborations of interrelated topics in German or in English. Each begins with different problems of both historical and systematic nature and each ends, hopefully, by contributing new points to their respective topic. As a result, every chapter can be read either as an alternative to the paper it is paired with in the respective section or as a supplement to other texts.

Tensions related to the presence of religion, its symbols or moral judgments in the public space are noticeable signs in many contemporary societies. Research shows an increasing level of prejudice against believers, which translates into emerging microaggressions. This phenomenon of questioning and hostility towards religion is surprisingly also the case in societies where the majority consists of religious adherents. The aim of this article is to present and analyse the research results on the extent of prejudices and manifestations of hostility towards believers in 2019 in Poland, on a representative sample of respondents. First, the religious situation in Poland will be briefly discussed, in particular the way the Poles experience religious practices. This will be followed by discussion of the most common manifestations of microaggression included in the classification proposed by David R. Hodge, and a legal analysis of the Polish penal system. Finally, we will present a hypothesis regarding the nature of these phenomena and the challenges they represent to religious freedom.

Although religious freedom significantly affects certain people, the guarantees for its observance also have implications for the quality of social life and the security of the state. Polarization and conflict between religious groups is not only a conflict for new believers, but also contributes to the weakening of the internal state. It seems that one of the elements of such a destabilization of states is the promotion and lack of reaction to the phenomenon of ridiculing religion and its followers in cyberspace. As can be seen from reports on the situation in Poland, there are increasing signs of hostility to religion, stereotyping, and discrimination. The issues can be considered on two levels: individual protection for freedom of speech, and state protection. At the end of this paper, proposals for measures to prevent crimes based on religion or belief are presented.

Vladimir Sergejevič Solovjev je svoje filozofske napore posvetio pokušaju pomirenja zapadnog filozofskog nasljeđa sa zaključcima nekolicine istočnjačkih i ezoteričnih škola, kao i sa samom kršćanskom teologijom, te se kao takav često navodi kao najveći ruski filozof. Unutar ovog diplomskog rada autor fokus stavlja na metafizičko shvaćanje i utemeljenje ljepote ovog filozofa. U prvom dijelu rada izlaže se kratki pregled razvitka koncepta ljepote od antike, preko srednjeg vijeka do njemačkog klasičnog idealizma, u želji da se pronađu dublji temelji njegova vlastitog filozofskog sustava. U drugom dijelu se dodatno razrađuje problematika transcendentala i transcendentalnosti ljepote, kao nekih od ključnih uporišta Solovjevove filozofije. Nastavak rada obrađuje sistem „cjelovitog znanja“, koji je „manifest“ njegovih sinkretističkih težnji, s posebnim osvrtom na dijelove koji se tiču ljepote. Na samom kraju autor iznosi još neka mjesta Solovjevove filozofije koji se referiraju na ljepotu, kao i objašnjenje ljepote shvaćene u kontekstu Sofije – Božanske Mudrosti., The lifetime of Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov's philosophical endeavour can be summarised as an attempt to reconcile the canon of Western philosophical heritage with teachings of various Eastern and esoteric sapiential traditions, and with that of Christian theology. Solovyov as such is widely acknowledged as the greatest Russian philosopher of all time. In this paper, the author puts an emphasis on Solovyov's metaphysical understanding and foundation of beauty. The first part of this paper explores the nature, the meaning, and the very history of the idea of beauty, covering historical periods from antiquity, across the Middle Ages, and concluding with German idealism - all with the aim of establishing the clearer picture of Solovyov's philosophical influences. As an important part of „the integral knowledge“, the question of transcendentals and transcendence of beauty is further explored in the second part of the paper. Continuation of this paper lays brief summary of „the integral knowledge“, that can be best described as the epitome of Solovyov's syncretistic tendencies, with author's main focus being parts that closer explore beauty. The last two chapters examine other mentions of beauty in the work of this Russian philosopher, and mainly deal with concepts of beauty in nature and with that of Sophia (Divine Wisdom).

Probabilistic information is used increasingly, from medical research to weather forecasting. The relationship between probability and causality requires an acceptable philosophical account. Social work, which contributes to healthy wellbeing, increasingly uses language of probabilistic causal relationships between harms and subsequent limitations to healthy functioning. This paper explores causal understandings of probabilistic knowledge using concepts of the theologian, Thomas Aquinas. Social welfare terminology regarding risk (such as factors that are 'causative of' child abuse) is explored using epistemological concepts from scholastic philosophy. Aquinas' anthropological concepts related to modern 'risk science' and his concepts of rationality, harm and prudence are applied to contemporary social welfare.

Članak raspravlja o nekim aspektima Buddhine i Konfucijeve filozofije koji bi mogli biti relevantni za opću filozofsku diskusiju o problemu slobode, slobodnoga djelovanja i o povezanim filozofskim temama. Premda je njihovo filozofsko mišljenje oblikovano u posve različitim jezično-kulturnim i filozofskim okolnostima i pozadinama, obojica se slažu u makar dvije, ali ključne točke. Prvo, mogućnost slobode i slobodnoga djelovanja nije suprotstavljena prirodnom poretku stvari, dapače, ona je omogućena njime; drugo, ta se mogućnost razvija i ostvaruje neprestanim samokultiviranjem i »ugađanjem« prema svijetu »kako biva«. U kontekstu suvremenih diskusija o problemu odnosa između slobodne volje i determinizma, možemo reći da su Buddha i Konfucije bili na poziciji »kompatibilizma«, dapače, na poziciji da je slobodno djelovanje uopće moguće jedino u kontekstu (mekog) determinizma koji svijet promatra pod vidom uvijek mijenjajućih i uvjetujućih okolnosti i »obrazaca«, a ne pod vidom čvrstog (mehaničkog) i linearnog determinističkog kauzaliteta., The paper discusses certain aspects of Buddha’s and Confucius’ philosophy that could be relevant for the general philosophical discussion on the problem of freedom, free action and related philosophical themes. Although their philosophical thinking was shaped in a rather different linguistic, cultural and philosophical milieu and background, both thinkers are in agreement at least twofold. Firstly, the possibility of freedom and free action is not opposed to the natural order of things, quite contrary, it is enabled by this order. Secondly, this possibility is being realised through never-ending self-cultivation and attunement to the world as it is. In the context of contemporary discussions on the problem of the relationship between free will and determinism, it could hence be said that both thinkers are on the position of “compatibilism”, nay, on the position that free action is possible only in the context of (soft) determinism that sees nature (or the world) as ever-changing and conditioning circumstances and “patterns”, and not bound to strict (mechanical) and linear deterministic causality.

Although trusting relations have been attributed as crucial for the social fabric, trust is in flux. Erosion of trust is increasingly being captured in surveys, recent studies, and media accompanied by multiple concepts of trust envisaging ways of restoring it. The main aim of this thesis is to reframe the problem from restoring trust to the question of trustworthiness. On that ground, we defend the thesis that the trustworthy by design model is better suited to address the question of distrust and misplaced trust than the alternatives. Based on the critical analysis of the state-of-the-art concepts of trust and trustworthiness we propose a new model of trustworthy by design that accommodates more inclusive aspects of responsibility, responsiveness and the diversity of perspectives. In order to test the model, we apply it to two case studies. First, we apply the trustworthy by design model to socio-technological algorithmic systems in decision-making process. It incorporates both responsibility and responsiveness early in the process of algorithmic design and throughout the decision-making cycle from framing the problem, choosing the data and the model, and all the way to deployment. We identify the input from diverse actors, domain experts, fairness, and inclusion as critical ingredients when making tradeoffs throughout the decision-making process. Second, we address the challenge of responsibility in distributed systems, governing challenges, regulation, and accountability. Finally, we apply the trustworthy by design model in the context of scientific institutions. Within the broader context of science and values we identify main indicators that influence trust in science from framing the problem and the scientific agenda to diverse voices, confirmation, and macro-biases. By applying the trustworthy by design model we argue that trustworthy scientific institutions require reformulation of the notion of objectivity in science to ensure responsibility, responsiveness and democratic accountability. Povjerenje je nužno u našim odnosima s drugim ljudima, javnim institucijama, organizacijama te digitalnim platformama. Povjerenje može biti terapeutsko (Horsburgh, 1960), korisno za suradnju (Gambetta, 1988; McLeod, 2015), samopoštovanje (Govier, 1993; McLeod, 2015) ekonomski i društveni prosperitet (Fukuyama, 1996), itd. Pa ipak, gubitak povjerenja trend je koji bilježe istraživanja javnog mnijenja, studije i mediji. Istovremeno, promjene u okviru digitalnih transformacija, koje neki zovu četvrtom industrijskom revolucijom (Schwab, 2017), usmjeravaju naše povjerenje i nepovjerenje prema novim digitalnim tehnologijama. Istraživanja te problematike ukazuju na promjenu modusa povjerenja u distribuirano povjerenje putem tehnologija i povjerenja u platforme (Botsman, 2017), istraživanje našeg povjerenja u tehnologije i artificijelne aktere (Taddeo, 2010; Castelfranchi and Falcone, 2010; Buechner and Tavani, 2011) te povjerenja u algoritme (Cohen et al., 2014; Rubel and Jones, 2016; Shackelford and Raymond, 2014). Najčešći odgovori na gubitak povjerenja bazirani na istraživanjima javnog mijenja te višestrukim konceptima povjerenja imaju za cilj pokušaj povratka povjerenja ili pak posve oprečno smatraju da je povjerenje nepotrebno u institucijama te da povjerenje u institucije nije primjenjivo u kontekstu novih digitalnih tehnologija. Kritičkom analizom trenutnih dosega istraživanja najznačajnijih koncepata povjerenja (Baier, 1986; Jones, 1996, 2013, 2017; Dasgupta, 1988; Cook et al., 2005; Hardin, 2002, 2006; O’Neill, 2002a, 2014; Townley and Garfield, 2013) pratimo promjene iz odnosa povjerenja između pojedinaca, do povjerenja u institucije te transformacije povjerenja u digitalne tehnologije. Ta pluridimenzionalna mapa koncepata povjerenja i njihovih jedinstvenih obilježja vezanih uz kontekst primjene služi kao prvi korak u adresiranju pitanja povjerenja u druge, u institucije, digitalne platforme ili algoritmičke sustave te određivanja emocionalnih ili racionalnih karakteristika povjerenja. Temeljem rezultata analize postavljamo tri međusobno povezane hipoteze. Prvo, ukazujemo na važnost modusa povjerenja (tzv. strong thin mode) koji ima veliki utjecaj na naše živote, primjerice na zdravlje ili financijsku stabilnost, ali je istovremeno naše razumijevanje povjerenja ograničeno jer se odvija u kompleksnim organizacijskim uvjetima gdje direktan kontakt licem u lice nije dostupan (Hosking, 2014). Ovaj modalitet povjerenja, iako zapostavljen, ukazuje na polugu koja nedostaje u razumijevanju transformacije između različitih modusa povjerenja. Drugo, na temelju razrade tvrdnje o neodrživosti hipoteze o deficitu znanja, tvrdimo da afektivni, emocionalni i kognitivni aspekti povjerenja igraju značajnu ulogu. Treće, na temelju kritičke analize različitih koncepata povjerenja, namjesto napuštanja povjerenja u institucije, predlažemo model koji bi bolje rješavao uočene nedostatke u modelu vjerodostojnih institucija. Temeljem kritičke analize koncepata povjerenja i vjerodostojnosti, cilj je rada preformulirati pitanje povjerenja u pitanje o vjerodostojnosti te izložiti novi model vjerodostojnog dizajna koji obuhvaća aspekte odgovornosti i dijaloga. Na toj osnovi branimo tezu da je model vjerodostojnosti po dizajnu prikladniji za rješavanje pitanja nepovjerenja i pogrešnog povjerenja nego alternative. Taj obrnuti pristup temeljen na vjerodostojnosti namjesto povjerenja nije nov, nekoliko autora je istaklo njegovu važnost u međuljudskim odnosima (Baier, 1986; Pettit, 1995; Jones, 1996, 2012; McGeer, 2008), te u institucionalnom i društvenom kontekstu (Hardin, 1996, 2002; O'Neill, 2002a, 2013, 2014; Potter, 2002). Nadalje, konceptualni okvir o razlici između koncepta povjerenja i vjerodostojnosti temeljimo na radu Onore O'Neill (2002a, 2002b, 2013, 2014) koja naglašava važnost davanja povjerenja jedino vjerodostojnim pojedincima ili institucijama (O'Neill, 2013). Na tom tragu dajemo prednost konceptu vjerodostojnosti nad povjerenjem s ciljem određivanja njegovih značajki koje mogu doprinijeti povjerenju u vjerodostojne institucije, sustave ili pojedince. Teza koju predstavljamo o modelu pouzdanog dizajna institucija ili sustava razlikuje se od postojećih pristupa, modificirajući koncept vjerodostojnosti koji sadrži aspekte odgovornosti, dijaloga i raznolikosti perspektiva. Nadalje, u svrhu testiranja model primjenjujemo na dvije studije slučaja o algoritamskim socio-tehnološkim sustavima te znanstvenim institucijama ukazujući na važnost njegove primjene u međuodnosu znanosti, društva i politike u okviru 4. industrijske revolucije. Predloženo preoblikovanje sustava i institucija trebalo bi omogućiti dvostrano povjerenje između javnosti i sustava koji se temelje na raznolikosti i uključivosti. U prvom poglavlju primjenjujemo fokus je na socio-tehnološkim algoritamskim sustavima koji su u pozadini digitalnih platformi. Posebno nas zanimaju algoritmi za donošenje odluka koji imaju veliki utjecaj na odluke o našem životu od zdravstvene skrbi, kreditnog skoringa do pravnog sustava. Mogu li algoritmi biti vjerodostojni, mogu li donositi pravedne odluke? U distribuiranim sustavima umjetnih i ljudskih agenata tko treba biti odgovoran kada nešto pođe po zlu? Kako regulirati algoritme ako su neki od njih crne kutije čak i njihovim kreatorima? Mapiranjem najutjecajnijih algoritama za donošenje odluka usredotočujemo se na pokazatelje koji utječu na gubitak povjerenja javnosti. To nas vodi pobližem ispitivanju utjecaja vrijednosnih aspekata algoritama i propusta u odgovornosti koji su posebno prisutni kod algoritama strojnog učenja, uz prijedlog načina osiguravanja vjerodostojnosti algoritamskih sustava. Usprkos lakoći s kojom dajemo povjerenje digitalnim platformama detaljnija analiza infrastrukture u pozadini ukazuje na složeniju problematiku jer algoritmi nisu neutralni, a pitanje odgovornosti u kompleksnom suodnosu artificijelnih i ljudskih aktera daleko od je od jednoznačnog. Mapiranje indikatora koji utječu na promjene povjerenja provodimo na primjeru algoritama za donošenja odluka, među kojima su algoritmi personalizacije (Hildebrandt, 2008; Newell and Marabelli, 2015; Taddeo and Floridi, 2015), algoritmi za profiliranje (Hildebrandt, 2008), algoritmi strojnog učenja, (Tutt, 2016; Burrell, 2016), algoritmi pregovaranja (Raymond, 2015), itd. Uz prednosti algoritamskih sustava u doprinosu učinkovitosti i poboljšanja sposobnosti, rezultati analize ukazuju na dva glavna izazova. Prvi se odnosi na vrijednosti prisutne u dizajnu algoritama, tehničkih ograničenja ili vrijednosti u procesu njihove provedbe. Algoritmi sadrže vrijednosne procjene koje je moguće identificirati u obliku rasnih predrasuda primjerice diskriminacije zbog boje kože (Noble, 2018), rasnih predrasuda u prediktivnom radu policije (Lum i Isaac, 2016, Ferguson, 2017, Angwin i sur., 2016), ili pak u kliničkim ispitivanjima (Kurt et al., 2016) itd. Rodne predrasude, s druge strane, prisutne su u reklamama koje targetiraju muškarce više nego žene za bolje plaćene poslove (Datta i sur., 2015, Campolo i sur., 2017), ili za karijere u STEM-u (Lambrecht i Tucker, 2016). Također, ugrađivanje riječi koje se često koristi u algoritmima strojnog učenja za rangiranje pretraživanja Interneta (Nalisnick i sur., 2016) ili analiza životopisa (Hansen i sur., 2015) mogu ukazivati na predrasude (Bolukbasi i sur., 2016) kao što je primjerice kod riječi muškarac koja se češće pojavljuje uz riječ računalni programer, a riječ žena pored riječi domaćica. Na temelju analize algoritama identificirani pokazatelji koji utječu na promjenu u povjerenju javnosti uključuju među ostalim predrasude, diskriminaciju te deficit po pitanju pravednosti, raznolikosti i uključenosti. Analiza drugog izazova odgovornosti u distribuiranim sustavima ukazuje na izazove upravljanja, regulacije, odgovornosti, transparentnosti i angažmana javnosti kao pokazatelje koji utječu na promjene u povjerenju javnosti. Štoviše, koncept individualne odgovornosti gubi relevantnost u kontekstu kompleksnih sustava ljudskih i umjetnih aktera gdje je koncept distribuiranih agenata (Floridi 2013; Floridi i Taddeo, 2016) prikladniji za određivanje odgovornosti. Na temelju analize identificiranih indikatora namjesto povjerenja u algoritme, vjerodostojnost treba razmatrati u kontekstu kompleksnog suodnosa između ljudskih i artificijelnih aktera u okviru socio-tehnoloških sustava. Algoritme nije moguće smatrati vjerodostojnima budući da ne posjeduju intencionalnost koja je svojstvena samo ljudima kao moralnim agentima. Posljedično, model vjerodostojnog dizajna odnosi se prvenstveno na sociotehnološke algoritamske sustave u kojima su pitanja odgovornosti i dijaloga prisutna od ranog procesa dizajna. U posljednja dva poglavlja model vjerodostojnosti primjenjujemo u kontekstu znanstvenih institucija u okviru šire rasprave o vrijednostima u znanosti u međuodnosu znanosti, društva i politika. Analiziramo trenutnu raspravu o idealu znanosti bez vrijednosti. S jedne strane zagovornici ideala bez vrijednosti u znanosti (McMullin, 1982; Lacey, 1999; Mitchell, 2004) zagovaraju isključivanje vrijednosti iz znanstvenog procesa. S druge strane, kritičari tvrde da postoji nekoliko mjesta za pozitivnu ulogu neepistemističkih vrijednosti u znanosti. Prvi pristup temelji se na argumentu neodređenosti teorije (Harding, 1991; Longino, 1990, 2002) da je znanost nedovoljno određena dokazima što omogućuje prisutnost vrijednosti. Drugi je argument induktivnog rizika (Rudner, 1953; Churchman, 1948; Douglas, 2000, 2009), gdje znanstvenici suočeni s induktivnim rizikom moraju donositi vrijednosne sudove o tome koliko je dokaza dovoljno, ovisno o mogućim posljedicama lažno pozitivnih rezultata ili lažnih negativa. Treće mjesto za vrijednosti u znanosti je artikulirano (Kourany, 2010) unutar ideala društveno odgovorne znanosti koji uvodi društvene kao i epistemičke standarde. Kontraverze povezane sa istraživanjima ukazuju da su uz koristi prisutni i potencijalni rizici uslijed epistemičke ovisnosti u znanosti. Zbog nedostatka sposobnost provjere svake znanstvene tvrdnje (kao što je Zemlja okrugla) često se moramo osloniti na znanje znanstvenih stručnjaka i drugih (Hardwig, 1991). Stručnjaci mogu biti u neslaganju i znanstvene tvrdnje osporavane. Potencijalne pristranosti, te posljedice politizacije i komercijalizacije znanosti mogu dovesti u pitanje povjerenje u znanost. Analizom dvaju pristupa rješavanju navedenog izazova: (1) povjerenje u individualne stručnjake na temelju individualne stručne odgovornosti (Douglas, 2008, 2015) te (2) pristup institucionalnog nepovjerenja - utemeljen na institucionalno organiziranom skepticizmu (Merton, 1938; Bouchard, 2016) i transformativnoj kritici (Longino, 1990, 2002). Niti jedan od navedenih dvaju pristupa ne adresira širi kontekst društvenih uvjeta u kojima se provodi znanost. U svrhu implementiranja konstitutivnih elemenata odgovornosti argumente nedovoljnog određivanja i induktivnog rizika stavljamo u kontekst u kojem znanstvene institucije djeluju u međuodnosu između znanosti, društva i politike, gdje dijalog i odgovornost prema javnosti igraju ključnu ulogu. Putem izvan-znanstvenih kritičkih doprinosa (Wylie, 2014) nadograđujmo koncept transformativnog kriticizma (Longino 1990, 2002) temeljenog na argumentu nedovoljnog određivanja. Drugo, na temelju argumenta induktivnog rizika (Douglas, 2000, 2009), tvrdimo da se demokratska odgovornost može postići u institucionalnom okruženju osiguravanjem otvorenosti o vrijednosnim sudovima te sudjelovanjem javnosti. Primjenom modela vjerodostojnog dizajna u institucijama i sustavima tvrdimo da vjerodostojne znanstvene institucije zahtijevaju preoblikovanje pojma objektivnosti u znanosti kako bi se osigurali dijalog i odgovornost.

A little bit more than twenty years ago, the attention of bioethics community was attracted by the discovery of the work of Fritz Jahr (1895-1953), a theologian and teacher from Halle (Germany), who had conceived both the term and the discipline of bioethics (Bio-Ethik, 1926) by broadening Kant’s categorical imperative onto animals and plants. Today, dozens of papers deal with Jahr’s bioethics ideas, but his work related to other topics remains almost unknown. In the present paper, we address Jahr’s article from 1930, devoted to education ("Gesinnungsdiktatur oder Gedenkfreiheit? Gedanken über eine liberale Gestaltung des Gesinnungsunterrichts" [Dictatorship of worldview or freedom of thought? Considerations on the liberal structuring of teaching of attitudes]). In the article, published in Die neue Erziehung, Jahr advocates a set of ten quite progressive and free-minded principles, including objectivity, pluriperspectivism (verschiedene Gesinnungseinstellungen), tollerant dialogue, autonomy, rationalism, liberalism, and democratization of education system and of the development of worldview at school. We devote particular attention to the comparison of Jahr’s ideas to the doctrine of Pietism and August Hermann Francke, who established the Foundation in which Jahr spent a significant part of his life, first as a student, and later as a teacher.

Before it succumbed to political censorship in Croatia in 1974 and afterward, a movement known as praxis philosophy reached its pinnacle as a critical response to the conceptually and socially corrupted dialectical and historical materialism which dominated the former Yugoslavian region. Two of the most prominent philosophers of "praxis movement" – Milan Kangrga and Gajo Petrović – the Praxists – remained to be an inspirational source for junior and senior scholars to date. Recently, a debate was initiated regarding the value of "praxis philosophy", and has notably produced a series of assessments that were atypical in comparison to virtually all previous reviews. The praxis movement was scorned by many commentators who concluded that Praxists were logically inconsistent and that their errors were covered up by too abstract, confusing concepts that lacked proper articulation. Among other things, it was significantly pointed out that their philosophical investigations neither had nor will have any useful application in our society. In this paper, I offer (1) a refutation of these conclusions by (2) describing the structure of praxis philosophy, thus far absent from praxis studies. My ultimate objective was to show that Praxists intentionally developed an alternative philosophical thought to subdue the type of thinking which is fundamental for sterile criticism, and thus I aimed to explain that Praxists self-consciously chose to oppose the approach they were accused of neglecting. Their central idea was to send a message opposite of what their recent criticists think they failed to do.

EuroBioAct is a project under the Department of Social Sciences and Medical Humanities, Faculty of Medicine – University of Rijeka and the »Fritz Jahr« Documentation and Research Centre for European Bioethics at University of Rijeka. Concerning the fact that this Centre is a part of Centre of Excellence for Integrative Bioethics on the one side and the main promotor of Europeisation of bioethics as its programmatic task, the role and the outcomes of the project in this wider context is analysed. After short presentation of the project main aims and systematic documentation of the visible/published products coming directly from the project plan, we discern different phases of its realisation highlighting the importance and the meaning of every step in overall plan. It is shown that the project plays an important role in the wider bioethical framework in general, and provides some significant methodological novelties in particular. The critical evaluation of the project’s results is given and some further suggestions concerning its main goals are given., Projekt EuroBioAct provodi se pri Katedri za društvene i humanističke znanosti u medicini Medicinskog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci i Dokumentacijskoistraživačkog centra za europsku bioetiku »Fritz Jahr« Sveučilišta u Rijeci. S obzirom na činjenicu da je ovaj centar s jedne strane sastavnica Centra izvrsnosti za integrativnu bioetiku te da je njegova programska zadaća biti glavnim promotorom europeizacije bioetike, u širem se kontekstu analiziraju uloga i ishodi ovoga projekta. Nakon kraćeg predstavljanja glavnih ciljeva projekta i sustavne dokumentacije vidljivih/objavljenih rezultata koji neposredno proizlaze iz projektnog plana, prepoznajemo različite faze njegove realizacije naglašavajući važnost i značenje svakog koraka u cjelokupnome planu. Pokazalo se da projekt općenito ima važnu ulogu u širem bioetičkom okviru, a posebice nudi neke značajne metodološke novosti. U radu se daje kritička evaluacija rezultata projekta. Ujedno se daju daljnji prijedlozi koji se odnose na njegove glavne ciljeve.

Within the last twenty or so years a lot has changed in bioethics that is worthy of a serious re-writing of its history. Namely, up to the end of the 20th century Anglo-American “biomedical ethics” (often borrowing the name “bioethics” coined by V. R. Potter but deliberately ignoring Potter’s concept), launched from Georgetown University and narrowed down to four principles, was a globally predominant doctrine, propagated by the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, its students, financial resources, and political power. Up to then, most of Europe had been very slowly accepting the notion of “bioethics”, perceiving it correctly as an unnecessary American “import”, while attempts to Europeanise the idea by revising the set of principles had not proven to be particularly successful. With the discovery of the work of Fritz Jahr in 1997, however, European bioethics regained its lost genealogy and found the courage to claim respect for values other than the American ones. Within the bioethics defined by the Jahrian “Imperative”, a place could have been found not only for the colourful, philosophical, religious and cultural legacy of Europe, but also for the newly evaluated Potter’s work. This “fusion”, a substantial and methodological deepening and broadening of the discipline, soon revealed its attractiveness to Latin-American and Asian centres and individuals also. Today we can talk with certainty about the end of “bioethics in Europe” and the beginning of “European bioethics” with all the complexity and interdependence of its variations – Mediterranean, German, French, Central and Eastern European, and others. By finding similarities among them, we might eliminate fear from “insurmountable” moral relativism, but also avoid the mistake of understanding global bioethics as a list of national bioethics. For the sake of constructing a more “universal bioethics”, this paper finds the ideas of Fritz Jahr, Van Rensselaer Potter, Diego Gracia Guillén, and integrative bioethics as promoted by several Southeast-European authors, as particularly useful., Viele Veränderungen, zu denen es in den letzten zwanzig Jahren im Bereich der Bioethik gekommen ist, bedürfen einer erneuten seriösen Betrachtung ihrer Geschichte. Bis zum Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts entstand nämlich an der Universität in Georgetown die angelsächsische „biomedizinische Ethik” (die sich nicht selten den Begriff der „Bioethik ” von V. R. Potter geliehen hat, wobei sie absichtlich die Pottersche Definition dieses Begriffs vernachläßigte) und bestehend aus vier Hauptprinzipien wurde sie zu einer global bekannten Doktrin, die Kennedy Institute of Ethics (Kennedys Institut für Ethik), mit Hilfe seiner Studenten, Finanzressourcen und der politischen Macht promovierte. Bisher eignete sich der gräßte Teil Europas nur langsam den Begriff „Bioethik“ an, den man mit Recht für ein unnötiges amerikanisches „Importprodukt“ hielt, während die Versuche, diese Idee durch eine Revision ihrer Prinzipien zu europäisieren sich nicht als besonders erfolgreich erwiesen haben. Durch die Entdeckung der Arbeiten von Fritz Jahr 1997 hat die Bioethik jedoch ihre verlorene Genealogie wiedergefunden, dadurch wurde die Achtung der Werte gerechtfertigt, die nicht unbedingt amerikanisch sein müssen. Im Rahmen der Bioethik, die durch den Jahrschen Imperativ gekennzeichnet ist, hat eine Vielfalt vom europäischen Philosophie-, Religions- und Kulturerbe ihren Platz gefunden, während die Arbeit Potters aufs Neue bewertet wurde. Diese „Fusion“, sowie eine substantielle und methodologische Vertiefung und Verbreitung der Disziplin ist bald für Zentren und Einzelne in Lateinamerika und Asien anziehend geworden. Heute können wir mit Sicherheit vom Ende der „Bioethik in Europa“ und vom Anfang einer „Europäischen Bioethik“ sprechen, mit allen Komplexitäten und gegenseitigen Abhängigkeiten ihrer Variationen – der mediterranen, der deutschen, der französischen, der mittelosteuropäischen und anderen. Ihre Ähnlichkeiten helfen uns, die Angst vor dem „unüberbrückbaren“ moralischen Relativismus zu überwinden, aber auch ein falsches Verständnis der globalen Bioethik, als eine bloße Liste nationaler Bioethiken zu vermeiden. Zum Zwecke der Gestaltung einer „univeselleren Bioethik“, haben sich in dieser Arbeit als besonders nützlich die Ideen von Fritz Jahr, Van Rensselaer Potter, Diego Garcia Guillén erwiesen, sowie die integrative Bioethik, die einige mittelosteuropäische Autoren promovieren., Mnoge promjene koje su se u bioetici dogodile posljednjih dvadesetak godina zahtijevaju ponovno ozbiljno razmatranje njene povijesti. Naime, sve do kraja 20. stoljeća anglo-saksonska „biomedicinska etika” (koja je nerijetko posuđivala pojam „bioetike” od V. R. Pottera, pri čemu je namjerno zanemarivala Potterovu definiciju tog pojma), nastala na Sveučilištu u Georgetownu, i sastavljena od četiri glavna principa, postala je globalno poznata doktrina, koju je promicao Kennedy Institute of Ethics (Kennedyjev institut za etiku), uz pomoć svojih studenata, financijskih resursa i političke moći. Do tada, većina Europe vrlo je sporo prihvaćala pojam „bioetike“ kojeg je, s pravom, smatrala nepotrebnim američkim „uvoznim proizvodom“, dok se pokušaji da se ta ideja europeizira kroz reviziju njenih principa nisu pokazali posebno uspješnima. Međutim, otkrićem radova Fritza Jahra 1997. godine, europska bioetika pronašla je svoju izgubljenu genealogiju, a kroz nju i opravdanost zastupanja poštovanja prema vrijednostima koje nisu nužno morale biti američke. Tako je u sklopu bioetike koju odlikuje jahrovski „imperativ“, svoje mjesto pronašlo i raznoliko, filozofsko, religijsko i kulturno europsko naslijeđe, dok je Potterov rad ponovno valoriziran. Ova „fuzija“, te supstancijalno i metodološko produbljivanje i širenje discipline, uskoro je postalo privlačno i središtima i pojedincima u Latinskoj Americi i Aziji. Danas možemo sa sigurnošću govoriti o kraju „bioetike u Europi“ i početku „europske bioetike“, sa svim složenostima i međuovisnostima njezinih varijacija – mediteranske, njemačke, francuske, srednjo- i istočno-europske, i drugih. Njihove sličnosti nam pomažu da prevladamo strah od „nepremostivog“ moralnog relativizma, ali i da izbjegnemo pogrešno razumijevanje globalne bioetike kao pukog popisa nacionalnih bioetika. U svrhu oblikovanja „univerzalnije bioetike“, u ovom su nam se radu posebno korisne pokazale ideje Fritza Jahra, Van Rensselaera Pottera, Diega Gracie Guilléna, te integrativne bioetike koju promiče nekolicina jugoistočno-europskih autora.

The use of Kantian schemata as valuable theoretical elements (constructs) in the explication of our cognitive architecture has been for some time a recurring topic in the philosophy of mind. The relevancy of schemas and processes of schematization as organizing principles of language structures has been repeatedly pointed out in linguistic theory, especially within the framework of cognitive linguistics. In this paper we discuss how Kant’s notion of the schematization of the mind, as discussed in his Critique of Pure Reason, i.e. the central notion of the schema, provides us with relevant insights into a novel critical approach to schematization in linguistics. At the same time, we strive to show that linguistic analyses provide a corroboration and enrichment of Kant’s theoretical philosophy by means of linguistic data, reinforcing Kant’s position with linguistic arguments and thus making him relevant in contemporary linguistic discussions.

Mindful of how the history of bioethics has often been presented, we explore the background, contributions, and influence of Van Rensselaer Potter (1911–2011) on the roots of bioethics. In the last few decades, dozens of papers have been written and published, including several doctoral theses and defenses on V. R. Potter‘s concept of bioethics. In those works, the context of the emergence of Potter’s bioethics has sometimes been suggested, but never analyzed thoroughly. We identify seven pillars of influence for Van Rensselaer Potter’s bioethical credo, drawing on several facts from the rich cultural heritage of Wisconsin, where Potter had lived and worked for the most part of his life.

The prevalence and characteristics of research misconduct have mainly been studied in highly developed countries. In moderately or poorly developed countries such as Croatia, data on research misconduct are scarce. The primary aim of this study was to determine the rates at which scientists report committing or observing the most serious forms of research misconduct, such as falsification , fabrication, plagiarism, and violation of authorship rules in the Croatian scientific community. Additionally, we sought to determine the degree of development and the extent of implementation of the system for defining and regulating research misconduct in a typical scientific community in Croatia. An anonymous questionnaire was distributed among 1232 Croatian scientists at the University of Rijeka in 2012/2013 and 237 (19.2 %) returned the survey. Based on the respondents who admitted having committed research misconduct, 9 (3.8 %) admitted to plagiarism, 22 (9.3 %) to data falsification, 9 (3.8 %) to data fabrication, and 60 (25.3 %) respondents admitted to violation of authorship rules. Based on the respondents who admitted having observed research misconduct of fellow scientists, 72 (30.4 %) observed plagiarism, 69 (29.1 %) observed data falsification, 46 (19.4 %) observed data fabrication, and 132 (55.7 %) respondents admitted having observed violation of authorship rules. The results of our study indicate that the efficacy of the system for managing research misconduct in Croatia is poor. At the University of Rijeka there is no document dedicated exclusively to research integrity, describing the values that should be fostered by a scientist and clarifying the forms of research misconduct and what constitutes a questionable research practice. Scientists do not trust ethical bodies and the system for defining and regulating research misconduct ; therefore the observed cases of research misconduct are rarely reported. Finally, Croatian scientists are not formally educated about responsible conduct of research at any level of their formal education. All mentioned indicate possible reasons for higher rates of research misconduct among Croatian scientists in comparison with scientists in highly developed countries.

The paper tries to elucidate the circumstances and major milestones in the developmental path of bioethics in Croatia, departing from the first mention of the term “bioethics” in 1985 until the present day. Listed are and critically addressed the major book series devoted to bioethical and/or medical-ethical topics, journals, editors, authors, and institutions. The overview groups Croatian bioethicians in accordance with their professional and/or intellectual background (theologians, physicians, philosophers, sociologists, lawyers, etc.). One of the most intriguing results of the paper has been the revealed variety of perspectives and approaches to bioethics in Croatia, some of them being recognised even at European and global level. It is the authors opinion that this variety might primarily be ascribed to the enthusiasm of two pioneers of bioethics in Croatia – Ivan Šegota (1938-2011) and Ante Čović.

Since the discovery of his work in 1997, Fritz Jahr (1895-1953) has slowly becoming recognized as the author of the term and concept of bioethics. Jahr’s ideas on bioethics were partly different from those shaped by Van Renselaer Potter in the 1970s and, therefore, might be helpful for the necessary reform and broadening of modern bioethics. In this paper, the authors try to elucidate ideas from the less known works by Fritz Jahr, especially those considering animal protection and teaching.

A specific bioethical problem which India encounters today, in the era of prenatal diagnostics, is the problem of the foeticide or infanticide of female children. This problem has also been discussed at various international bioethical conferences as it was the case in February 2003 at the 8th International Bioethical Roundtable (TRT8) in the Japanese Science City of Tsukuba, and in March 2002 in Leiden (Netherlands) at the Asian Genomics – Cultural Values and Bioethical Practice conference. This paper presents some of the key theses resulting from the discussion at the above conferences, and also warns of the serious problem of the misuse of modern medical technology and diagnostics, which should primarily be used for a timely detection of various genetically conditioned diseases or disorders of the course of the intra-uterus life of the baby, rather than, as it is the case in India, to enable the (de)termination of the foetus according to sex. That is, the Indian society is dominated by men, and male children are highly valued, whereas female children are exceptionally discriminated against. This dicrimination is manifested through female children not being provided adequate nutrition or medical care, along with pronounced emotional deprivation. The most recent and, in the same time, worst form of discrimination is exactly female foeticide or infanticide, which – this should be specifically mentioned – is most often carried out in the Indian state Tamil Nadu.