One of the current goals of research concerning the Czech national rebirth is clarification of the coexistence of Czech and German cultures in the Czech lands during the first half of the nineteenth century. V. J. Tomášek (1774–1850), one of the most important musicians of this period, was a Czech not only officially: he felt himself to be Czech, and supported the Czech language and culture. However, as an adult he probably spoke and wrote more in German, as confirmed by preserved writings of his such as correspondence, his autobiography, reviews, a catalogue of pupils, and his last will and testament. Moreover, in his vocal compositions, which form the main part of his output, most of the texts he set to music are in German. Tomá‰ek himself commented on his relation to the Czech language and Czech culture very briefly; testimony to his warm but modest patriotism is found in recollections written by his brother-in-law K. V. Hansgirg and his friend P. A. Klar. Tomášek’s cultural and national orientation is also documented by his contacts with Czech patriots and his work with the magazine Ost und West, which was intended for the Czech and Czech-German intelligentsia. Characteristic of Tomášek is patriotism attached to a geographical territory, whereby what was most important was his relationship to the land, its history, and its culture.
Příspěvek se zaměřuje na zavádějící příběh o tzv. kodaňské interpretaci kvantové mechaniky, již jako údajně nerozpornou či jednotnou vytvořili a sdíleli na základě tzv. kodaňského ducha kvantové teorie její tvůrci v roce 1927. Článek bude vycházet z role, kterou v tomto příběhu sehráli především dva významní fyzikové N. Bohra W. Heisenberg. První část příspěvku seznamuje s variacemi toho, co se v literatuře považuje za kodaňskou interpretaci. Druhá část odhaluje, že zatímco kvantová mechanika vznikla ve dvacátých letech 20. století, kodaňská interpretace je veskrze problematickým a především Heisenbergovým produktem z let padesátých. Jednou z hlavních motivací, kvůli níž vystoupil s tzv. kodaňskou interpretací, byla obrana vůči množícím se kritikám obhájců kvantové teorie. Jelikož mezi členy tzv. kodaňské školy nepanovala žádná jednotná či nerozporná interpretace kvantové mechaniky, zaměřuje se poslední část příspěvku na několik vybraných rozdílů hlavně mezi Bohrovým a Heisenbergovým výkladem kvantové teorie., The article focuses on the misleading story of the so-called Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The interpretation was allegedly created as unitary or consistent and shared by its founders in 1927 by virtue of the so-called Copenhagen spirit of quantum theory. The paper is based on the role which two leading figures, Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, played in this story. The first part of the article introduces variations of what is considered to be Copenhagen interpretation. The second part reveals that while quantum mechanics had originated in the 1920s, the Copenhagen interpretation was mainly a problematic Heisenberg’s product of the 1950s. One of his main motivations for the introduction of Copenhagen interpretation was to set up a defence against increasing criticism of the supporters of quantum theory. Since there was no unitary or consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics among members of the so-called Copenhagen school, the last part of the paper focuses on several differences primarily between Bohr and Heisenberg’s interpretation., Filip Grygar., and Obsahuje bibliografii
After the formulation of the photosynthetic unit (PSU) concerning the cooperation of 2400 chlorophyll molecules in the reduction of one molecule of C02 by Emerson and Arnold in 1932, the search for a morphological expression of the functional unit began. The quantasome hypothesis is an attempt to relate the structure visible in the electron microscope, the quantasome, and the PSU. The term 'quantasome' was introduced by Park and Calvin as a name for grana subunits. The quantasomes were regarded as the main integral parts of the grana lamellae in the protein lipid layers. Yet it soon became clear that a morphological mit such as the quantasomes did not exist. Nevertheless, the term was still used in various applications till the eighties.
The Czech dissident movement included thinkers who searched for a morally pure, parallel polis, and who felt comfortable within its isolation. The philosophers of Charter 77 (Jan Patočka and Ladislav Hejdánek especially), by contrast, rejected the idea of being morally superior to their opponents. It is interesting to consider where Václav Havel stands at this crossroads. Havel very much cooperated with the above-mentioned philosophers and was inspired by them in his own writing and agency. On the other hand, Havel undoubtedly performed a certain moral-existential concept of dissent. In this paper I examine Havel’s existential concept. In particular, after distinguishing between two existential approaches in Havel’s writings, I analyse two fundamental philosophical critiques of Havel in the work of Ladislav Hejdánek. According to Hejdánek, Havel 1) identifies intellectuals with non-politicians, i.e. he is governed by the incorrect dualism of the political versus the non-political, and 2) is self-focused and moralising, i.e. he keeps too much within his own self (subjectivity) and “a given” (existent, objective) world. Given this critique, I will systematise Hejdánek’s objections and suggested solutions. In the first case, I see the solution in a more detailed distinction: we should distinguish between politics and non-politics (intellectuals) but also non-political politics. In the second case, we should look for the essence (focal point) of man not in his morality but outside it: man should orient himself “out of his self”.
This paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of pan-European datasets, in particular ECHP and EU-SILC, for research in housing. Although ‘housing’ is a complex topic when studied from a European comparative perspective, I argue that there is no inherent reason why housing should be less amenable to cross-national research than other equally complex topics in comparative social science research, such as research into family change and stability, or the impact of educational systems on social stratification. Given appropriate theory, conceptualisation and contextualisation, along with strong methodologies, meaningful and informative research in housing with ECHP and EU-SILC are possible. There are however a number of limitations, which are mainly related to the fact that both datasets are geared towards the ‘production’ of a ‘system of social indicators’ informing European and national governments. Because of these limitations, ECHP and in particular EU-SILC are less attractive and less useful for academic research then they could potentially be.