The author notes a lack of response to the work of J. L. Fischer and, using Fischer’s interpretation of Socrates, shows that Fischer deserves critical attention. He first analyses Fischer’s interpretation in terms of content. Fischer’s approach stems from the Scottish school and his analyses can still be productive. However, his idea of a “psychological analysis”, of Socrates proves rather problematic. The author goes on to analyse what Socrates means for Fischer philosophically, noting that fundamental premises of Socrates’ philosophy are exact opposite of the “composable philosophy” Fischer advocates. For Fischer, this means philosophy which can be composed – built up – of discrete observations after the manner of a scientific theory, at least as positivist thinkers conceived of it. Socrates offers a rationalist defence of autocratic rule. T e measure of all things is not the citizen but the expert. On such presuppositions, a general assembly would make no sense. Tus though his study poses as purely historical, Fischer manages to work his way to his central motif, the crisis contemporary democracy challenged by dogma “scientifi c ma¬terialism” which can be neither analysed nor refuted. Socrates is pre¬sented as democracy’s enemy, in wholly contemporary terms. Fischer’s presentation of Socrates, rather like Popper’s reading of Plato, thus re¬flects the experience of the twentieth century.
The bicentennial varia tions of the Earth rotation consist of several oscill ations with most known periods 178.7a (Jose cycle), 210a and 230a (de Vries cycle); they are driven by the solar cycles which affect climatic variations, followed by global environmental changes. These periods are close to the higher harmonics of millennial Hallstatt cycle (2300a), so the proper separation between the indi vidual bicentennial cycles needs time series longer than 2300a. The bicentennial variations of the Universal Time (UT1) in relation to the Terrestrial Time (TT) are investigated using reconstructed time series of the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) for the last 9300a. A linear regression model of TSI influe nce on the UT1 and the Mean Sea Level (MSL) bicentennial variations are created. The parameters and time series of the bicentennial UT1-TT oscillations for the last 9300a are determined., Cyril Ron, Yavor Chapanov and Jan Vondrák., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy
V článku je tematizována problematika solidarity, a to jak v stručném historickém ohlédnutí, tak v současnosti. S důsledky její všeobecné eroze se prakticky setkávají všichni senioři a také ti, kteří o ně profesionálně nebo laicky pečují. I když redukci solidarity pociťují všechny vyspělé státy světa, je upozorněno na česká specifika, která ji provázejí. V budoucnu bude péče (nejen) o seniory limitována konceptem tzv. nové solidarity, který je očekáván, ale ochota ho vytvořit je zatím minimální. Rozhodující bude, zda se nejen odborníci, ale i laická veřejnost rozhodne, zda je zdraví zbožím jako každé jiné, nebo vysokou hodnotou, kterou je třeba chránit prvky zvláštního režimu. Doprovodně je třeba hledat konsenzus k odpovědi na otázku, do jaké míry je nebo má být zdraví individuální nebo též veřejnou hodnotou. Principy ochrany veřejného zdraví jsou dosud uplatňovány. Teprve po řádné diskuzi vedoucí ke konceptu, co si většinově přejeme, je možné odpovědně rekonstruovat stávající zdravotní a sociální systém a vyvažovat „kolik trhu a kolik státu“ by v něm mělo být. and The article deals with the issue of solidarity both in the brief historical and present perspective. Practically all seniors as well as those who provide them professional or informal care are faced with the consequences of the general erosion of solidarity. Although all developed countries are confronted with the reduction of solidarity, the article underlines the specific situation in the Czech Republic. In the future, provision of care not only for the seniors but for all will be determined by the concept of so called “new solidarity”, which is expected to come, but the willingness to create it is still low. It will be crucial that not only professionals but also the general public decides whether health is a commodity like any other or high value, which should be protected in a special regime. At the same time, it is necessary to seek consensus on the question to what extent health is or should be individual or public value. Principles of public health are still implemented. Only after proper discussion, leading to the understanding of what a majority wishes, we can responsibly reform the existing health and social systems and to balance between how big role “market and state” should play in it.