We introduce the comments of the last four directors of Academy institutes, who were asked these three questions: In which direction will they lead the development of their institutes? What are they doing to achieve excellence in science? How will they evaluate the work in accordance with the new statutes governing Public Research Institution? The rubric was very successful and we sould like to express out thanks to all the directors who were willing to provide us their responses to our questions. and Odpovědi 4 ředitelů ústavů AV ČR na otázky redakce (pokračování)
We introduce the comments of four other directors of Academy institutes, who were asked these three questions: In which direction will they lead the development of their institutes? What are they doing to achieve excellence in science? How will they evaluate the work in accordance with the new statutes called Public Research Institution?
In the summer issue of Academic Bulletin, 53 directors of all Academy institutes were introduced. They will be in charge of their institutes during the next five years. In this issue, we have asked them three questions: In which direction they will lead the development of their institute? What are they doing to reach excellence in science? If they can lead the institutions in accordance with the new statutes called "Public Research Institutions".
This month we continue with the comments of the directors of all the Academy institutes, who were asked these three questions: In which direction they will lead the development of their institutes? What are they doing to achieve excellence in science? Can they evaluate the work in accordance with the new statutes called Public Research Institution?
We continue in introduction the comments of three additional directors of Academy Institutes, who were asked three questions. and Odpovědi 3 ředitelů ústavů AV ČR na otázky redakce ( pokračování)
Each of the philosophers whom the author focuses on in this article addressed not only the question of the meaning of the First World War, but also of war in general as a certain kind of phenomenon. Scheler and Patočka both share a generally phenomenological starting point and in particular they share an orientation that treats the war experience as one of transcendence (sacrifice, being “shaken”) of the everyday and its institutional bonds. In this respect, however, the two philosophers reflect wartime experience in an almost contradictory way: Scheler adores the engagement of war in the interest of nationalistically-understood goals, Patočka exalts the attitude of the „shaken“, consisting in „self-possession“ and in refusing „the appeals to mobilise“. Transcendence has, then, an opposite meaning in the two thinkers. Despite the generally problematic (especially nationalistically extreme) character of Scheler’s views, even here we find a stimulating reference to the nontransparency of a distinction between just and unjust wars and of its identification with aggressive and defensive wars. Patočka’s thought about being “shaken” does not, however, concern only wartime experience, but also plays an important role in a conception of the „spiritual man“, which had a significant resonance in the Czech intellectual milieu.
Masaryk, against the background of the events of the First World War in their wider context of „world revolution“, formulated his own conception of the meaning of Czech history, consisting in the struggle between theocracy and democracy. This interpretation drew a critical reaction from J. Patočka. Masaryk was the only one of the philosophers treated here who, in his thoughts about war, reflected on the meaning of the First World War for political organisation and cooperation among nations in general. In his exaltation of the significance of democracy as the guarantee of the realisation of human rights, Masaryk can be seen as a philosopher who is close to the modern conception of moral and political philosophy (J. Rawls, M. Walzer, V. Hösle).