The aim of this article is to analyze the main contributions of Wesley C. Salmon to the philosophy of science, that is, his concepts of causation, common cause, and theoretical explanation, and to provide a critique of them. This critique will be based on a comparison of Salmon’s concepts with categories developed by Hegel in his Science of Logic and which can be applied to issues treated by Salmon by means of the above given three concepts. It is the author’s contention that by means of Hegelian categories it becomes possible to provide a critique of Salmon’s philosophy of science and at the same time to enlarge the concept framework of philosophy of science., Cílem tohoto článku je analyzovat hlavní přínosy Wesleyho C. Lososa k filosofii vědy, tj. K jeho příčinám, společné příčině a teoretickému vysvětlení, a poskytnout jim kritiku. Tato kritika bude založena na srovnání konceptů Salmon s kategoriemi vyvinutými Hegelem v jeho Science of Logic a které lze aplikovat na otázky ošetřené lososem pomocí výše uvedených tří pojmů. Je to autorovo tvrzení, že prostřednictvím hegelovských kategorií je možné poskytnout kritiku Salmonovy filosofie vědy a zároveň rozšířit koncepční rámec filozofie vědy., and Igor Hanzel
In May 1980, the WEDOC-1 was carried out covering 14 simultaneous stations and establishing a first link between observatories in Western and Eastern Europe. In order to improve the results of WEDOC-1 using a better station configuration and refined software and calibration techniques a second campaign WEDOC-2 was initiated by Graz (Austria) and Penc (Hungary). The configuration comprized 27 stations in 18 countries which carried out simultaneous Doppler observations from September 6th to 16th, 1983. Four different calibration campaigns were used to estimate receiver and program biases. Station coordinates have been computed by means of the programs GEODOP in Graz and SADOSA in Budapest. and V maje 1980 g. byla osuščestvlena kampanija "WEDOC-1", v kotoruju vključilos' 14 stancij. Vpervyje osuščestvlena privjazka meždu observatorijami Zapadnoj i Vostočnoj Jevropy. Čtoby ulučšit' rezul'taty kampanii "WEDOC-1" vtoraja kampanija "WEDOC-2" byla osuščestvlena observatorijami Grac (Avstrija) i Penc (Vengrija) s ulučšennoj konfiguracijej stancij, ulučšennym obespečenijem i technikoj kalibrovki. Konfiguracija vključila 27 stancij v 18 stranach, kotoryje vypolnili sinchronnyje nabljudenija s 6 - 16 sentjabrja 1983 g. Primenili četyre raznych kampanii kalibrovki, čtoby ocenit' pograšnosti prijemnika i vyčislitelnoj programmy. Koordinaty stancij byli vyčisleny s pomošč'ju programm GEODOP v Grace i SADOSA v Budapešte.
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”.
Since Antiquity, logic has always enjoyed a status of something crucially important, because it shows us how to reason, if we are to reason correctly. Yet the twentieth century fostered an unprecedented boost in logical studies and delivered a wealth of results, most of which are not only not understandable by non-specialists, but their very connection with the original agenda of logic is far from clear. In this paper, I survey how the achievements of modern logic are construed by non-specialists and subject their construals to critical scrutiny. I argue that logic cannot be taken as a theory of the limits of our world and that its prima facie most plausible construal as a theory of reasoning is too unclear to be taken at face value. I argue that the viable construal of logic takes it to be explicative of the constitutive (rather than strategic) rules of reasoning, not of the rules that tell us how to reason, but rather of rules that make up the tools with which (or in terms of which) we reason., Od starověku se logika vždy těšila stavu něčeho zásadně důležitého, protože nám ukazuje, jak rozumět, pokud máme správně rozumět. Dvacáté století však podpořilo bezprecedentní oživení v logických studiích a přineslo mnoho výsledků, z nichž většina není nejen srozumitelná pro nešpecializované odborníky, ale jejich samotné spojení s původní logikou logiky není zdaleka jasné. V tomto příspěvku zkoumám, jak jsou úspěchy moderní logiky konstruovány nešpecializovanými odborníky a podřizují jejich konstrukty kritické kontrole. Domnívám se, že logiku nelze považovat za teorii hranic našeho světa a její prima facienejspolehlivější konstrukční jako teorie uvažování je příliš nejasná, aby mohla být přijata v nominální hodnotě. Domnívám se, že životaschopná konstrukce logiky má za to, že je vysvětlující konstitutivní (spíše než strategická) pravidla uvažování, nikoli pravidla, která nám říkají, jak rozumět, ale spíše pravidla, která tvoří nástroje, s nimiž (nebo v podmínky) rozumíme., and Jaroslav Peregrin