Suchergebnisse

Replicirajući na tekst Riječ Uredništva u Šumarskome listu br. 3-4/2016., predsjednik Uprave Hrvatskih šuma d.o.o. mr. sc. Ivan Pavelić u svojoj poruci poslanoj elektroničkom poštom na adresu predsjednika i tajnika HŠD-a zaključuje, da "kao Uprava društva, ne želimo podržavati "naklapanja" i "razračunavanja" podvedena pod znanost, a time nećemo financijski potpomagati izlazak tog vašeg takozvanog znanstvenog časopisa".Mi nećemo na ovaj tekst dati paušalno mišljenje, kao što je to učinio odnosni gospodin, umjesto da je argumentirano odgovorio na postavljena pitanja u našem tekstu i otklonio sve sumnje ako one ne stoje. Ponajprije odgovor na pitanje o znanstvenom statusu časopisa. Na temelju mišljenja tada nadležnog Ministarstva informiranja RH br. 523-91-2 od 6. 3. 1991.g., a potom Ministarstva znanosti i tehnologije od 2000 g., Šumarski list se označava znanstvenim časopisom. Za reći što je, a što nije znanstveno, posebice u biotehnološkoj znanosti, koja je ovdje u pitanju, trebaju i neke reference koje gosp. Pavelić nema, kao što nema ni stručnih referenci za rukovođenje tako zahtjevnom gospodarskom granom kojoj nije samo cilj proizvodnja drvne mase, što on svojim rukovođenjem potvrđuje. Osim toga znanstveni status časopisa potkrijepljen je citiranjem članaka u relevantnim međunarodnim znanstvenim časopisima, a posljednjih godina i sa značajnim Impact faktorom, koji potvrđuje visoku kvalitetu časopisa. No, Šumarski list nije samo znanstveno, on je Znanstveno-stručno i staleško glasilo Hrvatskoga šumarskoga društva, kako stoji u podnaslovu, što znači da svi tekstovi imaju isključivo znanstveno-stručnu i stalešku podlogu, a ne političku. Postavljena pitanja u odnosnome tekstu nije "izmislilo" Uredništvo časopisa, nego je samo uobličilo mišljenja struke putem Upravnog odbora HŠD-a koji je ujedno i Uređivački savjet, a kojega između ostaloga čine predsjednici 19 ogranaka, ne postavljeni od središnjice, nego izabrani od svojega članstva (oko ukupno 3000 članova), te delegiranih predstavnika Šumarskoga fakulteta, Akademije šumarskih znanosti, Hrvatskog šumarskog instituta, HKIŠDT i resornog ministarstva. Prema tome, kompetencije ovdje nisu upitne, posebice kada navedenima pridodamo i članove Uredničkoga odbora koji su specijalisti iz pojedinih znanstveno-stručnih područja. No, gosp. Pavelić i ne treba odgovoriti na postavljena pitanja, jer je on predstavnik državnog "kocesionara" kojemu je povjereno upravljanje i gospodarenje nacionalnim bogatstvom, a kojega treba kontrolirati resorno ministarstvo tijekom cijeloga mandata. Da li je ono to činilo ili čini, i da li su odgovorni u resornom ministarstvu i Vladi RH svjesni što je sve "žrtvovano" da bi se ostvarila hvaljena "papirnata" dobit (profit) i naravno, polučili menadžerski bonusi, to je upitno? Glede spomenutih menadžerskih bonusa o kojima je bilo dosta riječi u medijima svih vrsta, interesantno je napomenuti kako se raspravljalo samo o tome, da li su u podjeli te nazovi dobiti trebali adekvatno sudjelovati i svi zaposlenici Hrvatskih šuma d.o.o. Niti jedne riječi o tome koje su štete nešumarskim gospodarenjem učinjene na šumi i šumskom staništu. Nitko, pa ni šumarski inženjeri iz rukovodstva sindikata, nisu tražili odgovore na pitanja koja smo postavili u Riječi Uredništva u Šumarskome listu br. 3-4/2016., a koja su "razljutila" arogantnog predsjednika Uprave Hrvatskih šuma d.o.o.Glede financijskog potpomaganja časopisa, moramo odgovoriti da to nije financijsko potpomaganje, nego pretplata na časopis, pa dotični gospodin svojom odlukom zaključuje da šumarskim stručnjacima nije potrebno cijelo-životno obrazovanje, te otkazuje pretplatu kao prvi rukovoditelj koji je to učinio nakon 140 godina tiskanja časopisa, upravo u godini kada obilježavamo ovu značajnu obljetnicu.Osim toga, analiza postavljenih pitanja nije tema za "komunikaciju na placu ili možda razgovor uz kavicu" kako navodi gosp. Pavelić, nego upravo za ozbiljnu raspravu na najvišoj znanstveno-stručnoj pa i političkoj razini, jer ovdje je riječ o nacionalnom bogatstvu neprocjenjive vrijednosti. Uredništvo ; Reacting to the Editorial published in the Forestry Journal No 3-4/2016, Ivan Pavelić, MSc, President of the Management Board of Croatian Forests Ltd, sent an e-mail to the President and Secretary of the Croatian Forestry Association, in which he stressed that "the Management Board does not wish to get involved in "idle prattle" and "score-settling" under the pretence of science. In other words, we will not continue to financially support your so-called scientific journal".We will not follow suit of the gentleman in question and give our opinion on this email, unlike the gentleman in question, who failed to use arguments to answer the questions raised in our text and remove all doubts if they are groundless. We would first like to clarify the scientific status of the journal. According to the decree of the Croatian Ministry of Information No. 523-91-2 of 3rd March 1991 and the decree of the Ministry of Science and Technology of 2000, the Forestry Journal is denoted as a scientific journal. To say what is and what is not scientific, particularly in the biotechnological sciences, requires some references, which Mr Pavelić, judging from his manner of management, does not possess. Neither does he possess professional references for managing such a demanding economic branch, whose primary goal should not be the production of wood mass only. The scientific status of the journal is confirmed by articles cited from relevant international scientific journals, and more recently, by the important Impact Factor, which further exemplifies the high quality of the journal. The Forestry Journal is not only a scientific magazine; it is a scientific-specialist and professional journal of the Croatian Forestry Association, as stated in its sub headline. This means that all the texts are based on exclusively scientific-specialist and professional foundations rather than on political ones. The questions raised in the subject text were not "concocted" by the Journal's Editorial Board. The Editorial Board only formulated the opinion of the profession via the CFA Management Board, which is also the Journal's Editorial Council. The Editorial Council is comprised of presidents of 19 branches (who were not appointed by the Headquarters but were elected from a membership of about 3,000 members in all), and of representatives of the Faculty of Forestry, Academy of Forestry Sciences, the Croatian Forest Research Institute, HKIŠDT (Croatian Chamber of Forestry and Wood Technology Engineers) and the competent Ministry. The above confirms the unquestionable status of competences. Moreover, the list can further be widened by members of the Editorial Board who are specialists in different scientific-specialist fields. Mr Pavelić does not have to answer all the questions raised in the journal because he is a representative of the state "concessionaire", who has been entrusted with the administration and management of the national treasure and who should be supervised by the competent Ministry throughout his term of office. Whether the competent Ministry has done so or is doing so, and whether those responsible in the Ministry and the Government of the Republic of Croatia are aware of what has been "sacrificed" in order to achieve the glorified profit "on paper" and probably obtain managers' bonuses remains doubtful. As for the bonuses, a topic on which much has been written in different media, it is interesting to point out that the discussions focused only on whether the distribution of so-called profit should have involved all those employed in the company Croatian Forests Ltd. Not one word was said about the enormous damage inflicted on the forests and forestland by inadequate forest management. No one, not even forestry engineers, union members, sought answers to the questions raised in the Editorial of Forestry Journal 3-4/2016, which so incensed the arrogant President of the Management Board of Croatian Forests LtdRegarding the financial support to the journal, we should just point out that this is not financial support but subscription to the journal. By declaring his decision, the gentleman in question concludes that forestry experts do not need life-ling learning and cancels the subscription, thus becoming the first manager to do so after 140 years of the publication of the Journal, precisely in the year in which we celebrate this important anniversary.To sum up, the questions raised in the journal are not the topic of "street chit-chat or coffee shop small talk", as Mr Pavelić says. On the contrary, it is the topic that requires serious and qualified discussions at the highest scientific-specialist and political level. After all, what is at stake here is national treasure of immeasurable value. Editorial Bord

The ethical distress of the (post)modern world stimulates and directs us to reflect our ethical and cultural grounds. Man is a transcendent being. He cannot reach or put in order immediate goods he needs if he is not prepared to acknowledge the grounds of his person and develop the virtues of prudence, love, hope, faith, wisdom, justice, courage, temperance etc. These are ethical questions concerning different worldviews and cannot be solved only by scientific methods. Many people who in the past did not care for religion as such, now take seriously religious personal and societal aspects of humane life. The fundamental crucial questions of man are ethical questions. They are in various ways related or perplexed with the question of faith and of science.

Članak istražuje načine na koje se odvija interakcija između osječkog kazališta i njegova okruženja u vrijeme Prvoga svjetskog rata, modele međusobnog uvjetovanja, status osječkog kazališta u mikrosredini te društva u osječkom kazalištu, kao i odnose između kazališta i gledatelja te kazališta i politike kako bi se nadopisao jedan manje poznat segment dugovječne povijesti Hrvatskog narodnog kazališta u Osijeku. ; This article explores the way in which Osijek's theater interacted with its environment during the time of the First World War, models of mutual conditioning, the status of Osijek's theater within its microcosm, the society in Osijek's theater, and the relationship between theater and patron as well as theater and politics, so as to flesh out a less-known section of the long history of the Croatian National Theater in Osijek.

U ovom se radu istražuju determinante životnog zadovoljstva na uzorku od 135 zemalja. Osnovni se doprinos rada sastoji u ispitivanju osjetljivosti životnog zadovoljstva na okolišne i društvene eksternalije. Rezultati analize, pritom, imaju implikacije i za nosioce javnih politika. Naime, oni pokazuju da neki faktori konzistentno utječu na razinu životnog zadovoljstva građana, bez obzira jesu li okolišne ili društvene eksternalije uključene u analizu. Postoji, međutim, i skup faktora čiji utjecaj na razinu životnog zadovoljstva oscilira ako se spomenute eksternalije uključe u analizu. Rezultati analize također pokazuju da je razina životnog zadovoljstva u tranzicijskim zemljama, uz ostale nepromijenjene uvjete, niža u odnosu na druge zemlje iz uzorka, upućujući na zaključak da u ovim zemljama nisu ostvarena ranija očekivanja građana. ; Using recent cross-country data for 135 nations, this paper examines the determinants of life satisfaction. The main contribution lies in examining the sensitivity of satisfaction to externalities, both social and environmental. Besides contributing to the literature, the findings also have some implications for public policy. The results show that some factors consistently affect life satisfaction whether or not externalities are considered, while others are sensitive to such considerations. Even under each category of spillovers, the influence in satisfaction varies. Further, other things being the same, satisfaction was lower in transition nations, perhaps signifying that these countries were somehow failing to meet the expectations of their citizens.

Critical reception welcomed Lidija Dimkovskaʾs novel A Spare Life (2012) as an allegory of political and social events in ex-Yugoslavia in the last decades of the twentieth century. The essay sets aside the allegorical perspective of the novel and focuses on the analysis of the state of exile as a key point of identification of the novel's main character, conjoined twin Zlata. The analysis is based on the concepts of desire, otherness and fear of the unknown through which main characters (mostly women) of the novel are represented, as well as on manners of their internalization of socially promoted standards and stereotypes from the perspective of Julia Kristeva's theory of oneself as a stranger.

30. ožujka 2021. godine u 83. godini života napustio nas je akademik, prof. emeritus Fakulteta šumarstva i drvne tehnologije Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, doktor honoris causa Mendelovog poljoprivrednoga i šumarskog Sveučilišta u Brnu (Češka) i Tehničkoga sveučilišta u Zvolenu (Slovačka), član predsjedništva HAZU, jedan od osnivača i prvi predsjednik Akademije šumarskih znanosti u Zagrebu, član kluba dekana Zagrebačkog sveučilišta i dugogodišnji predsjednik Hrvatskog šumarskog društva Slavko Matić. Ovdje nećemo iznositi njegovu znanstvenu ostavštinu o kojoj govori dovoljno njegova bibliografija, dostupna na WEB stranicama HŠD-a, kao i brojna priznanja koja je primio u bogatoj karijeri šumarskog pedagoga i znanstvenika. Iako je uže područje znanstvenoga rada Slavka Matića, unutar znanstvenoga područja biotehničkih znanosti, uzgajanje šuma, on je svojim širokim poljem aktivnosti obilježio cijelo jedno razdoblje šumarske povijesti konca 20. i početka 21. stoljeća. Ljubav prema šumama i šumarstvu usmjerila je njegov životni put te je često isticao da šumarstvo nije samo struka, već i način života. Uporno je zagovarao i promicao jedinstvo šumarske politike, znanosti, obrazovanja i struke. Njegove riječi izgovorene na 107. godišnjoj skupštini HŠD-a u Županji misao su vodilja i njegovo poimanje šumarske struke. "Ponosni smo na svoju dugu tradiciju obilježenu ponajprije brigom za šume i šumarstvo Hrvatske, u želji da svi oni koji aktivno rade u toj struci daju najviše u prilog poboljšanja kvalitete i vječnosti šuma. Isto tako, uvijek smo vjerovali, a i danas, da će nam se uloženi trud i ljubav prema šumi višestruko i trajno vratiti, ne u enormnim i za pristojan život nepotrebnim materijalnim dobrima, nego u zadovoljstvu i saznanju da pripadamo struci gdje je rad, ljubav i poštenje temeljna odrednica i zakon. Bez tih odrednica ne bi bilo moguće uzgojiti i danas održati šume, koje su po svojoj strukturi i vrijednosti najljepše i najvrjednije u Europi. Bez takvog uvjerenja ne bi bilo moguće šume uzgajati i održavati u stanju da daju materijalna i općekorisna dobra, dobra namijenjena svakom čovjeku ove zemlje".Bio je u pravom smislu zaštitnik šuma i šumarske struke. Sjetimo se njegovih reakcija kada je znao "zagrmiti" ukoliko se nešto unutar struke nije odvijalo u skladu s njezinim pravilima bez obzira da li se to odnosilo na izdvajanja šuma i šumskog zemljišta za potrebe građevinske infrastrukture ili za poljoprivrednu proizvodnju, ili kod primjene građevinskih zahvata (Kanal Dunav-Sava, Projekt Zagreb na Savi, Hidrocentrale na Dravi, šuma Kalje) s negativnim posljedicama na šumski ekosustav. U svojim istupima često je bio protiv politike pasivne zaštite šuma provođene od strane Zavoda za zaštitu okoliša i prirode pri današnjem Ministarstvu gospodarstva i održivog razvoja, naglašavajući sječu kao sredstvo njege šuma.Kada bi se poduzimali zahvati u šumama koji nisu bili u skladu s načelima Zagrebačke škole uzgajanja šuma, kojoj je bio jedan od utemeljitelja, šumari su znali da je tu profesor Matić, koji će reagirati i adekvatno odgovoriti.Otvoreno je istupao protiv plaćanja vodne naknade za površine šuma i šumskog zemljišta koje istovremeno jedine omogućuju prirodni vodni režim i čistu vodu. Uvijek je naglašavao važnost općekorisnih funkcija šuma, dok je drvo smatrao kao nusproizvod gospodarenja šumama.Prostore Hrvatskoga šumarskoga društva smatrao je svojim drugim domom gdje je često raspravljao o šumama i šumarstvu. Iskazivao je nezadovoljstvo aktualnom politikom prema šumarstvu, koja je posebice nakon brisanja imena šumarstva iz naziva resornog ministarstva, sustavno zanemarivala interese šumarske struke. Žalostilo ga je ponašanje brojnih naših kolega, koji su pod uticanjem politike pretpostavili konformizam trenutnih rukovodećih funkcija osnovnim šumarskim postulatima koje su učili na Fakultetu,. Odlaskom profesora Matića završilo je jedno razdoblje koje će nama suvremenicima ostati u sjećanju kao nezaboravno iskustvo, plemenitog, šumarskog načina života i zajedništva, a koje je rezultiralo njegovanim i očuvanim šumama. Hoće li novi trendovi koji su sve izraženiji u današnjem šumarstvu, a prema kojima su šumarski stručnjaci sve manje povezani sa šumom, ali i međusobno, uspjeti odgovoriti na nove izazove, posebice u okolnostima sve izraženijih klimatskih promjena, tek je za vidjeti.Uredništvo ; Slavko Matić, Academy member, Professor Emeritus of the Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology of the University of Zagreb, Doctor Honoris Causa of the Mendel University of Agriculture and Forestry in Brno (Czech Republic) and the Technical University in Zvolen (Slovakia), member of the presidency of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, one of the founders and the first president of the Academy of Forestry Sciences in Zagreb, member of the Deans' Club of the University of Zagreb and long-standing president of the Croatian Forestry Association, passed away on March 30th, 2021, at age 83.We are not going to discuss his scientific achievements here. His bibliography, available from the web site of the Croatian Forestry Association, fully testifies to his immense scientific legacy, as do numerous awards and recognitions which he received during his rich career of forestry pedagogue and scientist. Although Slavko Matić's scientific work focused more specifically on silviculture within the scientific area of biotechnical sciences, his broad spectrum of activities left an indelible mark on the whole era of forestry history at the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century.His life path was determined by his love for forests and forestry. He would often say that forestry was not only a profession but also a way of life. He staunchly advocated and promoted the unity of forestry policy, science, education and profession.His words, spoken at the 107th annual assembly of the Croatian Academy of Sciences in Županja illustrate his mission and his understanding of the forestry profession. "We are proud of our long tradition marked above all by the utmost care for forests and forestry of Croatia. We would like all those who are actively involved in this profession to do their best in order to improve the quality and eternity of forests. We have always believed and we still believe that all our efforts and love invested in the forest will be paid back manifoldly and permanently, but not in enormous and unnecessary material goods, but in the satisfaction and knowledge that we belong to a profession in which work, love and honesty are the basic principles and laws. Without these principles it would not be possible to raise and maintain forests today, whose structure and worth rank them among the most beautiful and valuable in Europe. These beliefs allow us to cultivate and preserve forests in the state in which they provide both market and non-market goods, goods dedicated to every person in this country".He was the protector of forests and the forestry profession in every sense of the word. We still remember vividly how our professor would "storm and thunder" if something was not done according to the rules of the forestry profession. It might have been a number of things, such as the conversion of forests and forestland for the needs of building infrastructure or for agricultural production, when construction interventions would be undertaken in the affected zone with negative impacts on the forest ecosystem (the Danube-Sava Canal, the Zagreb Project on the River Sava, hydropower stations on the River Drava, the Kalje forest). He also frequently spoke against the policy of passive forest protection promoted by the Croatian Ministry of Environmental Protection, stressing felling as a means of tending forests. When interventions were made in forests which went against the principles of the Zagreb School of Silviculture, of which he was one of the founders, foresters knew with certainty that it was Professor Matić who would react and respond adequately. He openly opposed the payment of the water fee for forests and forestland, while at the same time they are the only ones that ensure a natural water regime and provide clear water. He always highlighted the importance of non-market forest functions and viewed timber as a side product of forest management.He considered the Croatian Forestry Association as his second home. Here, we would often discuss in detail issues related to forests and forestry.He expressed dissatisfaction with the current policy towards forestry, which systematically neglected the interests of the forestry profession, particularly after the word forestry was omitted from the name of the corresponding ministry. He was also saddened by the fact that a number of our colleagues who, under the influence of politics, put the conformism of current managerial functions above the forestry postulates we were taught at the faculty.The demise of Professor Matić ends a period which we, his contemporaries, will always look upon as an unforgettable experience of living a noble foresters' life in togetherness, the result of which are well-tended and preserved forests. Will the new trends increasingly visible in present day forestry, in which foresters have less and less contact with forest and with their colleagues, be able to respond to all the challenges, particularly in conditions of growing climate changes, remains to be seen.&Editorial Board

In early May, Radovan Pavić, a full professor at the University of Zagreb, died at the age of 87. The news of his death was mentioned in several electronic publications, and suitable tributes were published on the web pages of the institutions in which the professor was active. In the journal Politički misao, published by the Faculty of Political Sciences, an obituary appeared by Marta Zorko, and Ivan Zupanc paid his respects on the Geography Department pages of the Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics website. ; Početkom svibnja u dobi od 87 godina preminuo je Radovan Pavić, redoviti profesor Sveučilišta u Zagrebu. Vijest o smrti profesora Pavića prenijelo je nekoliko elektroničkih glasila, a prigodne tekstove objavile su na svojim stranicama i ustanove u okviru kojih je profesor djelovao. Na stranicama časopisa Politička misao, koji izlazi u nakladi Fakulteta političkih znanosti, tekst je objavila Marta Zorko, a na stranicama Geografskog odsjeka Prirodoslovno-matematičkog fakulteta od profesora se oprostio Ivan Zupanc.

In early May, Radovan Pavić, a full professor at the University of Zagreb, died at the age of 87. The news of his death was mentioned in several electronic publications, and suitable tributes were published on the web pages of the institutions in which the professor was active. In the journal Politički misao, published by the Faculty of Political Sciences, an obituary appeared by Marta Zorko, and Ivan Zupanc paid his respects on the Geography Department pages of the Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics website. ; Početkom svibnja u dobi od 87 godina preminuo je Radovan Pavić, redoviti profesor Sveučilišta u Zagrebu. Vijest o smrti profesora Pavića prenijelo je nekoliko elektroničkih glasila, a prigodne tekstove objavile su na svojim stranicama i ustanove u okviru kojih je profesor djelovao. Na stranicama časopisa Politička misao, koji izlazi u nakladi Fakulteta političkih znanosti, tekst je objavila Marta Zorko, a na stranicama Geografskog odsjeka Prirodoslovno-matematičkog fakulteta od profesora se oprostio Ivan Zupanc.

The perceptions of science by the Croatian public & the political elite are a combination of scientific-technological optimism, the exemption of science from social responsibility, the skepticism regarding the speed of changes that science brings into people's lives, & a mixture of cognitive realism & optimism, & the reservations towards the cognitive possibilities of science. Also, the perceptions of science by the public & by the elite differ significantly. The public perceptions link modernism & traditionalism, confidence & a lack of it in the socially responsible role of science (& technology). Politicians nurture three different views of science. The first view implies both the beneficial & the neutral social role of science. The second view implies the reservations of the elite regarding the humanistic social role of science & its cognitive power, while the third way links the cognitive limitations of science & the skepticism regarding the way in which it changes the traditional way of life. The perception of science by the public depends on the social composition, while the politicians' views are significantly influenced by their political worldview & orientations & party allegiance. Tables, References. Adapted from the source document.

Haberle claims constitutional law is a comparative experiential science closely linked with political science with which it shares the research subject. The constitutional state has been going through a permanent process of changes; the central question is who is the prime mover of constitutional changes: constitutional/legal institutions, constitutional/legal science, & political science or public opinion & political culture of citizens? By analyzing the recent history of the changes of the German constitutions he suggests that all these factors contribute to constitutional changes. Nevertheless, as an expert for law & political science, who considers himself as belonging to the wider European scientific community, Haberle thinks that the decisive influences in constitutional changes stem from legal & political sciences & concludes: Sine qua (scientia) mortalium vita non regitur liberaliter (Without science, mortals do not command their life freely). Adapted from the source document.

The perceptions of science by the Croatian public & the political elite are a combination of scientific-technological optimism, the exemption of science from social responsibility, the skepticism regarding the speed of changes that science brings into people's lives, & a mixture of cognitive realism & optimism, & the reservations towards the cognitive possibilities of science. Also, the perceptions of science by the public & by the elite differ significantly. The public perceptions link modernism & traditionalism, confidence & a lack of it in the socially responsible role of science (& technology). Politicians nurture three different views of science. The first view implies both the beneficial & the neutral social role of science. The second view implies the reservations of the elite regarding the humanistic social role of science & its cognitive power, while the third way links the cognitive limitations of science & the skepticism regarding the way in which it changes the traditional way of life. The perception of science by the public depends on the social composition, while the politicians' views are significantly influenced by their political worldview & orientations & party allegiance. Tables, References. Adapted from the source document.

With the new concept that he invented and promoted - 'Life-World' ('Lebenswelt') - Husserl for the first time in the history of philosophy problematized something that had not been seen as a particular problem before him. The world, as something primary and self-evident, was simply overlooked as a problem. This is the result of the fact that we forever live in some world, and the world is thus for us always something self-evident. It is thus an unquestioned area full of our many questions and considerations. This is so because all our academic achievements have been made within the Life-World: they receive meaning from it. Husserl's main aim was to understand this self-evidentness, with which we have always been viewing the world's Sein. It is from this position that we establish the existence of the 'world as it is', the one which we live in. Thus, all interpretations - whether they are myths, or science, or philosophy - are grounded in the Life-World, and they return and belong explicitly or implicitly into this concrete World. The aim of phenomenology is to interpret and analyse this self-evidentness of the essence of the concrete World, and this is what Husserl tries to do through the idea of one ontology of the Life-World. Adapted from the source document.

In this article the author analyses the transformations of the biopolitics concept from its initial introduction into political-science discussions through the organicist theory of the state to Foucault's critical theory of the subject. In the contemporary debate of social-humanistic theorists, biopolitics delineates a wide area of biomedical, genetic & biotechnological changes of life structures. The addition of a new concept of life to the political sphere requires a redefinition of modern foundations of political construction of the community. The author critically analyses various theories of biopolitics, thus showing that the reception of Foucault's take on biopolitics is a synthetic path toward overcoming the one-sidedness of naturalism/biologism & politicism in the understanding of life & politics in a global age. Biopolitics goes beyond its conceptual definition & becomes a first-rate problem of relations between human life & the way in which state regulates life in the global order of power ever since the traditional understanding of sovereignty & of natural & human rights ceased to be valid. Adapted from the source document.

What is the state of consciousness of modernity presently like? Is modernity as out of date as is claimed by neoconservatism in general & the postmodernists in particular? Neoconservatists accuse modern culture of undermining the ethical foundations of social life. The author shows that neoconservatism does not understand the relation between culture & society, & that it ascribes to cultural modernity the pathological syndromes (hedonism, narcissism, loss of identity) which are, in fact, the product of capitalist modernization of economy & society. Through money & power, the systemic imperatives of market economy & of the bureaucratic state gravely endanger the world of life & the process of cultural reproduction & social integration. Thus, it is solely through distinction between societal & cultural modernization that one can also understand the pathological effects resulting from the sphere of culture itself. While societal modernization is characterized by a growing autonomy of purposefully rational activity (in market economy & administration), which leads to colonization of the world of life, cultural modernization is marked by an increasing differentiation of cultural value spheres (science, morality, art) based on varied aspirations to validity (truth, rightness, authenticity) & by a differentiation of structures of rationality (cognitive-instrumental, moral-practical, aesthetic). Conservative critics of the aporiae of modern culture reject the entire project of modernity, advocating either a return to pre-modernism, or a step forward into postmodernity, or else mere anti-modernity (philosophers such as Nietzsche, Heidegger, Bataille, Foucault, Derrida). In contrast to them, the author sees the potentials of modernity in the protection & development of the sphere of communicational rationality against the systemic imperatives of economy & of the state, in the reestablishment of links between the spheres of science, morality & art, & in connecting the corresponding expert cultures with the communicational practice of the world of life. Thus perceived, modernity is still an unfinished project, which encompasses historical emancipatory potentials only as a differentiated reactive linkage of modern culture with everyday practice, only if societal modernization can also be steered down other non-capitalist paths, if the world of life can develop out of itself institutions limited by the dynamics of the economic & administrative system. Adapted from the source document.

Has the new political science, which operates in the conditions of democracy, brought to light anything of political importance that the old political science at its best did not know at least as well? The new political science starts from the modern understanding of science, which holds that only scientific knowledge is genuine knowledge. Just as classical physics had to be superseded by nuclear physics so that the atomic age could come in via the atomic bomb, the old political science had to be superseded by a sort of nuclear political science. Serious criticism of the old political science is a waste of time; we know in advance that it could only have been a pseudo science, although perhaps including a few remarkably shrewd hunches. This is not to deny that the adherents of the new political science sometimes engage in criticism of the old, but they demonstrate a constitutional inability to understand the criticized doctrines on their own terms. The new political science deems that our political situation is entirely unprecedented, and that an unprecedented political science is called for. But it fails to see that an unprecedented political situation would be a situation of no political interest, i.e. not a political situation. Now, if the essential character of all political situations was grasped by the old political science, there seems to be no reason why it must be superseded by a new political science. While the old, Aristotelian political science was based on political experience, the new is based on scientific psychology. The Aristotelian political science views political things in the perspective of the citizen; since there is of necessity a variety of citizen perspectives, the political scientist or political philosopher must become an umpire. The new political science on the other hand looks at political things from without, in the perspective of the neutral observer. Based as it is on empirism, it must reject the results of political understanding and political experience as such, and since the political things are given to us in political understanding and political experience, the new political science cannot be helpful for the deeper understanding thereof. The break with political understanding of political things necessitates the making of a language different from the language used by political men. The new political science claims that only its own language is unambiguous and precise. Yet this claim is not warranted. The language of the new political science is not less vague, but more vague, than the language used in political life. In the crisis of the modern world, while Rome burns, one may say of it that it fiddles, but, unlike Nero, it does not know that it fiddles, and it does not know that Rome burns. Adapted from the source document.