Within the last twenty or so years a lot has changed in bioethics that is worthy of a serious re-writing of its history. Namely, up to the end of the 20th century Anglo-American "biomedical ethics" (often borrowing the name "bioethics" coined by V. R. Potter but deliberately ignoring Potter's concept), launched from Georgetown University and narrowed down to four principles, was a globally predominant doctrine, propagated by the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, its students, financial resources, and political power. Up to then, most of Europe had been very slowly accepting the notion of "bioethics", perceiving it correctly as an unnecessary American "import", while attempts to Europeanise the idea by revising the set of principles had not proven to be particularly successful. With the discovery of the work of Fritz Jahr in 1997, however, European bioethics regained its lost genealogy and found the courage to claim respect for values other than the American ones. Within the bioethics defined by the Jahrian "Imperative", a place could have been found not only for the colourful, philosophical, religious and cultural legacy of Europe, but also for the newly evaluated Potter's work. This "fusion", a substantial and methodological deepening and broadening of the discipline, soon revealed its attractiveness to Latin-American and Asian centres and individuals also. Today we can talk with certainty about the end of "bioethics in Europe" and the beginning of "European bioethics" with all the complexity and interdependence of its variations – Mediterranean, German, French, Central and Eastern European, and others. By finding similarities among them, we might eliminate fear from "insurmountable" moral relativism, but also avoid the mistake of understanding global bioethics as a list of national bioethics. For the sake of constructing a more "universal bioethics", this paper finds the ideas of Fritz Jahr, Van Rensselaer Potter, Diego Gracia Guillén, and integrative bioethics as promoted by several Southeast-European authors, as ...
The education system per se, despite its central position in the field of study proclaimed by the scholarly community of Comparative and International Education, has never taken a central stage/role in Comparative and International Education scholarly enquiry. Through the various stages of its history, Comparative and International Education research has either focused on the societal-contextual forces (geography, demography, social system, economy, political system, religio-philosophical viewpoints) shaping education or on the societal outcomes/effects of education, to such an extent that the education system has always remained the blind spot in the centre of the field. A model explaining the structure of the education system which shows the components of "the" education system and their interrelationships has resultantly not been developed. This article attempts to address this shortcoming by discussing and outlining the structure of the education system on the basis of recent epistemological developments. Four components of the education system, along with their elements, are identified: education system policy, organisation and administration, structure for teaching, and support services. ; Obrazovni sustav per se, usprkos svojoj središnjoj ulozi za koju se zauzimaju stručnjaci unutar Komparativne i međunarodne edukacije nikada nije bio u žarištu znanstvenih istraživanja u spomenutom području. Istraživanja unutar Komparativne i međunarodne edukacije do sada su, u različitim razdobljima svoje povijesti, bila usredotočena ili na društveno-kontekstne snage (geografiju, demografiju, društveni sustav, ekonomiju, politički sustav, religijsko-filozofski svjetonazor) koje oblikuju obrazovanje ili na ishode/učinke obrazovanja na društvo do te mjere da je obrazovni sustav uvijek ostajao nejasan u odnosu na glavni dio toga područja. Stoga još uvijek nije razvijen model koji bi objasnio strukturu obrazovnog sustava prikazujući komponente ,,obrazovnog sustava" i njihove međusobne odnose. U ovom se radu nastoji istaknuti taj nedostatak putem rasprave i prikaza strukture obrazovnog sustava na temelju novijih epistemoloških razvojnih ideja. Identificirane su četiri komponente obrazovnog sustava, kao i njihovi elementi, a to su: politika obrazovnog sustava, organizacija i administracija, struktura potrebna za nastavu i službe podrške.
Šibenski grafičar Martin Rota-Kolunić (rođen oko 1540. djeluje u Veneciji, Rimu, Beču i Pragu, gdje je umro prije 23. rujna 1583) izveo je u Veneciji 1571. i 1572. niz grafika koje dokumentarno ili simbolički opisuju sklapanje "Svete Lige", bitku kod Lepanta i pomorski rat s Turcima tih godina. U ovom članku prikazani su i kratko interpretirani svi poznati Rotini listovi na tu temu, od kojih neki do sad nisu bili objelodanjeni. ; Eines der größten politischen Ereignisse im 16. Jahrhundert war Seeschlacht bei Lepanto am 7. 10. 1571. in der die türkische Armee die erste valkommende Niederlage erlitten hat. Die Schlacht wurde auf vielen künstlerischen Werken aus dieser Zeit dergestellt Die graphischen Blätter haben die glückliche Siegesnachricht in das breite Publikum zerstreut. Dabei entstanden populäre Flugblätter, aber auch großformatige Kupferstiche und Radierungen, die einen mehr elitären graphischen Charakter besitzen. Martin Rota-Kolunic (Sibenik, um 1540. - Prag, vor. 23. 9. 1853) fertigte in Venedig um 1571/1572 eine Reihe Blätter an, die auch diesem Ereignis gewidmet sind. Unter ihnen befinden sich drei, die schon im großen Nachschlagwerk über "deutsche illustrierte Flugblätter" von W. HARMS (1980) ausführlich behandelt wurden, aber auch einige, die, meines Wissens, zum ersten Mal heir veröffentlicht werden. Auf seinen Kupferstichen und Radierungen dokumentiert Rota die wichtigen Momente aus der Geschichte und Vorgeschichte der Schlacht: das Entstehen des "Heiligen Bundes" die Schlachtordnung der Schiffe, und die Schlacht selbst, die Verbündeten mit Viktorien und Siegespalmen nach dem Sieg (Abb. 2). Auf zwei Blättern zeigt er die Belagerung der peloponnesischen Stadt Modone, und auf einem Blatt, wahrscheinlich auch auch dieser Zeit, die Seeschlacht zwizchen drei Malteser und sechs türkischen Galeeren. Die Graphiken Rotas stellen einen besonders vertvollen Teil der umfangreichen Flugblätterproduktion zu diesem Thema in Venedig dar, denn sie sind das Werk eines soliden und sicheren Zeichners. Auf ihnen, insbesondere auf den drei Allegorien, zeigt Rota seine, an der populären Flugblattproduktion gemessen, überdurchschnittliche Kraft der Erfindung und Imagination. Seinen Blättern ist neben der dokumentierenden, auch eine moralisierende Dimension immanent: sie feiern die göttliche Hilfe, die den Christen zum Sieg verholfen hat, ermahnen aber auf eitere Einigkeit bei den christlichen Verbündeten. Gleichzeitig wird auf ihnen die täuflische Verderbtheit des Feindes angeprangert.
The Croatian-English parallel corpus MaCoCu-hr-en 1.0 was built by crawling the ".hr" internet top-level domain in 2021, extending the crawl dynamically to other domains as well. All the crawling process was carried out by the MaCoCu crawler (https://github.com/macocu/MaCoCu-crawler). Websites containing documents in both target languages were identified and processed using the tool Bitextor (https://github.com/bitextor/bitextor). Considerable efforts were devoted into cleaning the extracted text to provide a high-quality parallel corpus. This was achieved by removing boilerplate and near-duplicated paragraphs and documents that are not in one of the targeted languages. Document and segment alignment as implemented in Bitextor were carried out, and BicleanerAI (https://github.com/bitextor/bicleaner-ai) and Bifixer (https://github.com/bitextor/bifixer) were used for fixing, cleaning, and deduplicating the final version of the corpus. While the TXT format consists solely of pairs of source and target segments (one or several sentences), each segment pair in the TMX format is accompanied by the following metadata: - source and target document URL; - quality score as provided by the tool BicleanerAI; - translation direction identification: the source segment in each segment pair was identified by using a probabilistic model; - personal information identification ("biroamer-entities"): segments containing personal information are flagged, so final users of the corpus can decide whether to use these segments; - language variants: the language variant of English (British or American) was identified for every segment pair on document and domain level. Notice and take down: Should you consider that our data contains material that is owned by you and should therefore not be reproduced here, please: (1) Clearly identify yourself, with detailed contact data such as an address, telephone number or email address at which you can be contacted. (2) Clearly identify the copyrighted work claimed to be infringed. (3) Clearly identify the material that is claimed to be infringing and information reasonably sufficient in order to allow us to locate the material. (4) Please write to the contact person for this resource whose email is available in the full item record. We will comply with legitimate requests by removing the affected sources from the next release of the corpus. This action has received funding from the European Union's Connecting Europe Facility 2014-2020 - CEF Telecom, under Grant Agreement No. INEA/CEF/ICT/A2020/2278341. This communication reflects only the author's view. The Agency is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.
Iako ne jedini, Danilo Pejović pokazao je kako je bilo moguće misliti drugačije, otvarati perspektive, otvarati se budućem, izlazeći iz marksističke kabanice kojom smo gotovo svi bili zaogrnuti. U svojoj osobi utjelovio je izvorni filozofski etos i golemu erudiciju. Snaga njegova mišljenja očituje se u istančanoj analizi predmeta. Očit je njegov literarni talent kojim se nadaje kao virtuoz i umjetnik riječi, mjestimice poetičnoga stila. Pejović s lakoćom govori o najtežim temama filozofije. Svagda piše jasno, poučno i entuzijastično odmjerenim, probranim i profinjenim izričajem, po čemu nadilazi sve naše filozofske pisce. To iščitavamo već u naslovima njegovih knjiga, studija, eseja i članaka koji govore dubinom svoga smisla, sabirući u sebi smisao čitavoga teksta. Pejović dokazuje kako se moglo evoluirati ususret nadolazećem, novom i drugačijem. Naravno, to novo i drugačije nije samim time već tu, ali za otvaranje novih obzorja trebamo ići protiv struje. Opus Danila Pejovića treba uzeti kao smjerokaz koji nas upućuje da se zdušno pozabavimo sami sobom, da pred sobom položimo račun sami sebi o tome kako je s nama bilo, kako jest i kako treba biti. Njegovo promišljanje teme hrvatske nacionalne sudbine, viđeno kroz promišljanje hrvatske baštine, kulture, povijesti, društva i politike, iznijelo je na zavidnoj misaonoj razini angažiranog filozofa s kojim se kod nas malo tko može usporediti. Upravo mu danas za to dugujemo zahvalnost i služi mu na čast kako je pristupio tom tematskom krugu. Nama su ta njegova razmišljanja nezaobilazna i obvezujuća. Mislimo da je upravo sada pravi trenutak za iščitavanje njegova opusa u cjelini, a ovog aspekta osobito. Ovim kratkim osvrtom htjeli smo tek ukazati na njegov doprinos našoj filozofiji i kulturi. Pejović svakako ostaje iznimno aktualan i poticajan. Nadamo se da je ovim radom to dovoljno obrazloženo. Ako bi ovaj tekst potaknuo naše mlade filozofe i filozofkinje da prionu proučavati njegova djela, onda bi ovaj rad ispunio svoju svrhu. Neka do njih dopru njegove riječi, riječi učitelja mišljenja, da »mišljenje živi samo na taj način da ustraje u traganju i pitanju«. ; Pejović verkörpert in seiner Person das ursprüngliche philosophische Ethos und die Gelehrsamkeit. Die Stärke seines Denkens spiegelt sich in der verfeinerten Analyse des Themas wider. Sein literarisches Talent ist klar und er fühlt sich wie ein Virtuose und ein Künstler von Worten und Stil, der stellenweise poetisch ist. Er spricht leicht über die schwierigsten Themen der Philosophie. Er besitzt einen klaren, lehrreichen und enthusiastisch angemessenen, verfeinerten und raffinierten Ausdruck, der über alle unsere philosophischen Autoren hinausgeht. Dies wird bereits in den Titeln seiner Bücher, Studien, Aufsätze und Artikel sichtbar, die die Tiefe seiner Bedeutung angeben, und als würde die Bedeutung des gesamten Textes in ihnen selbst liegen. Obwohl nicht der Einzige, zeigte Pejović, dass es möglich war, anders zu denken, neue Perspektiven zu öffnen, sich der Zukunft zu öffnen, indem man aus dem marxistischen Regenmantel herauskommt, in den wir fast alle gehüllt waren. Professor Pejović demonstriert, wie sich die Evolution entwickeln kann, um auf Kommendes, Neues und Andersartiges zu treffen. Natürlich ist das Neue und Andersartige allein dadurch nicht schon hier, aber um neue Horizonte zu eröffnen, müssen wir gegen die Strömung vorgehen. Das Opus von Professor Pejović sollte als eine Richtung verstanden werden, die uns auffordert, mit uns selbst umzugehen, uns vorzustellen, wie es mit uns war, wie es ist und wie es sein sollte. Seine Reflexion über das Thema des kroatischen Nationalschicksals, betrachtet durch die Reflexion über unser Erbe, unsere Kultur, unsere Geschichte und unsere Gesellschaft und Politik, hat der Fromme auf einer beneidenswerten Denkstufe eines engagierten Philosophen geschaffen, mit dem bei uns wenige zu vergleichen sind. Genau heute verdanken wir es ihm und geben ihm die Ehre, sich diesem thematischen Kreis geöffnet zu haben. Seine Gedanken sind für uns unvermeidlich und verbindlich. Wir denken, dass gerade jetzt der richtige Moment ist, um sein Werk im Allgemeinen und diesen Aspekt im Besonderen zu lesen. Mit diesem kurzen Überblick möchten wir nur auf seinen Beitrag zu unserer Philosophie und Kultur hinweisen. Er bleibt extrem aktuell und anregend. Wir hoffen, dass diese Arbeit dies ausreichend begründet hat. Wenn dieser Text unsere jungen Philosophen und Philosophinnen dazu anregt, seine Werke zu studieren, dann würde diese Arbeit seinen Zweck erfüllen. Mögen seine Worte sie erreichen, die Worte des Denklehrers, laut denen das "Denken nur auf jene Weise lebt, indem es in der Suche und in der Frage bestehen bleibt".
Na temelju Sabranih djela I–III (1997) Bonifaca Badrova (Livno, 1896. – Sarajevo, 1974), franjevca i profesora filozofije na Franjevačkoj teologiji u Sarajevu, u radu se obrađuje njegov pristup renesansnoj filozofiji i hrvatskim renesansnim misliocima. Badrov je u trećem dijelu svoje Povijesti filozofije (Sarajevo, 1959), koju je namijenio studentima za internu uporabu, uključio i neveliko poglavlje o renesansnoj filozofiji (1450–1600). On nalazi da su specifična filozofska i društvena strujanja na početku Novog vijeka iznjedrila nove, međusobno sasvim disparatne, renesansne filozofske sustave sa samo jednim zajedničkim obilježjem: odbacivanje tomističke filozofije. Prema Badrovu renesansna filozofija ima četiri glavne sastavnice: 1. obnova starih sustava: neoplatonizam, neostoicizam i hedonizam, 2. filozofija prirode, 3. politička filozofija i 4. skepticizam. Badrov hrvatske renesansne mislioce ubraja isključivo u prvu skupinu, dakle među pojedince koji su nastojali obnoviti stare filozofske sustave, i opet – isključivo među one mislioce koji se oslanjanju na Platonovu filozofiju. On smatra da je renesansni platonizam u svojoj bîti zapravo »eklektički neoplatonizam«. Na tragu spoznaje da je antički novoplatonizam eklektički zato što iz Platonovih, ali i drugih teorija probire, prihvaća i primjenjuje ono što mu se čini najprikladnije, gornju Badrovljevu tvrdnju treba razumjeti u smislu da se renesansni platonizam eklektički odnosi prema Platonovim djelima, ali i misaonim dostignućima antičkog novoplatonizma. Ipak, čini se da Badrov ne propituje detaljno izvore i izvornost renesansnog platonizma. Badrov se pojedinačno bavi trima hrvatskim filozofima: Jurjem Dragišićem, Benediktom Benkovićem i Franom Petrićem. Dodatno, o Dragišiću ističe da se bavio logičkim problemima, a da se Benković u pristupu Škotovim djelima koristio Aristotelovim logičkim aparatom. Pišući o Petriću Badrov citira Filipovića koji, pozivajući se na Überwegov Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, tvrdi da je Petrić preteča i učitelj Giordana Bruna te da je utjecao na Bernardina Telesija. U kasnijim izdanjima Überwega naprotiv nalazimo da Brunov odnos prema suvremenicima nije dovoljno jasan i da se Petrić naslanja na Telesija u nekim svojim stavovima. Nadalje, Badrov o Petriću tvrdi da pobija Aristotelovu filozofiju i drži platonizam bližim kršćanskoj misli te u osnovnim potezima iznosi Petrićev nauk o svjetlu: ono je nematerijalna supstancija, samoegzistentno i sveprisutno, prvotni uzrok i princip svih stvari. Dalje, zbog stava o prostoru kao onom koji je postojao prije svijeta, neovisno o stvarima, Badrov Petrića smješta među mislioce koji imaju ultrarealističko mišljenje o prostoru. Načelno, takvi mislioci prostor poimaju kao neku apsolutnu i beskonačnu realnost, različitu od svih drugih tjelesnih realnosti, a za Petrića on je čak počelo, prvo od njegovih četiriju počela tvarnoga svijeta. Pri izradi svojih najopsežnijih skripata Povijest filozofije Badrov se, kako dokumentira njegov popis literature, oslonio na 17 djela iz povijesti filozofije tiskanih u 20. stoljeću, a u prikazu o hrvatskim renesansnim misliocima u mnogome na Filipovićevu Filozofiju Renesanse (1956). S obzirom na kratko izvješće o Petriću, nije utvrđen utjecaj Bazaline Povijesti filozofije, a Šanc u drugom dijelu svoje Povijesti filozofije hrvatske renesansne filozofe ionako ne spominje. ; Based on Sabrana djela [Collected Works] I–III (1997) of Franciscan Bonifac Badrov (Livno, 1896 – Sarajevo, 1974), professor of philosophy at Franciscan Theology in Sarajevo, the paper examines his approach to Renaissance philosophy and Croatian thinkers of this period. In the third part of Badrov's Povijest filozofije [History of Philosophy] (1959), which he wrote for the students' internal use, he also included a small chapter on Renaissance philosophy (1450–1600). He finds that specific philosophical and social mainstreams of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries gave way to new, mutually disparate Renaissance philosophical systems sharing a single common feature: rejection of Thomistic philosophy. According to Badrov, Renaissance philosophy has four main components: 1. revival of old systems: Neoplatonism, Neostoicism and hedonism; 2. natural philosophy; 3. political philosophy; 4. Renaissance scepticism. Croatian thinkers of the Renaissance, Badrov holds, fall exclusively within the first group, that is, among those who worked on the revival of old philosophical systems, or more precisely, among the philosophers who leaned on Plato's philosophy only. In its essence, he views Renaissance Platonism as eclectic Neoplatonism. Grounded on the understanding that Neoplatonism of the Antiquity was eclectic because from the theories of Plato and others it selected, accepted and applied what it considered to be most appropriate, Badrov's statement should be understood in the sense that Renaissance Platonism had an eclectic approach to Plato's works, but also to philosophical achievements of the classical Neoplatonism. However, it seems that Badrov's analysis of the sources and originality of the Renaissance Platonism lacks depth. The philosophers that Badrov treats individually are Juraj Dragišić, Benedikt Benković and Frane Petrić. In addition, he emphasizes that Dragišić devoted himself to logical problems, and that Benković in his approach to Duns Scotus' works used Aristotle's logical apparatus. While writing on Petrić, Badrov paraphrases Filipović's Filozofija Renesanse [Renaissance Philosophy] (1956): »Überweg considers Petrić to be the forerunner and teacher of Giordano Bruno. He also influenced another Renaissance philosopher, Bernardino Telesio.« In the later editions of Überweg's Geschichte der Philosophy, by contrast, we find that Bruno's relationship to Petrić lacks clarity and that Petrić leans on Telesio in some of his views. Badrov states that Petrić refutes Aristotle's philosophy and holds Platonism to be closer to Christian thought. The Sarajevo professor outlines Petrić's doctrine on light. Further, on account of Petrić's view of space as that which exists before the world, regardless of all things, Badrov places the philosopher of Cres among the thinkers who share an ultrarealistic view of space. Mainly, these philosophers understand space as some kind of an absolute and infinite reality, different from all other bodily realities, while for Petrić it is even a principle, the first of his four principles of the material world. While preparing his most extensive manual Povijest filozofije, Badrov, as documented in his bibliography, drew from 17 works of the history of philosophy: three Zagreb editions (Albert Bazala, Franjo Šanc and Vladimir Dvorniković), five Belgrade editions (Borislav Lorenc, Branislav Petronijević, Dragan Jeremić and Bertrand Russell), six German and three French. All these books were published in the course of the twentieth century. Being too short and general, Badrov's outline of Petrić offers sparse information for the establishment of any connection with Bazala's statements on Petrić published in the second volume of Bazala's Povjest filozofije [History of Philosophy] (1909). Šanc, however, in the second part of his Povijest filozofije [History of Philosophy] makes no reference to Croatian philosophers of the Renaissance.
Radom se nastoji uspostaviti veza između Kantove etike i etike sporta povezivanjem koncepcije anthropocena, kao suvremene epohe tijekom koje prirodna povijest postaje kulturnom povijesti, s etikom nade, kako je predstavljena u Kantovoj Kritici rasudne snage. Ključan je moment Kantova argumenta da je biranje kulture ispravan put ljudskog razvitka prema civilnom društvu i kozmopolitskom jedinstvu. Je li sport takva kultura? Može li sport postati važan moment u suvremenoj etici nade? Odgovor je uvjetno pozitivan jer postoje određene prepreke. Prvo, jedan je od razloga za to inauguriranje olimpijskog sporta u svrhe održavanja ravnoteže u društvenim sukobima. Da je takvo što ostvarivo sugerira nam da bi hijerarhijski poredak izvrsnosti u sportskom natjecanju osnažio društvenu hijerarhiju. Drugo, sport je jedna od najpopularnijih i najprofitabilnijih globalnih zabava, no njime upravlja aristokratska elita s iznimnim potencijalom za zloupotrebu moći. Treće, globalni organizatori sporta imaju mnogo političke moći skrivene iza olimpijske mantre o isključivanju politike iz sporta. ; The paper aims to establish a link between Kant's ethics and the ethics of sport by connecting the concept of Anthropocene as the contemporary epoch during which natural history is becoming cultural history and the ethics of hope as presented in Kant's The Critique of Judgement. The crucial moment in Kant's argument is that choosing culture is the proper way of human progress towards civil society and cosmopolitan unity. Is sport this kind of culture? Can sport become an important moment in the contemporary ethics of hope? The answer is conditionally positive because there are obstacles present. Firstly, one of the reasons is that the modern Olympic sport was inaugurated to keep social conflicts in balance. That this purpose can be achieved suggests that the hierarchical order of excellence involved with sport competition should strengthen social hierarchies. Secondly, sport is one of the most popular and most profitable global entertainments, but it is governed by aristocratic elites with the enormous potential for the abuse of power. Thirdly, global sports organisations have a lot of political power hidden behind the Olympic mantra of the exclusion of politics from the sport. ; Cet article tente d'établir un lien entre l'éthique kantienne et l'éthique du sport à travers le concept d'Anthropocène, en tant qu'époque contemporaine au sein de laquelle l'histoire naturelle devient l'histoire culturelle, mais également à travers l'éthique de l'espoir, telle qu'elle est présentée dans la Critique de la faculté de juger de Kant. Le moment charnière de l'argumentation kantienne pose que la culture est le chemin de l'évolution humaine qui mène à la société civile et à l'unité cosmopolitique. Le sport est-il une culture de la sorte ? Le sport peut-il devenir un moment important au sein de l'éthique contemporaine de l'espoir ? La réponse est positive sous réserve d'un ensemble de conditions puisqu'il existe un certain nombre d'obstacles : premièrement, le sport olympique a été inauguré dans le but de maintenir les conflits sociaux en équilibre. Pour qu'un tel projet se réalise, cela suggère que l'ordre hiérarchique d'excellence dans la compétition sportive pourrait renforcer la hiérarchie sociale ; deuxièmement, bien qu'il soit régi par une élite aristocratique qui détient en son sein un énorme potentiel d'abus de pouvoir, le sport est l'un des divertissements mondiaux les plus populaires et profitables ; troisiè- mement, les organisations mondiales du sport possèdent un pouvoir politique qui se dissimule derrière les slogans olympiques qui revendiquent l'exclusion du politique dans le sport. ; Das Paper zielt darauf ab, eine Verbindung zwischen Kants Ethik und der Ethik des Sports herzustellen, indem es die Konzeption des Anthropozäns als zeitgenössische Epoche, während welcher Naturgeschichte zur kulturellen Geschichte wird, und die Ethik der Hoffnung, wie sie in Kants Kritik der Urteilskraft dargestellt wird, miteinander verknüpft. Das entscheidende Moment in Kants Argumentation ist, dass die Wahl der Kultur der richtige Weg des menschlichen Fortschritts zur Zivilgesellschaft und zur kosmopolitischen Einheit ist. Ist Sport eine solche Kultur? Kann Sport zu einem wichtigen Moment in der zeitgenössischen Ethik der Hoffnung werden? Die Antwort ist lediglich unter Vorbehalt positiv, da Hindernisse vorhanden sind. Erstens ist einer der Gründe dafür, dass der moderne olympische Sport ins Leben gerufen wurde, um soziale Konflikte im Gleichgewicht zu halten. Dass dieser Zweck erreicht werden kann, legt nahe, dass die hierarchische Reihenfolge der Spitzenleistungen im Sportwettbewerb die sozialen Hierarchien stärken würde. Zweitens ist Sport eine der beliebtesten und profitabelsten Unterhaltungsformen der Welt, die allerdings von aristokratischen Eliten mit einem enormen Potenzial für Machtmissbrauch beherrscht wird. Drittens haben globale Sportorganisationen hinter dem olympischen Mantra des Ausschlusses der Politik aus dem Sport reichlich politische Macht verborgen.
ParlaMint is a multilingual set of comparable corpora containing parliamentary debates mostly starting in 2015 and extending to mid-2020, with each corpus being about 20 million words in size. The sessions in the corpora are marked as belonging to the COVID-19 period (after October 2019), or being "reference" (before that date). The corpora have extensive metadata, including aspects of the parliament; the speakers (name, gender, MP status, party affiliation, party coalition/opposition); are structured into time-stamped terms, sessions and meetings; with speeches being marked by the speaker and their role (e.g. chair, regular speaker). The speeches also contain marked-up transcriber comments, such as gaps in the transcription, interruptions, applause, etc. Note that some corpora have further information, e.g. the year of birth of the speakers, links to their Wikipedia articles, their membership in various committees, etc. The corpora are encoded according to the Parla-CLARIN TEI recommendation (https://clarin-eric.github.io/parla-clarin/), but have been validated against the compatible, but much stricter ParlaMint schemas. This entry contains the ParlaMint TEI-encoded corpora with the derived plain text version of the corpus along with TSV metadata on the speeches. Also included is the 2.0 release of the data and scripts available at the GitHub repository of the ParlaMint project. Note that there also exists the linguistically marked-up version of the corpus, which is available at http://hdl.handle.net/11356/1405.
ParlaMint is a multilingual set of comparable corpora containing parliamentary debates mostly starting in 2015 and extending to mid-2020, with each corpus being about 20 million words in size. The sessions in the corpora are marked as belonging to the COVID-19 period (after October 2019), or being "reference" (before that date). The corpora have extensive metadata, including aspects of the parliament; the speakers (name, gender, MP status, party affiliation, party coalition/opposition); are structured into time-stamped terms, sessions and meetings; with speeches being marked by the speaker and their role (e.g. chair, regular speaker). The speeches also contain marked-up transcriber comments, such as gaps in the transcription, interruptions, applause, etc. Note that some corpora have further information, e.g. the year of birth of the speakers, links to their Wikipedia articles, their membership in various committees, etc. The corpora are encoded according to the Parla-CLARIN TEI recommendation (https://clarin-eric.github.io/parla-clarin/), but have been validated against the compatible, but much stricter ParlaMint schemas. This entry contains the linguistically marked-up version of the corpus, while the text version is available at http://hdl.handle.net/11356/1388. The ParlaMint.ana linguistic annotation includes tokenization, sentence segmentation, lemmatisation, Universal Dependencies part-of-speech, morphological features, and syntactic dependencies, and the 4-class CoNLL-2003 named entities. Some corpora also have further linguistic annotations, such as PoS tagging or named entities according to language-specific schemes, with their corpus TEI headers giving further details on the annotation vocabularies and tools. The compressed files include the ParlaMint.ana XML TEI-encoded linguistically annotated corpus; the derived corpus in CoNLL-U with TSV speech metadata; and the vertical files (with registry file), suitable for use with CQP-based concordancers, such as CWB, noSketch Engine or KonText. Also included is the 2.0 release of the data and scripts available at the GitHub repository of the ParlaMint project.
ParlaMint 2.1 is a multilingual set of 17 comparable corpora containing parliamentary debates mostly starting in 2015 and extending to mid-2020, with each corpus being about 20 million words in size. The sessions in the corpora are marked as belonging to the COVID-19 period (after November 1st 2019), or being "reference" (before that date). The corpora have extensive metadata, including aspects of the parliament; the speakers (name, gender, MP status, party affiliation, party coalition/opposition); are structured into time-stamped terms, sessions and meetings; with speeches being marked by the speaker and their role (e.g. chair, regular speaker). The speeches also contain marked-up transcriber comments, such as gaps in the transcription, interruptions, applause, etc. Note that some corpora have further information, e.g. the year of birth of the speakers, links to their Wikipedia articles, their membership in various committees, etc. The corpora are encoded according to the Parla-CLARIN TEI recommendation (https://clarin-eric.github.io/parla-clarin/), but have been validated against the compatible, but much stricter ParlaMint schemas. This entry contains the ParlaMint TEI-encoded corpora with the derived plain text version of the corpus along with TSV metadata on the speeches. Also included is the 2.0 release of the data and scripts available at the GitHub repository of the ParlaMint project. Note that there also exists the linguistically marked-up version of the corpus, which is available at http://hdl.handle.net/11356/1431.
ParlaMint 2.1 is a multilingual set of 17 comparable corpora containing parliamentary debates mostly starting in 2015 and extending to mid-2020, with each corpus being about 20 million words in size. The sessions in the corpora are marked as belonging to the COVID-19 period (from November 1st 2019), or being "reference" (before that date). The corpora have extensive metadata, including aspects of the parliament; the speakers (name, gender, MP status, party affiliation, party coalition/opposition); are structured into time-stamped terms, sessions and meetings; with speeches being marked by the speaker and their role (e.g. chair, regular speaker). The speeches also contain marked-up transcriber comments, such as gaps in the transcription, interruptions, applause, etc. Note that some corpora have further information, e.g. the year of birth of the speakers, links to their Wikipedia articles, their membership in various committees, etc. The corpora are encoded according to the Parla-CLARIN TEI recommendation (https://clarin-eric.github.io/parla-clarin/), but have been validated against the compatible, but much stricter ParlaMint schemas. This entry contains the linguistically marked-up version of the corpus, while the text version is available at http://hdl.handle.net/11356/1432. The ParlaMint.ana linguistic annotation includes tokenization, sentence segmentation, lemmatisation, Universal Dependencies part-of-speech, morphological features, and syntactic dependencies, and the 4-class CoNLL-2003 named entities. Some corpora also have further linguistic annotations, such as PoS tagging or named entities according to language-specific schemes, with their corpus TEI headers giving further details on the annotation vocabularies and tools. The compressed files include the ParlaMint.ana XML TEI-encoded linguistically annotated corpus; the derived corpus in CoNLL-U with TSV speech metadata; and the vertical files (with registry file), suitable for use with CQP-based concordancers, such as CWB, noSketch Engine or KonText. Also included is the 2.1 release of the data and scripts available at the GitHub repository of the ParlaMint project. As opposed to the previous version 2.0, this version corrects some errors in various corpora and adds the information on upper / lower house for bicameral parliaments. The vertical files have also been changed to make them easier to use in the concordancers.
