Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 24

first rewind previous Page / 2 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Evolution
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 2 next fast forward last
EN
The main contribution of this study lies in the chronologically ordered analysis of the texts in which Tomáš G. Masaryk writes about the problematics of the evolution and Darwinism. Although there are strong anticlerical motives in his work, his thoughts show surprising affinity to the contemporary Catholic theologians who were open to the possibility of the creation of the species and the human being through the evolution. Masaryk has no doubts about the key role of the Creator in the process of the origin of the species and the human being, about the immortality of the human soul which is, in his opinion, not deducible from purely evolutionary processes, about intelligent design of these processes. Inspirational sources of this stand may be only estimated, but it is very probable that confirmation of Masaryk’s invariable stands were strongly influenced by Matěj Procházka, his secondary school teacher at Brno, and Franz Brentano, an excellent professor at Vienna Faculty of Art.
EN
In modern criminal proceedings, one of the functions which can be performed by the plaintiff (the victim) is the function of the auxiliary prosecutor. This institution has been known to all 20th-century Polish laws of criminal proceedings (1928, 1969, and 1997). The particular issues regarding the auxiliary prosecutor regulated in those codifications focused primarily on: 1) when and on what conditions the auxiliary prosecutor could join the criminal proceedings; 2) who decided on allowing the auxiliary prosecutor into the proceedings; 3) what was the legal status of the auxiliary prosecutor in the proceedings; 4) what was the auxiliary prosecutor’s relationship to the public prosecutor. The institution of the auxiliary prosecutor, introduced in the Rules of Criminal Procedure of 1928, became a subject of heated criticism. It was then promptly abolished in the amendment to the Rules of 1932. Its abolishment was justified by the claims that it had proved to be ineffectual in practical application. This decision was, however, partly rectified in the amendment by introducing a chapter entitled “The Victim” into the code. The Rules of Criminal Procedure of 1969 re-introduced the institution of the auxiliary prosecutor, but only in the capacity of an accessory auxiliary prosecutor. This change had, however, no real effect on the legal practice as well as the attitudes of the authorities towards the rights of the victim in the court proceedings. It was not until the Rules of Criminal Procedure of 1997 that the auxiliary prosecutor has become a rightful party in litigation, an independent subject—a subject whose participation in the criminal proceedings can contribute to the increase in the contradictoriness of the proceedings, the odds of uncovering material truth as well as citizens’ trust in the judiciary.
3
Content available remote

Consciousness and Evolution

88%
Forum Philosophicum
|
2009
|
vol. 14
|
issue 2
329-342
EN
I analyse some of the key evolutionary issues that arise in the study of consciousness from a bio-philosophical point of view. They all seem to be related to the fact that phenomenality has a special status: it is a very complex feature, apparently more than biological, it is hard to define because of the plurality of its displays (cognition, various emotions, other complex functions such as vision) and it is difficult to study with classic evolutionary tools (such as philogenetics or paleoanthropology). Giving an answer to the question “is consciousness an adaptive trait?” thus seems to be very difficult and this paper intends to sketch some of the problems we should be concerned with when studying phenomenality as an adaptation.
EN
In spite of the apparent differences between the two, a number of commentators have suggested an underlying sympathy between new atheism and protestant fundamentalism (e.g. De Botton 2012; Vernon 2007; Flew 2007; Robertson 2010) While such comparisons are intriguing, it not always clear whether they should be taken seriously, as they are frequently asserted without sustained argument. This paper seeks to ameliorate this lack of clarity through a textual study of new atheist and protestant fundamentalist texts. This textual study reveals two presuppositions shared by new atheists and protestant fundamentalists: a literal, univocal, and perspicuous understanding of Scripture, and a disruptive and substitutionary conception of divine activity in nature. As such, for all their differences, both groups share similar beliefs concerning the Christian faith. While scholars frequently critique new atheist and protestant fundamentalist arguments by attacking biblical inerrancy or metaphysical naturalism, this paper concludes by arguing that a more successful critique of these two groups can be advanced by questioning the biblical and theological presuppositions that they share.
EN
The five factor trait of conscientiousnessis a supertrait, denoting on one hand a pattern of excessive labor, rigidity, orderliness and compulsivity,and on the other hand a pattern of strict rectitude, scrupulosity, dutifulness and morality. In both respects the obsessive-compulsive personality is conscientious; indeed, it has been labeled a disorder of extreme conscientiousness (Widiger et al., 2009). Antisocial personality disorder, in the present paper, is described as occupying the opposite end of the conscientiousness continuum. The antisocial is impulsive rather than compulsive, illicit rather than licit, and furtive rather than forthright.After clinically comparing the obsessive and antisocial personalities, the present paper invokes evolutionary theory to explain their resultant behavioral, ideological, political and demographic differences.
EN
This paper identifies and synthetically demonstrates the most important steps and changes in the evolution of the idea and institution of citizenship in Europe over more than two thousand years. Citizenship is one of the essential categories defining human status. From a historical perspective, the idea of citizenship in Europe is in a state of constant evolution. Therefore, the essence of the institution of citizenship and its acquisition criteria are continually being transformed. Today's comprehension of citizenship is different from understanding citizenship in Europe in earlier epochs of history. In some of them, the concept of citizenship existed only in the realm of ideas. In others, the idea materialised, and membership in the state (or city) and civic rights and obligations found a formal, legal expression. The formation of the idea and institution of citizenship is a long and multi-phase process.
EN
In this paper the author presents publications which are significant for revealing the attitudes of Czech Catholic theologians to the challenges of the natural sciences in the period 1850–1950, published in the periodicals Časopis Národního musea and Museum bohoslovců českomoravských. He subsequently evaluates in detail the so-called Braun thesis introduced by an important exponent of evolutional thinking in Bohemia of the second half of the 19th century J. L. Čelakovský and points out to the risk of an inclination to pantheism connected with it. Finally, the not­‑contradictoriness between the definition of man as “an animal capable of sin” on the one hand and the Christological principle of Jesus’ impossibility to sin on the other is clarified. Through all these steps the previously edited monograph: C. V. Pospíšil, Zápolení o naději a lidskou důstojnost. Česká katolická teologie 1850­‑1950 a výzvy přírodních věd v širším světovém kontextu, Olomouc: University of Olomouc Press, 2014, is renewed. The results of further research do not result in any changes to the conclusions reached by the author in the above mentioned book, nevertheless the collection of found publications is enriched and certain appraisals of thought are specificied in further detail.
EN
St. George Jackson Mivart (1827–1900) dedicated a great deal of his life to the struggle to prove that the theory of evolution and the Catholic faith are not mutually exclusive. Especially important is his idea that God created the human soul of the first person directly, but infused it into the human body created through secondary causes (i.e. evolution). The aim of this article is to demonstrate how this thesis is connected to the whole of Mivart’s ontology.
9
Content available remote

John Cuthbert Hedley, biskup otevřený evoluci

75%
EN
The article presents the constructive approach of John Cuthbert Hedley, bishop of Newport, towards the theory of evolution. It helps us understand the complex discussion in the Catholic Church at the end of the nineteenth century. In reactions to St. George J. Mivart, Hedley manifested great respect towards the famous biologist, but criticized him when entering the field of theology. In contact with John Augustine Zahm, Hedley was initially very supportive, though softening Zahm’s enthusiasm. He later became more reserved and uncertain in his contacts because Zahm’s book was placed on the index of prohibited books.
10
Content available remote

Erich Wasmann a jeho přínos k teorii evoluce

75%
EN
The aim of this paper is to examine the life and work of the Austrian priest, Jesuit and biologist Erich Wasmann (1859–1931) and specifically his contribution to a deeper understanding of the theory of evolution and its reception by Catholic theology. The biography of the person of Erich Wasmann is presented first, followed by his work, biological research, concept of evolution, the possibility of its application to man, its philosophical and sociological consequences and the controversies between Erich Wasmann and Ernst Haeckel, a protagonist of monism and materialism, are described. In conclusion it is argued that Wasmann was a resolute supporter of biological evolution, and also open to the possibility of its extension to man, as far as it concerns the evolution of the human body, if this would be confirmed by paleontological findings. He emphasized, however, the essential differences between man and animals in the mental and spiritual region that could not be spanned by evolution, but which would require a certain ontological leap, as it has been recognised by contemporary theological anthropology.
11
Content available remote

John Augustine Zahm ve sporu o opičí původ člověka

75%
EN
In order to establish correct relationships between science and theology, a proper knowledge of the shared past is indispensable. The intention of this paper is to analyse the work of the American priest and professor of science John Augustine Zahm (1851–1921), specifically his views on the evolution of humankind in his 1896 book Evolution and Dogma. The interpretation rests upon diachronic research focused on the sources used and on the subsequent editing of the text. It comes to the conclusion that apart from external historical influences, there were three things in the text that advanced its prohibition: the term “Evolution” in the title, the transition from presenting evolution as a possible hypothesis to defending it as a thesis and the quotation from Dalmace Leroy, whose book was recently placed on the Index.
EN
The five factor trait of conscientiousness is a supertrait, denoting on one hand a pattern of excessive labor, rigidity, orderliness and compulsivity, and on the other hand a pattern of strict rectitude, scrupulosity, dutifulness and morality. In both respects the obsessive-compulsive personality is conscientious; indeed, it has been labeled a disorder of extreme conscientiousness (Widiger et al., 2009). Antisocial personality disorder, in the present paper, is described as occupying the opposite end of the conscientiousness continuum. The antisocial is impulsive rather than compulsive, illicit rather than licit, and furtive rather than forthright.After clinically comparing the obsessive and antisocial personalities, the present paper invokes evolutionary theory to explain their resultant behavioral, ideological, political and demographic differences.
EN
In this paper, the author discusses Darwinism and evolutionism in an Italian context. It also presents two personages of Catholic thinking in Italy in the 1890s who were open to the idea of the evolutionary origin of man. Antonio Fogazzaro (1842–1911), a Catholic writer, anticipated in his vision what can later be found in the work of P. Teilhard de Chardin. Bishop Geremia Bonomelli (1831–1914) accepted the thesis of the American pioneer of the Catholic concept of the evolutionary origin of man, John Augustine Zahm. It is of interest that none of the above mentioned authors mentions Raffaello Caverni, who spoke in the same spirit as early as 1877. G. Mivart, an English pioneer in the Catholic reception of the evolutionary origin of man, is also not recalled. Fogazzaro does point out, however, the heritage of Antonio Rosmini, who anticipated in some way the possibility of the evolutionary origin of man in the first half of the nineteenth century. Although Fogazzaro and Bonomelli did not have any influence on the Czech theological scene at the turn of the twentieth century, the literary works of Fogazzaro were widely translated into Czech.
EN
The study maps the attitudes of Italian Catholic theologians publishing in the prestigious journal La Civiltà Cattolica on the issue of the evolutionary origin of the human body from 1850–1980. The strict rejection of the so-called Mivart‘s thesis lasted up to the beginning of the 1940s when things began to change gradually. It is noteworthy that German and Italian Jesuits used different strategies. The former approached Mivart‘s thesis in an increasingly liberal way as of the 1890s, while the latter remained in opposition up until the 1940s. Czech Catholic theology followed the German more closely, rather than the official Italian pattern.
EN
This paper is part of a larger scholar project focused on Catholic theologians and scientists between 1871 and 1910 who accepted the evolutionary origin of the human body in accordance with so-called Mivart’s theory, or rejected it. The author presents the life and work of an important German Biblical scholar Johann Baptist Göttsberger (1868–1958), focusing mainly on his 1910 book Adam und Eva. Göttsberger describes the contemporary scene very well providing information about an entire range of authors who showed a great openness to the evolutionary origin of man. Surprisingly we encounter here for the first time authors who hypothesised the possibility of also applying the evolutionary model to creation – the origin of the human spirit, what is also true in some sense about Göttsberger himself. It turns out that at least in German Catholic theology, the year 1910 is a turning point, because after this date authors showing an openness to the evolutionary theory of the origin of man cannot be considered pioneers. These authors formed a numerous and still growing group.
EN
The study is part of a research project focused on Catholic theologians and scholars who either accepted the evolutionary origin of the human body in accordance with Mivart’s thesis or denied it in years 1871–1910. The author presents the Padernborn exegete Norbert Peters (1863–1938) and a critical analysis of his book Glauben und Wissen im ersten biblischen Schöpfungsbericht (Gen 1:1–2:3), Paderborn: Verlag von Ferdinand Schöning, 1907. The above-mentioned author reacts to both the academic and popular writing of E. Haeckel. He argues as a biblical scholar that the description of the creation of man, as it is found in the first chapters of Genesis, is not an obstacle to openness to an evolutionary origin – the creation of the human body. Being a specialist in the Bible, however, he does not dare state whether this hypothesis is actually viable. The issue of the means of creation of the human body is, in his view, only a marginal question in theology. A methodologically highly disciplined approach can be observed, however, which is in many respects similar to the approach of contemporary Catholic theologians.
EN
This paper is part of an academic project focused on Catholic theologians and scholars who either adopted the origin of the human body according to Mivart’s thesis in 1871–1910 or declined it. The author presents the forgotten Austrian apologist K. Hasert (1851–1923) and reconstructs elementary data about his biography on the basis of research into certain sources. The analysis of two monographs by the author demonstrates the openness to Mivart’s thesis with, however, certain reservations. It is rare evidence of the fact that the Catholic world was not divided predominantly between extreme advocates and opponents of Mivart’s thesis. It is probable that many were attracted by Mivart’s thesis, though they were also aware of its problems and waited for more solid data from contemporary palaeography.
EN
This study presents the life and work of the French Catholic theologian M. D. Leroy (1828–1905) regarding the issue of the evolutionary origin of humans. His book, published in 1891, met with harsh reactions from the side of transformism opponents, after which it was followed by the process of the Sacred Congregation of the Index. The work was condemned and the author was reprimanded. Leroy formally submitted himself to the Congregation’s decision. The implicit dualism was the basic problem of the so-called Mivart thesis. Leroy claims that the human body can be called human, if the body is united with its essential form only, ergo its immortal soul. By means of the evolution, the creator could prepare a certain pre-human species, the substrate of the creation of a human body by the infusion of the immortal soul. The study by Leroy contains a number of new elements: an explanation of the apparently contradictory attitudes of Pope Leo XIII, a reference to the views of the remarkable French apologist F. Duilhé. Although he did not accept Leroy’s point of view, he did take sides on the right for liberal research in this area for Catholic theologians in 1897. There are essential links of the detection in between, as to what was the French and Czech natural science point-of-view in relation to Darwinism at this period. Leroy’s thesis is still relevant as it corrects the implicit dualism in the area of anthropology, which is implicitly presented in the widespread solution of the Catholic world today. The human body, in his view, came into being through evolution and was provided with a human soul at a certain moment.
EN
This paper is part of a larger scholar project focused on Catholic theologians and scholars between 1871 and 1910 who accepted the evolutionary origin of the human body in accordance with the so called Mivart theory, or rejected it. The author presents the life and writings of the French theologian and biblical scholar F. E. Gigot, who was active mainly in the USA. He then analysed the relevant parts of the first section of his special introduction to the Old Testament (1901), where he interprets the first and second chapter of the book of Genesis and demonstrates a more or less open attitude to the theory of the evolutionary origin of man. The name of this biblical scholar, internationally recognized in his day, is not recalled in contemporary literature in connection with the reception of the evolutionary origin of humankind in Catholic theology at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries. The discoveries help to correct the rooted conviction that the Catholic theologians of this period had an exclusively negative attitude towards the fact of evolution and the evolutionary origin of the human body. The study also includes an analysis of one passage of Augustine’s writing De Genesi ad litteram, where the author finds formulations which look like an offered hand across the ages to those who in 1871−1910, and also later, sought to theologically adopt the theory of the evolutionary origin – creation of man.
20
63%
EN
Recently, Marcin Łyska published a monograph entitled Prawo wykroczeń Polski Ludowej [The Law of Misdemeanors of the Polish People’s Republic] (Białystok 2020, pp. 136). Łyska begins his reflections in 1918. He presents the French system with the tripartite division of crimes (felonies, misdemeanours, and petty offences), the Austrian system, and the German system. The Polish codification of the substantive law of offences of 11 July 1932 was the result of many years of scientific debate by the members of the Criminal Department of the Codification Commission of the Second Republic of Poland. The introduction of the socialist model of penal and administrative jurisprudence began with the act of 20 March 1950. On the other hand, the pre-war mandate and prescriptive procedures were preserved in an unchanged form. The final codification of the law of misdemeanors of the Polish People’s Republic took place on May 20, 1971. The provisions of some of the acts analyzed here are still in force today. The third stage of the codification of the law on misdemeanors took place in the Third Polish Republic.
DE
Neulich ist die Monografie von Marcin Łyska mit dem Titel Prawo wykroczeń Polski Ludowej [Das Deliktsrecht der Volksrepublik Polen] (Białystok 2020, 136 S.) erschienen. Als Ausgangspunkt für seine Überlegungen nimmt der Autor das Jahr 1918. Dargestellt wird das französische System mit der Dreiteilung von Straftaten (Verbrechen, Vergehen, Verfehlung) sowie das österreichische und das deutsche System. Die polnische Kodifikation des materiellen Deliktsrechts vom 11. Juli 1932 war Ergebnis eines langjährigen wissenschaftlichen Diskurses im Kreise von Mitgliedern der Kodifikationskommission für Strafrecht in der Zweiten Polnischen Republik. Die Einführung des sozialistischen Modells der Strafverfolgungsgerichtsbarkeit begann mit dem Gesetz vom 20. März 1950. Das Bußgeld- und Strafbefehlsverfahren aus der Vorkriegszeit wurden hingegen unverändert aufrechterhalten. Die endgültige Kodifizierung des Deliktsgesetzes der Volksrepublik Polen erfolgte am 20. Mai 1971. Die Vorschriften einiger der analysierten Gesetze sind noch heute in Kraft. Die dritte Phase der Kodifizierung des Deliktsgesetzes fand bereits zur Zeit der Dritten Polnischen Republik statt.
PL
Ostatnio ukazała się monografia Marcina Łyski pt. Prawo wykroczeń Polski Ludowej (Białystok 2020, ss. 136). Autor swe rozważania rozpoczyna od 1918 r. Przedstawia system francuski z trójpodziałem przestępstw (zbrodnia, występek, wykroczenie), system austriacki i system niemiecki. Polska kodyfikacja prawa materialnego wykroczeń z 11 lipca 1932 r. była efektem wieloletnich dyskursów naukowych członków Wydziału Karnego Komisji Kodyfikacyjnej II Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Wprowadzanie socjalistycznego modelu orzecznictwa karno-administracyjnego rozpoczęła ustawa z 20 marca 1950 r. Natomiast bez zmian zostało zachowane przedwojenne postępowanie mandatowe oraz nakazowe. Ostateczna kodyfikacja prawa wykroczeń Polski Ludowej nastąpiła 20 maja 1971 r.  Przepisy niektórych analizowanych ustaw obowiązują po dziś dzień. Trzeci etap kodyfikacji prawa o wykroczeniach nastąpił już w III Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej.
first rewind previous Page / 2 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.