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

Results found: 7

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Humboldt
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The author argues that the biographical details concerning de Saussure’s attitude towards Humboldt’s legacy are tough to ascertain. Sobotka’s doubts about de Saussure being familiar with Humboldt’s specific writings can hardly be conclusively resolved this way or another. The author insists that Danielewiczowa, as well as he himself and his collaborator Drzazgowska, spoke merely about some striking affinity of ideas on the nature of language as voiced by de Saussure, compared with those to be found in the comprehensive corpus of Humboldt’s writings. On the whole, Sobotka himself is far from denying this widely acknowledged truth, too (whatever the specific paths of de Saussure’s reading and thinking might have been). Following a comparative sample of the main claims articulated by Humboldt, on the one hand, and by de Saussure, on the other, where certain differences between the thinkers can be observed, the author culls a number of Humboldt’s theoretical sayings about language and recalls de Saussure’s similar enunciations, a considerable part of which are even textually close to those made by Humboldt.  
PL
Autor twierdzi, że biograficzne szczegóły dotyczące stosunku de Saussure’a do puścizny Humboldta są trudne do ustalenia. Wątpliwości Sobotki na temat de Saussure’a znajomości konkretnych pism Humboldta praktycznie nie podlegają weryfikacji, czy to pozytywnej, czy negatywnej. Autor twierdzi, że Danielewiczowa, podobnie jak on sam i Ewa Drzazgowska, mówili tylko o pewnym uderzającym podobieństwie idei dotyczących natury języka głoszonych przez de Saussure’a w zestawieniu z tym, co można znaleźć w obszernym korpusie prac Humboldta. Ogólnie rzecz biorąc, sam Sobotka jest daleki od negowania tej powszechnie uznanej prawdy (niezależnie od tego, jakie były konkretne drogi tego, co czytał i o czym myślał de Saussure). Autor podaje porównawczy wyciąg z głównych tez Humboldta i de Saussure’a, zwracając uwagę na pewne różnice między tymi myślicielami. Następnie przytacza szereg teoretycznych wypowiedzi Humboldta i przypomina podobne enuncjacje de Saussure’a, których poważna część jest nawet tekstualnie bliska temu, co znajdujemy u Humboldta.  
EN
This article examines the collective monograph Moderní univerzita. Ideál a realita (The Modern University. Ideal and Reality), on the basis of which it asks to what extent the classical idea of the university, as it was elaborated in the work of the German classical authors, can be taken as a standard for contemporary university education. It argues for the conclusion that the traditional dualisms on which the idea of the university is grounded – above all, the dualisms of unity and plurality, of freedom and service, but also of the educated elite and the mass – must be properly scrutinised, and that the model of this scrutiny is to be found in the works of Schleiermacher and Hegel.
PL
The second half of the XVIIIth century contributed to a radical change in the cultural relationship with the past. Historicism, understood as the widespread method of conceptualization of human inventions, appeared not only in historiography, but also marked its presence in literature, philosophy, architecture and art. The aim of this article is to explore some of the outlooks on the connection between historicism and classical antiquity in the works of Winckelmann, Humboldt and Schlegel, important German thinkers with a significant impact on Polish literature and culture.
PL
W niniejszym artykule wprowadzamy pojęcie „higher Bildung,” którym posłużyliśmy się w naszym podejściu pedagogicznym do opieki nad doktorantami, odwołując się do zasad emancypacji i indywidualnej wolności. Owa rama pedagogiczna opiera się na połączeniu szkolnictwa wyższego z pojęciem Bildung, a jej celem jest promowanie idei szkolnictwa wyższego, które kładzie szczególny nacisk na współpracę i zrównoważony rozwój. W artykule omawiamy główne filary tego podejścia – niezależność, współpracę oraz międzynarodowość – i wyjaśniamy, w jaki sposób zastosowaliśmy owe ramy koncepcyjne w międzynarodowym seminarium oferowanym dla młodych badaczy, którego efektem są artykuły opublikowane w specjalnym sekcji tego czasopisma.
EN
In this article, we introduce the concept of “higher Bildung,” which we developed as a pedagogical approach to doctoral supervision and mentoring guided by principles of emancipation and individual freedom. The pedagogical framework builds on a combination of higher education and the educational concept of Bildung to foster an idea of higher education that highlights growth, cooperation, and sustainability. We discuss three fundamental pillars for this concept – independence, interdisciplinarity, and internationality – and explain how we applied this conceptual framework in an international seminar for early-stage researchers, which resulted in articles published in the special section of this peer-reviewed journal.
EN
The article takes up an issue of the Humboldt’s idea of university in two perspectives. In the first part of the analysis, in reference to the Max Weber’s lecture Wissenschaft als Beruf, we present the reasons for the failure of the Humboldt’s program due to the changes in the structure and function of the science, which occurred in the 19th century. In the second part, however, we depict the transformation of Humboldt’s program that was carried out by Wilhelm Dilthey. His justifying of humanities (Geisteswissenschaften) has retained, from today’s perspective, its topicality. It can be demonstrated with the aid of investigations of Jürgen Habermas, Eva Illouz and Hans Joas. Dilthey’s solutions, which continue the Humboldtian tradition, can be used to define the role and tasks of the humanities in the contemporary education model based on the idea of lifelong learning.
PL
The article takes up an issue of the Humboldt’s idea of university in two perspectives. In the first part of the analysis, in reference to the Max Weber’s lecture Wissenschaft als Beruf, we present the reasons for the failure of the Humboldt’s program due to the changes in the structure and function of the science, which occurred in the 19th century. In the second part, however, we depict the transformation of Humboldt’s program that was carried out by Wilhelm Dilthey. His justifying of humanities (Geisteswissenschaften) has retained, from today’s perspective, its topicality. It can be demonstrated with the aid of investigations of Jürgen Habermas, Eva Illouz and Hans Joas. Dilthey’s solutions, which continue the Humboldtian tradition, can be used to define the role and tasks of the humanities in the contemporary education model based on the idea of lifelong learning.
first rewind previous Page / 1 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.