The hypothesis of an antieconomy developed in part 1 is incommensurate with mainstream economics. This article explores three reasons for this situation: the limits of discipline-based scholarship in general and of mainstream economics in particular, the status of economists in contemporary societies, and the failure of economists to accept any responsibility for the consequences flowing from the application of their theories. Politicians are unable to resist their economic advisors who speak in the name of science, with the result that the (...) democratic process in relation to economic issues is essentially paralyzed. (shrink)

This article is concerned with the concept of “scientific and technological revolution” as it was elaborated since the late 1950s and early 1960s by the Czechoslovak philosopher Radovan Richta. The aim of this text is to analyze Richta’s theory of revolution, which was a vital part of his STR research project, and to place it within the wider context of the thinking about revolution in post-war Czechoslovakia. The STR theory of revolution is discussed as part of a longer development from (...) the discourse of “national and democratic revolution” in the immediate post-war years and transformations of the theory of revolution under Stalinism and post-Stalinism to Richta’s attempt to renew and rethink the issue of revolution as a part of the reform communist political and social thinking. (shrink)

This fourth part outlines a strategy for overcoming the limitations of the knowledge system for engineering by combining intellectual maps, preventive approaches, umbrella concepts, and round tables as described in the earlier parts. A discussion of the issues faced by modern medicine illustrates the paradigmatic nature of the diagnosis and prescription made for engineering. The social sciences face mirror-image problems. One response has been the rise of new disciplines such as communications, environmental studies, urban affairs, criminology, and policy studies. To (...) avoid the limitations of discipline-based knowing and doing, a similar strategy for their transformation will have to be implemented. Considerable synergies would result if parallel efforts to transform the present knowledge system were carried out throughout the university. Some suggestions are made as to how this can be supported by organizational and institutional changes. Finally, it is suggested that such a transformation of the university could make a critical and decisive contribution to overcoming the current economic, social, and environmental crises. (shrink)

On the basis of contemporary Czech and Slovak texts and correspondence between Czechoslovak scientists and Polish praxeologists, the study shows how praxeology, a scientific discipline that deals with human action and is primarily associated with the Polish environment and the prominent philosopher Tadeusz Kotarbiński (1886–1981), was viewed in Czechoslovakia in the 1960s and 1970s. The analysis also defines the factors that shaped the newly emerging “Czechoslovak” praxeology. One such factor was Polish–Czechoslovak (or rather Czech–Polish and Slovak–Polish) scientific relations, especially contacts (...) with the Institute of Praxeology of the Polish Academy of Sciences. The article argues that a specific “national” form of Czechoslovak praxeology crystallised in Czechoslovakia around the turn of the 1970s. Although it was based on the Polish model, the habitus of certain Czechoslovak scholars to draw on works of Marxism–Leninism, the involvement of communist ideologues in the debate about the form and future of praxeology, and the historical context of the emerging normalisation after 1968 made Czechoslovak praxeology a peculiar mix of original Polish ideas and Czechoslovak scientific practice. (shrink)