The Austrian system for pensions and care is dated back to the monarchy and was established in the year 1848 when the future empire ensured the whole country. In the settlement with Hungary, the Hungarians got their own system, and now there is a guarantee for the wellbeing of older persons in Austria. As most of the people remember, the only introduction was after the First World War in Austria, between 1918 and 1920 the social assurance system was created by (...) persons such as Ferdinand Hanusch or members of the social-democratic party. Now the whole system has three pillars: the assurance of health; the assurance of accidents; and the assurance for older persons and care, which is covering the risks after the age of 60. It was a class-struggle when people go into a pension, but as far as we can see, the development was similar in the whole of Europe. The changes were done after the Second World War when some of the countries became communist regimes, while Austria became a flower of diversity in the systems of social assurances. There were no private assurances, those who existed were plus-payers, so the state allowed the assurance according to professions and qualifications. As we see, the results are different from the communist states of the Warsaw Pact, and this chapter focuses on explaining the social system of today and the changes of it as it is perceived. (shrink)

The University of Vienna saw witness to the Opening Conference of the ESF-Research Networking Programme “The Philosophy of Science in a European perspective” (PSE) which was organised by the Vienna Circle Institute and took place on the 18-20 December at the Campus of the University of Vienna, 2008. Its overarching aim was to set the background for a collaborative project organising, systematising, and ultimately forging an identity for, European philosophy of science by creating research structures and developing research networks across (...) Europe to promote its development. As such under the general rubric of ‘the present situation in the philosophy of science’, the emphasis was on as a first step identifying traditions and research structures already present, and the directions in which this research was leading. (shrink)

U tekstu se obrađuju Stadlerovo i Bauerovo shvaćanje i zasnivanje formalne logike. Formalna je logika u oba slučaja postavljena u duhu novoskolastičke filozofije druge polovice 19. stoljeća. Subjektivna je strana mišljenja (samosviest, djelatba) spojena s njegovom objektivnom stranom (objektivna vriednost), a logička se načela temelje na ontologijskim. Stadler se i Bauer oddvajaju od onodobnoga formalizma i logicizma, kao i od psihologizma i voluntarizma. Pritom je Bauer izrazitije ušao u razpravljanje s drugačijim shvaćanjima (psihologizam i voluntarizam u Wundta).

Friedrich Stadler und sein Team schließen über 40 Jahre nach Präsentation der ersten beiden Bände das von Rudolf Haller initiierte Projekt einer umfassenden Werkschau Otto Neuraths (1882–1945) ab. In acht Bänden wird auf fast 5.000 Seiten das Schaffen eines Polyhistors dokumentiert und zugänglich gemacht, dessen intellektueller Spannweite man nicht einmal gerecht wird, wenn man ihn als Philosophen, Nationalökonomen, Gesellschaftstechniker und Aufklärer bezeichnet.

This essay addresses the attitude of some leading Neo-Kantian philosophers toward scientific psychology and psychophysics. Early influential figures like Friedrich A. Lange counted Gustav T. Fechner’s psychophysical law among their allies in the rehabilitation of the Kantian standpoint. Later on, however, Neo-Kantian philosophers firmly rejected psychological measurement as a whole and harshly criticized the methods adopted by several psychologists of their time. For example, the Marburg mathematician and philosopher August Stadler reduced the validity of Fechner’s law to the mere (...) physiological sphere, and Hermann Cohen conceived the application of mathematical integration to human sensations as an inane enterprise. (shrink)

Kant’s Antinomy of Teleological Judgment is unique in offering two pairs of oppositions, one of regulative maxims, and the other of constitutive principles. Here I defend a traditional interpretation of the antinomy— as proposed, for example, by Stadler (1874), Adickes (1925), and Cassirer (1921)—that the antinomy consists in an opposition between constitutive principles, and is resolved by pointing out their legitimate status as merely regulative maxims. I argue against recent interpretations—for example, in McLaughlin (1990), Allison (1991), and Watkins (2009)—which (...) treat the regulative pair as itself antinomial. I then address several textual worries having to do with reconciling the traditional interpretation within the overall structure of the Dialectic of Teleological Judgment that have led these scholars to espouse the new view. Throughout the paper, I emphasize hitherto neglected parallels with Kant’s treatment of the antinomy of taste, which sheds light on understanding the antinomy of teleology. (shrink)

U članku se promatraju osnovne karakteristike razvojne dinamike hrvatskoga logičkoga nazivlja od izlazka Pacelove Logike za gimnazije, prve sustavne logike na hrvatskome jeziku, 1868. godine, pa sve do Petrovićeve Logike, također za srednja učilišta, iz 1964., koja je još uviek u uporabi. Nazivlje je u tu svrhu razvrstano u nekoliko tipičih skupina. Općenito, uočava se porast zastupljenosti latinizama (i grecizama) na štetu hrvatskih naziva. U analizi nazivlja autor se ograničuje na knjige namienjene nastavi logike bilo na srednjim učilištima, bilo na (...) sveučilištu, i to na nazivlje tradicionalne logike. Mjestimice su pridodane i napomene o nazivlju moderne (matematičke) logike. (shrink)