Browsing by Title

Sort by: Order: Results:

Now showing items 1340-1359 of 1383
  • Halko, Marja-Liisa; Kultti, Klaus; Virrankoski, Juha (Helsinki Center of Economic Research, 2005)
  • Halko, Marja-Liisa; Kultti, Klaus; Virrankoski, Juha (University of Helsinki, 2005)
  • Maggini, Golfo (Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, 2013)
    In one of his conference lectures of the mid-1970s, the Czech phenomenologist Jan Patocka talked about twentieth-century Europe’s destiny of World Wars as one of the endless unleashing of forces. Patocka offers one of the most insightful analyses of contemporary Europe’s intellectual destiny, tightly connected to technological domination and control. His extensive analysis in the field of a phenomenological philosophy of history evolves around the notions of ‘crisis’, under the influence of the later Husserl, the Janus face of the Western, most prominently European ‘supercivilization’ and the urgent need for a redefinition of European humanity. A key notion for the latter, introduced by Patocka in many instances in his phenomenological studies, is that of sacrifice. Patocka resists the inauthentic understanding of sacrifice by means of exchange, which according to him still reflects the objectifying tendency inherent in Europe’s techno-scientific orientation. He then proposes an authentic sense of sacrifice which is not prone to the criteria of calculability and effectiveness. He also incorporates his critique of European crisis and decline into the wider context of his phenomenological anthropology, which completely transforms Husserl’s theme of the Lebenswelt in an ethico-political direction. It is within this larger context that his diagnosis of Europe’s crisis also meets his argument for ’solidarity of the shattered’, which can reiterate the most promising chapters of Europe’s spiritual history. How is Patocka’s philosophical discourse to be related to today’s situation of tension and conflict in Europe? There is a widespread, yet not fully determined in its origins and conceptual clarity, public discourse on crisis accompanied by an equally pressing discourse on self-sacrifice or even sacrifice for the future generations of our continent. Are those public discourses valid when judged by their historical truth? In fact, Patocka’s phenomenological insights make us doubt the overly-general and context-insensitive justification of those discourses.
  • Suszycki, Andrzej Marcin (The Nordic Centre of Excellence NordWel, 2011)
  • Roos, J. P. (Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1973)
  • Hyytinen, Ari; Ilmakunnas, Pekka (Helsinki Center of Economic Research, 2006)
  • Guimon, Timofey V. (Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, 2015)
    The article is dedicated to a detailed study of a selected series of events reported by Rus’ chroniclers from the eleventh to the early fourteenth centuries.1* Items of information contained in the Primary Chronicle, as well as in the Laurentian, Hypatian (to 1200) and First Novgorodian (to 1352) Chronicles are catalogued, classified and analysed as a means of reflecting on guidelines that the chroniclers might have followed. Firstly, remarks on different kinds of events are counted in each chronicle and the percentages compared; this gives a general impression of the interests of the Old Rus’ chroniclers. Secondly, the distribution of four kinds of remarks (events in princely families, changes of ecclesiastical hierarchs, the building of churches, natural phenomena and disasters) is studied in connection with the history of the texts. In general, the analysis corroborates Mark Aleshkovsky’s point that recording these ‘non-political’ events is typical of the annalists who describe the present or recent past (those who wrote on the distant past dealt mostly with political events). But in some cases the situation seems more complicated: the repertoire of events reported in a chronicle could depend on the personal attitudes of annalists or their patrons, as well on the activity of a later compiler or reviser.
  • Westergård, Ira (Tutkijakollegium, 2006)
    The development of the altarpiece towards the end of the late medieval period added a new decorous and conspicuously visual element to the church interior. The altarpiece became the prime location for iconic – i.e. non-narrative – images, but almost from the beginning narrative images were part of the altarpiece in the form of small-scale pictures placed underneath or next to an iconic image in the centre. In the fifteenth century the format of the altarpiece gradually changed, and simultaneously with the development of the unified picture field some new narrative subjects began to appear on the central panel as the main subject of the altarpiece. During the course of the fifteenth century, narrative subjects became increasingly frequent and accepted subjects for altarpieces. In this article I will focus on the problem of the narrative altarpiece, a seeming contradiction of terms. As narrative subjects were transferred from their usual location to the central field of the altarpiece, traditionally reserved for the iconic image, the narrative was included in a new context and expected to assume the function of the altarpiece. How did a narrative image function in this context, and what kind of audience did it serve? Since the questions involved in the issue are complex, I will focus on the biblical narrative of The Visitation as a case study, and use two well-known Florentine altarpieces from the fifteenth century as examples of the interpretative choices open to the viewers of these altarpieces.
  • Vartia, Yrjö (Helsinki Center of Economic Research, 2009)
  • Kultti, Klaus; Miettunen, Antti; Takalo, Tuomas; Virrankoski, Juha (University of Helsinki, 2004)
  • Kultti, Klaus; Miettunen, Antti; Takalo, Tuomas; Virrankoski, Juha (Helsinki Center of Economic Research, 2004)
  • Koethenbuerger, Marko; Poutvaara, Panu; Profeta, Paola (Helsinki Center of Economic Research, 2005)
  • Poutvaara, Panu; Wagener, Andreas (Helsinki Center of Economic Research, 2005)
  • Chesterman, Andrew (Helsingin yliopisto, Suomen kielen, suomalais-ugrilaisten ja pohjoismaisten kielten ja kirjallisuuksien laitos, 2010)
    Abstract: Research on translation universals has its roots in the need to make generalizations about the features that distinguish translations from non-translations. They go back to the old tradition of negative comments about the failings of typical translations. These comments concern the relations between translations and the target language, and between translations and their source texts. With the rise of descriptive studies, and the use of corpus research methods borrowed from linguistics, the search for the typical features of translations became more systematic. A number of hypotheses about potential universals have been proposed, and tested on different languages and language pairs. Some of them are evidently false; on others, the jury is still out. If some hypotheses continue to be supported by empirical evidence, the question then arises of how they might best be explained. There has been fierce criticism of some of the assumptions underlying the search for universals, including the use of the term 'universal'itself, but the approach has also brought clear methodological benefits.