Čas Prahy 3:
28.4. 20:33
https://mastodon.social/@energiepirat/1 ... 9284668167 :
> Weil es keine gibt, Leider.
28.4. 21:35
https://mastodon.uno/@Pierrette/112350524797388235 :
> 🫤
29.4. 02:04
https://chaos.social/@kmetz/112351580157247939 :
> What it is,
>
> a supranational, legal entity?
>
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty
>
>A future “United States of Europe” (Churchill)?
>
> An “eternal peace congress”, as Kant envisioned it?
>
> A cultural sphere?
>
> All of it?
29.4. 02:08
https://chaos.social/@kmetz/112351596507395772 :
> Leibnitz around 1700 proposed a “multicultural project to create a universal system of justice”
>
>
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... nese_Dream
Poslední odkaz vede na stránku, kde je ke stažení pédéefko s první a poslední stránkou článku
Are Humanism and Mixed Methods Related? Leibniz's Universal (Chinese) Dream
Article in Journal of Mixed Methods Research · April 2013
DOI: 10.1177/1558689813515332
Jose Andres-Gallego
University Foundation San Pablo CEU
Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2015, Vol. 9(2) 118–132
Abstract
According to Guba and Lincoln, renunciation of mixed methods is characteristic of a mori-
bund culture with the possible exception of human sciences. The question I raise here is
whether a person can be considered a humanist only if he or she mixes methods, and I ana-
lyze Leibniz’s search for a universal system of justice to test this hypothesis. Considering the
difference between a methodology and a mere approach, I also consider the issue of whether
acquiring knowledge of any methodology always entails an approach. I stress the relationship
between the concepts of ‘‘paradigm’’ and ‘‘culture’’ as a set of habits linked to mixed meth-
ods, and I conclude with an explanation of how mixing methods can be first sequential and,
then, concurrent.
Keywords
human sciences, humanism, Leibniz, China, paradigm
A začátek článku:
I agree that the renunciation of mixed methods is characteristic of an old and moribund culture
(Guba & Lincoln, 2006). However, in my opinion, ‘‘human sciences’’ should not be excluded
from these methods, as conceded by Lincoln and Guba. This essay aims to test empirically
whether mixed methods can be avoided at the highest level of human sciences, that is, ‘‘human-
ism.’’ My hypothesis here is that a person can only be considered a humanist if he or she mixes
methods, although this does not mean that anyone who mixes methods in human sciences
becomes a humanist in the strictest sense of the word. Let me explain.
The word ‘‘humanism’’ has a very important and complex history. This work uses the dee-
pest acceptance of the term ‘‘humanist’’ to refer to a person who is dedicated to the
understanding—and thereafter the study—of any aspect of human beings, whatever his or her
philosophical perspective (rationalist, theist, naturalist, positivist, existentialist, etc.). What
defines a ‘‘humanist’’ is his or her capacity to assign preeminent value to human beings—their
experiences, interests, and rights—and to attempt to know and to understand them (Steelwater,
1998) and—where possible—to improve them. Viewed from this perspective, historians have
included a number of very different kinds of humanists, such as Protagoras, Petrarch, Erasmus,
Leibniz, Schiller, and William James (Menze, Romberg, & Pape, 1974).
Když jsem proštrachal svou knihovnu, našel jsem staré pédéefko, kde mám článek celý. Kdo by měl zájem, rád zapůjčím.
Jinak José Andrés-Gallego vypadá zajímavě a tady jsou dva odkazy o něm:
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9 ... 9s_Gallego
https://actashistoria.com/autor.php?go=2&idautor=22