Lavinia Marin

În studiul Laviniei Marin, Universitatea şi problema proprietăţii intelectuale, este discutată problema actuală a tipului de universitate pe care îl presupune noua economie a cunoaşterii. Pornind de la interesul pentru cuantificarea performanţelor universităţilor şi stabilirea de ierarhii, autoarea ajunge la unele teme epistemologice privind reportul dintre cunoaşterea teoretică şi cunoaşterea practică şi cel dintre cunoaşterea explicită şi cunoaşterea tacită într-o societate în care însăşi cunoaşterea devine un capital, iar inovarea este modul în care se realizează performanţă.

One of the purposes of the Bologna Process was to facilitate the construction of a Europe of Knowledge through educational governance, yet it fails to reach its purpose because of several unexplained assumptions that undermine the conceptual standing of the whole project; it is the purpose of this paper to bring these assumptions to light. A knowledge economy cannot exist without the knowledge workers which were previously formed in educational institutions, therefore the project for a Europe of Knowledge is usually linked with the educational policies especially those affecting the higher education institutions. One such policy area is the Bologna Process which explicitly traces its purpose to the construction of an educational system that will facilitate the smooth delivery of employable graduates to the European labor market. This presentation has two purposes. First to show through a textual analysis of the Bologna ministerial declarations how the subject of higher education is constructed to single out the European citizen, understood in a narrow sense as the employable, mobile and skilled graduate. Second, to show that the notion of citizenship used in the Bologna declarations is ill-construed. Starting from T. H. Marshall’s classical distinction between the three understandings of citizenship (civic, political, and social), this paper will show that the Bologna discourse on citizenship borrows and mixes illegitimately from the three notions, without making it explicit why such a hybrid notion of citizenship is used in the first place.

This article aims to develop the outline of a possible philosophy of the digital, as a proper philosophy with its own domain, questions, methods and own theories. The article starts by describing the crisis of liniar thinking undersood, following Vilém Flusser, as as a crisis of historical-causal thinking. Then the digital thinking is described as a new way of thinking which aims to become the dominant way of scientific explanation of our times, by replacing historical-causal explanations with numerical models. The proper domain of a philosophy of the digital is then defined as the digital-life form. The article ends by showing an example of a specific problem for the philosophy of the digital, namley the automatisation of human life.