<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<title>Prace doktorskie i habilitacyjne | PhD Dissertations and Postdoctoral Thesis</title>
<link href="http://hdl.handle.net/11089/887" rel="alternate"/>
<subtitle/>
<id>http://hdl.handle.net/11089/887</id>
<updated>2026-04-16T13:14:56Z</updated>
<dc:date>2026-04-16T13:14:56Z</dc:date>
<entry>
<title>Philosophizing Without the In-Itself: Philology, Genealogy, and the Question of Method in Nietzsche and Merleau-Ponty</title>
<link href="http://hdl.handle.net/11089/58086" rel="alternate"/>
<author>
<name>Heusghem, Corentin</name>
</author>
<id>http://hdl.handle.net/11089/58086</id>
<updated>2026-04-12T03:41:22Z</updated>
<published>2025-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
<summary type="text">Philosophizing Without the In-Itself: Philology, Genealogy, and the Question of Method in Nietzsche and Merleau-Ponty
Heusghem, Corentin
This thesis explores the status and relations of the two original philosophical methods developed by Nietzsche. The first is the philological one, which no longer aims at an objective and exhaustive adequation with a reality in-itself, but – in an attempt to be economical in its axioms – tries to think of our relation to the world solely according to experience. The second method adds a whole new problem to philosophy, which is not concerned with knowledge anymore but with the way we live, questioning the value for life of each interpretation. Thus, Nietzsche elaborates genealogy as the way to appraise the value of our values, promoting those that are most conducive to life. Nevertheless, what is the relation between these two methods and criteria? Are they always consistent with one another or can they clash? In the strict context of Nietzsche’s philosophy, this question is hard to elucidate and almost never explicitly asked. This is the reason why I chose to use Merleau-Ponty as a comparative prism to check whether the philological method can be granted an autonomy, for he adopted purely a philological method without ever attempting the genealogical one. This comparison will show that turning philology into the servant of genealogy prevents Nietzsche from obtaining important insights (epistemological, ontological and maybe even axiological) that philology could provide if it was followed radically and for its own sake. This should lead to recognize the autonomy and legitimacy of each method and task, that can crisscross but should not eliminate one another.
</summary>
<dc:date>2025-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Dwór rycerski jako element struktury osadniczej w dawnym księstwie bytomskim. Studium interdyscyplinarne</title>
<link href="http://hdl.handle.net/11089/57947" rel="alternate"/>
<author>
<name>Zdaniewicz, Radosław</name>
</author>
<id>http://hdl.handle.net/11089/57947</id>
<updated>2026-04-03T03:30:57Z</updated>
<published>2025-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
<summary type="text">Dwór rycerski jako element struktury osadniczej w dawnym księstwie bytomskim. Studium interdyscyplinarne
Zdaniewicz, Radosław
The subject of this study is the knightly court as an element of the settlement structure in the former Duchy of Bytom. This is undoubtedly a challenging subject, requiring a comprehensive approach based on the analysis and juxtaposition of numerous sources, primarily historical and archaeological. Contemporary humanities research often requires an interdisciplinary approach, open to the possibilities offered by other fields, including those in the field of technical sciences. Therefore, the work draws on both the current state of knowledge in the field of historical sciences and the achievements of modern technology, including specialized results obtained during the study of archaeological sites and monuments. The author intends the "multidisciplinarity" emphasized in the title to be a tool for developing a more plausible picture of the past.
</summary>
<dc:date>2025-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>The Media Image of Prince Albert Based on Selected British Press Titles and Journalism (1840-1861)</title>
<link href="http://hdl.handle.net/11089/57456" rel="alternate"/>
<author>
<name>Lilly, Iwona</name>
</author>
<id>http://hdl.handle.net/11089/57456</id>
<updated>2026-02-14T04:20:12Z</updated>
<published>2025-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
<summary type="text">The Media Image of Prince Albert Based on Selected British Press Titles and Journalism (1840-1861)
Lilly, Iwona
While Queen Victoria is often regarded as Britain’s first media monarch, this study argues that Albert was the first royal consort to be shaped by the press. Using a wide range of sources, including major London newspapers, regional publications, satirical magazines, parliamentary debates, letters, pamphlets, and visual materials, the research traces how Albert was represented over time—and how those representations, often contradictory, influenced public opinion.&#13;
The dissertation’s timeframe (1840-1861) encompasses the period from Albert’s arrival in England until his death, with particular attention to pivotal moments that generated&#13;
intensive press scrutiny. Each event illustrates the precarious negotiation between Albert’s genuine achievements and the persistent suspicion with which he was met.&#13;
The research adopts a holistic approach, examining not merely the&#13;
prominence of Albert within newspaper coverage, but the dimensions of representation — the rhetoric, imagery, and narrative framing through which diverse publications constructed their versions of the Prince Consort. Particular attention is devoted to the positioning of individual newspapers, recognising that the press constituted a heterogeneous field wherein titles such as The Times frequently defended Albert, whilst conservative and radical publications expressed markedly different attitudes. &#13;
This research thus offers a more nuanced portrait of Prince Albert—neither the saintly figure of Victorian memorial culture nor the foreign manipulator imagined by his detractors, but rather an exceptionally able, deeply conscientious individual who navigated impossible contradictions with considerable success yet never entirely transcended the limitations imposed by his birth and position. In reconstructing the volatile media image that attended his every action, this study illuminates broader transformations in British political culture, royal ceremonial, press freedom, and national identity during a pivotal period of modernization and imperial expansion.
</summary>
<dc:date>2025-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Dyplomacja i wywiad Wielkiej Brytanii wobec Japonii 1939-1941</title>
<link href="http://hdl.handle.net/11089/56555" rel="alternate"/>
<author>
<name>Mordzak, Adam</name>
</author>
<id>http://hdl.handle.net/11089/56555</id>
<updated>2025-10-31T04:11:45Z</updated>
<published>2025-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
<summary type="text">Dyplomacja i wywiad Wielkiej Brytanii wobec Japonii 1939-1941
Mordzak, Adam
Between the signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor and Malaya, British Empire remained focused on the conflict with Germany and Italy. The aim of London's actions in East Asia at that time was to prevent war with Tokyo. The subject of my research is the examination of the role of diplomacy and intelligence in shaping Britain's policy towards Japan between August 23, 1939 and December 7, 1941. After the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact British made efforts to stabilize relations with Japan. After the French surrender the Great Britain’s position deteriorated significantly. Tokyo's attitude towards London then worsened, and the British government – contrary to the advice of the Foreign Office – decided to adopt a policy of limited concessions. Following the Tripartite Pact London adopted more uncompromising approach towards Tokyo, in line with the recommendations of British diplomacy. However, London remained fearful of a potential agreement between the Tripartite Pact signatories and Moscow. According to the Foreign Office, the key factor in improving the position of the British Empire was to expand cooperation with Washington. After the Operation Barbarossa Moscow became an ally of the British, which significantly improved the latter’s situation. At the same time, London completely handed over the initiative to Washington on the issue of policy in East Asia. In the autumn of 1941, the British noticed some signs of an impending crisis, but the scale of the aggression that eventually took place was not foreseen.
</summary>
<dc:date>2025-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
</entry>
</feed>
