Reading the Political

-

Politiikan representaatio

-

The Serious Game of Politics: Festschrift for Matti Wiberg

-

Prisms of Moral Personhood: The Concept of a Person in Contemporary Anglo-American Ethics

Despite the popularity of moral philosophy and ethical literature it is not clear whether any joint issues belie the multiplicity of ethical approaches. Still, ethical theories are usually philosophical explications of the moral language people use and of the institution of morality. These explications cannot be made without referring to human beings as moral persons. In this sense, “person” is one of the most central conceptions in any moral theory irrespective of its form. The present study takes the centrality of the concept of a person as its starting point and proceeds to ask how different kinds of moral theories imply the concept of a person, which kinds of concept of a person are included in such theories and finally, what significance the concept has for understanding the nature of moral theories. These questions are explored by using models of three different types of ethical theories — utilitarian, contractarian and virtue theories — as material for the analysis. The analysis reveals three different types of a “moral person”. Theories which belong to the same group on the basis of the form of the normative moral theory represent a similar concept of a person which, again, differs from the notions of “person” provided by the other two groups of theories. The theories of Richard Brandt, Richard M. Hare and Derek Parfit form the basis for the examination of the utilitarian theories in the study. The utilitarian concept of a person is a desiring agent who aims to realize her preferences by her action. The role of morality is to qualify the way in which the person naturally acts but moral and non-moral action do not basically deviate from each other. The contractarian theories which the study examines are by John Rawls, David Gauthier and Alan Gewirth. These theories define the constituents of moral personhood through the sufficient and necessary conditions of intentional action. The same conditions also explicate the foundation of the institution of morality: it is based on a contract guaranteeing everyone the conditions by virtue of which their intentional agency becomes possible. Thirdly, the study examines two schools of thinking in modern virtue ethics, the first including the theories of Philippa Foot and James Wallace and the second those of Martha Nussbaum, Alasdair MacIntyre and Charles Taylor. The notion which emerges from these theories can best be characterized as a narrative conception of a person: a person is the narrative of her life, something that is determined by historical and cultural contingency. The last part of the study analyses the significance of the concept of a person as far as moral theories are concerned. The definition of the morally relevant and the notion of a moral person are closely connected. Moral theories are models for a good life and they are always designed for a certain kind of a person. In this sense, every moral theory incorporates a conception of a person within its premises. This conception is not ethically neutral but implies a view of what is good, normal or meaningful in and for a human life. This result gives rise to a conclusion that has a practical bearing: the concept of a person cannot be used as a basis for solving ethical disputes, for each version of the concept is likely to imply positions that are already normatively loaded.Despite the popularity of moral philosophy and ethical literature it is not clear whether any joint issues belie the multiplicity of ethical approaches. Still, ethical theories are usually philosophical explications of the moral language people use and of the institution of morality. These explications cannot be made without referring to human beings as moral persons. In this sense, “person” is one of the most central conceptions in any moral theory irrespective of its form. The present study takes the centrality of the concept of a person as its starting point and proceeds to ask how different kinds of moral theories imply the concept of a person, which kinds of concept of a person are included in such theories and finally, what significance the concept has for understanding the nature of moral theories. These questions are explored by using models of three different types of ethical theories — utilitarian, contractarian and virtue theories — as material for the analysis. The analysis reveals three different types of a “moral person”. Theories which belong to the same group on the basis of the form of the normative moral theory represent a similar concept of a person which, again, differs from the notions of “person” provided by the other two groups of theories. The theories of Richard Brandt, Richard M. Hare and Derek Parfit form the basis for the examination of the utilitarian theories in the study. The utilitarian concept of a person is a desiring agent who aims to realize her preferences by her action. The role of morality is to qualify the way in which the person naturally acts but moral and non-moral action do not basically deviate from each other. The contractarian theories which the study examines are by John Rawls, David Gauthier and Alan Gewirth. These theories define the constituents of moral personhood through the sufficient and necessary conditions of intentional action. The same conditions also explicate the foundation of the institution of morality: it is based on a contract guaranteeing everyone the conditions by virtue of which their intentional agency becomes possible. Thirdly, the study examines two schools of thinking in modern virtue ethics, the first including the theories of Philippa Foot and James Wallace and the second those of Martha Nussbaum, Alasdair MacIntyre and Charles Taylor. The notion which emerges from these theories can best be characterized as a narrative conception of a person: a person is the narrative of her life, something that is determined by historical and cultural contingency. The last part of the study analyses the significance of the concept of a person as far as moral theories are concerned. The definition of the morally relevant and the notion of a moral person are closely connected. Moral theories are models for a good life and they are always designed for a certain kind of a person. In this sense, every moral theory incorporates a conception of a person within its premises. This conception is not ethically neutral but implies a view of what is good, normal or meaningful in and for a human life. This result gives rise to a conclusion that has a practical bearing: the concept of a person cannot be used as a basis for solving ethical disputes, for each version of the concept is likely to imply positions that are already normatively loaded

The Declaration for Open Science and Research 2025—2030

The Declaration for Open Science and Research 2025–2030 is an update to the previous Declaration for Open Science and Research 2020–2025. The declaration is elaborated in more detail by four national open science policies, which further define and explain the concepts used in the declaration. The operating environment of open science is constantly changing, which is why the contents of the declaration also need to be assessed and updated regularly. This version of the declaration considers especially the rapidly changed geopolitical envi­ronment and the resulting security concerns. Even though the world is undergoing upheaval, trust in scientific collaboration and openness remains a valuable part of a safe global community built on trust. The Declaration for Open Science and Research 2025–2030 is the result of collabo­rative development within the research community. Experts working under the national Open Science Coordination and key stakeholders across the research sector contributed to its drafting. The declaration was officially adopted by the National Open Science and Research Steering Group on 24 March 2025. With the updated declaration, Finland reaffirms its role as an international forerunner in open science – together and responsibly.The Declaration for Open Science and Research 2025–2030 is an update to the previous Declaration for Open Science and Research 2020–2025. The declaration is elaborated in more detail by four national open science policies, which further define and explain the concepts used in the declaration. The operating environment of open science is constantly changing, which is why the contents of the declaration also need to be assessed and updated regularly. This version of the declaration considers especially the rapidly changed geopolitical envi­ronment and the resulting security concerns. Even though the world is undergoing upheaval, trust in scientific collaboration and openness remains a valuable part of a safe global community built on trust. The Declaration for Open Science and Research 2025–2030 is the result of collabo­rative development within the research community. Experts working under the national Open Science Coordination and key stakeholders across the research sector contributed to its drafting. The declaration was officially adopted by the National Open Science and Research Steering Group on 24 March 2025. With the updated declaration, Finland reaffirms its role as an international forerunner in open science – together and responsibly

Finnish 'Undemocracy': Essays on Gender and Politics

-

Scribes and Language Use in the Graeco-Roman World

This volume examines the interface between individuals who plan and compose various documentary texts and the language used in those texts by analysing the complex processes of document creation and finalisation. It highlights theimportance of variation across multiple linguistic dimensions—such as language choice, script, orthography, syntax, and document format—demonstrating how these factors interact to convey different social and functional meanings in nonliterary writing. The contributors focus particularly on scribes and their influence on the linguistic outcomes of documentary texts: What kind of language is written, and why? Who authored the text, and who physically wrote it? It is argued that research on the language of ancient and medieval non-literary texts must consider the scribal level alongside the edited text. By ‘scribal level’, we refer to (1) the design of the text itself and (2) its actual writing, i.e. the practical skills involved in a specific context. This approach also considers the choice of language and writing system, as the scribe’s linguistic competence could significantly influence language selection. In addition to detailed linguistic analyses, an important outcome of this volume is its exploration of the varied ways in which the term ‘scribe’ is and can be used. A scribe might be an official tasked with writing documents according to authoritative requirements or someone who records a document or letter based on another’s dictation—whether a professional scribe, a semi-literate individual, or a member of the same household. Thus, a scribe could encompass anyone who records information. Here, the term ‘scribe’ is not restricted to writers of highstatus texts but includes a broader spectrum. Most contributors pay special attention to papyri and ostraka from Egypt due to their importance as source material, although other contexts are also considered. The data include the language use of notaries in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon and Late Latin charters from Tuscany. Cross-cultural effects on language use play a prominent role, especially the transfer of linguistic elements and scribal practices between languages. Greek papyri from Egypt exhibit significant variation. Some variants are classified by modern editors as nonstandard, substandard, or even mistakes. Consequently, editors often ‘regularise’ these deviations to conform to a ‘standard’ Greek or Latin.1 However, both languages underwent considerable change between the third century BCE and the seventh century CE.This volume examines the interface between individuals who plan and compose various documentary texts and the language used in those texts by analysing the complex processes of document creation and finalisation. It highlights theimportance of variation across multiple linguistic dimensions—such as language choice, script, orthography, syntax, and document format—demonstrating how these factors interact to convey different social and functional meanings in nonliterary writing. The contributors focus particularly on scribes and their influence on the linguistic outcomes of documentary texts: What kind of language is written, and why? Who authored the text, and who physically wrote it? It is argued that research on the language of ancient and medieval non-literary texts must consider the scribal level alongside the edited text. By ‘scribal level’, we refer to (1) the design of the text itself and (2) its actual writing, i.e. the practical skills involved in a specific context. This approach also considers the choice of language and writing system, as the scribe’s linguistic competence could significantly influence language selection. In addition to detailed linguistic analyses, an important outcome of this volume is its exploration of the varied ways in which the term ‘scribe’ is and can be used. A scribe might be an official tasked with writing documents according to authoritative requirements or someone who records a document or letter based on another’s dictation—whether a professional scribe, a semi-literate individual, or a member of the same household. Thus, a scribe could encompass anyone who records information. Here, the term ‘scribe’ is not restricted to writers of highstatus texts but includes a broader spectrum. Most contributors pay special attention to papyri and ostraka from Egypt due to their importance as source material, although other contexts are also considered. The data include the language use of notaries in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon and Late Latin charters from Tuscany. Cross-cultural effects on language use play a prominent role, especially the transfer of linguistic elements and scribal practices between languages. Greek papyri from Egypt exhibit significant variation. Some variants are classified by modern editors as nonstandard, substandard, or even mistakes. Consequently, editors often ‘regularise’ these deviations to conform to a ‘standard’ Greek or Latin.1 However, both languages underwent considerable change between the third century BCE and the seventh century CE.This volume examines the interface between individuals who plan and compose various documentary texts and the language used in those texts by analysing the complex processes of document creation and finalisation. It highlights theimportance of variation across multiple linguistic dimensions—such as language choice, script, orthography, syntax, and document format—demonstrating how these factors interact to convey different social and functional meanings in nonliterary writing. The contributors focus particularly on scribes and their influence on the linguistic outcomes of documentary texts: What kind of language is written, and why? Who authored the text, and who physically wrote it? It is argued that research on the language of ancient and medieval non-literary texts must consider the scribal level alongside the edited text. By ‘scribal level’, we refer to (1) the design of the text itself and (2) its actual writing, i.e. the practical skills involved in a specific context. This approach also considers the choice of language and writing system, as the scribe’s linguistic competence could significantly influence language selection. In addition to detailed linguistic analyses, an important outcome of this volume is its exploration of the varied ways in which the term ‘scribe’ is and can be used. A scribe might be an official tasked with writing documents according to authoritative requirements or someone who records a document or letter based on another’s dictation—whether a professional scribe, a semi-literate individual, or a member of the same household. Thus, a scribe could encompass anyone who records information. Here, the term ‘scribe’ is not restricted to writers of highstatus texts but includes a broader spectrum. Most contributors pay special attention to papyri and ostraka from Egypt due to their importance as source material, although other contexts are also considered. The data include the language use of notaries in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon and Late Latin charters from Tuscany. Cross-cultural effects on language use play a prominent role, especially the transfer of linguistic elements and scribal practices between languages. Greek papyri from Egypt exhibit significant variation. Some variants are classified by modern editors as nonstandard, substandard, or even mistakes. Consequently, editors often ‘regularise’ these deviations to conform to a ‘standard’ Greek or Latin.1 However, both languages underwent considerable change between the third century BCE and the seventh century CE

Avoimen tieteen tarkistuslista tieteellisille seuroille

Avoimen tieteen tarkistuslista tieteellisille seuroille on tieteellisten seurojen avuksi tuotettu muistilista seurojen työhön liittyvistä avoimen tieteen ja tutkimuksen teemoista. Tarkistuslista on suunniteltu käytettäväksi tietoisuuden lisäämiseen seurojen roolista avoimessa tieteessä sekä avuksi niiden seurojen toiminnan kehittämiseen, joilla on intressi ja resursseja muokata käytäntöjään avoimen tieteen näkökulmasta. Se koostuu johdannon ja Tekijät-luvun lisäksi kolmesta teemoittaisesta luvusta: avoin toimintakulttuuri tieteellisissä seuroissa, avoin julkaiseminen osana tieteellisen seuran toimintaa sekä tieteelliset seurat ja tutkimusaineistojen avoimuus. Tarkistuslistan ovat tuottaneet Avoin tiede tieteellisille seuroille -työryhmän jäsenet vuosien 2023–2025 aikana. Työryhmään kuuluu jäseniä eri tieteellisistä seuroista sekä Tieteellisten seurain valtuuskunnan henkilöstöstä

Unio: Gott und Mensch in der nachreformatorischen Theologie : Referate des Symposiums der Finnischen theologischen Literaturgesellschaft in Helsinki 15.-16. November 1994

Edited by Matti Repo and Rainer Vinke Articles Eeva Martikainen: Die Unio im Brennpunkt der theologischen ForschungSimo Peura: Gott und Mensch in der Unio. Die Unterschiede im Rechtfertigungsverständnis bei Osiander und LutherRune Söderlund: Der Unio-Gedanke in der KonkordienformelTheodor Mahlmann: Die Stellung der unio cum Christo in der lutherischen Theologie des 17. JahrhundertsMartti Vaahtoranta: Unio und Rechtfertigung bei Johann GerhardMatti Repo: Die christologische Begründung der Unio in der Theologie Johann ArndtsRainer Vinke: Der Unio-Gedanke in der Theologie des PietismusSimo Knuuttila: Uniometaphysik und lutherische Orthodoxie im Turku des 17. JahrhundertsLeif Erikson: Unio in der Theologie Fredrik Gabriel HedbergsOswald Bayer: Das Wunder der Gottesgemeinschaft. Eine Besinnung auf das Motiv der "unio" bei Luther und im LuthertumGunther Wenz: Unio. Zur Differenzierung einer Leitkategorie finnischer Lutherforschung im Anschluss and CA I–VITuomo Mannermaa: Über die Unmöglichkeit, gegen Texte Luthers zu systematisieren. Antwort an Gunther WenzMaarit Hytönen: Unio in der Reformation der Reformation nach der evangelisch-katholischen Theologie Friedrich HeilersToimittaneet Matti Repo ja Rainer Vinke Artikkelit Eeva Martikainen: Die Unio im Brennpunkt der theologischen ForschungSimo Peura: Gott und Mensch in der Unio. Die Unterschiede im Rechtfertigungsverständnis bei Osiander und LutherRune Söderlund: Der Unio-Gedanke in der KonkordienformelTheodor Mahlmann: Die Stellung der unio cum Christo in der lutherischen Theologie des 17. JahrhundertsMartti Vaahtoranta: Unio und Rechtfertigung bei Johann GerhardMatti Repo: Die christologische Begründung der Unio in der Theologie Johann ArndtsRainer Vinke: Der Unio-Gedanke in der Theologie des PietismusSimo Knuuttila: Uniometaphysik und lutherische Orthodoxie im Turku des 17. JahrhundertsLeif Erikson: Unio in der Theologie Fredrik Gabriel HedbergsOswald Bayer: Das Wunder der Gottesgemeinschaft. Eine Besinnung auf das Motiv der "unio" bei Luther und im LuthertumGunther Wenz: Unio. Zur Differenzierung einer Leitkategorie finnischer Lutherforschung im Anschluss and CA I–VITuomo Mannermaa: Über die Unmöglichkeit, gegen Texte Luthers zu systematisieren. Antwort an Gunther WenzMaarit Hytönen: Unio in der Reformation der Reformation nach der evangelisch-katholischen Theologie Friedrich Heiler

Tutkimuksen yhteiskunnallinen vaikuttavuus ja sen arviointi: Tuloksia tutkijakyselystä

Tieteellisten seurain valtuuskunnan Tutkimuksen yhteiskunnallisen vaikuttavuuden arviointi -projektin raportti tutkijakyselyn tuloksista