The article discusses the issue of proper names defined as symptoms of culture. The first part is of a theoretical character and develops the theory of symptomatology of culture in the context of semiotics (Ch. Peirce), psychology and psychoanalysis (S. Freud and J. Lacan), and onomastics. Symptomatology of culture is a practice of interpreting a certain group of texts of culture and extracting common qualitative traits within them. This is especially in the case of those traits specific to them and often encountered, which could testify to particular serious and deeply-rooted social phenomena leading to their appearance. In the empirical part the author presents a way of using (onymic) symptomatology in practice to research modern culture. She uses the examples of popular psychological and auto-therapeutic guidebooks and treats them as linguistic symptomatic forms of the most significant linguistic and cultural phenomena along with their social causes and functions which are often dysfunctional or abnormal in character. The analysis comprises the most typical conceptual and syntactic constructions encountered in the group.
Aramaic receipts and title-deeds on clay tablets are formally distinguished in the 7th century B.C., although they are closely related juridical documents. Only two receipts are known at present and both have a triangular shape like loan contracts. Instead, titledeeds, often called sale acts, have a rectangular shape and are narrowest along the lines of writing. They are sealed on the upper edge of the tablet or in the upper part of the obverse. So far, there is only one Aramaic title-deed concerning a field and a second one fixing the boundary between two properties. Instead, four or five deeds concern the acquisition of persons, not necessarily slaves. Considering the state of the clay tablets and their somewhat inadequate edition, a new transliteration and translation of the operative parts of the deeds are provided below, omitting the lists of witnesses. Short comments are proposed also for the fragment of a title-deed dated in the 34th year of Nebuchadnezzar II.
From the perspective of her own experience as the chairperson for the Central Commission for Degrees and Titles, the author provides a critical description of the state of academic development among academic teaching staff between 2011 and 2016. Alarming phenomena as far as academic promotions are concerned undergo an analysis in the context of social, political and structural changes, as well as institutional mechanisms on the ministerial level and at particular universities, taking into consideration the human factor.
There may be circumstances where academic degrees or the title of professor are obtained deceitfully, i.e. in breach of copyrights or moral principles in science. Dishonesty in scientific research constitutes gross misconduct because it is executed in order to appropriate ideas, findings, collocations and theses of others, without accurate citation of the source. It also entails infringement of intellectual property rights. Scientific misconduct in ethical and legal aspect is explicit. It disqualifies the offender as a scientist. The unlawful act of obtaining an academic degree (Ph.D.) or the title of professor in such a deceitful manner, irrespective of how much time has passed, shall not make the resumption condition fall under the statute of limitations. Thus, it enables the reopening of procedures to deprive the person who deceitfully obtained an academic degree or title of this degree or title.