Search results

The term "liberal democracy" hides the conflict of two different philosophies. Liberal metaphysics is based on the idea of thing, while democracy is based on the idea of action & process. Democratic process does not have any core of ideas, which is typical of liberalism. The goal of liberal political philosophy is to circumscribe political power. The aim of democracy is the creation of self-government of the citizens. Liberals do not see many things that are important to democrats: common good, community, nation, history & cultural identity. It is possible to speak about fundamental conflict between liberal individualism & general will of democracy. In discussions about democracy there is always at least some confusion about the role of liberalism & democracy. Contemporary theoreticians of democracy do not want to admit that the drawbacks of liberal political philosophy necessarily become the weaknesses of democracy. This is the price we have to pay for the fusion of liberalism & democracy. The drawing of demarcation lines between the spheres of influence of democracy & liberalism today is the main goal of the theory of democracy. Adapted from the source document.

Straipsnio tikslas - irodyti, kad demokratijai kaip politinei santvarkai nereikia religijos, kaip ja papildancio veiksnio. Irodymas grindziamas lyginamaja Alexis'o de Tocqueville'io ir Johno Rawlso paziuru analize. Tocqueville'io nuomone, demokratijai reikia religijos, kaip ja papildan-ciu morales normu saltinio. Rawlsas demokratija suvokia kaip savaran-kiska politinio gyvenimo forma, nepriklausancia nuo religiniu isitikinimu. Tocqueville'io ir Rawlso paziuru lyginamoji analize leidzia paaiskinti itampa tarp demokratijos ir religijos. Net ir siekdamas kuo didesnio nesaliskumo, demokratinis rezimas yra saliskas tam tikroms filosofinems prielaidoms, ku-riu negali pripazinti tikintieji The aim of the study was an analysis of two the conceptions of relationships between democracy and religion. One of these conceptions was created by Alexis de Tocqueville. He thought that democracy needs religion as an element that enriches it and helps in removing some negative tendencies inherent in this form of government. He understood that democracy was coalesced with the philosophies that were alien to religion, however, he demanded an alliance of democracy and religion. The other object of philosophical analysis is John Rawls. The theories of this author show an important change in the relationship of religion and democracy, which stems from the fact that he equates religion with philosophy. The Political Liberalism of Rawls helps us understand why democracy as a form of government has no need of religion. Adapted from the source document.

The Master's thesis \"The problem of Subject in Modern and Post-modern Philosophy of Education,\" is an attempt to highlight the problem of the subject in the context of modern philosophy of education. The present work describes and analyzes the distinction between modern and classical education philosophies as well. The historical, theoretical, and scientific development of the principles and standards of education are also dealt with focusing on philosophical principles that influenced the emergence and development of certain educational principles. The paper pays attention to the problem of child objectivisation in the system of classical education and the problem of subjectivisation in modern education. The modern education system highlights the importance of experience and reflection, intentionality of consciousness, which show the relevance of phenomenology. This work discusses the interplay of the ideas of phenomenology, pragmatism, and existentialism in education. Mostly the works of the representative of existentialism P.Freire are analyzed. P.Freire stresses the problem of human freedom and humanistic education in his educational philosophy. The paper also analyzes the importance of individual experience, its reflection and practical application in the educational system of the representative of pragmatism J.Dewey. Mostly the principles of democracy and humanism as the basic educational principles are emphasized. This paper presents the classical education system as the system that is dehumanising the individual and highlights its weaknesses, whereas the modern education system, on the contrary, is viewed as humanizing and liberating the individual.

Although the need of freedom is definite, the concept of individual freedom, while being interpreted with legal terms, causes not only theoretical, but also practical problems. The observed two extremes of freedom are defined as any human self-expression as well as the license, where the state power is generally attributed to disregard personal freedom. In this article the freedom of expression and state enforcement jurisdiction dichotomy are addressed by discussing positive and negative conceptions of freedom and the relationship between the interpretations of political liberalism and Kant and Hegel's philosophies. This paper aims to prove that the positive liberty is the assumption of the negative liberty. The paper based on Hegel's philosophy shows that freedom is the characteristic of human nature to seek identity. It is also argued that human identity can take many forms and, therefore, a person has a number of inherent rights and liberties. It is human psycho-physical identity that provides the right to life and health care; human creative identity, providing the right to privacy and freedom of occupation; human moral identity, which provides the right of dignity, and the moral autonomy of person's social and political identity, providing the political and social rights and freedoms. This article concludes that while a person uses the given rights with integrity and the state is limiting people's arbitrariness, there is no conflict between the freedom and state violation.

The Master's thesis \"The problem of Subject in Modern and Post-modern Philosophy of Education,\" is an attempt to highlight the problem of the subject in the context of modern philosophy of education. The present work describes and analyzes the distinction between modern and classical education philosophies as well. The historical, theoretical, and scientific development of the principles and standards of education are also dealt with focusing on philosophical principles that influenced the emergence and development of certain educational principles. The paper pays attention to the problem of child objectivisation in the system of classical education and the problem of subjectivisation in modern education. The modern education system highlights the importance of experience and reflection, intentionality of consciousness, which show the relevance of phenomenology. This work discusses the interplay of the ideas of phenomenology, pragmatism, and existentialism in education. Mostly the works of the representative of existentialism P.Freire are analyzed. P.Freire stresses the problem of human freedom and humanistic education in his educational philosophy. The paper also analyzes the importance of individual experience, its reflection and practical application in the educational system of the representative of pragmatism J.Dewey. Mostly the principles of democracy and humanism as the basic educational principles are emphasized. This paper presents the classical education system as the system that is dehumanising the individual and highlights its weaknesses, whereas the modern education system, on the contrary, is viewed as humanizing and liberating the individual.

Although the need of freedom is definite, the concept of individual freedom, while being interpreted with legal terms, causes not only theoretical, but also practical problems. The observed two extremes of freedom are defined as any human self-expression as well as the license, where the state power is generally attributed to disregard personal freedom. In this article the freedom of expression and state enforcement jurisdiction dichotomy are addressed by discussing positive and negative conceptions of freedom and the relationship between the interpretations of political liberalism and Kant and Hegel's philosophies. This paper aims to prove that the positive liberty is the assumption of the negative liberty. The paper based on Hegel's philosophy shows that freedom is the characteristic of human nature to seek identity. It is also argued that human identity can take many forms and, therefore, a person has a number of inherent rights and liberties. It is human psycho-physical identity that provides the right to life and health care; human creative identity, providing the right to privacy and freedom of occupation; human moral identity, which provides the right of dignity, and the moral autonomy of person's social and political identity, providing the political and social rights and freedoms. This article concludes that while a person uses the given rights with integrity and the state is limiting people's arbitrariness, there is no conflict between the freedom and state violation.

The aim of the study was an analysis of two the conceptions of relationships between democracy and religion. One of these conceptions was created by Alexis de Tocqueville. He thought that democracy needs religion as an element that enriches it and helps in removing some negative tendencies inherent in this form of government. He understood that democracy was coalesced with the philosophies that were alien to religion, however, he demanded an alliance of democracy and religion. The other object of philosophical analysis is John Rawls. The theories of this author show an important change in the relationship of religion and democracy, which stems from the fact that he equates religion with philosophy. The political liberalism of Rawls helps us understand why democracy as a form of government has no need of religion. The political liberalism of Rawls reveals an important aspect of relationship between democracy and religion. He differs from Tocqueville by thinking that this form of government is not inherently merged with religion. Democratic state aspires to be neutral towards religion. Believers can be honest democrats, but this regime is indifferent in respect of religion. Democrats are on the side of worldly immanence, and believers side with religious transcendence. These two competing attitudes create a tension between religion and democracy. The solution of this tension, proposed by Rawls, consists in the equalization of philosophy and religion; it reveals that democracy is indifferent towards religion. The equalization of the status of philosophy and religion highlights the fact that this form of government is neutral in respect of the conception of God. This negates the Tocquevillian conception of the role of religion in democracy. Democracy can function without the support of traditions of religious thought.

The aim of the study was an analysis of two the conceptions of relationships between democracy and religion. One of these conceptions was created by Alexis de Tocqueville. He thought that democracy needs religion as an element that enriches it and helps in removing some negative tendencies inherent in this form of government. He understood that democracy was coalesced with the philosophies that were alien to religion, however, he demanded an alliance of democracy and religion. The other object of philosophical analysis is John Rawls. The theories of this author show an important change in the relationship of religion and democracy, which stems from the fact that he equates religion with philosophy. The political liberalism of Rawls helps us understand why democracy as a form of government has no need of religion. The political liberalism of Rawls reveals an important aspect of relationship between democracy and religion. He differs from Tocqueville by thinking that this form of government is not inherently merged with religion. Democratic state aspires to be neutral towards religion. Believers can be honest democrats, but this regime is indifferent in respect of religion. Democrats are on the side of worldly immanence, and believers side with religious transcendence. These two competing attitudes create a tension between religion and democracy. The solution of this tension, proposed by Rawls, consists in the equalization of philosophy and religion; it reveals that democracy is indifferent towards religion. The equalization of the status of philosophy and religion highlights the fact that this form of government is neutral in respect of the conception of God. This negates the Tocquevillian conception of the role of religion in democracy. Democracy can function without the support of traditions of religious thought.