Search results

Adapted from the source document.

The article is based on an idea that there are four different modes of understanding reality – practice, science, art and mysticism. Political liberalism demands separation of public and private beliefs. However, mystical understanding of reality is not a system of propositions and beliefs. This is why one can speak of a conflict between liberalism and mystical understanding of reality. Political liberalism imposes a certain understanding of reality on believers. Liberals propose to remove religious convictions from public life and not to treat them as a basis of politics. They forget that mystics have the biggest trouble namely with convictions. To turn the reality of God into words for them is always the hardest task. Mystics find God before words, concepts and discourses. Liberals reduce religion to convictions and demand from mystics to comprehend that, which in their opinion is not comprehensible. There is a tension between liberalism and people who have mystical experiences. Liberals narrow down religious experience to convictions. However, mystical experience is a much broader subject. Behind it stands an understanding of world that has its own standards of reality.

The article is based on an idea that there are four different modes of understanding reality – practice, science, art and mysticism. Political liberalism demands separation of public and private beliefs. However, mystical understanding of reality is not a system of propositions and beliefs. This is why one can speak of a conflict between liberalism and mystical understanding of reality. Political liberalism imposes a certain understanding of reality on believers. Liberals propose to remove religious convictions from public life and not to treat them as a basis of politics. They forget that mystics have the biggest trouble namely with convictions. To turn the reality of God into words for them is always the hardest task. Mystics find God before words, concepts and discourses. Liberals reduce religion to convictions and demand from mystics to comprehend that, which in their opinion is not comprehensible. There is a tension between liberalism and people who have mystical experiences. Liberals narrow down religious experience to convictions. However, mystical experience is a much broader subject. Behind it stands an understanding of world that has its own standards of reality.

The article is based on an idea that there are four different modes of understanding reality – practice, science, art and mysticism. Political liberalism demands separation of public and private beliefs. However, mystical understanding of reality is not a system of propositions and beliefs. This is why one can speak of a conflict between liberalism and mystical understanding of reality. Political liberalism imposes a certain understanding of reality on believers. Liberals propose to remove religious convictions from public life and not to treat them as a basis of politics. They forget that mystics have the biggest trouble namely with convictions. To turn the reality of God into words for them is always the hardest task. Mystics find God before words, concepts and discourses. Liberals reduce religion to convictions and demand from mystics to comprehend that, which in their opinion is not comprehensible. There is a tension between liberalism and people who have mystical experiences. Liberals narrow down religious experience to convictions. However, mystical experience is a much broader subject. Behind it stands an understanding of world that has its own standards of reality.

The article is based on an idea that there are four different modes of understanding reality – practice, science, art and mysticism. Political liberalism demands separation of public and private beliefs. However, mystical understanding of reality is not a system of propositions and beliefs. This is why one can speak of a conflict between liberalism and mystical understanding of reality. Political liberalism imposes a certain understanding of reality on believers. Liberals propose to remove religious convictions from public life and not to treat them as a basis of politics. They forget that mystics have the biggest trouble namely with convictions. To turn the reality of God into words for them is always the hardest task. Mystics find God before words, concepts and discourses. Liberals reduce religion to convictions and demand from mystics to comprehend that, which in their opinion is not comprehensible. There is a tension between liberalism and people who have mystical experiences. Liberals narrow down religious experience to convictions. However, mystical experience is a much broader subject. Behind it stands an understanding of world that has its own standards of reality.

Adapted from the source document.

Lithuanian authors have challenges to study Russia's politics of history. The analysis is complicated because of a few factors. Diplomatic disputes and informative wars between Lithuania and Russia concerning historical questions have encouraged researches by historians but not by political scientists. In Lithuania, the questions of who and how is forming the history politics of Russia, what is its content and the function it accomplishes, remain unexamined. The analysis is further complicated by disagreement among Russian political scientists, historians, journalists, and politicians over the existence of such politics. The present analysis demonstrates that post-soviet Russia perceives the importance of historical memory, i.e. it understands that historical memory and its forms depend on the states' politics. Russia's political history genesis testifies that trends of such politics depend on the geopolitical orientation of its government. The end of the Cold War did not manage to conceal the fundamental differences between Europe and Russia. The wave of liberalism and democracy, which spread over Central and Eastern Europe as well as Russian Federation, has caused tension in Russia ruled by B. Yeltsin. Yeltsin's Russia was not able to tackle this problem by using measures of history politics in order to lessen the distance between Russia and the West. V. Putin undertook to find the solution to this situation, and he did. By using changes of international politics, he builds the image of Russia as a great power. Politics of history are subordinated to build this image; also, it is used as an instrument in domestic politics. The history politics of Russia has taken the shape of a manipulative form and serves the interests of V. Putins's power.

Lithuanian authors have challenges to study Russia's politics of history. The analysis is complicated because of a few factors. Diplomatic disputes and informative wars between Lithuania and Russia concerning historical questions have encouraged researches by historians but not by political scientists. In Lithuania, the questions of who and how is forming the history politics of Russia, what is its content and the function it accomplishes, remain unexamined. The analysis is further complicated by disagreement among Russian political scientists, historians, journalists, and politicians over the existence of such politics. The present analysis demonstrates that post-soviet Russia perceives the importance of historical memory, i.e. it understands that historical memory and its forms depend on the states' politics. Russia's political history genesis testifies that trends of such politics depend on the geopolitical orientation of its government. The end of the Cold War did not manage to conceal the fundamental differences between Europe and Russia. The wave of liberalism and democracy, which spread over Central and Eastern Europe as well as Russian Federation, has caused tension in Russia ruled by B. Yeltsin. Yeltsin's Russia was not able to tackle this problem by using measures of history politics in order to lessen the distance between Russia and the West. V. Putin undertook to find the solution to this situation, and he did. By using changes of international politics, he builds the image of Russia as a great power. Politics of history are subordinated to build this image; also, it is used as an instrument in domestic politics. The history politics of Russia has taken the shape of a manipulative form and serves the interests of V. Putins's power.

Lithuanian authors have challenges to study Russia's politics of history. The analysis is complicated because of a few factors. Diplomatic disputes and informative wars between Lithuania and Russia concerning historical questions have encouraged researches by historians but not by political scientists. In Lithuania, the questions of who and how is forming the history politics of Russia, what is its content and the function it accomplishes, remain unexamined. The analysis is further complicated by disagreement among Russian political scientists, historians, journalists, and politicians over the existence of such politics. The present analysis demonstrates that post-soviet Russia perceives the importance of historical memory, i.e. it understands that historical memory and its forms depend on the states' politics. Russia's political history genesis testifies that trends of such politics depend on the geopolitical orientation of its government. The end of the Cold War did not manage to conceal the fundamental differences between Europe and Russia. The wave of liberalism and democracy, which spread over Central and Eastern Europe as well as Russian Federation, has caused tension in Russia ruled by B. Yeltsin. Yeltsin's Russia was not able to tackle this problem by using measures of history politics in order to lessen the distance between Russia and the West. V. Putin undertook to find the solution to this situation, and he did. By using changes of international politics, he builds the image of Russia as a great power. Politics of history are subordinated to build this image; also, it is used as an instrument in domestic politics. The history politics of Russia has taken the shape of a manipulative form and serves the interests of V. Putins's power.

Lithuanian authors have challenges to study Russia's politics of history. The analysis is complicated because of a few factors. Diplomatic disputes and informative wars between Lithuania and Russia concerning historical questions have encouraged researches by historians but not by political scientists. In Lithuania, the questions of who and how is forming the history politics of Russia, what is its content and the function it accomplishes, remain unexamined. The analysis is further complicated by disagreement among Russian political scientists, historians, journalists, and politicians over the existence of such politics. The present analysis demonstrates that post-soviet Russia perceives the importance of historical memory, i.e. it understands that historical memory and its forms depend on the states' politics. Russia's political history genesis testifies that trends of such politics depend on the geopolitical orientation of its government. The end of the Cold War did not manage to conceal the fundamental differences between Europe and Russia. The wave of liberalism and democracy, which spread over Central and Eastern Europe as well as Russian Federation, has caused tension in Russia ruled by B. Yeltsin. Yeltsin's Russia was not able to tackle this problem by using measures of history politics in order to lessen the distance between Russia and the West. V. Putin undertook to find the solution to this situation, and he did. By using changes of international politics, he builds the image of Russia as a great power. Politics of history are subordinated to build this image; also, it is used as an instrument in domestic politics. The history politics of Russia has taken the shape of a manipulative form and serves the interests of V. Putins's power.

The aim of the paper is to reconstruct and analyze Alvydas Jokubaitis's under-standing of politics. It is argued that Jokubaitis couples politics with morality in opposition to the liberal project of the autonomy of politics, which seeks to separate these two fields of human activity. According to Jokubaitis, politics is a realm of realization of the spiritual side of human nature. That is the reason why, through morality, he also tries to align poli-tics with other domains of human spirituality, such as religion and metaphysics. What is common to politics, morality, religion, and metaphysics is the sphere of normativity, i.e., that of purposes, principles, and imperatives. At the same time, Jokubaitis attacks those schools of modern thought which interpret politics as corresponding solely to the physical, animal side of human nature. In this regard, positivism and scientism are singled out as the crudest attempts to misconstrue the nature of politics. The paper is based on a convic-tion that the acknowledgement of the importance of morality allows one to piece together Jokubaitis's various considerations about the nature and distinctiveness of politics into a coherent whole.

The aim of the paper is to reconstruct and analyze Alvydas Jokubaitis's under-standing of politics. It is argued that Jokubaitis couples politics with morality in opposition to the liberal project of the autonomy of politics, which seeks to separate these two fields of human activity. According to Jokubaitis, politics is a realm of realization of the spiritual side of human nature. That is the reason why, through morality, he also tries to align poli-tics with other domains of human spirituality, such as religion and metaphysics. What is common to politics, morality, religion, and metaphysics is the sphere of normativity, i.e., that of purposes, principles, and imperatives. At the same time, Jokubaitis attacks those schools of modern thought which interpret politics as corresponding solely to the physical, animal side of human nature. In this regard, positivism and scientism are singled out as the crudest attempts to misconstrue the nature of politics. The paper is based on a convic-tion that the acknowledgement of the importance of morality allows one to piece together Jokubaitis's various considerations about the nature and distinctiveness of politics into a coherent whole.

The aim of the paper is to reconstruct and analyze Alvydas Jokubaitis's under-standing of politics. It is argued that Jokubaitis couples politics with morality in opposition to the liberal project of the autonomy of politics, which seeks to separate these two fields of human activity. According to Jokubaitis, politics is a realm of realization of the spiritual side of human nature. That is the reason why, through morality, he also tries to align poli-tics with other domains of human spirituality, such as religion and metaphysics. What is common to politics, morality, religion, and metaphysics is the sphere of normativity, i.e., that of purposes, principles, and imperatives. At the same time, Jokubaitis attacks those schools of modern thought which interpret politics as corresponding solely to the physical, animal side of human nature. In this regard, positivism and scientism are singled out as the crudest attempts to misconstrue the nature of politics. The paper is based on a convic-tion that the acknowledgement of the importance of morality allows one to piece together Jokubaitis's various considerations about the nature and distinctiveness of politics into a coherent whole.