Suchergebnisse

That permits to continue the discourse on the universality of human rights. In Christian ethics and doctrine the essence of human being is fully revealed only in a relation with God and with another human being. Therefore, a Christian concept of human rights is adequately balanced with the concept of public rights and interests. Utilitarianism, as an ethical doctrine, is accepted by the Western legal systems and is rooted in current legal and political discourse. It has linkages with Christian ethics, but can only be considered partially as a criterion for human rights and moral decision-making. Utilitarianism is based on subjective evaluation of the principles of human behavior, which leads to compromise in every situation. Thus it may lead into a situation where new human right breaches already recognized individual or group human rights. In the case of the formation of new human rights we must recognize certain features of the differences arising from the historical era and the prevailing moral and legal consciousness. However, while there are no universally accepted doctrine of objective ethics, the Institute of Human Rights have no solid ground for the discourse on universality of human rights – both basic and new – because the concept of human rights becomes a victim of compromises in unequal struggle against economic and political interests.

That permits to continue the discourse on the universality of human rights. In Christian ethics and doctrine the essence of human being is fully revealed only in a relation with God and with another human being. Therefore, a Christian concept of human rights is adequately balanced with the concept of public rights and interests. Utilitarianism, as an ethical doctrine, is accepted by the Western legal systems and is rooted in current legal and political discourse. It has linkages with Christian ethics, but can only be considered partially as a criterion for human rights and moral decision-making. Utilitarianism is based on subjective evaluation of the principles of human behavior, which leads to compromise in every situation. Thus it may lead into a situation where new human right breaches already recognized individual or group human rights. In the case of the formation of new human rights we must recognize certain features of the differences arising from the historical era and the prevailing moral and legal consciousness. However, while there are no universally accepted doctrine of objective ethics, the Institute of Human Rights have no solid ground for the discourse on universality of human rights – both basic and new – because the concept of human rights becomes a victim of compromises in unequal struggle against economic and political interests.

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.

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.

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 concept of "performance place", rather than a more common "space" is used to point out the significance of the physical and social location, where the theatre building or performance environment is situated, within the framework of the city fabric or geography of the country. The place of performance is a reflection of the shifting ideological, political and moral role which the institution of theatre is identified with in the society. The critical understanding of the place is related to the politics of the theatre, resistance to the discourse of power, as expressed by the artist's geopolitical imagination, and transgression of the social bounds. The aim of this article is to employ the concept of performance place to reflect upon the Lithuanian theatre – to see how the understanding of the place has been changing and what political projects or myths govern the choice of different locations. Two ideas of performance place are dominant in the Lithuanian theatre practices today. The first one is related to the conception of the national theatre institutions as a place which legitimates the artistic practices through the relationship with the local national community. The second locates performative practices in the fissures and margins of the first one – the official and national culture network. These are marginal places such as abandoned quarters of the city or post-industrial spaces which provoke anarchic and resistant attitude towards the tradition and power structures. However, both conceptions of place become problematic and ambivalent in the context of contemporary late capitalist system.[.].

The concept of "performance place", rather than a more common "space" is used to point out the significance of the physical and social location, where the theatre building or performance environment is situated, within the framework of the city fabric or geography of the country. The place of performance is a reflection of the shifting ideological, political and moral role which the institution of theatre is identified with in the society. The critical understanding of the place is related to the politics of the theatre, resistance to the discourse of power, as expressed by the artist's geopolitical imagination, and transgression of the social bounds. The aim of this article is to employ the concept of performance place to reflect upon the Lithuanian theatre – to see how the understanding of the place has been changing and what political projects or myths govern the choice of different locations. Two ideas of performance place are dominant in the Lithuanian theatre practices today. The first one is related to the conception of the national theatre institutions as a place which legitimates the artistic practices through the relationship with the local national community. The second locates performative practices in the fissures and margins of the first one – the official and national culture network. These are marginal places such as abandoned quarters of the city or post-industrial spaces which provoke anarchic and resistant attitude towards the tradition and power structures. However, both conceptions of place become problematic and ambivalent in the context of contemporary late capitalist system.[.].

The concept of "performance place", rather than a more common "space" is used to point out the significance of the physical and social location, where the theatre building or performance environment is situated, within the framework of the city fabric or geography of the country. The place of performance is a reflection of the shifting ideological, political and moral role which the institution of theatre is identified with in the society. The critical understanding of the place is related to the politics of the theatre, resistance to the discourse of power, as expressed by the artist's geopolitical imagination, and transgression of the social bounds. The aim of this article is to employ the concept of performance place to reflect upon the Lithuanian theatre – to see how the understanding of the place has been changing and what political projects or myths govern the choice of different locations. Two ideas of performance place are dominant in the Lithuanian theatre practices today. The first one is related to the conception of the national theatre institutions as a place which legitimates the artistic practices through the relationship with the local national community. The second locates performative practices in the fissures and margins of the first one – the official and national culture network. These are marginal places such as abandoned quarters of the city or post-industrial spaces which provoke anarchic and resistant attitude towards the tradition and power structures. However, both conceptions of place become problematic and ambivalent in the context of contemporary late capitalist system.[.].