Suchergebnisse

In the article the author offers a brief sketch of the history and different meanings of criticism as they were formed over the last three centuries. He points out the original meaning of the usage of the term and then points to the narrower meaning, especially that found in art criticism. He then claims that a large portion of art criticism has retained its essence and meaning unchanged since its beginning and that this is also true insofar as it has not changed when art is compared with new media and Chinese art. The author also notes that art criticism represents an important constituent part of art proper. ; V svojem članku prikaže avtor kratek potek zgodovine in različnih pomenov kritike kot so se ti oblikovali skozi zadnja tri stoletja. Pokaže na izvorni pomen tega izraza ter nato na razvoj kritike v angleškem družbenem, kulturnem in političnem prostoru, kjer je kritika vedno bolj postajala kulturna kritika. Opozori na njun današnji pomen. Čeprav je kritika danes izgubila jasno vsebino, to ni zmanjšalo njene tehtnosti in pomena pa naj je šlo za kritiko novih medijev ali kitajske umetnosti. Avtor tudi opozori, da tvori umetnostna kritika pomembno konstituanto umetnosti kot take.

Comment expliquer l'immense succès actuel de leaders populistes tels que Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, Matteo Salvini, Victor Orban arba ir Marine Le Pen? Les explications sociologiques et politologiques font appel à une série de donnéescontextuelles: ce qui joue en faveur des partis «anti-élitistes», c'est la crise économique, c'est le chômage, l'immigration, l'insécurité, attribués les uns et les autres à la faillite du «système» politique représentatif. Le but de cet article est de compléter ces explications en adoptant une perspective proprement sémiotique (enimmanence) qui consiste à analyser les rapports sensibles, de caractère «intime» — personnellement, immédiatement, esthésiquement vécus — qui se nouent entre les leaders populistes et leurs partisans. L'article inclut en outre une typologie des régimes politiques (totalitarisme, absolutisme, démocratie représentative, démocratie «directe» et sa caricature, la démagogie) interdéfinis sur la base des régimes interactionels qui les sous-tendent.

N/A

Chinese art criticism has a long history. However, modern art criticism in China did not begin until the second half of the 20th century. After 40 years development, art criticism in China has changed from political criticism into commercial criticism. The pressures of ideology are replaced by the worries about capitalist co-option of criticism. Flattery and Abuse are the inevitable results of commercial and political criticism. Only academic criticism can help art criticism get out of this crisis. ; Kitajska umetnostna kritika ima dolgo zgodovino. Vendar pa se moderna umetnostna kritika na Kitajskem ni pričela pred drugo polovico dvajsetega stoletja. Po štiridesetletnem napredovanju se je umetnostna kritika spremenila iz politične kritike v komercialno kritiko. Pritiski ideologije so nadomestili skrbi glede kapitalističnega kooptiranja kritike. Le akademska kritika lahko pomaga umetnostni kritiki, da izide iz te krize.

The main point of this work concerns basic premises and its interrelation of liberalism: doctrines of human rights, moral individualism and state neutrality. Locke's and Dworkin's liberal conceptions help to reveal the deep structure of liberal mind, its inconsistence and limitation. There are identified Protestant world-view and Renaissance humanism as a fundamental sources of liberal ideas. Individual and its autonomy is revealed as a central idea of liberal politics. There are shown substancial differences between early and contemporary liberal mind.

The main point of this work concerns basic premises and its interrelation of liberalism: doctrines of human rights, moral individualism and state neutrality. Locke's and Dworkin's liberal conceptions help to reveal the deep structure of liberal mind, its inconsistence and limitation. There are identified Protestant world-view and Renaissance humanism as a fundamental sources of liberal ideas. Individual and its autonomy is revealed as a central idea of liberal politics. There are shown substancial differences between early and contemporary liberal mind.

The article discusses Husserl's criticism of Psychologism and the relationship that have with the contemporary crisis of values. In Lo­gical Investigation Husserl criticize not only a psychological foundation of science, but he expresses his preoccupation about rationality in general. Rationality according to Husserl is connected with ethical and political questions. Aron Gurwitsch research shows the existing connection between naturalistic psychology and nihilism. Naturalistic psychology induces a nihilistic conception of human being: hu­man as a biological functions mechanism. This point of view cause a totalitarian tendency in social life and politic. ; Straipsnyje analizuojama fenomenologinė psichologizmo kritika ir jos sąryšis su šiuolaikine vertybių krize, natūralizmo įsigalėjimu bei nihilizmu. Husserlio "Loginiuose tyrinėjimuose" atlikta psichologizmo kritika išreiškia pamatinę fenomenologijos intenciją – susirūpinimą racionalaus subjekto išsaugojimu ir įprasminimu. Psichologizmo problema yra ne vien racionalaus žinojimo pagrindimo problema, bet taip pat etikos ir politikos klausimas. Tai akivaizdžiai parodo Aronas Gurwitschius savo studijoje apie natūralizmo ir nihilizmo sąryšį. Natūralistinė psichologija ne tik skatina nihilistinį požiūrį į žmogų ir vertybes, bet taip pat provokuoja totalitarines tendencijas visuomenės gyvenime ir politikoje.

This book focuses on how advances in ICT have brought about a sea change in the way people work, live and share while also making them vulnerable. These advances exhibit a fundamentally reformed global context for development that has not just been restricted to the civilian domain but has simultaneously impacted the military domain. The exponential pace of advances in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI), robotics, big data, quantum computing or IoT (Internet of Things) pioneers a significantly different vision of work and society. The current trends in warfighting present a very blurred picture of the future operating environment, but they give some shape to its likely direction. Military forces are trying to become much more flexible and have been adapting to these changes while emphasizing the importance of innovation and improvisation in order to counter challenges emanating from future scenarios. In this context, the book highlights the changing military strategies and tactics across nations vis-à-vis the hanging and emerging ICT technologies. It also highlights the importance of looking at present institutions, legal frameworks and principles as well as at the restraining factors inherent in realpolitik in order to understand if nation states are ready.

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Table of Contents -- Foreword -- Abbreviations -- List of Figures -- Abstract -- Chapter 1: Introduction -- Chapter 2: Theoretical Dimensions of Contemporary Warfare and its Ramifications -- Chapter 3: Advances in ICT in the Twenty-First Century -- Chapter 4: Understanding Network of Networks -- Chapter 5: Likely Nature of Warfare in the Twenty-First Century: Preparedness and Mitigation Strategy -- Chapter 6: Conclusion.

The paper examines the phenomenon of politics as a distinctive domain of practical experience, particularly focusing on the analysis of political space and political time. Along with this, other political aspects are taken into account, such as desire and lack, interest, action, deliberation, judgment, fragility, and freedom. Political phenomenology is contrasted with the notion of politics expounded in Plato's "Republic", which centres around the famous Analogy of the Cave. According to the Analogy, the fundamental precondition of political knowledge is a deliberate delocalization – a philosopher's dissociation from all time-bound factors and the existing political reality which is conceived as a prison of unstable, unreliable "shadows". The paper suggests that the application of platonic Forms to political life is inadequate, because politics is an essentially temporal, fragile realm. Politics is "nourished" by the past and historical precedents, and also by future, through political aims and visions. Therefore, historical prudence, practical experience and intuition are considered of more relevance for a political subject than theoretical definitions and abstractions. It is argued that the phenomenon of politics has its own specific structure of functioning: it has no need to "borrow" any immutable principles from metaphysicians. Metaphysics does not possess an exclusive access to political knowledge. Objections to Platonism are based on the insights of Aristotle, Hannah Arendt, Michael Oakeshott and some other important political thinkers. Aristotle valuably distinguishes between theory and practice, situating politics in the realm of the latter and thus restoring dignity to the "cave-dweller" and his common sense. Arendt skillfully elaborates on the aspects of fragility of a political action, as well as on conceptualizing the experience of freedom as essential to political life. Furthermore, the paper draws heavily on Arendt's distinction between rational truth and politics. It is argued that the two are mutually incompatible or even in conflict, because politics allows only for opinions and persuasion, whereas the unchangeable rational truth is conceived as coercive in nature. On his part, Oakeshott provides arguments for the importance of prudence and historical understanding, while also criticizing Plato's "demonstrative" science of politics. These and a few other lines of reasoning are invoked to account for an inappropriateness of using the Cave Analogy for the understanding of politics.

The paper examines the phenomenon of politics as a distinctive domain of practical experience, particularly focusing on the analysis of political space and political time. Along with this, other political aspects are taken into account, such as desire and lack, interest, action, deliberation, judgment, fragility, and freedom. Political phenomenology is contrasted with the notion of politics expounded in Plato's "Republic", which centres around the famous Analogy of the Cave. According to the Analogy, the fundamental precondition of political knowledge is a deliberate delocalization – a philosopher's dissociation from all time-bound factors and the existing political reality which is conceived as a prison of unstable, unreliable "shadows". The paper suggests that the application of platonic Forms to political life is inadequate, because politics is an essentially temporal, fragile realm. Politics is "nourished" by the past and historical precedents, and also by future, through political aims and visions. Therefore, historical prudence, practical experience and intuition are considered of more relevance for a political subject than theoretical definitions and abstractions. It is argued that the phenomenon of politics has its own specific structure of functioning: it has no need to "borrow" any immutable principles from metaphysicians. Metaphysics does not possess an exclusive access to political knowledge. Objections to Platonism are based on the insights of Aristotle, Hannah Arendt, Michael Oakeshott and some other important political thinkers. Aristotle valuably distinguishes between theory and practice, situating politics in the realm of the latter and thus restoring dignity to the "cave-dweller" and his common sense. Arendt skillfully elaborates on the aspects of fragility of a political action, as well as on conceptualizing the experience of freedom as essential to political life. Furthermore, the paper draws heavily on Arendt's distinction between rational truth and politics. It is argued that the two are mutually incompatible or even in conflict, because politics allows only for opinions and persuasion, whereas the unchangeable rational truth is conceived as coercive in nature. On his part, Oakeshott provides arguments for the importance of prudence and historical understanding, while also criticizing Plato's "demonstrative" science of politics. These and a few other lines of reasoning are invoked to account for an inappropriateness of using the Cave Analogy for the understanding of politics.

The paper examines the phenomenon of politics as a distinctive domain of practical experience, particularly focusing on the analysis of political space and political time. Along with this, other political aspects are taken into account, such as desire and lack, interest, action, deliberation, judgment, fragility, and freedom. Political phenomenology is contrasted with the notion of politics expounded in Plato's "Republic", which centres around the famous Analogy of the Cave. According to the Analogy, the fundamental precondition of political knowledge is a deliberate delocalization – a philosopher's dissociation from all time-bound factors and the existing political reality which is conceived as a prison of unstable, unreliable "shadows". The paper suggests that the application of platonic Forms to political life is inadequate, because politics is an essentially temporal, fragile realm. Politics is "nourished" by the past and historical precedents, and also by future, through political aims and visions. Therefore, historical prudence, practical experience and intuition are considered of more relevance for a political subject than theoretical definitions and abstractions. It is argued that the phenomenon of politics has its own specific structure of functioning: it has no need to "borrow" any immutable principles from metaphysicians. Metaphysics does not possess an exclusive access to political knowledge. Objections to Platonism are based on the insights of Aristotle, Hannah Arendt, Michael Oakeshott and some other important political thinkers. Aristotle valuably distinguishes between theory and practice, situating politics in the realm of the latter and thus restoring dignity to the "cave-dweller" and his common sense. Arendt skillfully elaborates on the aspects of fragility of a political action, as well as on conceptualizing the experience of freedom as essential to political life. Furthermore, the paper draws heavily on Arendt's distinction between rational truth and politics. It is argued that the two are mutually incompatible or even in conflict, because politics allows only for opinions and persuasion, whereas the unchangeable rational truth is conceived as coercive in nature. On his part, Oakeshott provides arguments for the importance of prudence and historical understanding, while also criticizing Plato's "demonstrative" science of politics. These and a few other lines of reasoning are invoked to account for an inappropriateness of using the Cave Analogy for the understanding of politics.

The paper examines the phenomenon of politics as a distinctive domain of practical experience, particularly focusing on the analysis of political space and political time. Along with this, other political aspects are taken into account, such as desire and lack, interest, action, deliberation, judgment, fragility, and freedom. Political phenomenology is contrasted with the notion of politics expounded in Plato's "Republic", which centres around the famous Analogy of the Cave. According to the Analogy, the fundamental precondition of political knowledge is a deliberate delocalization – a philosopher's dissociation from all time-bound factors and the existing political reality which is conceived as a prison of unstable, unreliable "shadows". The paper suggests that the application of platonic Forms to political life is inadequate, because politics is an essentially temporal, fragile realm. Politics is "nourished" by the past and historical precedents, and also by future, through political aims and visions. Therefore, historical prudence, practical experience and intuition are considered of more relevance for a political subject than theoretical definitions and abstractions. It is argued that the phenomenon of politics has its own specific structure of functioning: it has no need to "borrow" any immutable principles from metaphysicians. Metaphysics does not possess an exclusive access to political knowledge. Objections to Platonism are based on the insights of Aristotle, Hannah Arendt, Michael Oakeshott and some other important political thinkers. Aristotle valuably distinguishes between theory and practice, situating politics in the realm of the latter and thus restoring dignity to the "cave-dweller" and his common sense. Arendt skillfully elaborates on the aspects of fragility of a political action, as well as on conceptualizing the experience of freedom as essential to political life. Furthermore, the paper draws heavily on Arendt's distinction between rational truth and politics. It is argued that the two are mutually incompatible or even in conflict, because politics allows only for opinions and persuasion, whereas the unchangeable rational truth is conceived as coercive in nature. On his part, Oakeshott provides arguments for the importance of prudence and historical understanding, while also criticizing Plato's "demonstrative" science of politics. These and a few other lines of reasoning are invoked to account for an inappropriateness of using the Cave Analogy for the understanding of politics.