Suchergebnisse

Straipsnyje nagrinejama, koki gyvenimo prasmes supratima isskleidzia moderni politikos samprata. Klasikineje graiku ir krikscioniu filosofijoje politine tvarka atspindejo zmoniu gyvenimo tikslus. Ikimoderni Vakaru civilizacija remesi finalistiniu kosmoso modeliu, nurodziusiu kiekvieno daikto bei zmogaus vieta ir paskirti. Todel politiniai sprendimai bent konceptualiai atspindejo zmogisku protu suvokiamus metafizikos ar dieviskojo istatymo postulatus. Nuo Renesanso ir Naujuju amziu finalistine mokslo samprata keicia kauzalistine, o gyvenimo prasmes problema dingsta is politines teorijos nagrinejamu klausimu saraso. Darbe teigiama, kad, nepaisant isorines modernybes sekuliarizacijos, kiekvienos politines teorijos branduoli sudaro teologiniu problemu sprendimas, todel gyvenimo prasmes klausimas niekada negali buti eliminuojamas is politines minties darbotvarkes. Modernybeje ivykusi slinktis nuo finalistinio prie kauzalistinio pasaulio supratimo zmonijai suteike iki tol neturetu priemoniu perdirbti bet kuria gamtine ir socialine tvarka. O Dievo mirtis prasmingo gyvenimo zenklu verte ieskoti siapus. Siu dvieju modernios minties elementu sujungimas igalino gyvenimo prasmes deficita pasalinti igyvendinant eschatono imanentizacija, t. y. perkeliant galutinius zmonijos tikslus i si pasauli. Straipsnyje konstatuojama, kad tokiu tikslu realizacija yra neatsiejama nuo politinio totalitarizmo. Del atviros modernybes laiko sampratos neimanoma nustatyti, kada galutiniu zmonijos tikslu realizavimas bus pasiektas. Sio sprendimo prerogatyva atiteko suverenui The study examines the place of meaning of life in the modern concept of politics. This can be done only by proving that political thought reflects the purpose of human life which actually is meaning of life. If a political body or political philosophy cannot prove this, it will always be possible to reject their arguments by stating that they are meaningless to humans. This created conditions for the idea that society should be permanently improved and the ultimate goal of such improvement is the salvation of every individual in this world. Although supporters of liberalism and socialism have a different understanding of this final stage of human development, both of them aim not at preparing individual for the salvation in another reality but they think that ideas of the heaven should be established in this world. Adapted from the source document.

In the sphere of construing regional identity, political science can accomplish less than philosophy. Common regional identity can never be derived from scientific cultural studies conducted in certain countries. A new cultural & philosophical meaning can never be devised on the basis of political science. It can only be the end result of philosophical imagination. Scientists can present facts which bear proof of merely cultural & political affinity. However, so far they have failed to propose any more significant concepts or images for the future of Central Europe. Mere knowledge of empirical facts cannot be treated as a philosophical discovery. Both politicians & scientists can be aware of & handle an abundance of facts, & yet a philosophical idea is needed to bind all these facts into one coherent whole. In construing the identity of Central Europe, there is no need whatever to get involved in discussions about certain given objective facts, similar to objects studied by natural sciences. There are no natural characteristics, which could predetermine the perception of regional identity, irrespective of a moral awareness of its citizens. Morality is an independent motive of human conduct, which can exert influence on the perception of regional identity. Nevertheless, today it is one of the most unpopular subjects of geopolitical discussions. Geopoliticians claim that cultural & political identity of a region must be objectively predetermined, be it by geography, economy or military power. Political philosophers seem to be the only ones who can take a stand against such a naturalist perception of regional identity. Adapted from the source document.

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.

John Rawls's famous "A Theory of Justice" firmly established itself as a classical work in the field of political philosophy. There is a huge mass of critical literature on it dealing with various details & aspects. Yet it seems nobody noticed some fatal internal inconsistency at the very basis of the project. That is, the fact that Rawlsian aim to make a theory of justice more geometrico diverges from his explicit belief in the unconditional value of justice & its conceptual independence of rationality. This belief is an essential part of the "Theory" no less than the attempts to ground it on reason. But to ground justice on reason means exactly to destroy its conceptual autonomy & unconditionality. That is the problem the article concentrates on. It shows that, firstly, Rawls makes not clear enough which ideal -- this of justice or that of rationality -- he takes as self-grounding & of the ultimate importance when compared with each other. On the one hand, the willingness to use the model of the original position stems from purely moral, that is, unreducible to utility maximizing calculations, state of consciousness, without which the persons cannot be persuaded to take part in the mental experiment & to perceive it as just. On the other hand, Rawls declares the need to ground the principles of justice & to prove that unjust behavior is also irrational, which means he questions the very belief in the binding power of Kantian morality together with his own quest for justice (If justice is nothing other than rationality, so why should we worry about it? Let's speak instead about rationality & utility alone). Secondly, we demonstrate that although a famous veil of ignorance needs because the persons under it are homini economici, that is, rational egoists without any moral sentiments, yet this veil is possible & useful only if the homini are supplied with a sense of justice, which means that the initial definition of the persons is destroyed. Moreover, in this case the veil is superfluous because the supposed sense of justice takes on the function of it. Thirdly, a contradiction in terms between two fundamental presuppositions of Rawls's theory -- Cartesian universal reason of solitary thinker on the one hand & contractarian conception of justice on the other -- is exposed: what becomes of the idea that justice is the result of a rational agreement, if each person finds the principles of justice individually & needs no communication? Fourthly, communitarian critique of Rawlsian claim to universality & impartiality is briefly presented & discussed in order to show that to be rational is not the same as to be neutral, fair & impartial. Moreover, no matter what we think about the possibility to be fair, at least the state of being both rational & fair (or just in Rawlsian sense) is unattainable. Adapted from the source document.

The aim of the article is to identify & critically assess the key concepts, ideas & the epistemological principles of Thomas Hobbes, as a theorist of modern state who conceptually grasped the nature of the political. In light of the methodological concerns, the article attempts to provide an understanding of various conceptual connections in Hobbes' work Leviathan between the human passions, liberty, social contract, obligation, morality, & power. The paper also touches on the problem of the radical nominalism. Given the emphasis on the individual, Hobbes faces the dilemma between methodological individualism & methodological holism. Some of the corollaries of his political theory, including the organicistic metaphor of "society as mortal God," are inconsistent with the main body of Hobbes' theoretical thought. The article concludes by arguing that the controversial concepts of Hobbes' social theory force us to assess them in light of the different interpretative possibilities. Adapted from the source document.

The main strategy of this article is to consider liberalism in contrast with democracy. The article argues that there is a tension between the principles of democratic homogeneity and liberal heterogeneity. Deontological liberalism accents formal and procedural aspects of liberal democracy. In this way the democratic substantial concept of equality is reduced to the indifferent concept of equal individual liberty. Thus the model of liberal democracy gives priority to liberalism, but not democracy. The article also argues that it is possible to draw the conceptual distinction between liberalism and democracy only if the question is considered as a critical framework of different philosophical discourses. Adapted from the source document.

The aim of the article is to disclose a possible view held by Kant towards the solution of the KOnigsberg problem after World War II. Philosophers of today usually show little interest in discussing the so-called "Kaliningrad puzzle." This is a certain misunderstanding. As one of the most outstanding representatives of the idealistic paradigm of international relations, Kant can be treated as a full-fledged participant of the discussions on the future of the Kaliningrad region. His political philosophy contributes towards a better understanding of certain important aspects related to the Kaliningrad problem. Kant would strongly criticize the decisions made at the Potsdam conference. The above decisions contradict his understanding of international relations. However, Kant would not demand an urgent solution to the Kaliningrad problem. His flexibility is worthy of the respect shown by the realpolitik supporters. On the other hand, Kant did not have the slightest doubt as to the necessity of amending the injustice of improper political decisions. The European future of the Kaliningrad region is first & foremost related to the ability of the population to enforce the political principles formulated by Kant -- the freedom of the citizens, the rule of law & the equality of every single citizen under the law. This seems to be the most topical message made by Kant to the present day population of his native town. The Kaliningrad region of today has failed to justify the requirements of civil society. It reminds one more of a hostage to the central power. From the perspective of Kant's political philosophy, one could state that the Kaliningrad region has not yet used the opportunity to become an association of free citizens. This is the only trustworthy way for this hostage of international politics of the 20th century to become part of cultural & political life within the unifying Europe. Adapted from the source document.

Straipsnyje apzvelgiami Apsvietos epochos tyrimai Lietuvoje, bandant perteikti pagrindinius Lietuvos tyreju atradimus, keliamus klausimus ir idejas, besisiejaneias su politiniu to laikotarpio mastymu. Pirmiausia, analizuojant XVIII amziaus Lietuva, aptariama bendroji Lietuvos istoriografija ir istoriniu tyrimu issukiai. Antra, pristatomas Vilniaus universiteto, kaip regioninio to meto Apsvietos centro, vaidmuo. Galiausiai pereinama prie konkreeiu istorijos, literaturos istorijos ir filosofines minties tyrimu. Sioje apzvalginio pobudzio analizeje daugiausia demesio skiriama tyreju monografijoms ir paeioms tyrimu kryptims, bandant sutraukti atskiru tyrimu indeli i vientisos lietuviskosios politines minties tradicija, kurioje XVIII amziaus politinis mastymas dar tik iesko savosios vietos ir reiksmes The article presents the research into the historic period of Enlightenment done in Lithuania, describing the main findings, questions and ideas, which have a connection with the political thinking of the period. First, the general Lithuanian historiography as well as main issues and problematics of the research into Lithuania's XVIII century are presented. Second, the role of Vilnius University as the peripheral centre of Enlightenment is discussed. Finally, main studies dealing with the period in the fields of history, history of literature and philosophy are analysed. In this overview article the main attention is devoted to research studies (monographs) and to particular research directions taken by Lithuanian scholars with an attempt to connect different research contributions into singular tradition of Lithuanian political thought, in which political ideas of the XVIII century are still lacking the assessment of their importance. 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.