Suchergebnisse

The article seeks to demonstrate the changes in the conception of relations between science and politics in the 20 th century German tradition of social philosophy. This tradition encompasses Max Weber, Karl Mannheim, Frankfurt School and Jürgen Habermas. The analysis of their works revealed that Weber's neutral attitude towards the political role of science had experienced couple of transformations. First, Weber's idea of science as a political instrument was radicalized in Mannheim's sociology of knowledge. In the latter science as an institution is conceived much more positively because it can replace politics by controllable administration. Second, Frankfurt School denies the mannheimian optimism stressing the negative consequences of that substitution: scientific rationalism invades social and political life at the same time ignoring qualitative aspects that are so important in political field. And, finally, trying to breakthrough the one-sided negativism of elder colleagues in Frankfurt School, Habermas restores weberian attitude towards instrumental character of science. In order to elude the dominance of science two steps are of crucial importance: repoliticization of public sphere and removing restrictions on communication.

The article seeks to demonstrate the changes in the conception of relations between science and politics in the 20 th century German tradition of social philosophy. This tradition encompasses Max Weber, Karl Mannheim, Frankfurt School and Jürgen Habermas. The analysis of their works revealed that Weber's neutral attitude towards the political role of science had experienced couple of transformations. First, Weber's idea of science as a political instrument was radicalized in Mannheim's sociology of knowledge. In the latter science as an institution is conceived much more positively because it can replace politics by controllable administration. Second, Frankfurt School denies the mannheimian optimism stressing the negative consequences of that substitution: scientific rationalism invades social and political life at the same time ignoring qualitative aspects that are so important in political field. And, finally, trying to breakthrough the one-sided negativism of elder colleagues in Frankfurt School, Habermas restores weberian attitude towards instrumental character of science. In order to elude the dominance of science two steps are of crucial importance: repoliticization of public sphere and removing restrictions on communication.

The article seeks to demonstrate the changes in the conception of relations between science and politics in the 20 th century German tradition of social philosophy. This tradition encompasses Max Weber, Karl Mannheim, Frankfurt School and Jürgen Habermas. The analysis of their works revealed that Weber's neutral attitude towards the political role of science had experienced couple of transformations. First, Weber's idea of science as a political instrument was radicalized in Mannheim's sociology of knowledge. In the latter science as an institution is conceived much more positively because it can replace politics by controllable administration. Second, Frankfurt School denies the mannheimian optimism stressing the negative consequences of that substitution: scientific rationalism invades social and political life at the same time ignoring qualitative aspects that are so important in political field. And, finally, trying to breakthrough the one-sided negativism of elder colleagues in Frankfurt School, Habermas restores weberian attitude towards instrumental character of science. In order to elude the dominance of science two steps are of crucial importance: repoliticization of public sphere and removing restrictions on communication.

The article seeks to demonstrate the changes in the conception of relations between science and politics in the 20 th century German tradition of social philosophy. This tradition encompasses Max Weber, Karl Mannheim, Frankfurt School and Jürgen Habermas. The analysis of their works revealed that Weber's neutral attitude towards the political role of science had experienced couple of transformations. First, Weber's idea of science as a political instrument was radicalized in Mannheim's sociology of knowledge. In the latter science as an institution is conceived much more positively because it can replace politics by controllable administration. Second, Frankfurt School denies the mannheimian optimism stressing the negative consequences of that substitution: scientific rationalism invades social and political life at the same time ignoring qualitative aspects that are so important in political field. And, finally, trying to breakthrough the one-sided negativism of elder colleagues in Frankfurt School, Habermas restores weberian attitude towards instrumental character of science. In order to elude the dominance of science two steps are of crucial importance: repoliticization of public sphere and removing restrictions on communication.

The article discloses that the modern prevalent consciousness of the society (ideology and psychology) predetermines that human rights and freedoms are the most importand value of the modern world.

The article discloses that the modern prevalent consciousness of the society (ideology and psychology) predetermines that human rights and freedoms are the most importand value of the modern world.

The article discusses Jean-Francois Lyotard's views on the relations between science and politics, and his analysis of the influence of science upon social life. This discussion centres on following topics: in what ways, according to Lyotard, modern science is thretening social life; then, what is the message of an alternative view of postmodern science and its sociopolitical role proposed by Lyoard? Finally, the Lyotard's and Habermas' positions are compared.

The article discusses Jean-Francois Lyotard's views on the relations between science and politics, and his analysis of the influence of science upon social life. This discussion centres on following topics: in what ways, according to Lyotard, modern science is thretening social life; then, what is the message of an alternative view of postmodern science and its sociopolitical role proposed by Lyoard? Finally, the Lyotard's and Habermas' positions are compared.

The article discusses Jean-Francois Lyotard's views on the relations between science and politics, and his analysis of the influence of science upon social life. This discussion centres on following topics: in what ways, according to Lyotard, modern science is thretening social life; then, what is the message of an alternative view of postmodern science and its sociopolitical role proposed by Lyoard? Finally, the Lyotard's and Habermas' positions are compared.

The article discusses Jean-Francois Lyotard's views on the relations between science and politics, and his analysis of the influence of science upon social life. This discussion centres on following topics: in what ways, according to Lyotard, modern science is thretening social life; then, what is the message of an alternative view of postmodern science and its sociopolitical role proposed by Lyoard? Finally, the Lyotard's and Habermas' positions are compared.

The Republic of Belarus is the most authoritarian state in Central and Central-Eastern Europe. The international security community identifies the threats of Aleksandr Lukashenko's regime at global and regional levels. The article analyses the problem: what are the concrete threats posed to Lithuania by the Belarusian authoritarianism? The profiles of the problem presented here - the origins of authoritarianism in Belarus, the pattern of the dependence in the relations between Belarus and Russia, the international security community and Belarus, the development of the Lithuania-Belarus relationship - make it possible to identify eventual threats to Lithuania arising within political, social, economic and ecological sectors.

The Republic of Belarus is the most authoritarian state in Central and Central-Eastern Europe. The international security community identifies the threats of Aleksandr Lukashenko's regime at global and regional levels. The article analyses the problem: what are the concrete threats posed to Lithuania by the Belarusian authoritarianism? The profiles of the problem presented here - the origins of authoritarianism in Belarus, the pattern of the dependence in the relations between Belarus and Russia, the international security community and Belarus, the development of the Lithuania-Belarus relationship - make it possible to identify eventual threats to Lithuania arising within political, social, economic and ecological sectors.