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.
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.
The Master's thesis \"The problem of Subject in Modern and Post-modern Philosophy of Education,\" is an attempt to highlight the problem of the subject in the context of modern philosophy of education. The present work describes and analyzes the distinction between modern and classical education philosophies as well. The historical, theoretical, and scientific development of the principles and standards of education are also dealt with focusing on philosophical principles that influenced the emergence and development of certain educational principles. The paper pays attention to the problem of child objectivisation in the system of classical education and the problem of subjectivisation in modern education. The modern education system highlights the importance of experience and reflection, intentionality of consciousness, which show the relevance of phenomenology. This work discusses the interplay of the ideas of phenomenology, pragmatism, and existentialism in education. Mostly the works of the representative of existentialism P.Freire are analyzed. P.Freire stresses the problem of human freedom and humanistic education in his educational philosophy. The paper also analyzes the importance of individual experience, its reflection and practical application in the educational system of the representative of pragmatism J.Dewey. Mostly the principles of democracy and humanism as the basic educational principles are emphasized. This paper presents the classical education system as the system that is dehumanising the individual and highlights its weaknesses, whereas the modern education system, on the contrary, is viewed as humanizing and liberating the individual.
Although the need of freedom is definite, the concept of individual freedom, while being interpreted with legal terms, causes not only theoretical, but also practical problems. The observed two extremes of freedom are defined as any human self-expression as well as the license, where the state power is generally attributed to disregard personal freedom. In this article the freedom of expression and state enforcement jurisdiction dichotomy are addressed by discussing positive and negative conceptions of freedom and the relationship between the interpretations of political liberalism and Kant and Hegel's philosophies. This paper aims to prove that the positive liberty is the assumption of the negative liberty. The paper based on Hegel's philosophy shows that freedom is the characteristic of human nature to seek identity. It is also argued that human identity can take many forms and, therefore, a person has a number of inherent rights and liberties. It is human psycho-physical identity that provides the right to life and health care; human creative identity, providing the right to privacy and freedom of occupation; human moral identity, which provides the right of dignity, and the moral autonomy of person's social and political identity, providing the political and social rights and freedoms. This article concludes that while a person uses the given rights with integrity and the state is limiting people's arbitrariness, there is no conflict between the freedom and state violation.
The Master's thesis \"The problem of Subject in Modern and Post-modern Philosophy of Education,\" is an attempt to highlight the problem of the subject in the context of modern philosophy of education. The present work describes and analyzes the distinction between modern and classical education philosophies as well. The historical, theoretical, and scientific development of the principles and standards of education are also dealt with focusing on philosophical principles that influenced the emergence and development of certain educational principles. The paper pays attention to the problem of child objectivisation in the system of classical education and the problem of subjectivisation in modern education. The modern education system highlights the importance of experience and reflection, intentionality of consciousness, which show the relevance of phenomenology. This work discusses the interplay of the ideas of phenomenology, pragmatism, and existentialism in education. Mostly the works of the representative of existentialism P.Freire are analyzed. P.Freire stresses the problem of human freedom and humanistic education in his educational philosophy. The paper also analyzes the importance of individual experience, its reflection and practical application in the educational system of the representative of pragmatism J.Dewey. Mostly the principles of democracy and humanism as the basic educational principles are emphasized. This paper presents the classical education system as the system that is dehumanising the individual and highlights its weaknesses, whereas the modern education system, on the contrary, is viewed as humanizing and liberating the individual.
Although the need of freedom is definite, the concept of individual freedom, while being interpreted with legal terms, causes not only theoretical, but also practical problems. The observed two extremes of freedom are defined as any human self-expression as well as the license, where the state power is generally attributed to disregard personal freedom. In this article the freedom of expression and state enforcement jurisdiction dichotomy are addressed by discussing positive and negative conceptions of freedom and the relationship between the interpretations of political liberalism and Kant and Hegel's philosophies. This paper aims to prove that the positive liberty is the assumption of the negative liberty. The paper based on Hegel's philosophy shows that freedom is the characteristic of human nature to seek identity. It is also argued that human identity can take many forms and, therefore, a person has a number of inherent rights and liberties. It is human psycho-physical identity that provides the right to life and health care; human creative identity, providing the right to privacy and freedom of occupation; human moral identity, which provides the right of dignity, and the moral autonomy of person's social and political identity, providing the political and social rights and freedoms. This article concludes that while a person uses the given rights with integrity and the state is limiting people's arbitrariness, there is no conflict between the freedom and state violation.
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. The political liberalism of Rawls reveals an important aspect of relationship between democracy and religion. He differs from Tocqueville by thinking that this form of government is not inherently merged with religion. Democratic state aspires to be neutral towards religion. Believers can be honest democrats, but this regime is indifferent in respect of religion. Democrats are on the side of worldly immanence, and believers side with religious transcendence. These two competing attitudes create a tension between religion and democracy. The solution of this tension, proposed by Rawls, consists in the equalization of philosophy and religion; it reveals that democracy is indifferent towards religion. The equalization of the status of philosophy and religion highlights the fact that this form of government is neutral in respect of the conception of God. This negates the Tocquevillian conception of the role of religion in democracy. Democracy can function without the support of traditions of religious thought.
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. The political liberalism of Rawls reveals an important aspect of relationship between democracy and religion. He differs from Tocqueville by thinking that this form of government is not inherently merged with religion. Democratic state aspires to be neutral towards religion. Believers can be honest democrats, but this regime is indifferent in respect of religion. Democrats are on the side of worldly immanence, and believers side with religious transcendence. These two competing attitudes create a tension between religion and democracy. The solution of this tension, proposed by Rawls, consists in the equalization of philosophy and religion; it reveals that democracy is indifferent towards religion. The equalization of the status of philosophy and religion highlights the fact that this form of government is neutral in respect of the conception of God. This negates the Tocquevillian conception of the role of religion in democracy. Democracy can function without the support of traditions of religious thought.
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. The political liberalism of Rawls reveals an important aspect of relationship between democracy and religion. He differs from Tocqueville by thinking that this form of government is not inherently merged with religion. Democratic state aspires to be neutral towards religion. Believers can be honest democrats, but this regime is indifferent in respect of religion. Democrats are on the side of worldly immanence, and believers side with religious transcendence. These two competing attitudes create a tension between religion and democracy. The solution of this tension, proposed by Rawls, consists in the equalization of philosophy and religion; it reveals that democracy is indifferent towards religion. The equalization of the status of philosophy and religion highlights the fact that this form of government is neutral in respect of the conception of God. This negates the Tocquevillian conception of the role of religion in democracy. Democracy can function without the support of traditions of religious thought.
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. The political liberalism of Rawls reveals an important aspect of relationship between democracy and religion. He differs from Tocqueville by thinking that this form of government is not inherently merged with religion. Democratic state aspires to be neutral towards religion. Believers can be honest democrats, but this regime is indifferent in respect of religion. Democrats are on the side of worldly immanence, and believers side with religious transcendence. These two competing attitudes create a tension between religion and democracy. The solution of this tension, proposed by Rawls, consists in the equalization of philosophy and religion; it reveals that democracy is indifferent towards religion. The equalization of the status of philosophy and religion highlights the fact that this form of government is neutral in respect of the conception of God. This negates the Tocquevillian conception of the role of religion in democracy. Democracy can function without the support of traditions of religious thought.
Main description: This volume contains the records of the international Freiburg Colloquium of the same name which was held by the Medieval Institute of the University of Freiburg from October 19 to 21, 2009. The academic reconstruction of the conception and perception of space in the culture of the Latin Middle Ages requires a differentiated treatment and corresponding competencies - something which can be realized only through an interdisciplinary approach. Each contributor to this volume examines the given theme from the perspective of his or her own specialist field.
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
The word "mysticism" is known to be a term that is now being used and associated with something which is negative – a mockery. It can be said that this perception of the term is based on certain historical events, when, in the central philosophies of particular religions (in this work, focus will be drawn only on Christian mysticism), a unique shift took place – during the early modernity in most of the Christian Churches, there occurred a split between theology and spirituality. Therefore, everything that had even a slight implication of mysticism was seen as irrelevant and unimportant. In addition to this, it is possible to say that our contemporary era has lost all belief in any reality that surpasses peoples daily tasks. Because of this, the vast majority of postmodernists tend to argue that mysticism can not be part of any philosophy, including a political one. This article concentrates on the thought of Simone Weil, a unique French philosopher and mystic, in order to prove through her work that mysticism can potentially enrich political philosophy. This is being done by analyzing her work and attempting to underline the supernatural element between the human and society. This supernatural element will yield a further investigation of how Simone Weil's mysticism can affect political philosophy. In order to find this element, the concepts of the human and the society that occur in Simone Weil's philosophy will be analyzed separately. In the first part, it is analyzed how Simone Weil perceived humans. She drastically separates the human, who, in her thought, possesses a transcendent core that can be violated, from the person, who is illusionary. Meanwhile, the second part concentrates on Weil's perception of the relation between society and the human. Society is seen by Weil as the Platonic Great Beast, but it may also be a source of pure fulfillment – roots – for the human being. In this part of the study, the roots of a human being in society and the tragedy of uprootedness are discussed further. The third part develops an idea of why mysticism can be seen as an important part of political philosophy and why it should not be neglected: it provides a different angle – a divine one – for viewing people's daily lives and their culture. Mysticism always comes from a certain culture, and it is important, since a mystic communicates their thought through that culture; however, a mystic also is able to critically address the surrounding culture because of the divine point of view. That is why mysticism is essential for political philosophy.
The word "mysticism" is known to be a term that is now being used and associated with something which is negative – a mockery. It can be said that this perception of the term is based on certain historical events, when, in the central philosophies of particular religions (in this work, focus will be drawn only on Christian mysticism), a unique shift took place – during the early modernity in most of the Christian Churches, there occurred a split between theology and spirituality. Therefore, everything that had even a slight implication of mysticism was seen as irrelevant and unimportant. In addition to this, it is possible to say that our contemporary era has lost all belief in any reality that surpasses peoples daily tasks. Because of this, the vast majority of postmodernists tend to argue that mysticism can not be part of any philosophy, including a political one. This article concentrates on the thought of Simone Weil, a unique French philosopher and mystic, in order to prove through her work that mysticism can potentially enrich political philosophy. This is being done by analyzing her work and attempting to underline the supernatural element between the human and society. This supernatural element will yield a further investigation of how Simone Weil's mysticism can affect political philosophy. In order to find this element, the concepts of the human and the society that occur in Simone Weil's philosophy will be analyzed separately. In the first part, it is analyzed how Simone Weil perceived humans. She drastically separates the human, who, in her thought, possesses a transcendent core that can be violated, from the person, who is illusionary. Meanwhile, the second part concentrates on Weil's perception of the relation between society and the human. Society is seen by Weil as the Platonic Great Beast, but it may also be a source of pure fulfillment – roots – for the human being. In this part of the study, the roots of a human being in society and the tragedy of uprootedness are discussed further. The third part develops an idea of why mysticism can be seen as an important part of political philosophy and why it should not be neglected: it provides a different angle – a divine one – for viewing people's daily lives and their culture. Mysticism always comes from a certain culture, and it is important, since a mystic communicates their thought through that culture; however, a mystic also is able to critically address the surrounding culture because of the divine point of view. That is why mysticism is essential for political philosophy.
