Suchergebnisse

The paper explores the paradoxes of the political philosophy of liberalism. Liberal conception of justice is incapable of providing grounds for an identity of liberalism. Liberals do not have a moral conception of their own. This is a source of a paradox. Political identity points to morality and moral identity points to politics. The aim of this paper is to clarify this paradox. Political liberalism is based on certain assumptions of a philosophy of culture. Liberals defend a conception of culture which justifies their inconsistencies. They lack any coherent conception of morality and politics. The article is an attempt to prove this by using the "final position" – an alternative to the Rawlsian "original position".

The paper explores the paradoxes of the political philosophy of liberalism. Liberal conception of justice is incapable of providing grounds for an identity of liberalism. Liberals do not have a moral conception of their own. This is a source of a paradox. Political identity points to morality and moral identity points to politics. The aim of this paper is to clarify this paradox. Political liberalism is based on certain assumptions of a philosophy of culture. Liberals defend a conception of culture which justifies their inconsistencies. They lack any coherent conception of morality and politics. The article is an attempt to prove this by using the "final position" – an alternative to the Rawlsian "original position".

The philosophy of culture put forward by Šalkauskis is a version of political philosophy. By using a typology of the relationship between philosophy and democracy we attempt to prove that his philosophy of culture encompasses not one but few different understandings of the relationship between democracy and philosophy. By comparing the ideas of Šalkauskis with the issues of contemporary political philosophy we can see that democracy today is developing by distancing itself from the principles that Šalkauskis presented in his philosophy of culture. The philosophy of culture as developed by Šalkauskis has two distinctive features. First of all, Christianity is interpreted through the matrix of culture and this is why it becomes compatible with democracy. Secondly, philosophy of culture is consciously transformed into ideology and this transformation is what allowed it to become an important factor in political discussions.

The philosophy of culture put forward by Šalkauskis is a version of political philosophy. By using a typology of the relationship between philosophy and democracy we attempt to prove that his philosophy of culture encompasses not one but few different understandings of the relationship between democracy and philosophy. By comparing the ideas of Šalkauskis with the issues of contemporary political philosophy we can see that democracy today is developing by distancing itself from the principles that Šalkauskis presented in his philosophy of culture. The philosophy of culture as developed by Šalkauskis has two distinctive features. First of all, Christianity is interpreted through the matrix of culture and this is why it becomes compatible with democracy. Secondly, philosophy of culture is consciously transformed into ideology and this transformation is what allowed it to become an important factor in political discussions.

The philosophy of culture put forward by Šalkauskis is a version of political philosophy. By using a typology of the relationship between philosophy and democracy we attempt to prove that his philosophy of culture encompasses not one but few different understandings of the relationship between democracy and philosophy. By comparing the ideas of Šalkauskis with the issues of contemporary political philosophy we can see that democracy today is developing by distancing itself from the principles that Šalkauskis presented in his philosophy of culture. The philosophy of culture as developed by Šalkauskis has two distinctive features. First of all, Christianity is interpreted through the matrix of culture and this is why it becomes compatible with democracy. Secondly, philosophy of culture is consciously transformed into ideology and this transformation is what allowed it to become an important factor in political discussions.

The philosophy of culture put forward by Šalkauskis is a version of political philosophy. By using a typology of the relationship between philosophy and democracy we attempt to prove that his philosophy of culture encompasses not one but few different understandings of the relationship between democracy and philosophy. By comparing the ideas of Šalkauskis with the issues of contemporary political philosophy we can see that democracy today is developing by distancing itself from the principles that Šalkauskis presented in his philosophy of culture. The philosophy of culture as developed by Šalkauskis has two distinctive features. First of all, Christianity is interpreted through the matrix of culture and this is why it becomes compatible with democracy. Secondly, philosophy of culture is consciously transformed into ideology and this transformation is what allowed it to become an important factor in political discussions.

Over the last few decades, political philosophers have been formulating the identity of their discipline not merely in terms of their inner objective. An aggressive attack of political scientists contributed significantly towards the perception of the identity of political philosophy. The definition of the purpose of political philosophy became dependent on the existence of a strong external opponent. This was hardly the case with the political philosophers representing the former generations. They contributed towards development of political philosophy without thinking about guard against representatives of other sciences. During the last few decades, political philosophers have come up with the definition of the purpose of their discipline. But they do not adhere to it in their real philosophical investigations. This non-adherence is caused not by the lack of professional ethics, will power or by dissimulation. Political philosophy as a discipline is too broad and controversial to be enclosed in the framework of a single definition of purpose. The definition of the purpose formulated during several decades of debates with political scientists, is oriented towards the external rather than internal use.

Over the last few decades, political philosophers have been formulating the identity of their discipline not merely in terms of their inner objective. An aggressive attack of political scientists contributed significantly towards the perception of the identity of political philosophy. The definition of the purpose of political philosophy became dependent on the existence of a strong external opponent. This was hardly the case with the political philosophers representing the former generations. They contributed towards development of political philosophy without thinking about guard against representatives of other sciences. During the last few decades, political philosophers have come up with the definition of the purpose of their discipline. But they do not adhere to it in their real philosophical investigations. This non-adherence is caused not by the lack of professional ethics, will power or by dissimulation. Political philosophy as a discipline is too broad and controversial to be enclosed in the framework of a single definition of purpose. The definition of the purpose formulated during several decades of debates with political scientists, is oriented towards the external rather than internal use.

Over the last few decades, political philosophers have been formulating the identity of their discipline not merely in terms of their inner objective. An aggressive attack of political scientists contributed significantly towards the perception of the identity of political philosophy. The definition of the purpose of political philosophy became dependent on the existence of a strong external opponent. This was hardly the case with the political philosophers representing the former generations. They contributed towards development of political philosophy without thinking about guard against representatives of other sciences. During the last few decades, political philosophers have come up with the definition of the purpose of their discipline. But they do not adhere to it in their real philosophical investigations. This non-adherence is caused not by the lack of professional ethics, will power or by dissimulation. Political philosophy as a discipline is too broad and controversial to be enclosed in the framework of a single definition of purpose. The definition of the purpose formulated during several decades of debates with political scientists, is oriented towards the external rather than internal use.

Over the last few decades, political philosophers have been formulating the identity of their discipline not merely in terms of their inner objective. An aggressive attack of political scientists contributed significantly towards the perception of the identity of political philosophy. The definition of the purpose of political philosophy became dependent on the existence of a strong external opponent. This was hardly the case with the political philosophers representing the former generations. They contributed towards development of political philosophy without thinking about guard against representatives of other sciences. During the last few decades, political philosophers have come up with the definition of the purpose of their discipline. But they do not adhere to it in their real philosophical investigations. This non-adherence is caused not by the lack of professional ethics, will power or by dissimulation. Political philosophy as a discipline is too broad and controversial to be enclosed in the framework of a single definition of purpose. The definition of the purpose formulated during several decades of debates with political scientists, is oriented towards the external rather than internal use.

The governmental promotion of culture philanthropy as a significant issue in culture policy is widely discussed in scientific literature. Many authors (Sulek 2010, Payton, 2000, etc.) argue that, though philanthropy concept has antique origins, at present still there is no comprehensive perception of its full meaning and no well-thought-out definition exists, thus, it is not astonishing that understanding of philanthropy is pretty much embedded in social, cultural and political settings. Culture philanthropy process involves different philanthropy actors – donors, intermediaries and recipients. The paper aims to discuss theoretical and practical aspects of culture philanthropy, using three differents approaches – perceptions by all three groups of actors in culture philanthropy. The paper analyses the concept of philanthropy as well as perceptions of culture policy in Lithuania. Data analysis is dwelling on the findings of the qualitative research conducted in 2014 on culture philanthropy actors' perceptions and experiences.

The governmental promotion of culture philanthropy as a significant issue in culture policy is widely discussed in scientific literature. Many authors (Sulek 2010, Payton, 2000, etc.) argue that, though philanthropy concept has antique origins, at present still there is no comprehensive perception of its full meaning and no well-thought-out definition exists, thus, it is not astonishing that understanding of philanthropy is pretty much embedded in social, cultural and political settings. Culture philanthropy process involves different philanthropy actors – donors, intermediaries and recipients. The paper aims to discuss theoretical and practical aspects of culture philanthropy, using three differents approaches – perceptions by all three groups of actors in culture philanthropy. The paper analyses the concept of philanthropy as well as perceptions of culture policy in Lithuania. Data analysis is dwelling on the findings of the qualitative research conducted in 2014 on culture philanthropy actors' perceptions and experiences.

The governmental promotion of culture philanthropy as a significant issue in culture policy is widely discussed in scientific literature. Many authors (Sulek 2010, Payton, 2000, etc.) argue that, though philanthropy concept has antique origins, at present still there is no comprehensive perception of its full meaning and no well-thought-out definition exists, thus, it is not astonishing that understanding of philanthropy is pretty much embedded in social, cultural and political settings. Culture philanthropy process involves different philanthropy actors – donors, intermediaries and recipients. The paper aims to discuss theoretical and practical aspects of culture philanthropy, using three differents approaches – perceptions by all three groups of actors in culture philanthropy. The paper analyses the concept of philanthropy as well as perceptions of culture policy in Lithuania. Data analysis is dwelling on the findings of the qualitative research conducted in 2014 on culture philanthropy actors' perceptions and experiences.

The governmental promotion of culture philanthropy as a significant issue in culture policy is widely discussed in scientific literature. Many authors (Sulek 2010, Payton, 2000, etc.) argue that, though philanthropy concept has antique origins, at present still there is no comprehensive perception of its full meaning and no well-thought-out definition exists, thus, it is not astonishing that understanding of philanthropy is pretty much embedded in social, cultural and political settings. Culture philanthropy process involves different philanthropy actors – donors, intermediaries and recipients. The paper aims to discuss theoretical and practical aspects of culture philanthropy, using three differents approaches – perceptions by all three groups of actors in culture philanthropy. The paper analyses the concept of philanthropy as well as perceptions of culture policy in Lithuania. Data analysis is dwelling on the findings of the qualitative research conducted in 2014 on culture philanthropy actors' perceptions and experiences.