Suchergebnisse

This paper discusses the encounter of Enlightenment and Romanticism in John Stuart Mill's philosophy. The majority of authors and Mill's commentators (especially John Gray) tend to look at it as the theory with principles of Enlightenment. The smaller part of commentators (Nicholas Capaldi, Isaiah Berlin) sees in Mill's conception also the principles of Romanticism modifying the traditional interpretation of English philosopher. But in fact this not-dominant approach practically is not analysed – it is limited only with brief notices. Therefore this master work is dedicated to attitude that Mill's philosophy develops both from basic principles of Enlightenment and those of Romanticism. The inconsistency of Mill's thought could be related with conflict of Enlightenment and Romanticism which, according to Alvydas Jokubaitis, could be named as the encounter of naturalism and expressivism. In conformity with this separation we could clearly see that Mill is characterized by naturalistic orientation (mostly in area of science) and expressivist orientation (in examination of person and partly – of society). There are indicated the essential principles of Enlightenment in Mill's philosophy: 1) meliorism (the belief that persons, groups of persons, institutions, science, etc. improve and progresses) which denotes that utilitarian and political theory of this philosopher is pictured as stimulating social, as well as closely related intellectual progress; 2) egalitarianism (the belief that there is no valid hierarchy between persons and groups of persons) which denotes that hierarchy and social, political inequality, the existence of whom means eluding of justice, are rejected; 3) rationalism (the belief that person's mind and logic are the essential origin of knowledge so thought and behaviour have to be grounded on it) which denotes that rational intelligible truth, enabling scientific knowledge and rational political theory, exists; 4) universalism (the belief that there are acceptable ideas, social constructs to everyone without reference to historical, cultural, etc. conditions) which denotes general acceptability of ideals of civilization and representative government. Meanwhile the essential principles of Romanticism in Mill's philosophy are 1) individualism (the belief that persons interests are prior to that of society therefore society is build for the sake of individual) which denotes the delineation of limit from society through cultivation of personal features but also denotes the permanent relation with it through individualized government; 2) expressivism (the belief that artistic creation, feelings and morality are vital means for self-expression and self-creation) which denotes the separation of the truths of science and art which in turn enables the poetisation of the world and aestheticalising as well as emotionalizing of morality; 3) pluralism (the belief that society consists of various individuals with diverse conceptions of the good life) which denotes that there exists the basic diversity of human identities and determined of this condition – the diversity of opinions and attitudes. It can be observed that principles of Enlightenment, as well of Romanticism, are characterized by internal coherence and interconnection in them. Situation changes when principles of mentioned doctrines encounter with each other (as it is in Mill's philosophy). Then it can be clearly seen that, suppose, universalism begin to contradict pluralism, rationalism contradicts expressivism, etc. Probably the only principle, which do not confront, is meliorism referring to Mill's attitude that persons and societies, art and science are improving.

This paper discusses the encounter of Enlightenment and Romanticism in John Stuart Mill's philosophy. The majority of authors and Mill's commentators (especially John Gray) tend to look at it as the theory with principles of Enlightenment. The smaller part of commentators (Nicholas Capaldi, Isaiah Berlin) sees in Mill's conception also the principles of Romanticism modifying the traditional interpretation of English philosopher. But in fact this not-dominant approach practically is not analysed – it is limited only with brief notices. Therefore this master work is dedicated to attitude that Mill's philosophy develops both from basic principles of Enlightenment and those of Romanticism. The inconsistency of Mill's thought could be related with conflict of Enlightenment and Romanticism which, according to Alvydas Jokubaitis, could be named as the encounter of naturalism and expressivism. In conformity with this separation we could clearly see that Mill is characterized by naturalistic orientation (mostly in area of science) and expressivist orientation (in examination of person and partly – of society). There are indicated the essential principles of Enlightenment in Mill's philosophy: 1) meliorism (the belief that persons, groups of persons, institutions, science, etc. improve and progresses) which denotes that utilitarian and political theory of this philosopher is pictured as stimulating social, as well as closely related intellectual progress; 2) egalitarianism (the belief that there is no valid hierarchy between persons and groups of persons) which denotes that hierarchy and social, political inequality, the existence of whom means eluding of justice, are rejected; 3) rationalism (the belief that person's mind and logic are the essential origin of knowledge so thought and behaviour have to be grounded on it) which denotes that rational intelligible truth, enabling scientific knowledge and rational political theory, exists; 4) universalism (the belief that there are acceptable ideas, social constructs to everyone without reference to historical, cultural, etc. conditions) which denotes general acceptability of ideals of civilization and representative government. Meanwhile the essential principles of Romanticism in Mill's philosophy are 1) individualism (the belief that persons interests are prior to that of society therefore society is build for the sake of individual) which denotes the delineation of limit from society through cultivation of personal features but also denotes the permanent relation with it through individualized government; 2) expressivism (the belief that artistic creation, feelings and morality are vital means for self-expression and self-creation) which denotes the separation of the truths of science and art which in turn enables the poetisation of the world and aestheticalising as well as emotionalizing of morality; 3) pluralism (the belief that society consists of various individuals with diverse conceptions of the good life) which denotes that there exists the basic diversity of human identities and determined of this condition – the diversity of opinions and attitudes. It can be observed that principles of Enlightenment, as well of Romanticism, are characterized by internal coherence and interconnection in them. Situation changes when principles of mentioned doctrines encounter with each other (as it is in Mill's philosophy). Then it can be clearly seen that, suppose, universalism begin to contradict pluralism, rationalism contradicts expressivism, etc. Probably the only principle, which do not confront, is meliorism referring to Mill's attitude that persons and societies, art and science are improving.

This paper discusses the encounter of Enlightenment and Romanticism in John Stuart Mill's philosophy. The majority of authors and Mill's commentators (especially John Gray) tend to look at it as the theory with principles of Enlightenment. The smaller part of commentators (Nicholas Capaldi, Isaiah Berlin) sees in Mill's conception also the principles of Romanticism modifying the traditional interpretation of English philosopher. But in fact this not-dominant approach practically is not analysed – it is limited only with brief notices. Therefore this master work is dedicated to attitude that Mill's philosophy develops both from basic principles of Enlightenment and those of Romanticism. The inconsistency of Mill's thought could be related with conflict of Enlightenment and Romanticism which, according to Alvydas Jokubaitis, could be named as the encounter of naturalism and expressivism. In conformity with this separation we could clearly see that Mill is characterized by naturalistic orientation (mostly in area of science) and expressivist orientation (in examination of person and partly – of society). There are indicated the essential principles of Enlightenment in Mill's philosophy: 1) meliorism (the belief that persons, groups of persons, institutions, science, etc. improve and progresses) which denotes that utilitarian and political theory of this philosopher is pictured as stimulating social, as well as closely related intellectual progress; 2) egalitarianism (the belief that there is no valid hierarchy between persons and groups of persons) which denotes that hierarchy and social, political inequality, the existence of whom means eluding of justice, are rejected; 3) rationalism (the belief that person's mind and logic are the essential origin of knowledge so thought and behaviour have to be grounded on it) which denotes that rational intelligible truth, enabling scientific knowledge and rational political theory, exists; 4) universalism (the belief that there are acceptable ideas, social constructs to everyone without reference to historical, cultural, etc. conditions) which denotes general acceptability of ideals of civilization and representative government. Meanwhile the essential principles of Romanticism in Mill's philosophy are 1) individualism (the belief that persons interests are prior to that of society therefore society is build for the sake of individual) which denotes the delineation of limit from society through cultivation of personal features but also denotes the permanent relation with it through individualized government; 2) expressivism (the belief that artistic creation, feelings and morality are vital means for self-expression and self-creation) which denotes the separation of the truths of science and art which in turn enables the poetisation of the world and aestheticalising as well as emotionalizing of morality; 3) pluralism (the belief that society consists of various individuals with diverse conceptions of the good life) which denotes that there exists the basic diversity of human identities and determined of this condition – the diversity of opinions and attitudes. It can be observed that principles of Enlightenment, as well of Romanticism, are characterized by internal coherence and interconnection in them. Situation changes when principles of mentioned doctrines encounter with each other (as it is in Mill's philosophy). Then it can be clearly seen that, suppose, universalism begin to contradict pluralism, rationalism contradicts expressivism, etc. Probably the only principle, which do not confront, is meliorism referring to Mill's attitude that persons and societies, art and science are improving.

This paper discusses the encounter of Enlightenment and Romanticism in John Stuart Mill's philosophy. The majority of authors and Mill's commentators (especially John Gray) tend to look at it as the theory with principles of Enlightenment. The smaller part of commentators (Nicholas Capaldi, Isaiah Berlin) sees in Mill's conception also the principles of Romanticism modifying the traditional interpretation of English philosopher. But in fact this not-dominant approach practically is not analysed – it is limited only with brief notices. Therefore this master work is dedicated to attitude that Mill's philosophy develops both from basic principles of Enlightenment and those of Romanticism. The inconsistency of Mill's thought could be related with conflict of Enlightenment and Romanticism which, according to Alvydas Jokubaitis, could be named as the encounter of naturalism and expressivism. In conformity with this separation we could clearly see that Mill is characterized by naturalistic orientation (mostly in area of science) and expressivist orientation (in examination of person and partly – of society). There are indicated the essential principles of Enlightenment in Mill's philosophy: 1) meliorism (the belief that persons, groups of persons, institutions, science, etc. improve and progresses) which denotes that utilitarian and political theory of this philosopher is pictured as stimulating social, as well as closely related intellectual progress; 2) egalitarianism (the belief that there is no valid hierarchy between persons and groups of persons) which denotes that hierarchy and social, political inequality, the existence of whom means eluding of justice, are rejected; 3) rationalism (the belief that person's mind and logic are the essential origin of knowledge so thought and behaviour have to be grounded on it) which denotes that rational intelligible truth, enabling scientific knowledge and rational political theory, exists; 4) universalism (the belief that there are acceptable ideas, social constructs to everyone without reference to historical, cultural, etc. conditions) which denotes general acceptability of ideals of civilization and representative government. Meanwhile the essential principles of Romanticism in Mill's philosophy are 1) individualism (the belief that persons interests are prior to that of society therefore society is build for the sake of individual) which denotes the delineation of limit from society through cultivation of personal features but also denotes the permanent relation with it through individualized government; 2) expressivism (the belief that artistic creation, feelings and morality are vital means for self-expression and self-creation) which denotes the separation of the truths of science and art which in turn enables the poetisation of the world and aestheticalising as well as emotionalizing of morality; 3) pluralism (the belief that society consists of various individuals with diverse conceptions of the good life) which denotes that there exists the basic diversity of human identities and determined of this condition – the diversity of opinions and attitudes. It can be observed that principles of Enlightenment, as well of Romanticism, are characterized by internal coherence and interconnection in them. Situation changes when principles of mentioned doctrines encounter with each other (as it is in Mill's philosophy). Then it can be clearly seen that, suppose, universalism begin to contradict pluralism, rationalism contradicts expressivism, etc. Probably the only principle, which do not confront, is meliorism referring to Mill's attitude that persons and societies, art and science are improving.

The aim of this article is to discuss the relation between political philosophy and political science. The development of political science highlighted two main approaches toward this relation. One group of political scientists says that political science must stay close to political philosophy while another group demands strict dissociation. Behaviorism in political science marked the enormous growth of influence of the later group. Leo Straus appeared as a rigid critic of behavioral political science and an influential defender of political philophy. This paper deals with his criticism of basic premises of political science and his attitude to the significance of political philospohy.

The aim of this article is to discuss the relation between political philosophy and political science. The development of political science highlighted two main approaches toward this relation. One group of political scientists says that political science must stay close to political philosophy while another group demands strict dissociation. Behaviorism in political science marked the enormous growth of influence of the later group. Leo Straus appeared as a rigid critic of behavioral political science and an influential defender of political philophy. This paper deals with his criticism of basic premises of political science and his attitude to the significance of political philospohy.

The aim of this article is to discuss the relation between political philosophy and political science. The development of political science highlighted two main approaches toward this relation. One group of political scientists says that political science must stay close to political philosophy while another group demands strict dissociation. Behaviorism in political science marked the enormous growth of influence of the later group. Leo Straus appeared as a rigid critic of behavioral political science and an influential defender of political philophy. This paper deals with his criticism of basic premises of political science and his attitude to the significance of political philospohy.

The aim of this article is to discuss the relation between political philosophy and political science. The development of political science highlighted two main approaches toward this relation. One group of political scientists says that political science must stay close to political philosophy while another group demands strict dissociation. Behaviorism in political science marked the enormous growth of influence of the later group. Leo Straus appeared as a rigid critic of behavioral political science and an influential defender of political philophy. This paper deals with his criticism of basic premises of political science and his attitude to the significance of political philospohy.

Philosophy and Politics in Works of Alasdair MacIntyre and Leo Strauss. This paper analyzes the differences between conceptions of philosophy and attitudes towards modern politics of Alasdair MacIntyre and Leo Strauss. It is argued that MacIntyre's conception of philosophy is characterized by a tendency toward historicism uncharacteristic of Leo Strauss. It is also argued that MacIntyre faces problems in his work in assessing the modern state from the point of viewpoint of Aristotelian clasifiation regimes. Leo Strauss avoids such a problem. This difference is due to MacIntyre's propensity for historicism. Because MacIntyre constructs his theory on the basis of the Aristotelian tradition of philosophy, and interprets the most important of these traditions more historically than Strauss, MacIntyre cannot apply their philosophical insights to the modern state, which is vastly different from the ancient Greek pole. Strauss avoids this problem because, in his understanding, classical philosophy reflects on the human experience of politics, which is characterized by certain features independent of historical circumstances.

Philosophy and Politics in Works of Alasdair MacIntyre and Leo Strauss. This paper analyzes the differences between conceptions of philosophy and attitudes towards modern politics of Alasdair MacIntyre and Leo Strauss. It is argued that MacIntyre's conception of philosophy is characterized by a tendency toward historicism uncharacteristic of Leo Strauss. It is also argued that MacIntyre faces problems in his work in assessing the modern state from the point of viewpoint of Aristotelian clasifiation regimes. Leo Strauss avoids such a problem. This difference is due to MacIntyre's propensity for historicism. Because MacIntyre constructs his theory on the basis of the Aristotelian tradition of philosophy, and interprets the most important of these traditions more historically than Strauss, MacIntyre cannot apply their philosophical insights to the modern state, which is vastly different from the ancient Greek pole. Strauss avoids this problem because, in his understanding, classical philosophy reflects on the human experience of politics, which is characterized by certain features independent of historical circumstances.

Philosophy and Politics in Works of Alasdair MacIntyre and Leo Strauss. This paper analyzes the differences between conceptions of philosophy and attitudes towards modern politics of Alasdair MacIntyre and Leo Strauss. It is argued that MacIntyre's conception of philosophy is characterized by a tendency toward historicism uncharacteristic of Leo Strauss. It is also argued that MacIntyre faces problems in his work in assessing the modern state from the point of viewpoint of Aristotelian clasifiation regimes. Leo Strauss avoids such a problem. This difference is due to MacIntyre's propensity for historicism. Because MacIntyre constructs his theory on the basis of the Aristotelian tradition of philosophy, and interprets the most important of these traditions more historically than Strauss, MacIntyre cannot apply their philosophical insights to the modern state, which is vastly different from the ancient Greek pole. Strauss avoids this problem because, in his understanding, classical philosophy reflects on the human experience of politics, which is characterized by certain features independent of historical circumstances.

Philosophy and Politics in Works of Alasdair MacIntyre and Leo Strauss. This paper analyzes the differences between conceptions of philosophy and attitudes towards modern politics of Alasdair MacIntyre and Leo Strauss. It is argued that MacIntyre's conception of philosophy is characterized by a tendency toward historicism uncharacteristic of Leo Strauss. It is also argued that MacIntyre faces problems in his work in assessing the modern state from the point of viewpoint of Aristotelian clasifiation regimes. Leo Strauss avoids such a problem. This difference is due to MacIntyre's propensity for historicism. Because MacIntyre constructs his theory on the basis of the Aristotelian tradition of philosophy, and interprets the most important of these traditions more historically than Strauss, MacIntyre cannot apply their philosophical insights to the modern state, which is vastly different from the ancient Greek pole. Strauss avoids this problem because, in his understanding, classical philosophy reflects on the human experience of politics, which is characterized by certain features independent of historical circumstances.

The aim of this article is to discuss the development of the relation between political philosophy and political science. The main causes and possible perspectives of that development are elaborated. There are explored philosophical ideas which influenced the emergence of political science, the process of its institutionalisation and the relation between political science and political philosophy. The analysis of the process of institutionalisation aims at identification of the main causes of the conflict between two disciplines. The culmination of that conflict occured at sixth decade of twentieth century and was named "The Behavioral Revolution". The sharp antagonism lasted nearly two decates and when it came to an end the relation between political philosophy and political science became stable though ambiguous.

The aim of this article is to discuss the development of the relation between political philosophy and political science. The main causes and possible perspectives of that development are elaborated. There are explored philosophical ideas which influenced the emergence of political science, the process of its institutionalisation and the relation between political science and political philosophy. The analysis of the process of institutionalisation aims at identification of the main causes of the conflict between two disciplines. The culmination of that conflict occured at sixth decade of twentieth century and was named "The Behavioral Revolution". The sharp antagonism lasted nearly two decates and when it came to an end the relation between political philosophy and political science became stable though ambiguous.

The aim of this article is to discuss the development of the relation between political philosophy and political science. The main causes and possible perspectives of that development are elaborated. There are explored philosophical ideas which influenced the emergence of political science, the process of its institutionalisation and the relation between political science and political philosophy. The analysis of the process of institutionalisation aims at identification of the main causes of the conflict between two disciplines. The culmination of that conflict occured at sixth decade of twentieth century and was named "The Behavioral Revolution". The sharp antagonism lasted nearly two decates and when it came to an end the relation between political philosophy and political science became stable though ambiguous.