Suchergebnisse

Problem setting. Although modern humanity has proclaimed the universality of human dignity and desperately upholds this value, which is fully in harmony with freedom, equality and fraternity, the truth is that in reality it has not yet been able to go beyond the status of a citizen of the nation state in its legal and political conventions. . In this sense, a very important issue is the representation of the real situation around the categories of "universal citizenship", "human rights" and "globalization" in the midst of the geopolitical conflict in Latin America caused by the persecution of 21st century socialism.
Paper objective. This critical essay aims to discuss the real significance of such political and legal categories as "universal citizenship", "human rights" and "globalization" in the midst of the geopolitical conflict that led to the persecution of 21st century socialism in Latin America.
Methodology. The methodological field of the research uses documentary observation and dialectical hermeneutics, which help to compare and reconcile categories with different semantic contexts to reconstruct their true meaning. The technique of writing this research was the methodological procedure of the hermeneutic circle, which is a sequential analysis of numerous written documentary sources, combined in a kind of dialogic context with hidden messages that can be read between the lines, as well as interpretive theories and critical thinking.
Paper main body. There is much in common between the contemporary political and philosophical programs of the Western cultural space, of which Latin Americans are a part, and the ideas of universal citizenship, globalization, and human rights in a spirit of deep militant universalism that function fully today not only as abstract theories at the disposal of peoples and nations who continue to work to improve their living conditions and strengthen their freedom to exist and act in a better world.
As for the tradition of human rights as a modern expression of natural law, it dates back to ancient times and even dates back to the great religions, which in their own way developed and substantiated the idea of human dignity. The history of the Institute of Human Rights has a pronounced anthropocentric character and deserves to be expanded in accordance with the geopolitical realities of the modern world, in order to protect the indisputable value of all life forms affected by such phenomena as global warming and the associated greenhouse effect. economic growth that requires technological and industrial modernization. For its part, "globalization with a human face" means the ability to interconnect and enrich not only material and financial resources, due to the insatiability of international markets, but also the cycle of knowledge and people required by modern world democracies to strengthen their social and human capital. .
In this context, the idea of global or universal citizenship, while seeming utopian, is of paramount importance as it broadens the political phenomenon of citizenship, which is vital to modern democracies or polyarchies, forgetting the tradition of history ruled by supreme forces and structures. Although, according to K. Popper, already the historicist concept assigned a fundamental role in building a reality conducive to the exercise of freedom, the citizen, conscious and active.
Thus, if globalization is reduced purely to the internationalization of capital and selective human and technological resources solely in the interests of corporate elites and does not turn into a globalization of social welfare and dignity - a process in which universal citizenship would be a logical consequence, then partial globalization, which can do little to promote an open society in the 21st century.
Conclusions of the research. The study concludes that if globalization is reduced to the internationalization of capital and individual human and technological resources for the benefit of the corporate elite and does not extend to the globalization of social welfare and dignity, where universal citizenship would be a logical consequence, such globalization is unlikely to contribute building an open society of the XXI century.

Problem setting. Although modern humanity has proclaimed the universality of human dignity and desperately upholds this value, which is fully in harmony with freedom, equality and fraternity, the truth is that in reality it has not yet been able to go beyond the status of a citizen of the nation state in its legal and political conventions. . In this sense, a very important issue is the representation of the real situation around the categories of "universal citizenship", "human rights" and "globalization" in the midst of the geopolitical conflict in Latin America caused by the persecution of 21st century socialism. Paper objective. This critical essay aims to discuss the real significance of such political and legal categories as "universal citizenship", "human rights" and "globalization" in the midst of the geopolitical conflict that led to the persecution of 21st century socialism in Latin America. Methodology. The methodological field of the research uses documentary observation and dialectical hermeneutics, which help to compare and reconcile categories with different semantic contexts to reconstruct their true meaning. The technique of writing this research was the methodological procedure of the hermeneutic circle, which is a sequential analysis of numerous written documentary sources, combined in a kind of dialogic context with hidden messages that can be read between the lines, as well as interpretive theories and critical thinking. Paper main body. There is much in common between the contemporary political and philosophical programs of the Western cultural space, of which Latin Americans are a part, and the ideas of universal citizenship, globalization, and human rights in a spirit of deep militant universalism that function fully today not only as abstract theories at the disposal of peoples and nations who continue to work to improve their living conditions and strengthen their freedom to exist and act in a better world. As for the tradition of human rights as a modern expression of natural law, it dates back to ancient times and even dates back to the great religions, which in their own way developed and substantiated the idea of human dignity. The history of the Institute of Human Rights has a pronounced anthropocentric character and deserves to be expanded in accordance with the geopolitical realities of the modern world, in order to protect the indisputable value of all life forms affected by such phenomena as global warming and the associated greenhouse effect. economic growth that requires technological and industrial modernization. For its part, "globalization with a human face" means the ability to interconnect and enrich not only material and financial resources, due to the insatiability of international markets, but also the cycle of knowledge and people required by modern world democracies to strengthen their social and human capital. . In this context, the idea of global or universal citizenship, while seeming utopian, is of paramount importance as it broadens the political phenomenon of citizenship, which is vital to modern democracies or polyarchies, forgetting the tradition of history ruled by supreme forces and structures. Although, according to K. Popper, already the historicist concept assigned a fundamental role in building a reality conducive to the exercise of freedom, the citizen, conscious and active. Thus, if globalization is reduced purely to the internationalization of capital and selective human and technological resources solely in the interests of corporate elites and does not turn into a globalization of social welfare and dignity - a process in which universal citizenship would be a logical consequence, then partial globalization, which can do little to promote an open society in the 21st century. Conclusions of the research. The study concludes that if globalization is reduced to the internationalization of capital and individual human and technological resources for the benefit of the corporate elite and does not extend to the globalization of social welfare and dignity, where universal citizenship would be a logical consequence, such globalization is unlikely to contribute building an open society of the XXI century. ; Статья посвящена исследованию дискурса по поводу категорий "универсальное гражданство", "права человека" и "глобализация", а также реальной ситуации вокруг данных категорий в условиях геополитического конфликта в Латинской Америке. В результате исследования сделан вывод о том, что если глобализация будет сведена к интернационализации капитала, а также отдельных человеческих и технологических ресурсов в пользу корпоративной элиты и не распространится на глобализацию социального благополучия и достоинства жизни, при котором универсальное гражданство было бы логическим следствием, такая глобализация вряд ли сможет способствовать развитию открытого общества XXI века. ; Стаття присвячена дослідженню дискурсу з приводу категорії "універсальне громадянство", "права людини" й "глобалізація" та реальної ситуації навколо цих категорій в розпалі геополітичного конфлікту у Латинській Америці. В результаті дослідження досягнуто висновку: якщо глобалізація буде зведена до інтернаціоналізації капіталів, а також окремих людських і технологічних ресурсів на користь корпоративній еліті і не розповсюдиться на глобалізацію соціального добробуту та гідності життя, де універсальне громадянство було б логічним наслідком, така глобалізація навряд чи зможе сприяти розвитку відкритого суспільства ХХІ століття.

Problem setting. Although modern humanity has proclaimed the universality of human dignity and desperately upholds this value, which is fully in harmony with freedom, equality and fraternity, the truth is that in reality it has not yet been able to go beyond the status of a citizen of the nation state in its legal and political conventions. . In this sense, a very important issue is the representation of the real situation around the categories of "universal citizenship", "human rights" and "globalization" in the midst of the geopolitical conflict in Latin America caused by the persecution of 21st century socialism. Paper objective. This critical essay aims to discuss the real significance of such political and legal categories as "universal citizenship", "human rights" and "globalization" in the midst of the geopolitical conflict that led to the persecution of 21st century socialism in Latin America. Methodology. The methodological field of the research uses documentary observation and dialectical hermeneutics, which help to compare and reconcile categories with different semantic contexts to reconstruct their true meaning. The technique of writing this research was the methodological procedure of the hermeneutic circle, which is a sequential analysis of numerous written documentary sources, combined in a kind of dialogic context with hidden messages that can be read between the lines, as well as interpretive theories and critical thinking. Paper main body. There is much in common between the contemporary political and philosophical programs of the Western cultural space, of which Latin Americans are a part, and the ideas of universal citizenship, globalization, and human rights in a spirit of deep militant universalism that function fully today not only as abstract theories at the disposal of peoples and nations who continue to work to improve their living conditions and strengthen their freedom to exist and act in a better world. As for the tradition of human rights as a modern expression of natural law, it dates back to ancient times and even dates back to the great religions, which in their own way developed and substantiated the idea of human dignity. The history of the Institute of Human Rights has a pronounced anthropocentric character and deserves to be expanded in accordance with the geopolitical realities of the modern world, in order to protect the indisputable value of all life forms affected by such phenomena as global warming and the associated greenhouse effect. economic growth that requires technological and industrial modernization. For its part, "globalization with a human face" means the ability to interconnect and enrich not only material and financial resources, due to the insatiability of international markets, but also the cycle of knowledge and people required by modern world democracies to strengthen their social and human capital. . In this context, the idea of global or universal citizenship, while seeming utopian, is of paramount importance as it broadens the political phenomenon of citizenship, which is vital to modern democracies or polyarchies, forgetting the tradition of history ruled by supreme forces and structures. Although, according to K. Popper, already the historicist concept assigned a fundamental role in building a reality conducive to the exercise of freedom, the citizen, conscious and active. Thus, if globalization is reduced purely to the internationalization of capital and selective human and technological resources solely in the interests of corporate elites and does not turn into a globalization of social welfare and dignity - a process in which universal citizenship would be a logical consequence, then partial globalization, which can do little to promote an open society in the 21st century. Conclusions of the research. The study concludes that if globalization is reduced to the internationalization of capital and individual human and technological resources for the benefit of the corporate elite and does not extend to the globalization of social welfare and dignity, where universal citizenship would be a logical consequence, such globalization is unlikely to contribute building an open society of the XXI century. ; Статья посвящена исследованию дискурса по поводу категорий "универсальное гражданство", "права человека" и "глобализация", а также реальной ситуации вокруг данных категорий в условиях геополитического конфликта в Латинской Америке. В результате исследования сделан вывод о том, что если глобализация будет сведена к интернационализации капитала, а также отдельных человеческих и технологических ресурсов в пользу корпоративной элиты и не распространится на глобализацию социального благополучия и достоинства жизни, при котором универсальное гражданство было бы логическим следствием, такая глобализация вряд ли сможет способствовать развитию открытого общества XXI века. ; Стаття присвячена дослідженню дискурсу з приводу категорії "універсальне громадянство", "права людини" й "глобалізація" та реальної ситуації навколо цих категорій в розпалі геополітичного конфлікту у Латинській Америці. В результаті дослідження досягнуто висновку: якщо глобалізація буде зведена до інтернаціоналізації капіталів, а також окремих людських і технологічних ресурсів на користь корпоративній еліті і не розповсюдиться на глобалізацію соціального добробуту та гідності життя, де універсальне громадянство було б логічним наслідком, така глобалізація навряд чи зможе сприяти розвитку відкритого суспільства ХХІ століття.

Problem setting. Critical thinking is an attribute of consciousness that can be manifested in all human activities where it is required, as a condition ofpossibility, in the use of critical reason and deliberation. Consequently, it is in the domains of politics that critical thinking is used more frequently, to discuss the scope and concrete significance of the discourses and practices that, from the exercise ofpublic powers, are deployed on intelligent citizenship and with the minimum necessary of information for peer deliberation.Recent research and publications analysis. The term «critical thinking» itself is inextricably linked with the concept of «criticism. The Modern Dictionary of Social Sciences defines the term «criticism» as «a way of spiritual activity, the main task of which is to give a holistic assessment of the phenomenon, revealing its contradictions, strengths and weaknesses». Critical thinking is understood as a system of judgments, which is used to analyze things and events with the formulation ofsound conclusions and allows us to make informed estimates, interpretations, and also apply the results to situations and problems. According to a number of researchers (Palacios, Alvarez, Moreira, and Moran, 2017), critical thinking is a type of reasoning that can be defined differently, but most of these reasoning always have something to do with the act of a survey or assessment. For this reason, speaking of critical thinking in general terms, references are made to questions and assessments, which ultimately make it possible to express a judgment or substantiate a position regarding a fact, phenomenon or idea. There is a position that the transition to a critical level of thinking in a particular community is a necessary prerequisite for the beginning of the civilized development of this community.Paper objective. The objective of this article is to deconstruct the most common contributions of critical thinking, as a form ofparticipation and political deliberation. It is about investigating what it implies for a social actor or political subject to think critically, by reviewing different theoretical and legal developments, which have been propping up dialectically in the West, since the advent of the philosophical program of political modernity, a culture of critical thinking that subsumes to different notions such as: freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, autonomy of the person, rights of resistance to oppression and free development of personality.Methodology. Methodologically it is a research of documentary design developed in the coordinates of the philosophical essay, next to the Latin American philosopher and the revision of the most popular political theory.Paper main body. Democracy is the natural space of critical thinking. In it, the individual - and beyond, the social movements - find the basic conditions for the development of criticality: freedom (recognition in the legal plane offreedom of thought and expression), and the possibility of dissenting in order to seek social change. In this sense, critical thinking is not the exclusive patrimony of a progressive or conservative ideology, but of every person and social group that, in a context of democratic exercise, think about the established order and its transformation.Totalitarian systems repress critical thinking, and although they do not cancel it due to the resistance of some dissenting voices, they prevent it from becoming generalized in the population. The change or conformation ofan order of justice, equality and participation, aspiration present in the critical vision of society, is replaced in totalitarianism (either from the right or from the left) by an ideology of control, where freedom is curtailed, to sow in the population the belief in a non-existent functional order, when in reality it is devoid of a minimum of rationality.Democratic systems, in contrast to totalitarian systems, promote freedom of expression and recognize the right of citizens to think differently from what is considered normal in society. In this way, critical thinking does not represent a threat to democracy, but is part of it; while for totalitarianism, it is simply subversive and dangerous.Conclusions of the research. Among the main findings, the idea that critical thinking is not the exclusive patrimony of certain self-defined political and ideological tendencies as progressive in the region stands out. It is concluded that, this way of thinking is uncomfortable per se for all the paradigms that serve as the basis for the status quo, in politics and society. ; В статье обосновывается, что критическое мышление, будучи атрибутом че­ловеческого сознания, так или иначе, проявляет себя во всех видах деятельности человека, предполагающих использование критического разума и последующего дис­курса. Обращается внимание, что чаще всего критическое мышление применяется именно в политико-правовой сфере. Утверждается, что критическое мышление предполагает для своего применения демократическую культуру, которая способ­ствует толерантности, политическим дебатам и социальному консенсусу. ; У статті обґрунтовується, що критичне мислення, будучи атрибутом людської свідомості, так чи інакше, проявляє себе в усіх видах діяльності людини, що перед­бачають використання критичного розуму та подальшого дискурсу. Доводиться, що найчастіше критичне мислення застосовується саме в політико-правовій сфері. Стверджується, що критичне мислення передбачає для свого застосування демо­кратичну культуру, яка сприяє толерантності, політичним дебатам та соціально­му консенсусу.

Problem setting. Critical thinking is an attribute of consciousness that can be manifested in all human activities where it is required, as a condition ofpossibility, in the use of critical reason and deliberation. Consequently, it is in the domains of politics that critical thinking is used more frequently, to discuss the scope and concrete significance of the discourses and practices that, from the exercise ofpublic powers, are deployed on intelligent citizenship and with the minimum necessary of information for peer deliberation.Recent research and publications analysis. The term «critical thinking» itself is inextricably linked with the concept of «criticism. The Modern Dictionary of Social Sciences defines the term «criticism» as «a way of spiritual activity, the main task of which is to give a holistic assessment of the phenomenon, revealing its contradictions, strengths and weaknesses». Critical thinking is understood as a system of judgments, which is used to analyze things and events with the formulation ofsound conclusions and allows us to make informed estimates, interpretations, and also apply the results to situations and problems. According to a number of researchers (Palacios, Alvarez, Moreira, and Moran, 2017), critical thinking is a type of reasoning that can be defined differently, but most of these reasoning always have something to do with the act of a survey or assessment. For this reason, speaking of critical thinking in general terms, references are made to questions and assessments, which ultimately make it possible to express a judgment or substantiate a position regarding a fact, phenomenon or idea. There is a position that the transition to a critical level of thinking in a particular community is a necessary prerequisite for the beginning of the civilized development of this community.Paper objective. The objective of this article is to deconstruct the most common contributions of critical thinking, as a form ofparticipation and political deliberation. It is about investigating what it implies for a social actor or political subject to think critically, by reviewing different theoretical and legal developments, which have been propping up dialectically in the West, since the advent of the philosophical program of political modernity, a culture of critical thinking that subsumes to different notions such as: freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, autonomy of the person, rights of resistance to oppression and free development of personality.Methodology. Methodologically it is a research of documentary design developed in the coordinates of the philosophical essay, next to the Latin American philosopher and the revision of the most popular political theory.Paper main body. Democracy is the natural space of critical thinking. In it, the individual - and beyond, the social movements - find the basic conditions for the development of criticality: freedom (recognition in the legal plane offreedom of thought and expression), and the possibility of dissenting in order to seek social change. In this sense, critical thinking is not the exclusive patrimony of a progressive or conservative ideology, but of every person and social group that, in a context of democratic exercise, think about the established order and its transformation.Totalitarian systems repress critical thinking, and although they do not cancel it due to the resistance of some dissenting voices, they prevent it from becoming generalized in the population. The change or conformation ofan order of justice, equality and participation, aspiration present in the critical vision of society, is replaced in totalitarianism (either from the right or from the left) by an ideology of control, where freedom is curtailed, to sow in the population the belief in a non-existent functional order, when in reality it is devoid of a minimum of rationality.Democratic systems, in contrast to totalitarian systems, promote freedom of expression and recognize the right of citizens to think differently from what is considered normal in society. In this way, critical thinking does not represent a threat to democracy, but is part of it; while for totalitarianism, it is simply subversive and dangerous.Conclusions of the research. Among the main findings, the idea that critical thinking is not the exclusive patrimony of certain self-defined political and ideological tendencies as progressive in the region stands out. It is concluded that, this way of thinking is uncomfortable per se for all the paradigms that serve as the basis for the status quo, in politics and society. ; В статье обосновывается, что критическое мышление, будучи атрибутом че­ловеческого сознания, так или иначе, проявляет себя во всех видах деятельности человека, предполагающих использование критического разума и последующего дис­курса. Обращается внимание, что чаще всего критическое мышление применяется именно в политико-правовой сфере. Утверждается, что критическое мышление предполагает для своего применения демократическую культуру, которая способ­ствует толерантности, политическим дебатам и социальному консенсусу. ; У статті обґрунтовується, що критичне мислення, будучи атрибутом людської свідомості, так чи інакше, проявляє себе в усіх видах діяльності людини, що перед­бачають використання критичного розуму та подальшого дискурсу. Доводиться, що найчастіше критичне мислення застосовується саме в політико-правовій сфері. Стверджується, що критичне мислення передбачає для свого застосування демо­кратичну культуру, яка сприяє толерантності, політичним дебатам та соціально­му консенсусу.