The recent decades have witnessed the increased society's attention to values based on welfare state and the economics of happiness, and this however becomes worrying. The term of "value" has started to be employed inarticulately and irresponsibly in public and even creative discourses. Thus, the question arises whether we face the process of devaluation of values? The paper reflects on contemporary tendencies of research in axiology and maintains that the increased focus on values appears not due to the lack of satisfying material needs but because of the unconscious creative need to transcend into the depth, that is because of ontological longing for something absolutely genuine. Santrauka Pastaraisiais dešimtmečiais su gerovės valstybe ir laimės ekonomika siejamas smarkiai išaugęs visuomenės dėmesys vertybėms ima kelti nerimą. Terminas vertybė viešuosiuose ir net kūrybiniuose diskursuose pradėtas vartoti neartikuliuotai, neatsakingai. Todėl kyla klausimas – ar neprasidėjo vertybių devalvacijos procesas? Straipsnyje apžvelgiamos šiuolaikinių vertybinių tyrimų tendencijos ir parodoma, kad dėmesys vertybėms kyla ne tik dėl vis dar esančios materialių poreikių patenkinimo stokos, bet ir dėl neįsisąmoninto kūrybinio poreikio transcendentuoti į gylį, ontologinio ilgesio to, kas iš tiesų yra tikra.
The ideas of freedom, equality and justice have become the increased focus of philosophy discourse as well as the tools of political activities. They particularly stand out in the doctrine of neoliberalism, which advocates a reign of freedom. However, it has to be admitted that the concept of freedom which is ascribed to the highest values of contemporary social and political discourses is not mentioned in classical or modern axiological theories. This leads to the question whether freedom is a value indeed. In an attempt to discuss this question, the article briefly addresses different treatments of freedom concepts and further elaborates on "the paradox of freedom". Also, it is noteworthy that values are concurrent with human needs though the need of freedom is neither paramount nor fundamental. It is concluded that the contemporary exaltation of freedom and its attribution to the highest values raise a serious question why freedom as a value is not mentioned in classical and modern axiological theories, which induces us to turn back to the concept of freedom and its ontological status once more. This leads to more extensive research.
The ideas of freedom, equality and justice have become the increased focus of philosophy discourse as well as the tools of political activities. They particularly stand out in the doctrine of neoliberalism, which advocates a reign of freedom. However, it has to be admitted that the concept of freedom which is ascribed to the highest values of contemporary social and political discourses is not mentioned in classical or modern axiological theories. This leads to the question whether freedom is a value indeed. In an attempt to discuss this question, the article briefly addresses different treatments of freedom concepts and further elaborates on "the paradox of freedom". Also, it is noteworthy that values are concurrent with human needs though the need of freedom is neither paramount nor fundamental. It is concluded that the contemporary exaltation of freedom and its attribution to the highest values raise a serious question why freedom as a value is not mentioned in classical and modern axiological theories, which induces us to turn back to the concept of freedom and its ontological status once more. This leads to more extensive research.
Antrojoje XX amžiaus pusėje prasidėjo mokslo sričių (disciplinų, dalykų) integracijos procesai, apibūdinami multi-, poli-, pliurali-, inter-, tarp-, trans- discipliniškumo terminais. Parodoma, kad tarptautinis terminas "disciplina" turi kur kas platesnę prasmę nei lietuviškas terminas "dalykas", suprantamas kaip mokslo šaka ar sritis. Teigiama, kad svarbiausiu kriterijumi, leidžiančiu apibūdinti disciplinų sąveikų tipus, turi būti "disciplininio grynumo" pažeidimo laipsnis, o transdisciplininis projektas, skirtingai nei kiti disciplinų integracijos tipai, "disciplininio grynumo" reikalavimą atmeta iš principo. Parodoma, kad transdisciplininis projektas pirmiausia siejamas su siekiu akademinį mokslą orientuoti į pragmatinį socialinių reikmių tenkinimą, į jį įtraukiant neakademinius veiksnius. Atkreipiamas dėmesys į tai, kad stiprioji transdisciplininio diskurso versija, kuri pabrėžia poreikį gilintis į fundamentalius pasaulėvaizdžio klausimus ir siekia suvienyti visus mokslus, susiduria su rimtomis ontologinėmis bei epistemologinėmis problemomis. Išsakomas nuogąstavimas, kad dėl jų transdisciplininis projektas gali likti apologetinio pobūdžio ar tik euristikos šaltiniu.Pagrindiniai žodžiai: mokslas, dalykai, disciplinos, transdisciplininis diskursas, transgresija.Transdisciplinary Project: Breakthrough in Synthesizing Science and PracticeSaulius Kanišauskas SummaryThe second half of the 20th century witnessed discontent with rigid distinction between science specializations, thus science integration processes which can be described in terms of multi-, poli-, pliurali-, inter-, trans- disciplinary started to evolve. The article attempts to show that the international term "discipline" has a significantly broader meaning than the Lithuanian term "subject", which is perceived as a branch or field of science. It is maintained that the vulnerability degree of "disciplinary purity" should be the most important criterion which allows defining relation types of disciplines. However, conversely to other types of disciplinary integration, the transdisciplinary project rejects the requirement of "disciplinary purity" in principle. Moreover, the transdisciplinary project is first associated with striving to direct the academic science that it could satisfy the pragmatic social needs through introduction of non-academic factors. Also, the article points out that the "strong version" of the transdiciplinary project which focuses on the need to delve into fundamental questions of worldview and which attempts to consolidate all sciences faces serious ontological and epistemological problems. As a result, there is considerable danger that due to not solved epistemological problems, the transdisciplinary project is at risk to remain of apologetic character and a source of heuristics.Keywords: science, subjects, discipline, transdisciplinary discourse, transgression.
The significance of formal criteria which could help to sort out the problem of tolerance paradox has emerged in the background of cultural egalitarianism. Alas, such criteria have not been established so far. The conviction that the problem of tolerance is significant just in the context of social and political discourse might be questioned due to the fact that this attitude did not help to tackle this problem throughout the last centuries. The paper aims to show that the problem of tolerance can be solved taking into account systemic attitude and synergetic insights. The current study into the literature on tolerance concludes that the formal criterion, which defines the tolerance boundaries in the most general sense, is considered to be such deviations from the standard (as ideal parameters of social system) when tolerance can function normally (stably). Cultural egalitarianism, which requires equalizing the rights of the majority and the minorities facing discrimination, impinges on the ratio of necessary diversity, and thus has to be questioned.
Tolerancijos ribos ir kultūrinis egalitarizmas
Santrauka
Formaliu kriteriju, kurie leistu spresti tolerancijos paradokso problema, svarba išryškejo kulturinio egalitarizmo akivaizdoje. Tokiu kriteriju nera iki šiol. Isitikinimas, kad tolerancijos problema prasminga tik socialinio ir politinio diskurso kontekste, gali buti kvestionuojamas vien todel, kad per kelis šimtmecius ši nuostata problemos išspresti nepadejo. Straipsnyje parodoma, kad tolerancijos problema galima spresti sisteminiu požiuriu ir sociosinergetikos ižvalgomis. Tolerancijai skirtos literaturos analize leidžia daryti išvada, kad bendriausiu atveju tolerancijos ribas nustatanciu formaliu kriterijumi galima laikyti tokius nukrypimus nuo normos (kaip idealiu visuomenines sistemos parametru), kuriems esant ji dar gali normaliai (stabiliai) funkcionuoti. Kulturinis egalitarizmas, reikalaujantis sulyginti daugumos ir diskriminuojamu mažumu teises, pažeidžia butinos ivairoves proporcijas ir todel yra kvestionuotinas.
The significance of formal criteria which could help to sort out the problem of tolerance paradox has emerged in the background of cultural egalitarianism. Alas, such criteria have not been established so far. The conviction that the problem of tolerance is significant just in the context of social and political discourse might be questioned due to the fact that this attitude did not help to tackle this problem throughout the last centuries. The paper aims to show that the problem of tolerance can be solved taking into account systemic attitude and synergetic insights. The current study into the literature on tolerance concludes that the formal criterion, which defines the tolerance boundaries in the most general sense, is considered to be such deviations from the standard (as ideal parameters of social system) when tolerance can function normally (stably). Cultural egalitarianism, which requires equalizing the rights of the majority and the minorities facing discrimination, impinges on the ratio of necessary diversity, and thus has to be questioned. Tolerancijos ribos ir kultūrinis egalitarizmas Santrauka.Formaliu kriteriju, kurie leistu spresti tolerancijos paradokso problema, svarbaišryškejo kulturinio egalitarizmo akivaizdoje. Tokiu kriteriju nera iki šiol.Isitikinimas, kad tolerancijos problema prasminga tik socialinio ir politinio diskursokontekste, gali buti kvestionuojamas vien todel, kad per kelis šimtmeciusši nuostata problemos išspresti nepadejo. Straipsnyje parodoma, kad tolerancijosproblema galima spresti sisteminiu požiuriu ir sociosinergetikos ižvalgomis.Tolerancijai skirtos literaturos analize leidžia daryti išvada, kad bendriausiuatveju tolerancijos ribas nustatanciu formaliu kriterijumi galima laikyti tokiusnukrypimus nuo normos (kaip idealiu visuomenines sistemos parametru), kuriemsesant ji dar gali normaliai (stabiliai) funkcionuoti. Kulturinis egalitarizmas,reikalaujantis sulyginti daugumos ir diskriminuojamu mažumu teises, pažeidžiabutinos ivairoves proporcijas ir todel yra kvestionuotinas. ...
The significance of formal criteria which could help to sort out the problem of tolerance paradox has emerged in the background of cultural egalitarianism. Alas, such criteria have not been established so far. The conviction that the problem of tolerance is significant just in the context of social and political discourse might be questioned due to the fact that this attitude did not help to tackle this problem throughout the last centuries. The paper aims to show that the problem of tolerance can be solved taking into account systemic attitude and synergetic insights. The current study into the literature on tolerance concludes that the formal criterion, which defines the tolerance boundaries in the most general sense, is considered to be such deviations from the standard (as ideal parameters of social system) when tolerance can function normally (stably). Cultural egalitarianism, which requires equalizing the rights of the majority and the minorities facing discrimination, impinges on the ratio of necessary diversity, and thus has to be questioned.
The significance of formal criteria which could help to sort out the problem of tolerance paradox has emerged in the background of cultural egalitarianism. Alas, such criteria have not been established so far. The conviction that the problem of tolerance is significant just in the context of social and political discourse might be questioned due to the fact that this attitude did not help to tackle this problem throughout the last centuries. The paper aims to show that the problem of tolerance can be solved taking into account systemic attitude and synergetic insights. The current study into the literature on tolerance concludes that the formal criterion, which defines the tolerance boundaries in the most general sense, is considered to be such deviations from the standard (as ideal parameters of social system) when tolerance can function normally (stably). Cultural egalitarianism, which requires equalizing the rights of the majority and the minorities facing discrimination, impinges on the ratio of necessary diversity, and thus has to be questioned. Tolerancijos ribos ir kultūrinis egalitarizmas Santrauka Formaliu kriteriju, kurie leistu spresti tolerancijos paradokso problema, svarbaišryškejo kulturinio egalitarizmo akivaizdoje. Tokiu kriteriju nera iki šiol.Isitikinimas, kad tolerancijos problema prasminga tik socialinio ir politinio diskursokontekste, gali buti kvestionuojamas vien todel, kad per kelis šimtmeciusši nuostata problemos išspresti nepadejo. Straipsnyje parodoma, kad tolerancijosproblema galima spresti sisteminiu požiuriu ir sociosinergetikos ižvalgomis.Tolerancijai skirtos literaturos analize leidžia daryti išvada, kad bendriausiuatveju tolerancijos ribas nustatanciu formaliu kriterijumi galima laikyti tokiusnukrypimus nuo normos (kaip idealiu visuomenines sistemos parametru), kuriemsesant ji dar gali normaliai (stabiliai) funkcionuoti. Kulturinis egalitarizmas,reikalaujantis sulyginti daugumos ir diskriminuojamu mažumu teises, pažeidžiabutinos ivairoves proporcijas ir todel yra kvestionuotinas. Reikšminiai žodžiai: egalitarizmas, tolerancijos paradoksas, tolerancijos ribos,butinos disharmonijos konstanta
All the sciences and even philosophical, ethic thinking and also practice are grounded by so called "line - thinking", which is efective in only limited sphere and time as synergetic paradigmus born in the 20 century. Unfortunately propositions under "line thinking" influence gave miserable results as much in politics as in government. The article shortly deals with some paradoxical synergetic confirmities (regularities) and the first observed results and chances of their using in the prevention of crimes, goverment in connection with the problem of theory and practice. It is suggested to change "strategic planing" conception into "strategic thinking" concept which joins theory and practice most effectively. In conclusion, connect of theory and practice are visible in teleonomy of emergetic evolution of social processes which are expressed namely by "strategic thinking" as intentionality obeyed to the same synergetic laws.
All the sciences and even philosophical, ethic thinking and also practice are grounded by so called "line - thinking", which is efective in only limited sphere and time as synergetic paradigmus born in the 20 century. Unfortunately propositions under "line thinking" influence gave miserable results as much in politics as in government. The article shortly deals with some paradoxical synergetic confirmities (regularities) and the first observed results and chances of their using in the prevention of crimes, goverment in connection with the problem of theory and practice. It is suggested to change "strategic planing" conception into "strategic thinking" concept which joins theory and practice most effectively. In conclusion, connect of theory and practice are visible in teleonomy of emergetic evolution of social processes which are expressed namely by "strategic thinking" as intentionality obeyed to the same synergetic laws.
