Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Title page -- Copyright page -- Contents -- Preface -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction: The Notion of Positivism -- Part One: Development -- CHAPTER 1. Early Positivism -- The Divorce between Philosophy and Science -- Hume's Positivism -- Hume and Newton -- Impressions, Ideas, and Metaphysics -- Two Kinds of Knowledge -- Critical Analysis of Causality -- Certainty and Probability -- "Is" and "Ought" -- Moral Principles and Social Progress -- The Idea of Progress in the French Enlightenment -- CHAPTER 2. Classical or Social Positivism -- France after the Revolution -- Auguste Comte -- Plan of Positive Labors -- The Theological, Metaphysical, and Positive Mind -- The Hierarchy of Sciences -- Social Order and Social Progress -- Positive Polity and Positive Morality -- John Stuart Mill -- Mill and Comte: Allies and Opponents -- Logic and Methodology of Science -- Social and Natural Sciences -- Utility and Liberty -- The Positivist Movement in the Nineteenth Century -- CHAPTER 3. From Classical to Modern Positivism -- Reappraisal of Positivism at the End of the Nineteenth Century -- Mach's Empiriocriticism -- Poincaré's Conventionalism -- Duhem's Hypothetism -- CHAPTER 4. Modern or Logical Positivism -- Revolution in Science and Philosophy -- The Vienna Circle and the Unity of Science Movement -- Moritz Schlick -- Philosophy as the Pursuit of Meaning -- Positivism and Realism -- Foundation of Knowledge -- Philosophy of Life and Ethics -- Rudolf Carnap -- Philosophy as Logical Analysis -- Formal and Empirical Sciences -- The Criterion of Empirical Significance -- The Structure of Scientific Knowledge -- The Probabilistic Appraisal of Hypotheses -- Scientific Humanism and Socialism -- Part Two: Impact -- CHAPTER 5. Positivism, Its Critics and Rivals -- Positivism and Two of Its Adversaries: Nietzsche and Heidegger.

The article explores positivism-postpositivism debate in social sciences that has been lasting already for many years. The author does not suppose this debate will end soon since it raises fundamental questions concerning the aims, tasks and methods of social sciences. Though representatives of these sciences differ significantly in views on these questions, the most of them and, in particular, evident majority of representatives of political science virtually holds positivist views. Such questions, which may be called conceptual, are essentially disputable, so they cannot be resolved by any empirical research. When examining positivism-postpositivism debate the author singles out, paying tribute to tradition, three aspects of debate: (1) ontological, (2) epistemological, and (3) methodological. Yet he presents the arguments to support his claim that because of its antimetaphysical character positivism can have no ontology at all. Therefore an ontological dispute between positivists and postpositivists is simply impossible. Postpositivists, in discussing epistemological questions, would be inclined to reject positivist viewpoint that our statements and theories about social life can be true (though according to modern positivists, we can never know it for sure). They also would reject the positivist distinction between facts and values, which likewise can be considered as epistemological. But the most serious dispute that is taking place in social sciences concerns methodological questions. The author, in analyzing it, pays most attention to two most influential forms of postpositivism, namely to critical theory and postmodernism. Having discussed genealogy and deconstruction which, though with serious reservations, may be considered as postpositivist methods, the author claims that postpositivism lacks the main part of methodology, i.e. rules of accepting scientific statements and theories. And that is why postpositivism cannot win the methodological debate over positivism which has such rules. Adapted from the source document.

The article deals with the fundamentals of Lithuanian foreign policy. It is an attempt to evaluate its understructure, principles, advantages & shortcomings. The article proceeds to exploring a rather strenuous question: are the tensions between Lithuanian & Russia caused solely by the Russian misbehavior as Lithuanian politicians mostly claim or is the Lithuanian foreign policy also to blame. The crucial idea of the "new Lithuanian foreign policy," that of the center or leader of an unnamed & undefined region, presumably of the Eastern Europe or at least a part of it, is put under scrutiny. The author claims that (1) for a small country such a role is utterly unrealistic, (2) attempts to play that role have nothing to do with national interests the foreign policy has serve, (3) playing the chosen role complicates relations both with other EU countries & with Russia. The article ends with the conclusion that the foundation of the Lithuanian foreign policy must be its Western, not Eastern policy. Adapted from the source document.

There are three main geopolitical actors whose interests & specific actions may have impact on Ukraine's geopolitical drift towards the East or the West. From such actors Russia must be named first. Yet author of the article is more interested in two others -- the United States & the European Union. Although in the Huntington's scheme they represent supposedly united Western civilization their interests in Ukraine or towards Ukraine are rather different. For the United States Ukraine is quite an important country, especially for security reasons. Those reasons are related both to containment of Russia -- the USA seeks to contain not only enemies but partners as well -- and to the implementation of national security strategy which treats the Wider Middle East as likely the most important for the USA -- from security point of view -- region of the world. Ukraine borders with this region in which the USA has few reliable partners. Ukraine may became such a partner -- more reliable than Turkey. From the first view the EU is more close to Ukraine than the USA. Yet the EU is more close to Ukraine only from geographical point of view. The EU, especially its core states, so called "old" Europe, treats Ukraine as peripheral country & regards development of closer ties with it as unnecessary or even harmful. One of the many reasons -- Ukraine may become a new Trojan Horse of the USA inside the EU. Different EU countries look at EU neighborhood policy with different eyes. Most of the new members of the EU give priority to the eastern direction but many older -- rather to the southern one. Moreover, for most of the new members Ukraine is more natural candidate for EU membership than Turkey creating much less problems for the European identity of the EU. However, Ukraine's possible accession to EU & NATO will depend not only upon position of the major geopolitical players but on the will of Ukrainians themselves. Ukraine is extremely heterogeneous country. Religious, historical & cultural divides create political ones & at the moment it is not clear which way -- leading towards the East or the West -- the country may choose. In such situation an external encouragement & support is vitally needed -- development of relations with Ukraine must become a priority not only for the USA but for the EU also. Adapted from the source document.