Suchergebnisse

Is There an Alternative to Ateistic Contemporary Politics? (A)theistic Political Cosiderations of Alexandre Kojève and Carl Schmitt The aim of this Master Thesis is to fulfill the ambition expressed in A. Kojève's manuscript "Atheism" to compare the manifestations of theism and atheism in the field of politics, based on C. Schmitt's perspective of political and political theology, while the theistic political alternative to atheism has not been developed in A. Kojève's political works. Objectives: 1. To release A. Kojève's concept of atheism in the context of the Western thought; 2. To show the significance of the issue of atheism in Western political thought; 3. Justify why the political should be considered not in the context of nature but in the context of the antinomy between atheism and theism; 4. To analyze the relationship between antinomy of theism and atheism and the political. Thesis: A. Kojève's antinomy of theism and atheism is a necessary element in the perception and interpretation of the political and politics. In his study of the phenomenon of atheism, Kojève systematically develops what Pascal began to examine in early modernity as a problem of soul immortality, linked not to speculative philosophical and theological arguments but to reflection on human existence and mortality, which leads to the question of God's existence, but cannot be unequivocally resolved by the efforts of the human mind. A. Kojève describes atheism as a polemical concept. As long as man is mortal, the controversy between atheism and theism is an inevitable antinomy that cannot be resolved by rational consideration, and coexistence between theist and atheists can only be based on inevitable coercion because synthesis is impossible. In Western political thought, the rise of the phenomenon of democracy as atheism can be seen in the dispute between Alexis de Tocqueville and Hegel, which raises the question of whether it is possible to reconcile the concept of a transcendent God with democracy. The connection of the transcendent God's overcoming with democracy raises the controversy of theism and atheism as a political problem which cannot be solved by the efforts of the mind, but only by means of violence. Although Leo Strauss in his commentary on Carl Schmitt interprets the political as a controversy with liberal political philosophy on the status of the natural state, the real controversy over politics takes place not from the perspective of political philosophy but from the perspective of theological thinking. We find the atheistic concept of politics by examining A. Kojève's theory of politics, in which the political is perceived as a historical and finite phenomenon. According to A. Kojève, history and the political end when a person is freed from the fear of eternal death and begins to perceive himself as an absolutely free and mortal individual, thus overcoming the absolute Master - God. Although Schmitt's relationship with the concept of political as historicity is ambiguous, Schmitt's concept of the political is based on the assumption that the difference between friend and enemy is as inevitable as it is impossible to reject the concept of a mystical, miraculous God. However, the political as divinity is only a hypothesis, but its possibility means that A. Kojève failed to prove the completeness of the political. Moreover, the antinomy of atheism and theism bases existentially the inevitable possibility of political. Therefore, we can understand Schmitt's political theology and the political not as critique of liberalism but of atheist (e.g. M. Bakunin) who are seeking to attain the world state and abolish the political.

Is There an Alternative to Ateistic Contemporary Politics? (A)theistic Political Cosiderations of Alexandre Kojève and Carl Schmitt The aim of this Master Thesis is to fulfill the ambition expressed in A. Kojève's manuscript "Atheism" to compare the manifestations of theism and atheism in the field of politics, based on C. Schmitt's perspective of political and political theology, while the theistic political alternative to atheism has not been developed in A. Kojève's political works. Objectives: 1. To release A. Kojève's concept of atheism in the context of the Western thought; 2. To show the significance of the issue of atheism in Western political thought; 3. Justify why the political should be considered not in the context of nature but in the context of the antinomy between atheism and theism; 4. To analyze the relationship between antinomy of theism and atheism and the political. Thesis: A. Kojève's antinomy of theism and atheism is a necessary element in the perception and interpretation of the political and politics. In his study of the phenomenon of atheism, Kojève systematically develops what Pascal began to examine in early modernity as a problem of soul immortality, linked not to speculative philosophical and theological arguments but to reflection on human existence and mortality, which leads to the question of God's existence, but cannot be unequivocally resolved by the efforts of the human mind. A. Kojève describes atheism as a polemical concept. As long as man is mortal, the controversy between atheism and theism is an inevitable antinomy that cannot be resolved by rational consideration, and coexistence between theist and atheists can only be based on inevitable coercion because synthesis is impossible. In Western political thought, the rise of the phenomenon of democracy as atheism can be seen in the dispute between Alexis de Tocqueville and Hegel, which raises the question of whether it is possible to reconcile the concept of a transcendent God with democracy. The connection of the transcendent God's overcoming with democracy raises the controversy of theism and atheism as a political problem which cannot be solved by the efforts of the mind, but only by means of violence. Although Leo Strauss in his commentary on Carl Schmitt interprets the political as a controversy with liberal political philosophy on the status of the natural state, the real controversy over politics takes place not from the perspective of political philosophy but from the perspective of theological thinking. We find the atheistic concept of politics by examining A. Kojève's theory of politics, in which the political is perceived as a historical and finite phenomenon. According to A. Kojève, history and the political end when a person is freed from the fear of eternal death and begins to perceive himself as an absolutely free and mortal individual, thus overcoming the absolute Master - God. Although Schmitt's relationship with the concept of political as historicity is ambiguous, Schmitt's concept of the political is based on the assumption that the difference between friend and enemy is as inevitable as it is impossible to reject the concept of a mystical, miraculous God. However, the political as divinity is only a hypothesis, but its possibility means that A. Kojève failed to prove the completeness of the political. Moreover, the antinomy of atheism and theism bases existentially the inevitable possibility of political. Therefore, we can understand Schmitt's political theology and the political not as critique of liberalism but of atheist (e.g. M. Bakunin) who are seeking to attain the world state and abolish the political.

Is There an Alternative to Ateistic Contemporary Politics? (A)theistic Political Cosiderations of Alexandre Kojève and Carl Schmitt The aim of this Master Thesis is to fulfill the ambition expressed in A. Kojève's manuscript "Atheism" to compare the manifestations of theism and atheism in the field of politics, based on C. Schmitt's perspective of political and political theology, while the theistic political alternative to atheism has not been developed in A. Kojève's political works. Objectives: 1. To release A. Kojève's concept of atheism in the context of the Western thought; 2. To show the significance of the issue of atheism in Western political thought; 3. Justify why the political should be considered not in the context of nature but in the context of the antinomy between atheism and theism; 4. To analyze the relationship between antinomy of theism and atheism and the political. Thesis: A. Kojève's antinomy of theism and atheism is a necessary element in the perception and interpretation of the political and politics. In his study of the phenomenon of atheism, Kojève systematically develops what Pascal began to examine in early modernity as a problem of soul immortality, linked not to speculative philosophical and theological arguments but to reflection on human existence and mortality, which leads to the question of God's existence, but cannot be unequivocally resolved by the efforts of the human mind. A. Kojève describes atheism as a polemical concept. As long as man is mortal, the controversy between atheism and theism is an inevitable antinomy that cannot be resolved by rational consideration, and coexistence between theist and atheists can only be based on inevitable coercion because synthesis is impossible. In Western political thought, the rise of the phenomenon of democracy as atheism can be seen in the dispute between Alexis de Tocqueville and Hegel, which raises the question of whether it is possible to reconcile the concept of a transcendent God with democracy. The connection of the transcendent God's overcoming with democracy raises the controversy of theism and atheism as a political problem which cannot be solved by the efforts of the mind, but only by means of violence. Although Leo Strauss in his commentary on Carl Schmitt interprets the political as a controversy with liberal political philosophy on the status of the natural state, the real controversy over politics takes place not from the perspective of political philosophy but from the perspective of theological thinking. We find the atheistic concept of politics by examining A. Kojève's theory of politics, in which the political is perceived as a historical and finite phenomenon. According to A. Kojève, history and the political end when a person is freed from the fear of eternal death and begins to perceive himself as an absolutely free and mortal individual, thus overcoming the absolute Master - God. Although Schmitt's relationship with the concept of political as historicity is ambiguous, Schmitt's concept of the political is based on the assumption that the difference between friend and enemy is as inevitable as it is impossible to reject the concept of a mystical, miraculous God. However, the political as divinity is only a hypothesis, but its possibility means that A. Kojève failed to prove the completeness of the political. Moreover, the antinomy of atheism and theism bases existentially the inevitable possibility of political. Therefore, we can understand Schmitt's political theology and the political not as critique of liberalism but of atheist (e.g. M. Bakunin) who are seeking to attain the world state and abolish the political.

Is There an Alternative to Ateistic Contemporary Politics? (A)theistic Political Cosiderations of Alexandre Kojève and Carl Schmitt The aim of this Master Thesis is to fulfill the ambition expressed in A. Kojève's manuscript "Atheism" to compare the manifestations of theism and atheism in the field of politics, based on C. Schmitt's perspective of political and political theology, while the theistic political alternative to atheism has not been developed in A. Kojève's political works. Objectives: 1. To release A. Kojève's concept of atheism in the context of the Western thought; 2. To show the significance of the issue of atheism in Western political thought; 3. Justify why the political should be considered not in the context of nature but in the context of the antinomy between atheism and theism; 4. To analyze the relationship between antinomy of theism and atheism and the political. Thesis: A. Kojève's antinomy of theism and atheism is a necessary element in the perception and interpretation of the political and politics. In his study of the phenomenon of atheism, Kojève systematically develops what Pascal began to examine in early modernity as a problem of soul immortality, linked not to speculative philosophical and theological arguments but to reflection on human existence and mortality, which leads to the question of God's existence, but cannot be unequivocally resolved by the efforts of the human mind. A. Kojève describes atheism as a polemical concept. As long as man is mortal, the controversy between atheism and theism is an inevitable antinomy that cannot be resolved by rational consideration, and coexistence between theist and atheists can only be based on inevitable coercion because synthesis is impossible. In Western political thought, the rise of the phenomenon of democracy as atheism can be seen in the dispute between Alexis de Tocqueville and Hegel, which raises the question of whether it is possible to reconcile the concept of a transcendent God with democracy. The connection of the transcendent God's overcoming with democracy raises the controversy of theism and atheism as a political problem which cannot be solved by the efforts of the mind, but only by means of violence. Although Leo Strauss in his commentary on Carl Schmitt interprets the political as a controversy with liberal political philosophy on the status of the natural state, the real controversy over politics takes place not from the perspective of political philosophy but from the perspective of theological thinking. We find the atheistic concept of politics by examining A. Kojève's theory of politics, in which the political is perceived as a historical and finite phenomenon. According to A. Kojève, history and the political end when a person is freed from the fear of eternal death and begins to perceive himself as an absolutely free and mortal individual, thus overcoming the absolute Master - God. Although Schmitt's relationship with the concept of political as historicity is ambiguous, Schmitt's concept of the political is based on the assumption that the difference between friend and enemy is as inevitable as it is impossible to reject the concept of a mystical, miraculous God. However, the political as divinity is only a hypothesis, but its possibility means that A. Kojève failed to prove the completeness of the political. Moreover, the antinomy of atheism and theism bases existentially the inevitable possibility of political. Therefore, we can understand Schmitt's political theology and the political not as critique of liberalism but of atheist (e.g. M. Bakunin) who are seeking to attain the world state and abolish the political.

The concept of "performance place", rather than a more common "space" is used to point out the significance of the physical and social location, where the theatre building or performance environment is situated, within the framework of the city fabric or geography of the country. The place of performance is a reflection of the shifting ideological, political and moral role which the institution of theatre is identified with in the society. The critical understanding of the place is related to the politics of the theatre, resistance to the discourse of power, as expressed by the artist's geopolitical imagination, and transgression of the social bounds. The aim of this article is to employ the concept of performance place to reflect upon the Lithuanian theatre – to see how the understanding of the place has been changing and what political projects or myths govern the choice of different locations. Two ideas of performance place are dominant in the Lithuanian theatre practices today. The first one is related to the conception of the national theatre institutions as a place which legitimates the artistic practices through the relationship with the local national community. The second locates performative practices in the fissures and margins of the first one – the official and national culture network. These are marginal places such as abandoned quarters of the city or post-industrial spaces which provoke anarchic and resistant attitude towards the tradition and power structures. However, both conceptions of place become problematic and ambivalent in the context of contemporary late capitalist system.[.].

The concept of "performance place", rather than a more common "space" is used to point out the significance of the physical and social location, where the theatre building or performance environment is situated, within the framework of the city fabric or geography of the country. The place of performance is a reflection of the shifting ideological, political and moral role which the institution of theatre is identified with in the society. The critical understanding of the place is related to the politics of the theatre, resistance to the discourse of power, as expressed by the artist's geopolitical imagination, and transgression of the social bounds. The aim of this article is to employ the concept of performance place to reflect upon the Lithuanian theatre – to see how the understanding of the place has been changing and what political projects or myths govern the choice of different locations. Two ideas of performance place are dominant in the Lithuanian theatre practices today. The first one is related to the conception of the national theatre institutions as a place which legitimates the artistic practices through the relationship with the local national community. The second locates performative practices in the fissures and margins of the first one – the official and national culture network. These are marginal places such as abandoned quarters of the city or post-industrial spaces which provoke anarchic and resistant attitude towards the tradition and power structures. However, both conceptions of place become problematic and ambivalent in the context of contemporary late capitalist system.[.].

The concept of "performance place", rather than a more common "space" is used to point out the significance of the physical and social location, where the theatre building or performance environment is situated, within the framework of the city fabric or geography of the country. The place of performance is a reflection of the shifting ideological, political and moral role which the institution of theatre is identified with in the society. The critical understanding of the place is related to the politics of the theatre, resistance to the discourse of power, as expressed by the artist's geopolitical imagination, and transgression of the social bounds. The aim of this article is to employ the concept of performance place to reflect upon the Lithuanian theatre – to see how the understanding of the place has been changing and what political projects or myths govern the choice of different locations. Two ideas of performance place are dominant in the Lithuanian theatre practices today. The first one is related to the conception of the national theatre institutions as a place which legitimates the artistic practices through the relationship with the local national community. The second locates performative practices in the fissures and margins of the first one – the official and national culture network. These are marginal places such as abandoned quarters of the city or post-industrial spaces which provoke anarchic and resistant attitude towards the tradition and power structures. However, both conceptions of place become problematic and ambivalent in the context of contemporary late capitalist system.[.].

This is the fourth part of a series of essays on contemporary sociological theory. The aim of these essays is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, epistemological principles, and the relational – symmetric and asymmetric – aspects of the ongoing global division of sociological labor. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, sociological theory more and more is identified with the role of an "underlaborer." If so, the problem needs to be posed in this way: it seems that current time has given us a chance to ask whether the shifting boundaries of democratic politics have begun to exert influence on the understanding of sociological theory. Thus, it is questionable that the mere "cumulative" growth of intellectual and institutional sociological recourses in a global context will automatically strengthen a theoretical sensibility. What is needed in sociological theoretical culture is not another symmetric-functional historicism, including the one-dimensional scientific mode of explanatory historicism ("from specificity to generality" [see Alexander 1982; 7]), but a deeper critical understanding of both analytical theoretical frameworks and normative discourses, including the attempts to understand the unevenly distributed global sociological field of asymmetric institutional and intellectual power relations. The examination of the fourfold functional model of Michael Burawoy had demonstrated that there are four dilemmas that he confronts in his attempts to articulate the idea of public sociology in a globalizing context: first, the contradiction between the universal content and national form of public sociology; second, the contradiction between analytical realism and pluralist relativism; third, the (nominal) contradiction between artificial types of public sociology and critical sociology; fourth, the contradiction between epistemological pluralism and value pluralism. The fourth part of a series of essays discusses the relevance of the relatively radical ("alternative") conceptual proposal of Steven Seidman for contemporary metatheoretical debates, especially those concerned with (1) the relation between "analytic" and "ideological" frameworks, (2) the interplay between empirical generalizations and theoretical generalizations. Unlike Burawoy, Seidman is more genealogically conscious of local/temporal nature of social relations and various – symmetric and asymmetric – boundaries, including social theoretical and sociological theoretical. It is for this sensitive reason that Seidman rejects the "arrogance" of foundational theoretical schemes. Despite his recognition of the limits of a-contextual theorizing and the need to embrace local vs. universal perspective (for example, by evaluating conflicting perspectives and intellectual, social, moral, and political consequences), however, his model is constructed in such a way that it depends too much on the kind of one-dimensional inductive orientation. There are at least two further problems that result from the "event-based" narrative of postmodern social theory which deals carefully with its temporal and spatial boundaries: first, problems in identifying different criteria of the relation between the different multidimensional levels of epistemological continuum; second, problems related to developing ways of evaluating (a) the (probably) vital link between general categories of classical social theory and general (nevertheless, accountable) moral principles, (b) the relation between different principles of presuppositional theoretical level and moderate prognostic potentialities of postpositivistic (however, firmly classical, i.e., "social") theory.

This is the fourth part of a series of essays on contemporary sociological theory. The aim of these essays is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, epistemological principles, and the relational – symmetric and asymmetric – aspects of the ongoing global division of sociological labor. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, sociological theory more and more is identified with the role of an "underlaborer." If so, the problem needs to be posed in this way: it seems that current time has given us a chance to ask whether the shifting boundaries of democratic politics have begun to exert influence on the understanding of sociological theory. Thus, it is questionable that the mere "cumulative" growth of intellectual and institutional sociological recourses in a global context will automatically strengthen a theoretical sensibility. What is needed in sociological theoretical culture is not another symmetric-functional historicism, including the one-dimensional scientific mode of explanatory historicism ("from specificity to generality" [see Alexander 1982; 7]), but a deeper critical understanding of both analytical theoretical frameworks and normative discourses, including the attempts to understand the unevenly distributed global sociological field of asymmetric institutional and intellectual power relations. The examination of the fourfold functional model of Michael Burawoy had demonstrated that there are four dilemmas that he confronts in his attempts to articulate the idea of public sociology in a globalizing context: first, the contradiction between the universal content and national form of public sociology; second, the contradiction between analytical realism and pluralist relativism; third, the (nominal) contradiction between artificial types of public sociology and critical sociology; fourth, the contradiction between epistemological pluralism and value pluralism. The fourth part of a series of essays discusses the relevance of the relatively radical ("alternative") conceptual proposal of Steven Seidman for contemporary metatheoretical debates, especially those concerned with (1) the relation between "analytic" and "ideological" frameworks, (2) the interplay between empirical generalizations and theoretical generalizations. Unlike Burawoy, Seidman is more genealogically conscious of local/temporal nature of social relations and various – symmetric and asymmetric – boundaries, including social theoretical and sociological theoretical. It is for this sensitive reason that Seidman rejects the "arrogance" of foundational theoretical schemes. Despite his recognition of the limits of a-contextual theorizing and the need to embrace local vs. universal perspective (for example, by evaluating conflicting perspectives and intellectual, social, moral, and political consequences), however, his model is constructed in such a way that it depends too much on the kind of one-dimensional inductive orientation. There are at least two further problems that result from the "event-based" narrative of postmodern social theory which deals carefully with its temporal and spatial boundaries: first, problems in identifying different criteria of the relation between the different multidimensional levels of epistemological continuum; second, problems related to developing ways of evaluating (a) the (probably) vital link between general categories of classical social theory and general (nevertheless, accountable) moral principles, (b) the relation between different principles of presuppositional theoretical level and moderate prognostic potentialities of postpositivistic (however, firmly classical, i.e., "social") theory.

This is the fourth part of a series of essays on contemporary sociological theory. The aim of these essays is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, epistemological principles, and the relational – symmetric and asymmetric – aspects of the ongoing global division of sociological labor. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, sociological theory more and more is identified with the role of an "underlaborer." If so, the problem needs to be posed in this way: it seems that current time has given us a chance to ask whether the shifting boundaries of democratic politics have begun to exert influence on the understanding of sociological theory. Thus, it is questionable that the mere "cumulative" growth of intellectual and institutional sociological recourses in a global context will automatically strengthen a theoretical sensibility. What is needed in sociological theoretical culture is not another symmetric-functional historicism, including the one-dimensional scientific mode of explanatory historicism ("from specificity to generality" [see Alexander 1982; 7]), but a deeper critical understanding of both analytical theoretical frameworks and normative discourses, including the attempts to understand the unevenly distributed global sociological field of asymmetric institutional and intellectual power relations. The examination of the fourfold functional model of Michael Burawoy had demonstrated that there are four dilemmas that he confronts in his attempts to articulate the idea of public sociology in a globalizing context: first, the contradiction between the universal content and national form of public sociology; second, the contradiction between analytical realism and pluralist relativism; third, the (nominal) contradiction between artificial types of public sociology and critical sociology; fourth, the contradiction between epistemological pluralism and value pluralism. The fourth part of a series of essays discusses the relevance of the relatively radical ("alternative") conceptual proposal of Steven Seidman for contemporary metatheoretical debates, especially those concerned with (1) the relation between "analytic" and "ideological" frameworks, (2) the interplay between empirical generalizations and theoretical generalizations. Unlike Burawoy, Seidman is more genealogically conscious of local/temporal nature of social relations and various – symmetric and asymmetric – boundaries, including social theoretical and sociological theoretical. It is for this sensitive reason that Seidman rejects the "arrogance" of foundational theoretical schemes. Despite his recognition of the limits of a-contextual theorizing and the need to embrace local vs. universal perspective (for example, by evaluating conflicting perspectives and intellectual, social, moral, and political consequences), however, his model is constructed in such a way that it depends too much on the kind of one-dimensional inductive orientation. There are at least two further problems that result from the "event-based" narrative of postmodern social theory which deals carefully with its temporal and spatial boundaries: first, problems in identifying different criteria of the relation between the different multidimensional levels of epistemological continuum; second, problems related to developing ways of evaluating (a) the (probably) vital link between general categories of classical social theory and general (nevertheless, accountable) moral principles, (b) the relation between different principles of presuppositional theoretical level and moderate prognostic potentialities of postpositivistic (however, firmly classical, i.e., "social") theory.

This is the fourth part of a series of essays on contemporary sociological theory. The aim of these essays is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, epistemological principles, and the relational – symmetric and asymmetric – aspects of the ongoing global division of sociological labor. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, sociological theory more and more is identified with the role of an "underlaborer." If so, the problem needs to be posed in this way: it seems that current time has given us a chance to ask whether the shifting boundaries of democratic politics have begun to exert influence on the understanding of sociological theory. Thus, it is questionable that the mere "cumulative" growth of intellectual and institutional sociological recourses in a global context will automatically strengthen a theoretical sensibility. What is needed in sociological theoretical culture is not another symmetric-functional historicism, including the one-dimensional scientific mode of explanatory historicism ("from specificity to generality" [see Alexander 1982; 7]), but a deeper critical understanding of both analytical theoretical frameworks and normative discourses, including the attempts to understand the unevenly distributed global sociological field of asymmetric institutional and intellectual power relations. The examination of the fourfold functional model of Michael Burawoy had demonstrated that there are four dilemmas that he confronts in his attempts to articulate the idea of public sociology in a globalizing context: first, the contradiction between the universal content and national form of public sociology; second, the contradiction between analytical realism and pluralist relativism; third, the (nominal) contradiction between artificial types of public sociology and critical sociology; fourth, the contradiction between epistemological pluralism and value pluralism. The fourth part of a series of essays discusses the relevance of the relatively radical ("alternative") conceptual proposal of Steven Seidman for contemporary metatheoretical debates, especially those concerned with (1) the relation between "analytic" and "ideological" frameworks, (2) the interplay between empirical generalizations and theoretical generalizations. Unlike Burawoy, Seidman is more genealogically conscious of local/temporal nature of social relations and various – symmetric and asymmetric – boundaries, including social theoretical and sociological theoretical. It is for this sensitive reason that Seidman rejects the "arrogance" of foundational theoretical schemes. Despite his recognition of the limits of a-contextual theorizing and the need to embrace local vs. universal perspective (for example, by evaluating conflicting perspectives and intellectual, social, moral, and political consequences), however, his model is constructed in such a way that it depends too much on the kind of one-dimensional inductive orientation. There are at least two further problems that result from the "event-based" narrative of postmodern social theory which deals carefully with its temporal and spatial boundaries: first, problems in identifying different criteria of the relation between the different multidimensional levels of epistemological continuum; second, problems related to developing ways of evaluating (a) the (probably) vital link between general categories of classical social theory and general (nevertheless, accountable) moral principles, (b) the relation between different principles of presuppositional theoretical level and moderate prognostic potentialities of postpositivistic (however, firmly classical, i.e., "social") theory.

Colombia's internal conflict is one of the longest running and the most challenging and violent conflicts in Western hemisphere. It has killed about 400 000 civilians, and displaced more than 3 million people. All the spheres of the state and society were affected by violence. Conflict also has impact beyond Colombia's borders, spilling into the region with consequences for migration, borders, regional relations as well as international policy and engagement. Moreover, it is closely related to illicit drug industry. This conflict broke out because of many reasons. First of all, there were political causes. Democracy was limited; only two parties could have participated in the politics. Moreover, they always competed with each other. Also institutions were weak and corrupt. Secondly, it is very important to take into account economical and social causes. Almost all arable land belonged to a small group of rich people and the poor ones didn't have any of it. 70 % of people lived below poverty line, there was a big gap between rich and poor, unemployment rates were very high. So for these reasons guerilla groups were formed. The main fighters of the conflict are ELN (Ejército de Liberación Nacional) and FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia). They are the oldest guerilla groups in the world. Since the mid-1980's they have become financially dependant on criminal activities, such as drug trafficking, extortion and kidnapping. In 1996 paramilitary group AUC (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia) was formed. Now it is demobilized, but still there are a lot of problems related with it. There are different opinions about this conflict. Mostly it is agreed that Colombian conflict is a very serious civil war and that it is necessary to take measures to solve it. However, some scientists believe that this conflict is internal but not civil war. Still they agree that it is very dangerous.[.].

Colombia's internal conflict is one of the longest running and the most challenging and violent conflicts in Western hemisphere. It has killed about 400 000 civilians, and displaced more than 3 million people. All the spheres of the state and society were affected by violence. Conflict also has impact beyond Colombia's borders, spilling into the region with consequences for migration, borders, regional relations as well as international policy and engagement. Moreover, it is closely related to illicit drug industry. This conflict broke out because of many reasons. First of all, there were political causes. Democracy was limited; only two parties could have participated in the politics. Moreover, they always competed with each other. Also institutions were weak and corrupt. Secondly, it is very important to take into account economical and social causes. Almost all arable land belonged to a small group of rich people and the poor ones didn't have any of it. 70 % of people lived below poverty line, there was a big gap between rich and poor, unemployment rates were very high. So for these reasons guerilla groups were formed. The main fighters of the conflict are ELN (Ejército de Liberación Nacional) and FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia). They are the oldest guerilla groups in the world. Since the mid-1980's they have become financially dependant on criminal activities, such as drug trafficking, extortion and kidnapping. In 1996 paramilitary group AUC (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia) was formed. Now it is demobilized, but still there are a lot of problems related with it. There are different opinions about this conflict. Mostly it is agreed that Colombian conflict is a very serious civil war and that it is necessary to take measures to solve it. However, some scientists believe that this conflict is internal but not civil war. Still they agree that it is very dangerous.[.].

Colombia's internal conflict is one of the longest running and the most challenging and violent conflicts in Western hemisphere. It has killed about 400 000 civilians, and displaced more than 3 million people. All the spheres of the state and society were affected by violence. Conflict also has impact beyond Colombia's borders, spilling into the region with consequences for migration, borders, regional relations as well as international policy and engagement. Moreover, it is closely related to illicit drug industry. This conflict broke out because of many reasons. First of all, there were political causes. Democracy was limited; only two parties could have participated in the politics. Moreover, they always competed with each other. Also institutions were weak and corrupt. Secondly, it is very important to take into account economical and social causes. Almost all arable land belonged to a small group of rich people and the poor ones didn't have any of it. 70 % of people lived below poverty line, there was a big gap between rich and poor, unemployment rates were very high. So for these reasons guerilla groups were formed. The main fighters of the conflict are ELN (Ejército de Liberación Nacional) and FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia). They are the oldest guerilla groups in the world. Since the mid-1980's they have become financially dependant on criminal activities, such as drug trafficking, extortion and kidnapping. In 1996 paramilitary group AUC (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia) was formed. Now it is demobilized, but still there are a lot of problems related with it. There are different opinions about this conflict. Mostly it is agreed that Colombian conflict is a very serious civil war and that it is necessary to take measures to solve it. However, some scientists believe that this conflict is internal but not civil war. Still they agree that it is very dangerous.[.].

In the beginning of the 21st century different features of the transformation of the contemporary international system could be studied. Among these features changes in nature of threats, actions of main actors of international system concerning changing security environment, appearance of new centers of power and military confrontation between the USA and Russia could be distinguished. Impact of polarity of the international system towards international security was one of the most popular topics of international relations in the second half of the 20th century. Concept of polarity as certain distribution of power in international system became very popular due to Realism school of international relations. Many different studies were made concerning this topic in the Cold War period, but after the end of the Cold War topics of international system and polarity in the international system seemed as unimportant and lost its significance. The new importance of polarity conception was brought by the emergence of new types of threats to international security and by unequal distribution of power in the international system that created unipolar structure with one superpower and several smaller centers of power in the beginning of the 21st century. In this article few presumptions and conclusions concerning the transformation of the contemporary polar structure of international systems were made. First presumption is that contemporary international system is transforming from strict unipolarity with one exceptionally strong superpower to modified unipolarity with one superpower and several emerging centers of power.[.].