Suggestive egalitarianism has a long history within educational system, i.e. one of the first ideologists would be J. J. Rousseau. Suggestive egalitarianism thesis arises in European democracy thought and becomes a new sphere of social philosophy and epistemology while a child's being different is an educational virtue. In this paper the concept of children's difference equality on the basis of suggestive egalitarianism is revealed. The socio-cultural meanings' interpretations are set as well based on European democratic thought paradigm. The scientific positions contextualizing those interpretations are analyzed. Specifically theses: "children's difference equality", "children's equality", and "children communities' equality". These pedagogic streams and social movements that empower children's equality expression are identified. Educational situations are interpreted as well, especially these were educational relations', "child–adult" socio-cultural meaning is seen. Problematic questions for scientific and practical discussions are formulated.
Suggestive egalitarianism has a long history within educational system, i.e. one of the first ideologists would be J. J. Rousseau. Suggestive egalitarianism thesis arises in European democracy thought and becomes a new sphere of social philosophy and epistemology while a child's being different is an educational virtue. In this paper the concept of children's difference equality on the basis of suggestive egalitarianism is revealed. The socio-cultural meanings' interpretations are set as well based on European democratic thought paradigm. The scientific positions contextualizing those interpretations are analyzed. Specifically theses: "children's difference equality", "children's equality", and "children communities' equality". These pedagogic streams and social movements that empower children's equality expression are identified. Educational situations are interpreted as well, especially these were educational relations', "child–adult" socio-cultural meaning is seen. Problematic questions for scientific and practical discussions are formulated.
The theme of the present paper towards the Master's degree in law educology is quite topical as it has been scantily studied, however it is very important for development of childhood studies strategy in Lithuania of the present day. The base for the theoretical position is provided by the basic concepts of childhood phenomenon and they permit determination of the childhood status development possibilities in the education policy. It is attempted to provide the conceptual grounds for polysemy of childhood concepts being valuable for childhood research and development of practices. The childhood policy could be approached as a specific and wider direction of the state education policy, which has its specific goals, objectives and implementation methods. Taking into account the urgency of the topic the development of childhood concept has been elected to be object of the present paper. For the purpose of the study it was aimed to discuss the features of childhood concept changes in the context of education policy development. The goal led to setting the following objectives: to substantiate the childhood concept based on the analysis of scientific references; to previse the childhood policy development prospects through application of theoretical premises of social sciences; to conduct an empiric study and find out what meanings of childhood appear in the education related documents. The qualitative method of study, namely document content analysis, was selected for to attainment of the goal. On systemisation of the analysis data the following conclusions were drawn: already in the twentieth century it became evident that a child is not a miniature of an adult, lifetime of a man is divided into a number of different periods and during the childhood period children have a world of their own, have different interests and dispositions. The ideology of the society as well as of the sciences dealing with society life (both social and humanitarian) impede the evaluation of a child as a human being and childhood as the first stage of child's lifetime. A consistent and sometimes ethno-cultural approach to a child, to him being a maturating and changing individual and sociotype, and his interaction with the environment is missing. Childhood in the narrower meaning is the process of physical and mental development the sequence of which shows child approaching maturity and the time when every step of such development can be characterised by quantitative and qualitative changes characteristic of him as a maturing person. In the wide meaning of the word childhood is the entirety of all children ages making the non-adult group of the society (Forston et al, 1995). Quite often childhood is described as an intermediate and insignificant period of preparation for the adult life; as initial formation of the attributes pre-requisite to an adult (negation of childhood characteristic functions and qualities – activity and independence); as meaningful lifetime stage of a child-to-be-adult though full social maturity of a child will take place in the future. All above descriptions show that childhood is quite often described as a lower stage of human development and a likely insufficient quality period. The graduation paper includes the introduction, three parts, conclusion, list of scientific references, annotation and summary.
The theme of the present paper towards the Master's degree in law educology is quite topical as it has been scantily studied, however it is very important for development of childhood studies strategy in Lithuania of the present day. The base for the theoretical position is provided by the basic concepts of childhood phenomenon and they permit determination of the childhood status development possibilities in the education policy. It is attempted to provide the conceptual grounds for polysemy of childhood concepts being valuable for childhood research and development of practices. The childhood policy could be approached as a specific and wider direction of the state education policy, which has its specific goals, objectives and implementation methods. Taking into account the urgency of the topic the development of childhood concept has been elected to be object of the present paper. For the purpose of the study it was aimed to discuss the features of childhood concept changes in the context of education policy development. The goal led to setting the following objectives: to substantiate the childhood concept based on the analysis of scientific references; to previse the childhood policy development prospects through application of theoretical premises of social sciences; to conduct an empiric study and find out what meanings of childhood appear in the education related documents. The qualitative method of study, namely document content analysis, was selected for to attainment of the goal. On systemisation of the analysis data the following conclusions were drawn: already in the twentieth century it became evident that a child is not a miniature of an adult, lifetime of a man is divided into a number of different periods and during the childhood period children have a world of their own, have different interests and dispositions. The ideology of the society as well as of the sciences dealing with society life (both social and humanitarian) impede the evaluation of a child as a human being and childhood as the first stage of child's lifetime. A consistent and sometimes ethno-cultural approach to a child, to him being a maturating and changing individual and sociotype, and his interaction with the environment is missing. Childhood in the narrower meaning is the process of physical and mental development the sequence of which shows child approaching maturity and the time when every step of such development can be characterised by quantitative and qualitative changes characteristic of him as a maturing person. In the wide meaning of the word childhood is the entirety of all children ages making the non-adult group of the society (Forston et al, 1995). Quite often childhood is described as an intermediate and insignificant period of preparation for the adult life; as initial formation of the attributes pre-requisite to an adult (negation of childhood characteristic functions and qualities – activity and independence); as meaningful lifetime stage of a child-to-be-adult though full social maturity of a child will take place in the future. All above descriptions show that childhood is quite often described as a lower stage of human development and a likely insufficient quality period. The graduation paper includes the introduction, three parts, conclusion, list of scientific references, annotation and summary.
The object of the study was to introduce an innovative approach to the long-lasting theoretical discussion about the meaning and extent of political liberty in a modern democratic society. Our suggested way to explain why the democratic political order as such might give rise to considerable challenges for political liberty introduces the classical virtue of courage as a possible key explanatory factor underlying the major tensions that emerge between democracy and liberty. Such approach provides some new insights into the debate about the origins, limits, and political perspectives of modern democracies. The analysis starts by conceptualizing modern democracy as a political form which expresses a specific ethical idea about the natural equality of people. Generally, it means that egalitarianism is the founding idea and moral purpose of a democratic political system, which tends to develop into a modern type of representative government and civil society. The second part of our analysis emphasizes the fact that liberty is by nature a political fact achieved only by practical participation of an individual in public life, and which cannot be reduced to formal, legal, economic or moral categories. Liberty, being a principle of public action, requires the capacity of a person to risk his personal wealth and safety for the sake of the common good. The third part of the analysis explains the crucial importance of the virtue of courage to the whole political life, as it is an ethical idea which aims at building such a character of a person that is capable and motivated to live an active public life. It is the virtue of courage that makes an individual morally fit and eager to practice liberty, as well as ready to defend it against any acts of despotism. Finally, the analysis assesses the diminishing role of courage due to the egalitarian public order of a democracy, resulting in adverse effects on liberty. The conclusions of the article highlight several points which are noted below. In a democratic society, courage loses its status as a virtue; thus, individuals become less capable and less motivated to live an active public life. Democracy rests on the principle that implies establishing and protecting the equality of its citizens, while the virtue of courage expresses an implicit distaste for egalitarianism and encourages people to strive for an ethically superior status than that of all the rest, i.e. it makes a clear hierarchical distinction between cowards, conformists, and heroes. That's why democracy banishes courage from its equality favouring public life, depriving it of its ethical status. The decline of this virtue makes the practice of liberty more complicated as individuals lose interest in risking their private wealth and safety for the sake of the common good. The diminishing capacity and interest of citizens in democracy to live an active public life, while giving preference to social equality which requires no personal effort, is a major problem for political liberty. As people become indifferent to the pursuit of the common good, liberty becomes inactive, and the political community becomes less immune to various manifestations of despotism.
The object of the study was to introduce an innovative approach to the long-lasting theoretical discussion about the meaning and extent of political liberty in a modern democratic society. Our suggested way to explain why the democratic political order as such might give rise to considerable challenges for political liberty introduces the classical virtue of courage as a possible key explanatory factor underlying the major tensions that emerge between democracy and liberty. Such approach provides some new insights into the debate about the origins, limits, and political perspectives of modern democracies. The analysis starts by conceptualizing modern democracy as a political form which expresses a specific ethical idea about the natural equality of people. Generally, it means that egalitarianism is the founding idea and moral purpose of a democratic political system, which tends to develop into a modern type of representative government and civil society. The second part of our analysis emphasizes the fact that liberty is by nature a political fact achieved only by practical participation of an individual in public life, and which cannot be reduced to formal, legal, economic or moral categories. Liberty, being a principle of public action, requires the capacity of a person to risk his personal wealth and safety for the sake of the common good. The third part of the analysis explains the crucial importance of the virtue of courage to the whole political life, as it is an ethical idea which aims at building such a character of a person that is capable and motivated to live an active public life. It is the virtue of courage that makes an individual morally fit and eager to practice liberty, as well as ready to defend it against any acts of despotism. Finally, the analysis assesses the diminishing role of courage due to the egalitarian public order of a democracy, resulting in adverse effects on liberty. The conclusions of the article highlight several points which are noted below. In a democratic society, courage loses its status as a virtue; thus, individuals become less capable and less motivated to live an active public life. Democracy rests on the principle that implies establishing and protecting the equality of its citizens, while the virtue of courage expresses an implicit distaste for egalitarianism and encourages people to strive for an ethically superior status than that of all the rest, i.e. it makes a clear hierarchical distinction between cowards, conformists, and heroes. That's why democracy banishes courage from its equality favouring public life, depriving it of its ethical status. The decline of this virtue makes the practice of liberty more complicated as individuals lose interest in risking their private wealth and safety for the sake of the common good. The diminishing capacity and interest of citizens in democracy to live an active public life, while giving preference to social equality which requires no personal effort, is a major problem for political liberty. As people become indifferent to the pursuit of the common good, liberty becomes inactive, and the political community becomes less immune to various manifestations of despotism.
The object of the study was to introduce an innovative approach to the long-lasting theoretical discussion about the meaning and extent of political liberty in a modern democratic society. Our suggested way to explain why the democratic political order as such might give rise to considerable challenges for political liberty introduces the classical virtue of courage as a possible key explanatory factor underlying the major tensions that emerge between democracy and liberty. Such approach provides some new insights into the debate about the origins, limits, and political perspectives of modern democracies. The analysis starts by conceptualizing modern democracy as a political form which expresses a specific ethical idea about the natural equality of people. Generally, it means that egalitarianism is the founding idea and moral purpose of a democratic political system, which tends to develop into a modern type of representative government and civil society. The second part of our analysis emphasizes the fact that liberty is by nature a political fact achieved only by practical participation of an individual in public life, and which cannot be reduced to formal, legal, economic or moral categories. Liberty, being a principle of public action, requires the capacity of a person to risk his personal wealth and safety for the sake of the common good. The third part of the analysis explains the crucial importance of the virtue of courage to the whole political life, as it is an ethical idea which aims at building such a character of a person that is capable and motivated to live an active public life. It is the virtue of courage that makes an individual morally fit and eager to practice liberty, as well as ready to defend it against any acts of despotism. Finally, the analysis assesses the diminishing role of courage due to the egalitarian public order of a democracy, resulting in adverse effects on liberty. The conclusions of the article highlight several points which are noted below. In a democratic society, courage loses its status as a virtue; thus, individuals become less capable and less motivated to live an active public life. Democracy rests on the principle that implies establishing and protecting the equality of its citizens, while the virtue of courage expresses an implicit distaste for egalitarianism and encourages people to strive for an ethically superior status than that of all the rest, i.e. it makes a clear hierarchical distinction between cowards, conformists, and heroes. That's why democracy banishes courage from its equality favouring public life, depriving it of its ethical status. The decline of this virtue makes the practice of liberty more complicated as individuals lose interest in risking their private wealth and safety for the sake of the common good. The diminishing capacity and interest of citizens in democracy to live an active public life, while giving preference to social equality which requires no personal effort, is a major problem for political liberty. As people become indifferent to the pursuit of the common good, liberty becomes inactive, and the political community becomes less immune to various manifestations of despotism.
The object of the study was to introduce an innovative approach to the long-lasting theoretical discussion about the meaning and extent of political liberty in a modern democratic society. Our suggested way to explain why the democratic political order as such might give rise to considerable challenges for political liberty introduces the classical virtue of courage as a possible key explanatory factor underlying the major tensions that emerge between democracy and liberty. Such approach provides some new insights into the debate about the origins, limits, and political perspectives of modern democracies. The analysis starts by conceptualizing modern democracy as a political form which expresses a specific ethical idea about the natural equality of people. Generally, it means that egalitarianism is the founding idea and moral purpose of a democratic political system, which tends to develop into a modern type of representative government and civil society. The second part of our analysis emphasizes the fact that liberty is by nature a political fact achieved only by practical participation of an individual in public life, and which cannot be reduced to formal, legal, economic or moral categories. Liberty, being a principle of public action, requires the capacity of a person to risk his personal wealth and safety for the sake of the common good. The third part of the analysis explains the crucial importance of the virtue of courage to the whole political life, as it is an ethical idea which aims at building such a character of a person that is capable and motivated to live an active public life. It is the virtue of courage that makes an individual morally fit and eager to practice liberty, as well as ready to defend it against any acts of despotism. Finally, the analysis assesses the diminishing role of courage due to the egalitarian public order of a democracy, resulting in adverse effects on liberty. The conclusions of the article highlight several points which are noted below. In a democratic society, courage loses its status as a virtue; thus, individuals become less capable and less motivated to live an active public life. Democracy rests on the principle that implies establishing and protecting the equality of its citizens, while the virtue of courage expresses an implicit distaste for egalitarianism and encourages people to strive for an ethically superior status than that of all the rest, i.e. it makes a clear hierarchical distinction between cowards, conformists, and heroes. That's why democracy banishes courage from its equality favouring public life, depriving it of its ethical status. The decline of this virtue makes the practice of liberty more complicated as individuals lose interest in risking their private wealth and safety for the sake of the common good. The diminishing capacity and interest of citizens in democracy to live an active public life, while giving preference to social equality which requires no personal effort, is a major problem for political liberty. As people become indifferent to the pursuit of the common good, liberty becomes inactive, and the political community becomes less immune to various manifestations of despotism.
The punk phenomenon has been both widely praised and criticized. For some, it has been the ultimate expression of youthful anger and rebellion, especially in the 1980s when the United States was once again returning to a white heteronormative value system and mass consumerism. For others, it is evidence of a postmodern condition where any rebellion is systematically appropriated and pacified through the consumer market. Punk subculture(s) have also been widely criticized both for their inability to live up to self-proclaimed ideals of egalitarianism and for their failure to break away from the social norms structuring larger society. In this paper, I take the rise of hardcore punk subcultures in the early 1980s and the diversification of punk, such as Riot Grrrl and Queercore, in the 1990s as a broad historical framework, while analyzing punk discourses throughout punk history in the US. In providing a broader overview of debates in various disciplines this paper aims to address some of the concerns over issues of the "holy family" of social sciences in the US, namely those of gender/sexuality, race, and class, while situating them within a historico-political context. It also discusses the theoretical considerations of subcultural and popular culture studies by analyzing primary and secondary materials within and about punk subcultures. It is common to assume that subculture, by its very nature, implies exclusivity: who is excluded and why may vary, but exclusions remain prevalent. However, in the neoliberal and identity politics era, these exclusions became more subtle even if more frequently addressed. [.]
The punk phenomenon has been both widely praised and criticized. For some, it has been the ultimate expression of youthful anger and rebellion, especially in the 1980s when the United States was once again returning to a white heteronormative value system and mass consumerism. For others, it is evidence of a postmodern condition where any rebellion is systematically appropriated and pacified through the consumer market. Punk subculture(s) have also been widely criticized both for their inability to live up to self-proclaimed ideals of egalitarianism and for their failure to break away from the social norms structuring larger society. In this paper, I take the rise of hardcore punk subcultures in the early 1980s and the diversification of punk, such as Riot Grrrl and Queercore, in the 1990s as a broad historical framework, while analyzing punk discourses throughout punk history in the US. In providing a broader overview of debates in various disciplines this paper aims to address some of the concerns over issues of the "holy family" of social sciences in the US, namely those of gender/sexuality, race, and class, while situating them within a historico-political context. It also discusses the theoretical considerations of subcultural and popular culture studies by analyzing primary and secondary materials within and about punk subcultures. It is common to assume that subculture, by its very nature, implies exclusivity: who is excluded and why may vary, but exclusions remain prevalent. However, in the neoliberal and identity politics era, these exclusions became more subtle even if more frequently addressed. [.]
The punk phenomenon has been both widely praised and criticized. For some, it has been the ultimate expression of youthful anger and rebellion, especially in the 1980s when the United States was once again returning to a white heteronormative value system and mass consumerism. For others, it is evidence of a postmodern condition where any rebellion is systematically appropriated and pacified through the consumer market. Punk subculture(s) have also been widely criticized both for their inability to live up to self-proclaimed ideals of egalitarianism and for their failure to break away from the social norms structuring larger society. In this paper, I take the rise of hardcore punk subcultures in the early 1980s and the diversification of punk, such as Riot Grrrl and Queercore, in the 1990s as a broad historical framework, while analyzing punk discourses throughout punk history in the US. In providing a broader overview of debates in various disciplines this paper aims to address some of the concerns over issues of the "holy family" of social sciences in the US, namely those of gender/sexuality, race, and class, while situating them within a historico-political context. It also discusses the theoretical considerations of subcultural and popular culture studies by analyzing primary and secondary materials within and about punk subcultures. It is common to assume that subculture, by its very nature, implies exclusivity: who is excluded and why may vary, but exclusions remain prevalent. However, in the neoliberal and identity politics era, these exclusions became more subtle even if more frequently addressed. [.]
This paper discusses the encounter of Enlightenment and Romanticism in John Stuart Mill's philosophy. The majority of authors and Mill's commentators (especially John Gray) tend to look at it as the theory with principles of Enlightenment. The smaller part of commentators (Nicholas Capaldi, Isaiah Berlin) sees in Mill's conception also the principles of Romanticism modifying the traditional interpretation of English philosopher. But in fact this not-dominant approach practically is not analysed – it is limited only with brief notices. Therefore this master work is dedicated to attitude that Mill's philosophy develops both from basic principles of Enlightenment and those of Romanticism. The inconsistency of Mill's thought could be related with conflict of Enlightenment and Romanticism which, according to Alvydas Jokubaitis, could be named as the encounter of naturalism and expressivism. In conformity with this separation we could clearly see that Mill is characterized by naturalistic orientation (mostly in area of science) and expressivist orientation (in examination of person and partly – of society). There are indicated the essential principles of Enlightenment in Mill's philosophy: 1) meliorism (the belief that persons, groups of persons, institutions, science, etc. improve and progresses) which denotes that utilitarian and political theory of this philosopher is pictured as stimulating social, as well as closely related intellectual progress; 2) egalitarianism (the belief that there is no valid hierarchy between persons and groups of persons) which denotes that hierarchy and social, political inequality, the existence of whom means eluding of justice, are rejected; 3) rationalism (the belief that person's mind and logic are the essential origin of knowledge so thought and behaviour have to be grounded on it) which denotes that rational intelligible truth, enabling scientific knowledge and rational political theory, exists; 4) universalism (the belief that there are acceptable ideas, social constructs to everyone without reference to historical, cultural, etc. conditions) which denotes general acceptability of ideals of civilization and representative government. Meanwhile the essential principles of Romanticism in Mill's philosophy are 1) individualism (the belief that persons interests are prior to that of society therefore society is build for the sake of individual) which denotes the delineation of limit from society through cultivation of personal features but also denotes the permanent relation with it through individualized government; 2) expressivism (the belief that artistic creation, feelings and morality are vital means for self-expression and self-creation) which denotes the separation of the truths of science and art which in turn enables the poetisation of the world and aestheticalising as well as emotionalizing of morality; 3) pluralism (the belief that society consists of various individuals with diverse conceptions of the good life) which denotes that there exists the basic diversity of human identities and determined of this condition – the diversity of opinions and attitudes. It can be observed that principles of Enlightenment, as well of Romanticism, are characterized by internal coherence and interconnection in them. Situation changes when principles of mentioned doctrines encounter with each other (as it is in Mill's philosophy). Then it can be clearly seen that, suppose, universalism begin to contradict pluralism, rationalism contradicts expressivism, etc. Probably the only principle, which do not confront, is meliorism referring to Mill's attitude that persons and societies, art and science are improving.
This paper discusses the encounter of Enlightenment and Romanticism in John Stuart Mill's philosophy. The majority of authors and Mill's commentators (especially John Gray) tend to look at it as the theory with principles of Enlightenment. The smaller part of commentators (Nicholas Capaldi, Isaiah Berlin) sees in Mill's conception also the principles of Romanticism modifying the traditional interpretation of English philosopher. But in fact this not-dominant approach practically is not analysed – it is limited only with brief notices. Therefore this master work is dedicated to attitude that Mill's philosophy develops both from basic principles of Enlightenment and those of Romanticism. The inconsistency of Mill's thought could be related with conflict of Enlightenment and Romanticism which, according to Alvydas Jokubaitis, could be named as the encounter of naturalism and expressivism. In conformity with this separation we could clearly see that Mill is characterized by naturalistic orientation (mostly in area of science) and expressivist orientation (in examination of person and partly – of society). There are indicated the essential principles of Enlightenment in Mill's philosophy: 1) meliorism (the belief that persons, groups of persons, institutions, science, etc. improve and progresses) which denotes that utilitarian and political theory of this philosopher is pictured as stimulating social, as well as closely related intellectual progress; 2) egalitarianism (the belief that there is no valid hierarchy between persons and groups of persons) which denotes that hierarchy and social, political inequality, the existence of whom means eluding of justice, are rejected; 3) rationalism (the belief that person's mind and logic are the essential origin of knowledge so thought and behaviour have to be grounded on it) which denotes that rational intelligible truth, enabling scientific knowledge and rational political theory, exists; 4) universalism (the belief that there are acceptable ideas, social constructs to everyone without reference to historical, cultural, etc. conditions) which denotes general acceptability of ideals of civilization and representative government. Meanwhile the essential principles of Romanticism in Mill's philosophy are 1) individualism (the belief that persons interests are prior to that of society therefore society is build for the sake of individual) which denotes the delineation of limit from society through cultivation of personal features but also denotes the permanent relation with it through individualized government; 2) expressivism (the belief that artistic creation, feelings and morality are vital means for self-expression and self-creation) which denotes the separation of the truths of science and art which in turn enables the poetisation of the world and aestheticalising as well as emotionalizing of morality; 3) pluralism (the belief that society consists of various individuals with diverse conceptions of the good life) which denotes that there exists the basic diversity of human identities and determined of this condition – the diversity of opinions and attitudes. It can be observed that principles of Enlightenment, as well of Romanticism, are characterized by internal coherence and interconnection in them. Situation changes when principles of mentioned doctrines encounter with each other (as it is in Mill's philosophy). Then it can be clearly seen that, suppose, universalism begin to contradict pluralism, rationalism contradicts expressivism, etc. Probably the only principle, which do not confront, is meliorism referring to Mill's attitude that persons and societies, art and science are improving.
This paper discusses the encounter of Enlightenment and Romanticism in John Stuart Mill's philosophy. The majority of authors and Mill's commentators (especially John Gray) tend to look at it as the theory with principles of Enlightenment. The smaller part of commentators (Nicholas Capaldi, Isaiah Berlin) sees in Mill's conception also the principles of Romanticism modifying the traditional interpretation of English philosopher. But in fact this not-dominant approach practically is not analysed – it is limited only with brief notices. Therefore this master work is dedicated to attitude that Mill's philosophy develops both from basic principles of Enlightenment and those of Romanticism. The inconsistency of Mill's thought could be related with conflict of Enlightenment and Romanticism which, according to Alvydas Jokubaitis, could be named as the encounter of naturalism and expressivism. In conformity with this separation we could clearly see that Mill is characterized by naturalistic orientation (mostly in area of science) and expressivist orientation (in examination of person and partly – of society). There are indicated the essential principles of Enlightenment in Mill's philosophy: 1) meliorism (the belief that persons, groups of persons, institutions, science, etc. improve and progresses) which denotes that utilitarian and political theory of this philosopher is pictured as stimulating social, as well as closely related intellectual progress; 2) egalitarianism (the belief that there is no valid hierarchy between persons and groups of persons) which denotes that hierarchy and social, political inequality, the existence of whom means eluding of justice, are rejected; 3) rationalism (the belief that person's mind and logic are the essential origin of knowledge so thought and behaviour have to be grounded on it) which denotes that rational intelligible truth, enabling scientific knowledge and rational political theory, exists; 4) universalism (the belief that there are acceptable ideas, social constructs to everyone without reference to historical, cultural, etc. conditions) which denotes general acceptability of ideals of civilization and representative government. Meanwhile the essential principles of Romanticism in Mill's philosophy are 1) individualism (the belief that persons interests are prior to that of society therefore society is build for the sake of individual) which denotes the delineation of limit from society through cultivation of personal features but also denotes the permanent relation with it through individualized government; 2) expressivism (the belief that artistic creation, feelings and morality are vital means for self-expression and self-creation) which denotes the separation of the truths of science and art which in turn enables the poetisation of the world and aestheticalising as well as emotionalizing of morality; 3) pluralism (the belief that society consists of various individuals with diverse conceptions of the good life) which denotes that there exists the basic diversity of human identities and determined of this condition – the diversity of opinions and attitudes. It can be observed that principles of Enlightenment, as well of Romanticism, are characterized by internal coherence and interconnection in them. Situation changes when principles of mentioned doctrines encounter with each other (as it is in Mill's philosophy). Then it can be clearly seen that, suppose, universalism begin to contradict pluralism, rationalism contradicts expressivism, etc. Probably the only principle, which do not confront, is meliorism referring to Mill's attitude that persons and societies, art and science are improving.
This paper discusses the encounter of Enlightenment and Romanticism in John Stuart Mill's philosophy. The majority of authors and Mill's commentators (especially John Gray) tend to look at it as the theory with principles of Enlightenment. The smaller part of commentators (Nicholas Capaldi, Isaiah Berlin) sees in Mill's conception also the principles of Romanticism modifying the traditional interpretation of English philosopher. But in fact this not-dominant approach practically is not analysed – it is limited only with brief notices. Therefore this master work is dedicated to attitude that Mill's philosophy develops both from basic principles of Enlightenment and those of Romanticism. The inconsistency of Mill's thought could be related with conflict of Enlightenment and Romanticism which, according to Alvydas Jokubaitis, could be named as the encounter of naturalism and expressivism. In conformity with this separation we could clearly see that Mill is characterized by naturalistic orientation (mostly in area of science) and expressivist orientation (in examination of person and partly – of society). There are indicated the essential principles of Enlightenment in Mill's philosophy: 1) meliorism (the belief that persons, groups of persons, institutions, science, etc. improve and progresses) which denotes that utilitarian and political theory of this philosopher is pictured as stimulating social, as well as closely related intellectual progress; 2) egalitarianism (the belief that there is no valid hierarchy between persons and groups of persons) which denotes that hierarchy and social, political inequality, the existence of whom means eluding of justice, are rejected; 3) rationalism (the belief that person's mind and logic are the essential origin of knowledge so thought and behaviour have to be grounded on it) which denotes that rational intelligible truth, enabling scientific knowledge and rational political theory, exists; 4) universalism (the belief that there are acceptable ideas, social constructs to everyone without reference to historical, cultural, etc. conditions) which denotes general acceptability of ideals of civilization and representative government. Meanwhile the essential principles of Romanticism in Mill's philosophy are 1) individualism (the belief that persons interests are prior to that of society therefore society is build for the sake of individual) which denotes the delineation of limit from society through cultivation of personal features but also denotes the permanent relation with it through individualized government; 2) expressivism (the belief that artistic creation, feelings and morality are vital means for self-expression and self-creation) which denotes the separation of the truths of science and art which in turn enables the poetisation of the world and aestheticalising as well as emotionalizing of morality; 3) pluralism (the belief that society consists of various individuals with diverse conceptions of the good life) which denotes that there exists the basic diversity of human identities and determined of this condition – the diversity of opinions and attitudes. It can be observed that principles of Enlightenment, as well of Romanticism, are characterized by internal coherence and interconnection in them. Situation changes when principles of mentioned doctrines encounter with each other (as it is in Mill's philosophy). Then it can be clearly seen that, suppose, universalism begin to contradict pluralism, rationalism contradicts expressivism, etc. Probably the only principle, which do not confront, is meliorism referring to Mill's attitude that persons and societies, art and science are improving.
