Suchergebnisse

The Statesman is Plato's neglected political work. Due to the difficulties of the Statesman, the dialogue suffers from the disparity in the number of its translations, commentaries, and research studies on it. This dialogue is Plato's neglected political work, but it is crucial for the understanding of the development of his political thinking as well as of Republic and Laws. So, this article is arranged as follows: at the beginning, there are presented the analysis of the myth as an example of political philosophy, also, there is an emphasis on the analysis of how the myth as part of literature becomes an opposition of philosophical discourse. In a confused way, literature is the fictive institution which allows one to say everything, in every way, and sometimes it reveals the truth, becomes the only way to tell about the true nature of the things. Most likely in this way the myth of the Statesman works. In the second part of this publication, the translated part of the dialogue, the so-called Myth of the Statesman is presented. The text is presentend with its own notes and commentaries below the text for the extended reading of the dialogue. In addition, the original Greek text has been inserted as a necessity for a comparison and analysis of the translated text. The dialogue itself likewise contains a central section on the paradigm and measure, which affects the passage between the statesman as a shepherd and the statesman as a weaver. It is ostensibly an attempt to arrive at the definition of the statesman as a ruler who has a political power called for a specialized knowledge. Those two passages of definitions are both divided and united by the great myth of Statesman (268–274e), for this reason the myth becomes the part of great importance of a dialogue and political thinking of Plato.

The Statesman is Plato's neglected political work. Due to the difficulties of the Statesman, the dialogue suffers from the disparity in the number of its translations, commentaries, and research studies on it. This dialogue is Plato's neglected political work, but it is crucial for the understanding of the development of his political thinking as well as of Republic and Laws. So, this article is arranged as follows: at the beginning, there are presented the analysis of the myth as an example of political philosophy, also, there is an emphasis on the analysis of how the myth as part of literature becomes an opposition of philosophical discourse. In a confused way, literature is the fictive institution which allows one to say everything, in every way, and sometimes it reveals the truth, becomes the only way to tell about the true nature of the things. Most likely in this way the myth of the Statesman works. In the second part of this publication, the translated part of the dialogue, the so-called Myth of the Statesman is presented. The text is presentend with its own notes and commentaries below the text for the extended reading of the dialogue. In addition, the original Greek text has been inserted as a necessity for a comparison and analysis of the translated text. The dialogue itself likewise contains a central section on the paradigm and measure, which affects the passage between the statesman as a shepherd and the statesman as a weaver. It is ostensibly an attempt to arrive at the definition of the statesman as a ruler who has a political power called for a specialized knowledge. Those two passages of definitions are both divided and united by the great myth of Statesman (268–274e), for this reason the myth becomes the part of great importance of a dialogue and political thinking of Plato.

The Statesman is Plato's neglected political work. Due to the difficulties of the Statesman, the dialogue suffers from the disparity in the number of its translations, commentaries, and research studies on it. This dialogue is Plato's neglected political work, but it is crucial for the understanding of the development of his political thinking as well as of Republic and Laws. So, this article is arranged as follows: at the beginning, there are presented the analysis of the myth as an example of political philosophy, also, there is an emphasis on the analysis of how the myth as part of literature becomes an opposition of philosophical discourse. In a confused way, literature is the fictive institution which allows one to say everything, in every way, and sometimes it reveals the truth, becomes the only way to tell about the true nature of the things. Most likely in this way the myth of the Statesman works. In the second part of this publication, the translated part of the dialogue, the so-called Myth of the Statesman is presented. The text is presentend with its own notes and commentaries below the text for the extended reading of the dialogue. In addition, the original Greek text has been inserted as a necessity for a comparison and analysis of the translated text. The dialogue itself likewise contains a central section on the paradigm and measure, which affects the passage between the statesman as a shepherd and the statesman as a weaver. It is ostensibly an attempt to arrive at the definition of the statesman as a ruler who has a political power called for a specialized knowledge. Those two passages of definitions are both divided and united by the great myth of Statesman (268–274e), for this reason the myth becomes the part of great importance of a dialogue and political thinking of Plato.

The Statesman is Plato's neglected political work. Due to the difficulties of the Statesman, the dialogue suffers from the disparity in the number of its translations, commentaries, and research studies on it. This dialogue is Plato's neglected political work, but it is crucial for the understanding of the development of his political thinking as well as of Republic and Laws. So, this article is arranged as follows: at the beginning, there are presented the analysis of the myth as an example of political philosophy, also, there is an emphasis on the analysis of how the myth as part of literature becomes an opposition of philosophical discourse. In a confused way, literature is the fictive institution which allows one to say everything, in every way, and sometimes it reveals the truth, becomes the only way to tell about the true nature of the things. Most likely in this way the myth of the Statesman works. In the second part of this publication, the translated part of the dialogue, the so-called Myth of the Statesman is presented. The text is presentend with its own notes and commentaries below the text for the extended reading of the dialogue. In addition, the original Greek text has been inserted as a necessity for a comparison and analysis of the translated text. The dialogue itself likewise contains a central section on the paradigm and measure, which affects the passage between the statesman as a shepherd and the statesman as a weaver. It is ostensibly an attempt to arrive at the definition of the statesman as a ruler who has a political power called for a specialized knowledge. Those two passages of definitions are both divided and united by the great myth of Statesman (268–274e), for this reason the myth becomes the part of great importance of a dialogue and political thinking of Plato.

The article speaks about trickster's archetype, schemes of understanding, examplesmodels of behaviour and their cultural manifestations in myths, literature, carnivals, theatre and politics. The aim of the article is to analyse and demonstrate the development of tricksters' typology in culture and politics. Therfore, political activities are explained, not only as independent and unique but also as dependent on variations of archetypes, types, schemes, models and examples. Mythological and literal, historical analysis of archetypes, schemes of thinking, prototypes and models help to understand some social, cultural and political processes and model them. The methodology of analysis of cultural types follows by ideas of comparative typology of Vytautas Kavolis, analytical anthropology of Valerij Podoroga, and the comparative history of cultural models of Piter Sloterdijk. In addition, attention in the article is also devoted to the relations between literature and politics, which was discovered in the books of Yves Guchet and Leonidas Donskis. Trickster is interpreted according to structural anthropology and studies in mythology as a transitional figure: between beast and over-human, natural and civilized, pre-structural and ordered. How the transitional position transforms into carnival figure and becomes attractive for people's carnivals and theatre. The article interprets theories of Trickster of P. Radin, J. Campbell and G. Jung based of phenomenon of tricksking in. [to full text]

The article speaks about trickster's archetype, schemes of understanding, examplesmodels of behaviour and their cultural manifestations in myths, literature, carnivals, theatre and politics. The aim of the article is to analyse and demonstrate the development of tricksters' typology in culture and politics. Therfore, political activities are explained, not only as independent and unique but also as dependent on variations of archetypes, types, schemes, models and examples. Mythological and literal, historical analysis of archetypes, schemes of thinking, prototypes and models help to understand some social, cultural and political processes and model them. The methodology of analysis of cultural types follows by ideas of comparative typology of Vytautas Kavolis, analytical anthropology of Valerij Podoroga, and the comparative history of cultural models of Piter Sloterdijk. In addition, attention in the article is also devoted to the relations between literature and politics, which was discovered in the books of Yves Guchet and Leonidas Donskis. Trickster is interpreted according to structural anthropology and studies in mythology as a transitional figure: between beast and over-human, natural and civilized, pre-structural and ordered. How the transitional position transforms into carnival figure and becomes attractive for people's carnivals and theatre. The article interprets theories of Trickster of P. Radin, J. Campbell and G. Jung based of phenomenon of tricksking in. [to full text]

The article speaks about trickster's archetype, schemes of understanding, examplesmodels of behaviour and their cultural manifestations in myths, literature, carnivals, theatre and politics. The aim of the article is to analyse and demonstrate the development of tricksters' typology in culture and politics. Therfore, political activities are explained, not only as independent and unique but also as dependent on variations of archetypes, types, schemes, models and examples. Mythological and literal, historical analysis of archetypes, schemes of thinking, prototypes and models help to understand some social, cultural and political processes and model them. The methodology of analysis of cultural types follows by ideas of comparative typology of Vytautas Kavolis, analytical anthropology of Valerij Podoroga, and the comparative history of cultural models of Piter Sloterdijk. In addition, attention in the article is also devoted to the relations between literature and politics, which was discovered in the books of Yves Guchet and Leonidas Donskis. Trickster is interpreted according to structural anthropology and studies in mythology as a transitional figure: between beast and over-human, natural and civilized, pre-structural and ordered. How the transitional position transforms into carnival figure and becomes attractive for people's carnivals and theatre. The article interprets theories of Trickster of P. Radin, J. Campbell and G. Jung based of phenomenon of tricksking in. [to full text]

The article analyses different ways of interpreting and presenting social realities on contemporary Lithuanian thea-tre stage. While analysing Lithuanian performances of the last two decades one might state that the increasing number of works deal with the problems of contemporary social reality, new identities and sociocultural phenom-enons. However there is a substancial difference between performances produced during the first decade of the Independence and the ones produced during the second one. During the first decade Lithuanian theatre direc-tors tried to contemplate about emerging realities and social problems with the help of contemporary drama texts, whereas during the second decade the new modes of reflection of relevant societal topics began to take shape: per-sonal stories, unmediated presence of actors, deconstruction of canonic texts or images. With the help of two case studies – performance of Mark Ravenhill's shoping and Fucking(1999, OKT) and oedipus the king(2002, OKT) by Sophocles, both directed by Oskaras Koršunovas the analysis of different possibilities of reflecting contemporary re-alities onstage is performed. At the same time article raised more general questions about the notions and strategies of social / political theatre in post-soviet Lithuania.

The article analyses different ways of interpreting and presenting social realities on contemporary Lithuanian thea-tre stage. While analysing Lithuanian performances of the last two decades one might state that the increasing number of works deal with the problems of contemporary social reality, new identities and sociocultural phenom-enons. However there is a substancial difference between performances produced during the first decade of the Independence and the ones produced during the second one. During the first decade Lithuanian theatre direc-tors tried to contemplate about emerging realities and social problems with the help of contemporary drama texts, whereas during the second decade the new modes of reflection of relevant societal topics began to take shape: per-sonal stories, unmediated presence of actors, deconstruction of canonic texts or images. With the help of two case studies – performance of Mark Ravenhill's shoping and Fucking(1999, OKT) and oedipus the king(2002, OKT) by Sophocles, both directed by Oskaras Koršunovas the analysis of different possibilities of reflecting contemporary re-alities onstage is performed. At the same time article raised more general questions about the notions and strategies of social / political theatre in post-soviet Lithuania.

The article analyses different ways of interpreting and presenting social realities on contemporary Lithuanian thea-tre stage. While analysing Lithuanian performances of the last two decades one might state that the increasing number of works deal with the problems of contemporary social reality, new identities and sociocultural phenom-enons. However there is a substancial difference between performances produced during the first decade of the Independence and the ones produced during the second one. During the first decade Lithuanian theatre direc-tors tried to contemplate about emerging realities and social problems with the help of contemporary drama texts, whereas during the second decade the new modes of reflection of relevant societal topics began to take shape: per-sonal stories, unmediated presence of actors, deconstruction of canonic texts or images. With the help of two case studies – performance of Mark Ravenhill's shoping and Fucking(1999, OKT) and oedipus the king(2002, OKT) by Sophocles, both directed by Oskaras Koršunovas the analysis of different possibilities of reflecting contemporary re-alities onstage is performed. At the same time article raised more general questions about the notions and strategies of social / political theatre in post-soviet Lithuania.

Research into the artistic culture of Lithuania during the time of the first Soviet occupation is interesting in itself. At the same time, it helps one to grasp the particularities that art and politics had in common throughout Western culture in the 20th century. The topic is also relevant in terms of other research regarding Lithuanian history. Without the period 1940-1941, the mosaic of the mid-20th century remains incomplete. The first Soviet occupation of Lithuania left a distinctive mark on the life of the country, and it is impossible to comprehensively analyse the much longer period of the second Soviet occupation without evaluating the cultural consequences of the former. An overview of Lithuanian art in 1940-1941 could allow one to say that both the modernists, and the bards of patriotism collaborated with the occupying Soviet authorities. Both chose a path of compromise. The first gave up their artistic ideals and professional ambitions, and the second resolved to reform their historical memory and civic consciousness for the sake of a career. All the same, it must be acknowledged that with the arrival of the second Soviet occupation, the majority of the most talented and ambitious Lithuanian artists chose the fate of an emigrant. In Soviet Lithuania, the work of Jonynas, Kašuba and Petravičius was seen as an example of free art, as a source of the vitality of the nation's culture feeding those who were suffering oppression.

Research into the artistic culture of Lithuania during the time of the first Soviet occupation is interesting in itself. At the same time, it helps one to grasp the particularities that art and politics had in common throughout Western culture in the 20th century. The topic is also relevant in terms of other research regarding Lithuanian history. Without the period 1940-1941, the mosaic of the mid-20th century remains incomplete. The first Soviet occupation of Lithuania left a distinctive mark on the life of the country, and it is impossible to comprehensively analyse the much longer period of the second Soviet occupation without evaluating the cultural consequences of the former. An overview of Lithuanian art in 1940-1941 could allow one to say that both the modernists, and the bards of patriotism collaborated with the occupying Soviet authorities. Both chose a path of compromise. The first gave up their artistic ideals and professional ambitions, and the second resolved to reform their historical memory and civic consciousness for the sake of a career. All the same, it must be acknowledged that with the arrival of the second Soviet occupation, the majority of the most talented and ambitious Lithuanian artists chose the fate of an emigrant. In Soviet Lithuania, the work of Jonynas, Kašuba and Petravičius was seen as an example of free art, as a source of the vitality of the nation's culture feeding those who were suffering oppression.

Research into the artistic culture of Lithuania during the time of the first Soviet occupation is interesting in itself. At the same time, it helps one to grasp the particularities that art and politics had in common throughout Western culture in the 20th century. The topic is also relevant in terms of other research regarding Lithuanian history. Without the period 1940-1941, the mosaic of the mid-20th century remains incomplete. The first Soviet occupation of Lithuania left a distinctive mark on the life of the country, and it is impossible to comprehensively analyse the much longer period of the second Soviet occupation without evaluating the cultural consequences of the former. An overview of Lithuanian art in 1940-1941 could allow one to say that both the modernists, and the bards of patriotism collaborated with the occupying Soviet authorities. Both chose a path of compromise. The first gave up their artistic ideals and professional ambitions, and the second resolved to reform their historical memory and civic consciousness for the sake of a career. All the same, it must be acknowledged that with the arrival of the second Soviet occupation, the majority of the most talented and ambitious Lithuanian artists chose the fate of an emigrant. In Soviet Lithuania, the work of Jonynas, Kašuba and Petravičius was seen as an example of free art, as a source of the vitality of the nation's culture feeding those who were suffering oppression.

Research into the artistic culture of Lithuania during the time of the first Soviet occupation is interesting in itself. At the same time, it helps one to grasp the particularities that art and politics had in common throughout Western culture in the 20th century. The topic is also relevant in terms of other research regarding Lithuanian history. Without the period 1940-1941, the mosaic of the mid-20th century remains incomplete. The first Soviet occupation of Lithuania left a distinctive mark on the life of the country, and it is impossible to comprehensively analyse the much longer period of the second Soviet occupation without evaluating the cultural consequences of the former. An overview of Lithuanian art in 1940-1941 could allow one to say that both the modernists, and the bards of patriotism collaborated with the occupying Soviet authorities. Both chose a path of compromise. The first gave up their artistic ideals and professional ambitions, and the second resolved to reform their historical memory and civic consciousness for the sake of a career. All the same, it must be acknowledged that with the arrival of the second Soviet occupation, the majority of the most talented and ambitious Lithuanian artists chose the fate of an emigrant. In Soviet Lithuania, the work of Jonynas, Kašuba and Petravičius was seen as an example of free art, as a source of the vitality of the nation's culture feeding those who were suffering oppression.

There are two ways of looking at the relationship between politics and imagination. Imagination is a capacity to create images and objects that directly cannot be perceived. As such imagination often is perceived as a capacity to create make-believes, taking us away from the reality, therefore imagination should have no role in the political world. Contrary to this position, one can overall deny the clear distinction between reality and imagination, due to the fact that political works is made from values, believes, myths, stories -- all that separates the world of political from the world of nature. Both positions have their own faults. The first one ignores and fails to explain the various influences on the political -- such as myths, beliefs, and religious arguments. This position largely treats policy knowledge as though it were a matter of rational calculation. The second -- drives towards the Baudrillard-like view of the world made if simulacra and signs failing at the same time to draw a distinction between make-believes and the products of imagination that have real political effect. The objective of the article is to research the relationship between politics and imagination. Adapted from the source document.