Suchergebnisse

The article raises the question how the attitude towards religion is influenced by the changes of relation with the meaning of matters which are ascribed to religion. With reference to M. Heidegger the peculiarity of public opinion is being disclosed. The author states that secularization functions as a machinery which appropriates any meaning: the public opinion appropriates religion, reduces it to political, economical or criminal dimensions, to that of cultural heritage, so religion assumes its essence and reality in these dimensions. The author demonstrates that public interpretation functions as an unmasking machinery which strengthens that reduction and appropriation of meaning. The analysis of religion in the context of globalization shows that there is some tendency to localization of religious meaning: the religious communities tend to direct towards the radicalism and isolation.

The article raises the question how the attitude towards religion is influenced by the changes of relation with the meaning of matters which are ascribed to religion. With reference to M. Heidegger the peculiarity of public opinion is being disclosed. The author states that secularization functions as a machinery which appropriates any meaning: the public opinion appropriates religion, reduces it to political, economical or criminal dimensions, to that of cultural heritage, so religion assumes its essence and reality in these dimensions. The author demonstrates that public interpretation functions as an unmasking machinery which strengthens that reduction and appropriation of meaning. The analysis of religion in the context of globalization shows that there is some tendency to localization of religious meaning: the religious communities tend to direct towards the radicalism and isolation.

The article raises the question how the attitude towards religion is influenced by the changes of relation with the meaning of matters which are ascribed to religion. With reference to M. Heidegger the peculiarity of public opinion is being disclosed. The author states that secularization functions as a machinery which appropriates any meaning: the public opinion appropriates religion, reduces it to political, economical or criminal dimensions, to that of cultural heritage, so religion assumes its essence and reality in these dimensions. The author demonstrates that public interpretation functions as an unmasking machinery which strengthens that reduction and appropriation of meaning. The analysis of religion in the context of globalization shows that there is some tendency to localization of religious meaning: the religious communities tend to direct towards the radicalism and isolation.

The article raises the question how the attitude towards religion is influenced by the changes of relation with the meaning of matters which are ascribed to religion. With reference to M. Heidegger the peculiarity of public opinion is being disclosed. The author states that secularization functions as a machinery which appropriates any meaning: the public opinion appropriates religion, reduces it to political, economical or criminal dimensions, to that of cultural heritage, so religion assumes its essence and reality in these dimensions. The author demonstrates that public interpretation functions as an unmasking machinery which strengthens that reduction and appropriation of meaning. The analysis of religion in the context of globalization shows that there is some tendency to localization of religious meaning: the religious communities tend to direct towards the radicalism and isolation.

This article deals with the question of religion in contemporary secular world, to be precise – the main questions are: what mean political and ethical aspects of religion which are in the focus of contemporary secular world, and what is the social sense (meaning) of religion? The author tries to answer these questions and to find theoretical origins of such attitude toward religion by analyzing the interpretations of religion in Immanuel Kant and Jürgen Habermas. Both philosophers envisage the sense of religion in its social purpose. Kantian project of moral religion and Habermas' endeavor to overcome social disintegration, reviving the dialog between reason and religion, have been interpreted not only as the process of reduction of religion into social plane and an act of appropriation of the religious. One can see that both thinkers encounter the social contingency as the phenomenon (or prophenomenon) which itself is not very clear but appears as grounding the social sense of religion. Therefore the author comes to conclusion that social sense of religion in the secular situation means not only appropriation of the religious (immanentization) but also reveals social relationship as that which calls for religious sense (transcendence in immanence).

This article deals with the question of religion in contemporary secular world, to be precise – the main questions are: what mean political and ethical aspects of religion which are in the focus of contemporary secular world, and what is the social sense (meaning) of religion? The author tries to answer these questions and to find theoretical origins of such attitude toward religion by analyzing the interpretations of religion in Immanuel Kant and Jürgen Habermas. Both philosophers envisage the sense of religion in its social purpose. Kantian project of moral religion and Habermas' endeavor to overcome social disintegration, reviving the dialog between reason and religion, have been interpreted not only as the process of reduction of religion into social plane and an act of appropriation of the religious. One can see that both thinkers encounter the social contingency as the phenomenon (or prophenomenon) which itself is not very clear but appears as grounding the social sense of religion. Therefore the author comes to conclusion that social sense of religion in the secular situation means not only appropriation of the religious (immanentization) but also reveals social relationship as that which calls for religious sense (transcendence in immanence).

This article deals with the question of religion in contemporary secular world, to be precise – the main questions are: what mean political and ethical aspects of religion which are in the focus of contemporary secular world, and what is the social sense (meaning) of religion? The author tries to answer these questions and to find theoretical origins of such attitude toward religion by analyzing the interpretations of religion in Immanuel Kant and Jürgen Habermas. Both philosophers envisage the sense of religion in its social purpose. Kantian project of moral religion and Habermas' endeavor to overcome social disintegration, reviving the dialog between reason and religion, have been interpreted not only as the process of reduction of religion into social plane and an act of appropriation of the religious. One can see that both thinkers encounter the social contingency as the phenomenon (or prophenomenon) which itself is not very clear but appears as grounding the social sense of religion. Therefore the author comes to conclusion that social sense of religion in the secular situation means not only appropriation of the religious (immanentization) but also reveals social relationship as that which calls for religious sense (transcendence in immanence).

This article deals with the question of religion in contemporary secular world, to be precise – the main questions are: what mean political and ethical aspects of religion which are in the focus of contemporary secular world, and what is the social sense (meaning) of religion? The author tries to answer these questions and to find theoretical origins of such attitude toward religion by analyzing the interpretations of religion in Immanuel Kant and Jürgen Habermas. Both philosophers envisage the sense of religion in its social purpose. Kantian project of moral religion and Habermas' endeavor to overcome social disintegration, reviving the dialog between reason and religion, have been interpreted not only as the process of reduction of religion into social plane and an act of appropriation of the religious. One can see that both thinkers encounter the social contingency as the phenomenon (or prophenomenon) which itself is not very clear but appears as grounding the social sense of religion. Therefore the author comes to conclusion that social sense of religion in the secular situation means not only appropriation of the religious (immanentization) but also reveals social relationship as that which calls for religious sense (transcendence in immanence).

The article is based on an idea that there are four different modes of understanding reality – practice, science, art and mysticism. Political liberalism demands separation of public and private beliefs. However, mystical understanding of reality is not a system of propositions and beliefs. This is why one can speak of a conflict between liberalism and mystical understanding of reality. Political liberalism imposes a certain understanding of reality on believers. Liberals propose to remove religious convictions from public life and not to treat them as a basis of politics. They forget that mystics have the biggest trouble namely with convictions. To turn the reality of God into words for them is always the hardest task. Mystics find God before words, concepts and discourses. Liberals reduce religion to convictions and demand from mystics to comprehend that, which in their opinion is not comprehensible. There is a tension between liberalism and people who have mystical experiences. Liberals narrow down religious experience to convictions. However, mystical experience is a much broader subject. Behind it stands an understanding of world that has its own standards of reality.

The article is based on an idea that there are four different modes of understanding reality – practice, science, art and mysticism. Political liberalism demands separation of public and private beliefs. However, mystical understanding of reality is not a system of propositions and beliefs. This is why one can speak of a conflict between liberalism and mystical understanding of reality. Political liberalism imposes a certain understanding of reality on believers. Liberals propose to remove religious convictions from public life and not to treat them as a basis of politics. They forget that mystics have the biggest trouble namely with convictions. To turn the reality of God into words for them is always the hardest task. Mystics find God before words, concepts and discourses. Liberals reduce religion to convictions and demand from mystics to comprehend that, which in their opinion is not comprehensible. There is a tension between liberalism and people who have mystical experiences. Liberals narrow down religious experience to convictions. However, mystical experience is a much broader subject. Behind it stands an understanding of world that has its own standards of reality.

The article is based on an idea that there are four different modes of understanding reality – practice, science, art and mysticism. Political liberalism demands separation of public and private beliefs. However, mystical understanding of reality is not a system of propositions and beliefs. This is why one can speak of a conflict between liberalism and mystical understanding of reality. Political liberalism imposes a certain understanding of reality on believers. Liberals propose to remove religious convictions from public life and not to treat them as a basis of politics. They forget that mystics have the biggest trouble namely with convictions. To turn the reality of God into words for them is always the hardest task. Mystics find God before words, concepts and discourses. Liberals reduce religion to convictions and demand from mystics to comprehend that, which in their opinion is not comprehensible. There is a tension between liberalism and people who have mystical experiences. Liberals narrow down religious experience to convictions. However, mystical experience is a much broader subject. Behind it stands an understanding of world that has its own standards of reality.

The article is based on an idea that there are four different modes of understanding reality – practice, science, art and mysticism. Political liberalism demands separation of public and private beliefs. However, mystical understanding of reality is not a system of propositions and beliefs. This is why one can speak of a conflict between liberalism and mystical understanding of reality. Political liberalism imposes a certain understanding of reality on believers. Liberals propose to remove religious convictions from public life and not to treat them as a basis of politics. They forget that mystics have the biggest trouble namely with convictions. To turn the reality of God into words for them is always the hardest task. Mystics find God before words, concepts and discourses. Liberals reduce religion to convictions and demand from mystics to comprehend that, which in their opinion is not comprehensible. There is a tension between liberalism and people who have mystical experiences. Liberals narrow down religious experience to convictions. However, mystical experience is a much broader subject. Behind it stands an understanding of world that has its own standards of reality.

The aim of the paper is to reconstruct and analyze Alvydas Jokubaitis's under-standing of politics. It is argued that Jokubaitis couples politics with morality in opposition to the liberal project of the autonomy of politics, which seeks to separate these two fields of human activity. According to Jokubaitis, politics is a realm of realization of the spiritual side of human nature. That is the reason why, through morality, he also tries to align poli-tics with other domains of human spirituality, such as religion and metaphysics. What is common to politics, morality, religion, and metaphysics is the sphere of normativity, i.e., that of purposes, principles, and imperatives. At the same time, Jokubaitis attacks those schools of modern thought which interpret politics as corresponding solely to the physical, animal side of human nature. In this regard, positivism and scientism are singled out as the crudest attempts to misconstrue the nature of politics. The paper is based on a convic-tion that the acknowledgement of the importance of morality allows one to piece together Jokubaitis's various considerations about the nature and distinctiveness of politics into a coherent whole.