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 aim of the study was an analysis of two the conceptions of relationships between democracy and religion. One of these conceptions was created by Alexis de Tocqueville. He thought that democracy needs religion as an element that enriches it and helps in removing some negative tendencies inherent in this form of government. He understood that democracy was coalesced with the philosophies that were alien to religion, however, he demanded an alliance of democracy and religion. The other object of philosophical analysis is John Rawls. The theories of this author show an important change in the relationship of religion and democracy, which stems from the fact that he equates religion with philosophy. The political liberalism of Rawls helps us understand why democracy as a form of government has no need of religion. The political liberalism of Rawls reveals an important aspect of relationship between democracy and religion. He differs from Tocqueville by thinking that this form of government is not inherently merged with religion. Democratic state aspires to be neutral towards religion. Believers can be honest democrats, but this regime is indifferent in respect of religion. Democrats are on the side of worldly immanence, and believers side with religious transcendence. These two competing attitudes create a tension between religion and democracy. The solution of this tension, proposed by Rawls, consists in the equalization of philosophy and religion; it reveals that democracy is indifferent towards religion. The equalization of the status of philosophy and religion highlights the fact that this form of government is neutral in respect of the conception of God. This negates the Tocquevillian conception of the role of religion in democracy. Democracy can function without the support of traditions of religious thought.

The aim of the study was an analysis of two the conceptions of relationships between democracy and religion. One of these conceptions was created by Alexis de Tocqueville. He thought that democracy needs religion as an element that enriches it and helps in removing some negative tendencies inherent in this form of government. He understood that democracy was coalesced with the philosophies that were alien to religion, however, he demanded an alliance of democracy and religion. The other object of philosophical analysis is John Rawls. The theories of this author show an important change in the relationship of religion and democracy, which stems from the fact that he equates religion with philosophy. The political liberalism of Rawls helps us understand why democracy as a form of government has no need of religion. The political liberalism of Rawls reveals an important aspect of relationship between democracy and religion. He differs from Tocqueville by thinking that this form of government is not inherently merged with religion. Democratic state aspires to be neutral towards religion. Believers can be honest democrats, but this regime is indifferent in respect of religion. Democrats are on the side of worldly immanence, and believers side with religious transcendence. These two competing attitudes create a tension between religion and democracy. The solution of this tension, proposed by Rawls, consists in the equalization of philosophy and religion; it reveals that democracy is indifferent towards religion. The equalization of the status of philosophy and religion highlights the fact that this form of government is neutral in respect of the conception of God. This negates the Tocquevillian conception of the role of religion in democracy. Democracy can function without the support of traditions of religious thought.

The aim of the study was an analysis of two the conceptions of relationships between democracy and religion. One of these conceptions was created by Alexis de Tocqueville. He thought that democracy needs religion as an element that enriches it and helps in removing some negative tendencies inherent in this form of government. He understood that democracy was coalesced with the philosophies that were alien to religion, however, he demanded an alliance of democracy and religion. The other object of philosophical analysis is John Rawls. The theories of this author show an important change in the relationship of religion and democracy, which stems from the fact that he equates religion with philosophy. The political liberalism of Rawls helps us understand why democracy as a form of government has no need of religion. The political liberalism of Rawls reveals an important aspect of relationship between democracy and religion. He differs from Tocqueville by thinking that this form of government is not inherently merged with religion. Democratic state aspires to be neutral towards religion. Believers can be honest democrats, but this regime is indifferent in respect of religion. Democrats are on the side of worldly immanence, and believers side with religious transcendence. These two competing attitudes create a tension between religion and democracy. The solution of this tension, proposed by Rawls, consists in the equalization of philosophy and religion; it reveals that democracy is indifferent towards religion. The equalization of the status of philosophy and religion highlights the fact that this form of government is neutral in respect of the conception of God. This negates the Tocquevillian conception of the role of religion in democracy. Democracy can function without the support of traditions of religious thought.

The aim of the study was an analysis of two the conceptions of relationships between democracy and religion. One of these conceptions was created by Alexis de Tocqueville. He thought that democracy needs religion as an element that enriches it and helps in removing some negative tendencies inherent in this form of government. He understood that democracy was coalesced with the philosophies that were alien to religion, however, he demanded an alliance of democracy and religion. The other object of philosophical analysis is John Rawls. The theories of this author show an important change in the relationship of religion and democracy, which stems from the fact that he equates religion with philosophy. The political liberalism of Rawls helps us understand why democracy as a form of government has no need of religion. The political liberalism of Rawls reveals an important aspect of relationship between democracy and religion. He differs from Tocqueville by thinking that this form of government is not inherently merged with religion. Democratic state aspires to be neutral towards religion. Believers can be honest democrats, but this regime is indifferent in respect of religion. Democrats are on the side of worldly immanence, and believers side with religious transcendence. These two competing attitudes create a tension between religion and democracy. The solution of this tension, proposed by Rawls, consists in the equalization of philosophy and religion; it reveals that democracy is indifferent towards religion. The equalization of the status of philosophy and religion highlights the fact that this form of government is neutral in respect of the conception of God. This negates the Tocquevillian conception of the role of religion in democracy. Democracy can function without the support of traditions of religious thought.