The paper presents an overview of analytical philosophy in Lithuania. It is observed that analytical philosophy had not been studied or developed in Lithuania before the 1970s, when Evaldas Nekrasas and Rolandas Pavilionis began their work in philosophy of science and philosophy of language, rooted in analytical tradition. The article discusses the works of Nekrasas and Pavilionis, as well as those of others (e.g., Degutis and Plesnys). It notes that analytical philosophy was the first non-Marxist trend of philosophy to be developed in post-war Lithuania, and thus it was of considerable influence at the time when the Marxist methodology had to be overthrown. Although the influence of analytical philosophy in Lithuania has diminished during later years in favour of postmodern trends, it is still evident in some recent works on philosophy of mind, philosophy of causation, and methodology of the humanities and social sciences. It has also made a strong impact upon the development of political philosophy and research in the history of positivism.
The paper presents an overview of analytical philosophy in Lithuania. It is observed that analytical philosophy had not been studied or developed in Lithuania before the 1970s, when Evaldas Nekrasas and Rolandas Pavilionis began their work in philosophy of science and philosophy of language, rooted in analytical tradition. The article discusses the works of Nekrasas and Pavilionis, as well as those of others (e.g., Degutis and Plesnys). It notes that analytical philosophy was the first non-Marxist trend of philosophy to be developed in post-war Lithuania, and thus it was of considerable influence at the time when the Marxist methodology had to be overthrown. Although the influence of analytical philosophy in Lithuania has diminished during later years in favour of postmodern trends, it is still evident in some recent works on philosophy of mind, philosophy of causation, and methodology of the humanities and social sciences. It has also made a strong impact upon the development of political philosophy and research in the history of positivism.
The paper presents an overview of analytical philosophy in Lithuania. It is observed that analytical philosophy had not been studied or developed in Lithuania before the 1970s, when Evaldas Nekrasas and Rolandas Pavilionis began their work in philosophy of science and philosophy of language, rooted in analytical tradition. The article discusses the works of Nekrasas and Pavilionis, as well as those of others (e.g., Degutis and Plesnys). It notes that analytical philosophy was the first non-Marxist trend of philosophy to be developed in post-war Lithuania, and thus it was of considerable influence at the time when the Marxist methodology had to be overthrown. Although the influence of analytical philosophy in Lithuania has diminished during later years in favour of postmodern trends, it is still evident in some recent works on philosophy of mind, philosophy of causation, and methodology of the humanities and social sciences. It has also made a strong impact upon the development of political philosophy and research in the history of positivism.
The paper presents an overview of analytical philosophy in Lithuania. It is observed that analytical philosophy had not been studied or developed in Lithuania before the 1970s, when Evaldas Nekrasas and Rolandas Pavilionis began their work in philosophy of science and philosophy of language, rooted in analytical tradition. The article discusses the works of Nekrasas and Pavilionis, as well as those of others (e.g., Degutis and Plesnys). It notes that analytical philosophy was the first non-Marxist trend of philosophy to be developed in post-war Lithuania, and thus it was of considerable influence at the time when the Marxist methodology had to be overthrown. Although the influence of analytical philosophy in Lithuania has diminished during later years in favour of postmodern trends, it is still evident in some recent works on philosophy of mind, philosophy of causation, and methodology of the humanities and social sciences. It has also made a strong impact upon the development of political philosophy and research in the history of positivism.
Plato has noticed that the state is best when it is ruled by a philosopher, because such a ruler allows the wisest laws. Today wisdom is formalized in legislation. It can be linked to legislative projects in certain specialized institutions. The search for wisdom can also be found in public consultations, as they gather as much social information as possible so that decisions are more objective, comprehensive, fairer, and, moreover, more intelligent. It is debatable how to formalize the optimal ratio of law and quality to make it effective. The article discusses philosophy as a search for sources of wisdom and its manifestation in lawmaking.
Plato has noticed that the state is best when it is ruled by a philosopher, because such a ruler allows the wisest laws. Today wisdom is formalized in legislation. It can be linked to legislative projects in certain specialized institutions. The search for wisdom can also be found in public consultations, as they gather as much social information as possible so that decisions are more objective, comprehensive, fairer, and, moreover, more intelligent. It is debatable how to formalize the optimal ratio of law and quality to make it effective. The article discusses philosophy as a search for sources of wisdom and its manifestation in lawmaking.
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.
The conception of positive law at one ties the right with the law, i.e. formalization of law, determination of it. Just determined law can have its shape – the law in common sense. The State to the essence of positive law, as legal category, enters as the subject of lawmaking (natural law is changed to positive) and as guarantee of necessity of legal imperatives. The competence of natural law in this range restricts to declaring of humanistic ideas (legal ideas). It shows, which values should state turn to conventional regulation of behaviour and how much it can be limited. On the other hand, it is indicated, that the purpose of contemporary democratic state is not just reassurance of above-mentioned rights, because recently inthe society other important concerns for person are emphasized. The values of law are related with public interests. Western civilization and world-view orients to separate human needs, interests, his relations with other persons and their internecine services, cultural interchange. Human's personal and political rights and freedoms, his interests are the basic object of purpose and protection of modern democratic state.
The conception of positive law at one ties the right with the law, i.e. formalization of law, determination of it. Just determined law can have its shape – the law in common sense. The State to the essence of positive law, as legal category, enters as the subject of lawmaking (natural law is changed to positive) and as guarantee of necessity of legal imperatives. The competence of natural law in this range restricts to declaring of humanistic ideas (legal ideas). It shows, which values should state turn to conventional regulation of behaviour and how much it can be limited. On the other hand, it is indicated, that the purpose of contemporary democratic state is not just reassurance of above-mentioned rights, because recently inthe society other important concerns for person are emphasized. The values of law are related with public interests. Western civilization and world-view orients to separate human needs, interests, his relations with other persons and their internecine services, cultural interchange. Human's personal and political rights and freedoms, his interests are the basic object of purpose and protection of modern democratic state.
The article discusses E. Frazer and N. Lacey's feminist project of the theory of justice. The project is being developed through a critique of formalist methodology, characteristic of Kantian liberal theories of justice, and is based on the idea of a methodological synthesis of social and political theory. The possibility of synthesis is revealed through a combination of interpretivist and ontological realist approaches to the issue of justice. Their main reproach to Kantian theories of justice is that they are ill-equipped to endogenize mechanisms of social exclusion and domination, operating in society, which fails to distribute justice so that it may serve a well-being of each individual person.
The article discusses E. Frazer and N. Lacey's feminist project of the theory of justice. The project is being developed through a critique of formalist methodology, characteristic of Kantian liberal theories of justice, and is based on the idea of a methodological synthesis of social and political theory. The possibility of synthesis is revealed through a combination of interpretivist and ontological realist approaches to the issue of justice. Their main reproach to Kantian theories of justice is that they are ill-equipped to endogenize mechanisms of social exclusion and domination, operating in society, which fails to distribute justice so that it may serve a well-being of each individual person.
The article discusses E. Frazer and N. Lacey's feminist project of the theory of justice. The project is being developed through a critique of formalist methodology, characteristic of Kantian liberal theories of justice, and is based on the idea of a methodological synthesis of social and political theory. The possibility of synthesis is revealed through a combination of interpretivist and ontological realist approaches to the issue of justice. Their main reproach to Kantian theories of justice is that they are ill-equipped to endogenize mechanisms of social exclusion and domination, operating in society, which fails to distribute justice so that it may serve a well-being of each individual person.
