Ocena obecności ludzi starych w społeczeństwie zależy od tempa rozwoju technologicznego i gospodarczego. Szybkie zmiany sprzyjają dyskryminacji ze względu na wiek oraz przyczyniają się do niedostrzegania jednostkowych i zbiorowych korzyści płynących ze wzrostu długości życia ludzkiego. Artykuł zwraca uwagę na niezbędność poszukiwania pomysłów aktywnego uczestnictwa seniorów w życiu społecznym, jak też przybliża koncepcję kreowania przestrzeni miejskich sprzyjających rozwojowi i integracji wszystkich grup wiekowych. Praca podkreśla znaczenie starszego pokolenia w procesie utrzymania ciągłości kulturowej w społeczeństwach informacyjnych i społeczeństwach wiedzy poprzez przeciwstawienie tych idei projektowi społeczeństwa mądrości.
This dissertation tries to prove that the so-called philosopher on the throne can be a better ruler not only than dictators but also than contemporary liberal democratic politician. Since the sixth century BC, when the human undertook a systematic and critical contemplation upon surrounding reality, she/he has begun to dream about political rulers to be guided in their doings by the imperative of reason. In principal, the higher level of spiritual culture characterized the rulers, the more likely their subjects were to live to a great age in relative peace. That is why for centuries it has been dreamed of a political system that is something like a kind of a sophocracy. The most complete picture of such a sovereign, which fulfilled dreams about a sage in the crown, was outlined by Plato in his State. In his point of view, as long as the lovers of wisdom will not have royal power in the states, or the rulers will not begin to love wisdom honestly, there is no help for states and for the human race. Nevertheless, over the centuries, authority was enforced mainly by physical strenght and not by reason. It was not until the twentieth century that democracy brought freedom and equality of rights, thanks to which political power became more rational. Unfortunately, also contemporary liberal democracy is not free from fundamental contradictions that can bring about its collapse. The main contradiction is the increasingly smaller influence of citizens – who in the theory of democracy are the only legal sovereign – on political decision-making. This is accompanied by the enhancing influence of entities with no democratic legitimacy, e.g. global corporations that do not care about the common (public) good, but only about their own. These entities use the growing intellectual and ethical weakness of democratic politicians whose purpose is their own particular interest and not the happiness (good) of their citizens. This may indicate a slow system disintegration. For this reason liberal democracy needs politicians who are wise enough to realize this threat. Of all the people in the history of the world who led political communities, to the Platonic ideal in the highest degree (among others, like T. G. Masaryk and Á. Göncz) got closer the man who, paradoxically, never wanted to be a ruler. Václav Havel's thought is a critique of both Soviet post-totalitarianism and Western democracy. In his opinion both systems, though to a different degree, alienate a human trying to reduce her/him to the role of a machine's cog. Havel proposes that each citizen take individual and global responsibility for herself/himself and the whole world, because only in this way she/he can consciously exert real influence over political decisions. What is more, this is the only way to build a politics that aims – if possible – the happiness of every person. Havel realizes that in today's world this attitude is extremely impractical and very difficult to apply in everyday life. Nevertheless, he knows no better possibility.
Although the value system has been discussed since the antiquity, the list of underlying values has not been available yet. Socrates elaborated on virtue, courage and justice, Plato was concerned about truth, goodness, wisdom, determination and temperance. Aristotle analysed ethical norms. Thomas Aquinas considered values to be perfection, which exists as absolute good. He distinguished prudence, justice, volitional morality, faith, hope and love. Jeanas-Jacquesas Rousseau tended to exalt ideas of liberty, equality, fraternity, and humanism and considered happiness, reason, sympathy to be underlying values, encouraged development of volition, independence and pro-activeness. The most relevant values for Immanuel Kant included reason, liberty, self-respect, honour, duty, autonomy, volition and goodness. The philosophers of the 20th century, for example, Max Scheler, made attempts to classify values. The Italian philosopher Battista Mondina stated that values can be of different levels (from the perspective of values not all the things and behaviour patterns are equal: some of them possess more value, whereas the others – less) and comprise a certain hierarchy. He presents a more detailed classification of values, which better complies with life and attitudes of an individual in the 20th century. In the end of the 20th century the researchers got an idea of creating a hierarchy of values relevant to a separate nation. The description of the project "Polish Axiological Dictionary", which distinguishes the values of importance to the Polish, can be considered an example. It is obvious that a unified conception of values did not exist: different authors treated values in a different way. The concept value is used in various meanings: as an aspect of world value, as attractive objects, life quality, valuable things or phenomena, behaviour norms which influence decisions. Values reflect what is most valuable for an individual from cultural, psychological, sociological, moral and esthetical perspectives. An individual is governed and guided by values; he/she lives for them. The values make up the core of every culture. However, the issue of values raises many questions. Firstly, does a canon of universal values exist? In fact, such values as motherland, patriotism, democracy and tolerance are important but are they equally important? Such daily life values as – work, career, and money – are conceptualised. The question arises if this has always and everywhere been like this? Are such values as family, marriage, child still relevant these days? Most likely for Lithuanians these values will hardly differ from common European or common human values but it is still interesting what is typical only of Lithuanians, what did they include into their value system adopting experience of neighbouring countries and what presupposed the meaning of words. Working on the book "Values in the Worldview of Lithuanians" an idea came to mind that following the concept analysis, attempts can be made to classify Lithuanian values. Various classification principles can be applied: Societal values: state, nation, motherland, language, freedom, land, work, commitment, justice, duty, honour, morality, the good, the beautiful, morals, etc. • Personal values: happiness, family, home, personal liberty, health, loves, etc. They can also be related to the individual's growth: • Values that build up the personality: home, family, nature, faith, work, morals, love – that is, everything, what a person gets in the family. • Values that improve the personality: state, nation, language, freedom, patriotism, empathy, tolerance, wisdom, etc. – that is, everything, what a person gets at school and in his/her further life. However, strict boundaries do not exist and cannot exist because a person functions as a member of society as well as a separate individual.
Although the value system has been discussed since the antiquity, the list of underlying values has not been available yet. Socrates elaborated on virtue, courage and justice, Plato was concerned about truth, goodness, wisdom, determination and temperance. Aristotle analysed ethical norms. Thomas Aquinas considered values to be perfection, which exists as absolute good. He distinguished prudence, justice, volitional morality, faith, hope and love. Jeanas-Jacquesas Rousseau tended to exalt ideas of liberty, equality, fraternity, and humanism and considered happiness, reason, sympathy to be underlying values, encouraged development of volition, independence and pro-activeness. The most relevant values for Immanuel Kant included reason, liberty, self-respect, honour, duty, autonomy, volition and goodness. The philosophers of the 20th century, for example, Max Scheler, made attempts to classify values. The Italian philosopher Battista Mondina stated that values can be of different levels (from the perspective of values not all the things and behaviour patterns are equal: some of them possess more value, whereas the others – less) and comprise a certain hierarchy. He presents a more detailed classification of values, which better complies with life and attitudes of an individual in the 20th century. In the end of the 20th century the researchers got an idea of creating a hierarchy of values relevant to a separate nation. The description of the project "Polish Axiological Dictionary", which distinguishes the values of importance to the Polish, can be considered an example. It is obvious that a unified conception of values did not exist: different authors treated values in a different way. The concept value is used in various meanings: as an aspect of world value, as attractive objects, life quality, valuable things or phenomena, behaviour norms which influence decisions. Values reflect what is most valuable for an individual from cultural, psychological, sociological, moral and esthetical perspectives. An individual is governed and guided by values; he/she lives for them. The values make up the core of every culture. However, the issue of values raises many questions. Firstly, does a canon of universal values exist? In fact, such values as motherland, patriotism, democracy and tolerance are important but are they equally important? Such daily life values as – work, career, and money – are conceptualised. The question arises if this has always and everywhere been like this? Are such values as family, marriage, child still relevant these days? Most likely for Lithuanians these values will hardly differ from common European or common human values but it is still interesting what is typical only of Lithuanians, what did they include into their value system adopting experience of neighbouring countries and what presupposed the meaning of words. Working on the book "Values in the Worldview of Lithuanians" an idea came to mind that following the concept analysis, attempts can be made to classify Lithuanian values. Various classification principles can be applied: Societal values: state, nation, motherland, language, freedom, land, work, commitment, justice, duty, honour, morality, the good, the beautiful, morals, etc. • Personal values: happiness, family, home, personal liberty, health, loves, etc. They can also be related to the individual's growth: • Values that build up the personality: home, family, nature, faith, work, morals, love – that is, everything, what a person gets in the family. • Values that improve the personality: state, nation, language, freedom, patriotism, empathy, tolerance, wisdom, etc. – that is, everything, what a person gets at school and in his/her further life. However, strict boundaries do not exist and cannot exist because a person functions as a member of society as well as a separate individual.
Although the value system has been discussed since the antiquity, the list of underlying values has not been available yet. Socrates elaborated on virtue, courage and justice, Plato was concerned about truth, goodness, wisdom, determination and temperance. Aristotle analysed ethical norms. Thomas Aquinas considered values to be perfection, which exists as absolute good. He distinguished prudence, justice, volitional morality, faith, hope and love. Jeanas-Jacquesas Rousseau tended to exalt ideas of liberty, equality, fraternity, and humanism and considered happiness, reason, sympathy to be underlying values, encouraged development of volition, independence and pro-activeness. The most relevant values for Immanuel Kant included reason, liberty, self-respect, honour, duty, autonomy, volition and goodness. The philosophers of the 20th century, for example, Max Scheler, made attempts to classify values. The Italian philosopher Battista Mondina stated that values can be of different levels (from the perspective of values not all the things and behaviour patterns are equal: some of them possess more value, whereas the others – less) and comprise a certain hierarchy. He presents a more detailed classification of values, which better complies with life and attitudes of an individual in the 20th century. In the end of the 20th century the researchers got an idea of creating a hierarchy of values relevant to a separate nation. The description of the project "Polish Axiological Dictionary", which distinguishes the values of importance to the Polish, can be considered an example. It is obvious that a unified conception of values did not exist: different authors treated values in a different way. The concept value is used in various meanings: as an aspect of world value, as attractive objects, life quality, valuable things or phenomena, behaviour norms which influence decisions. Values reflect what is most valuable for an individual from cultural, psychological, sociological, moral and esthetical perspectives. An individual is governed and guided by values; he/she lives for them. The values make up the core of every culture. However, the issue of values raises many questions. Firstly, does a canon of universal values exist? In fact, such values as motherland, patriotism, democracy and tolerance are important but are they equally important? Such daily life values as – work, career, and money – are conceptualised. The question arises if this has always and everywhere been like this? Are such values as family, marriage, child still relevant these days? Most likely for Lithuanians these values will hardly differ from common European or common human values but it is still interesting what is typical only of Lithuanians, what did they include into their value system adopting experience of neighbouring countries and what presupposed the meaning of words. Working on the book "Values in the Worldview of Lithuanians" an idea came to mind that following the concept analysis, attempts can be made to classify Lithuanian values. Various classification principles can be applied: Societal values: state, nation, motherland, language, freedom, land, work, commitment, justice, duty, honour, morality, the good, the beautiful, morals, etc. • Personal values: happiness, family, home, personal liberty, health, loves, etc. They can also be related to the individual's growth: • Values that build up the personality: home, family, nature, faith, work, morals, love – that is, everything, what a person gets in the family. • Values that improve the personality: state, nation, language, freedom, patriotism, empathy, tolerance, wisdom, etc. – that is, everything, what a person gets at school and in his/her further life. However, strict boundaries do not exist and cannot exist because a person functions as a member of society as well as a separate individual.
Although the value system has been discussed since the antiquity, the list of underlying values has not been available yet. Socrates elaborated on virtue, courage and justice, Plato was concerned about truth, goodness, wisdom, determination and temperance. Aristotle analysed ethical norms. Thomas Aquinas considered values to be perfection, which exists as absolute good. He distinguished prudence, justice, volitional morality, faith, hope and love. Jeanas-Jacquesas Rousseau tended to exalt ideas of liberty, equality, fraternity, and humanism and considered happiness, reason, sympathy to be underlying values, encouraged development of volition, independence and pro-activeness. The most relevant values for Immanuel Kant included reason, liberty, self-respect, honour, duty, autonomy, volition and goodness. The philosophers of the 20th century, for example, Max Scheler, made attempts to classify values. The Italian philosopher Battista Mondina stated that values can be of different levels (from the perspective of values not all the things and behaviour patterns are equal: some of them possess more value, whereas the others – less) and comprise a certain hierarchy. He presents a more detailed classification of values, which better complies with life and attitudes of an individual in the 20th century. In the end of the 20th century the researchers got an idea of creating a hierarchy of values relevant to a separate nation. The description of the project "Polish Axiological Dictionary", which distinguishes the values of importance to the Polish, can be considered an example. It is obvious that a unified conception of values did not exist: different authors treated values in a different way. The concept value is used in various meanings: as an aspect of world value, as attractive objects, life quality, valuable things or phenomena, behaviour norms which influence decisions. Values reflect what is most valuable for an individual from cultural, psychological, sociological, moral and esthetical perspectives. An individual is governed and guided by values; he/she lives for them. The values make up the core of every culture. However, the issue of values raises many questions. Firstly, does a canon of universal values exist? In fact, such values as motherland, patriotism, democracy and tolerance are important but are they equally important? Such daily life values as – work, career, and money – are conceptualised. The question arises if this has always and everywhere been like this? Are such values as family, marriage, child still relevant these days? Most likely for Lithuanians these values will hardly differ from common European or common human values but it is still interesting what is typical only of Lithuanians, what did they include into their value system adopting experience of neighbouring countries and what presupposed the meaning of words. Working on the book "Values in the Worldview of Lithuanians" an idea came to mind that following the concept analysis, attempts can be made to classify Lithuanian values. Various classification principles can be applied: Societal values: state, nation, motherland, language, freedom, land, work, commitment, justice, duty, honour, morality, the good, the beautiful, morals, etc. • Personal values: happiness, family, home, personal liberty, health, loves, etc. They can also be related to the individual's growth: • Values that build up the personality: home, family, nature, faith, work, morals, love – that is, everything, what a person gets in the family. • Values that improve the personality: state, nation, language, freedom, patriotism, empathy, tolerance, wisdom, etc. – that is, everything, what a person gets at school and in his/her further life. However, strict boundaries do not exist and cannot exist because a person functions as a member of society as well as a separate individual.
By referring to the emblematic figure of Kurt Gödel, who saw contradictions in both mathematics and constitutionalism, in this paper I present and comment on a wide panorama of views on the current crisis and deconsolidation of liberal democracy, mainly expressed in four noteworthy books published in 2018. I criticize the ideas and views of Fareed Zakaria expressed in the book The Future of Freedom in which he postulates the need for restricting the democratic component of liberal democracy toward the notion of liberal constitutionalism. I argue that this idea actually displays a very limited understanding of both components of liberal democracy and may lead to support for dictatorship. Zakaria makes a case for using accurate terminology and draws attention to the democratic as well as the liberal component of liberal democracy, this alone is a valuable contribution. However, as it appears from the following three works, it could be said that a transmutation occurred within the concept of liberal democracy, resulting in merging of both components into a clear concept that can be equated to democracy in the contemporary sense of the word. Next, I discuss How Democracy Dies by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. Both scholars document in detail how democracy's assassins insidiously use institutions of democracy to kill it. Particularly of value are two threads in this work. The first one is the remarkable similarities of strategies used throughout the world by elected autocrats to subvert democratic institutions. Revealing these patterns makes it easier to combat them. The second one is the set of four key indicators of authoritarian behavior compiled by the authors. Similar issues are presented by Yasha Mounk in his brilliant book The People vs. Democracy in which he analyzes insightfully the roots of disenchantment with liberal democracy. I emphasize that Mounk incisively discloses the founding myth of modern liberal democracy, i.e. the improbable fiction that representative government would facilitate the rule of the people. A very wide array of positions of American scholars is offered in a volume edited by Cass R. Sunstein under the title Can It Happen Here? Authoritarianism in America. The essays collected in this book concern the likelihood of democracy's breakdown in the US. I selectively present the original theses of a score of authors, allowing for a deeper rethinking of the liberal democracy's crisis, these include issues like constitutional rot, big government role in helping to minimize the risk of a fascist takeover, deep state, the new breed of populist autocrats being lawyers by training, and the fact that many people do not wish to live by the rules of liberal democracy. In the context of these remarks, I stress the role of culture as a social binding mechanism and human's lack of evolutionary adjustment to social diversity. In the closing section, I stress the illusory nature of constitutional precautions against the democratic breakdown, especially the deceptive reliance on judges. I also draw attention to the double value of negation following from these considerations. First, I refer to the Kim Lane Scheppele's idea of aversive constitutionalism, to show the informative dimension of the negative side of comparative constitutional analysis. Second, I suggest that the crisis of democracy should encourage to acknowledge the limits of conventional wisdom on political systems that is based on dubious assumptions. Only in this way could attempts be made to counteract the global democratic disorder which, on the one hand, is not caused by some external natural factors, but on the other hand this disorder will likely be escalated by much more efficient and more charismatic autocrats, aided by modern technology. ; Odwołując się do symbolicznej postaci Kurta Gödla, dostrzegającego sprzeczności zarówno w matematyce, jak i w konstytucjonalizmie, przedstawiam i komentuję w niniejszym tekście szeroką panoramę poglądów dotyczących współczesnego kryzysu i dekonsolidacji demokracji liberalnej, głównie w oparciu o cztery ważne prace wydane w 2018 r. Krytycznie odnoszę się do poglądów Fareeda Zakarii wyrażonych w książce Przyszłość wolności…, postulującego ograniczenie demokratycznych elementów w ramach demokracji liberalnej na rzecz liberalnego konstytucjonalizmu. Koncepcja ta w istocie stanowi bardzo ograniczone rozumienie obu elementów składowych tego ostatniego pojęcia i prowadzić może do poparcia dla dyktatur. Cenna jest w pracy Zakarii dbałość terminologiczna i zwrócenie osobno uwagi na element demokratyczny i liberalny w ramach demokracji liberalnej. Jak jednak wynika z wykorzystywanych trzech kolejnych prac, można twierdzić, że w przypadku pojęcia demokracji liberalnej doszło do transmutacji zespalającej oba człony w czytelną koncepcję, która nie bez racji utożsamiana jest w skrócie z demokracją we współczesnym rozumieniu. Następnie omawiam pozycję Stevena Levitsky'ego i Daniela Ziblatta Jak umierają demokracje…, której autorzy szczegółowo dokumentują, jak skrytobójcy demokracji używają podstępnie instytucji demokratycznych do obalenia tej formy ustrojowej. Wartościowe w tej pracy są szczególnie dwa wątki. Pierwszy to uderzająco podobne strategie stosowane na świecie przez legitymowanych wyborczo autokratów. Ujawnienie takiego wzorca pozwala na łatwiejsze przeciwstawianie się mu. Drugim jest proponowany przez autorów zestaw czterech behawioralnych symptomów pozwalający na rozpoznanie polityków o skłonnościach autorytarnych. Podobną problematykę przedstawia Yascha Mounk w błyskotliwej książce Lud kontra demokracja…, analizujący głębiej źródła współczesnego rozczarowania demokracją liberalną. Akcentuję zwłaszcza, że Mounk przenikliwie odsłania mit założycielski współczesnej demokracji liberalnej w postaci fikcji, że rządy przedstawicielskie umożliwiają władzę ludu. Bardzo szeroką panoramę poglądów amerykańskich autorów na temat prawdopodobieństwa upadku demokracji w Stanach Zjednoczonych zawarto w obszernej pracy zbiorowej Czy to może się u nas zdarzyć? Autorytaryzm w Ameryce pod redakcją Cassa R. Sunsteina. Wybiórczo przedstawiam oryginalne tezy kilkunastu autorów pozwalające na pogłębione przemyślenie kryzysu demokracji liberalnej, m.in. konstytucyjne zepsucie, rozbudowany aparat władzy jako czynnik minimalizujący ryzyko faszyzmu, rolę tzw. ukrytego państwa, udział prawników w zawłaszczaniu władzy, permanentną niezgodę znacznej części społeczeństwa na życie według zasad demokracji liberalnej. W ramach tych uwag akcentuję m.in. rolę kultury jako spoiwa społecznego oraz ewolucyjne niedostosowanie człowieka do różnorodności społecznej. W uwagach końcowych podkreślam iluzoryczność konstytucyjnych gwarancji mających zapobiegać załamaniu demokratycznemu, zwłaszcza zwodnicze poleganie na sędziach. Zwracam również uwagę na podwójny walor negacji płynący z przedstawianych refleksji. Po pierwsze odwołuję się do koncepcji awersyjnego konstytucjonalizmu autorstwa Kim Lane Scheppele, aby wskazać na pouczający wymiar negatywnej strony komparatystyki ustrojowej. Po drugie sugeruję, że kryzys demokracji zachęcać winien do uświadomienia sobie ograniczeń ortodoksyjnej refleksji ustrojowej opartej na wątpliwych założeniach. Tylko w ten sposób można podejmować próby przeciwdziałania narastającemu globalnemu nieładowi demokratycznemu, który z jednej strony nie jest wywołany zewnętrznymi czynnikami naturalnymi, ale z drugiej strony rozwijany będzie zapewne przez znacznie sprawniejszych i bardziej charyzmatycznych autokratów, wspomaganych nowoczesnymi technologiami.