Politika ir moralė: ontologinė perspektyva

• Čelutka, Simas
• Jokubaitis, Alvydas
• Noreikaitė, Aistė

LTMonografijos autoriai siūlo naują politikos ir moralės santykio supratimo būdą. Knygoje kritikuojama racionalistinė trečiojo asmens perspektyva, vietoj jos plėtojama pirmojo asmens, personalistinė perspektyva. Jos tikslas - suprasti, kaip moralę ir politiką patiria asmuo, kuris vienu metu yra ir moralinis subjektas, ir pilietis. Tyrimas vystomas pasitelkiant I. Kanto, C. Schmitto, R. Spaemanno, P. Kahno, H. Arendt, S. Šalkauskio ir A. Maceinos teorijas. Šios ir kitos knygoje nagrinėjamos temos bus įdomios visiems, kurie domisi šiuolaikine politika, etika ir politine filosofija, Lietuvos istorija. [Anotacija knygoje]

ENPhilosophical questions are proven to be the most difficult ones, and the question “What is politics?” is precisely a philosophical one. It has remained unanswerable both for common citizens and for scholars of political science or sociology. It is surprising, given that the former talk about politics daily, while the latter must identify the object of their science. The quest for the answer to this question is burdened by a few factors. First, what is considered to be politics at one time in history does not comply to the same definition at a different period. Different historical experiences of politics seem to be incommensurable. Second, different political ideologies offer different conceptions of politics and do not put enough effort in the search for the common truth. The participants of daily political life settle for one-sided and often biased conceptions of politics; disagreements on politics are a part of politics. Third, political scientists confine themselves to the knowledge of different empirical facts; therefore, they cannot perceive politics as the whole and thus answer the question of what is politics. Political scientists often give a nominal, functional description confined to specific research, or they rely on the concept of politics that is found within the practical lives of citizens. It might seem that the answer to the question “What is politics?” can be found in philosophy; however, philosophical efforts seem to be burdened by their own specific difficulties. First, politics requires knowledge of the whole and our reason falls into antinomies. The impossibility to answer this question is similar in its characteristic to a metaphysical question, namely whether a world has a spatiotemporal beginning or is infinite. Some philosophers think that a person is a political animal, while some disagree and do not link politics to nature.Second, philosophers break away from the empirical circumstances of political life and remain in the realm of purely abstract, universal principles, which has little in common with the practical political. So while sociologists cannot perceive politics as a whole, philosophers do not concern themselves with particularities. The former declare themselves superior due to the knowledge of causal relations, the latter - due to the ability of perceiving the whole. We have a lot of discussions about politics and political science as consisting of various disciplines, but we still cannot clearly answer the question “What is politics?”. However, it should not come as a surprise for philosophers, as this is a Socratic question in nature. It is altogether possible that our inability to answer this question is a part of politics. Politics are rarely linked to ontology. Since Aristotle, it has been typically understood as part of the sphere of practical reason. Practical knowledge does not have an immutable foundation. Aristotle draws a distinction between theoretical and practical knowledge. The object of the former is an eternal, necessary, and unchanging truth about reality and the universe, while the latter (phronesis) deals primarily with the particularities and contingent aspects of human practical experience. In view of the representatives of practical approach, the object of politics is in constant change; hence, it is impossible to talk about the ontology of politics. A new meaning for the distinction between theoretical and practical reason was provided by Immanuel Kant. According to him, practical reason has its own distinct form of causality, which is different from natural, empirical causality. He saw practical reason and especially morality as a separate sphere of being. [...]. [From the publication]

• Filosofija / Philosophy
• Politikos mokslai / Political sciences