LTMokslinė monografija atskleidžia ir pagrindines XX amžiaus moralės filosofų gvildentas problemas, ir jų neišvengiamą dialogą su Kantu. Tai antras, papildytas, knygos leidimas, kuriame pateikiamas skyrius, skirtas kantiškosioms trajektorijoms Gilles’io Deleuze’o filosofijoje. Taip pat čia diskutuojama su kai kuriomis naujausiomis, per pastarąjį dešimtmetį išsakytomis, lietuvių filosofų idėjomis knygoje analizuojama tema.
ENThis book is not neo-Kantian; it is not an attempt to revive Kantian ethics as well. It is about the dialogue between contemporary moral philosophy and Kant. Paradoxically, the author starts from the understanding of philosophical tradition that stems not from Kant. She shares Rorty’s conception, that philosophy is a conversation of humankind. Moral philosophy is a conversation as well. From other types of conversations is differs in the questions it is concerned with. It deals with two main questions, concerning two critical relationships: me-me and me-you. The first relation opens the question: “How should I live?” which reaches contemporary moral philosophy from the antique. The second one is the question “What ought I to do?” This one is Kantian. It is raised with the other person’s presence. When the relation includes the third person, the other becomes each. Here moral philosophy ends, political philosophy begins. Thus moral philosophy creates the background for political philosophy to emerge. But these are not identical substitutes for each other. Not all neo-Kantians share this point of view. Those who are trying to use Kantian ethics in justifying procedural normativity (Rawls, Habermas, Apel) start from the supposition that practical wisdom is public. In the author’s opinion, above all, it is personal. And it is a theoretical difficulty simply to jump from the freedom of noumenal personality to political reality. Kant saw this problem and suggested his own solution. His followers sometimes suspend this aspect. [...]. [From the publication]