John Gray argues that the modern conception of man is common for all variants of the liberal tradition. The version of liberalism which is defended in this paper cannot be called ‘classical’ because it refuses the conception in question (it refuses such elements of it as, for example, claims of universality, idea of neutral Reason, idea of human nature). That is why the best label which can be given to it is ‘postmodern’ or ‘communitarian’ liberalism. Moreover, postmodern liberalism does not (...) express any reluctance toward community as such. It only requires a community which respects the rights of individuals to autonomous, moral and comprehensive choices. In this sense one can say that postmodern liberalism renounces anti-social biases while remaining faithful to individualism, which - starting with the social and the common - arrives at the truly individual. In this way it can revitalize the sense and meaning of humanism understood as the idea of life of human beings who can create their own lives independently and freely in the political and social milieu, promoting justice and solidarity. (shrink)

Książka stanowi wprowadzenie do twórczości Richarda Rorty'ego, a także próbę osadzenia jej na szerszym tle filozofii współczesnej, ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem filozofii postmodernistycznej. Obecne są w niej szersze analizy stanu kultury współczesnej, a także relacje z istotnych koncepcji obecnych we współczesnej humanistyce, bez których nie można zrozumieć ewolucji współczesnej humanistyki i specjalnej roli, jaką odegrała w niej filozofia Richarda Rorty'ego.

Résumé Cet article met en cause l’idée de John Gray selon laquelle la conception moderne de l’homme est commune à toutes les variantes de la tradition libérale. En raison notamment de son aspiration universaliste, et des notions de Raison neutre et de nature humaine qu’implique cette conception, il propose en revanche une version du libéralisme qui ne saurait être « classique », mais plutôt « post-moderne » ou « communautaire ». Il s’agit d’un libéralisme qui n’émet aucune réserve vis-à- vis (...) de la communauté en tant que telle et n’exige de celle-ci que le respect du droit des individus à faire leurs propres choix de façon autonome, morale et compréhensive. Dans ce sens on peut dire que le libéralisme post-moderne refuse les préjugés sociaux tout en restant fidèle à l’individualisme qui, en partant du social et du commun, arrive à ce qui est effectivement individuel. La question est de savoir revitaliser le sens et la signification de l’humanisme en tant que projet permettant aux êtres humains de construire leurs vies dans un milieu politique et social, en toute liberté mais dans un équilibre de justice et la solidarité. (shrink)

Author: Szahaj Andrzej Title: CULTURAL SCIENCES AS FUNDAMETAL AND CRITICAL SCIENCES (Nauki o kulturze jako nauki podstawowe (i krytyczne)) Source: Filo-Sofija year: 2011, vol:.12, number: 2011/1, pages: 183-188 Keywords: FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCES, CULTURE, CRITICISM, CAPITALISM Discipline: PHILOSOPHY Language: POLISH Document type: ARTICLE Publication order reference (Primary author’s office address): E-mail: www:The main goal of the article is to prove that today cultural sciences replace sciences on nature in the role of fundamental sciences. Author tries to show that cultural sciences are now (...) fundamental ones taking into account two different aspects of being fundametal: theoretical one and political one. He uses some arguments taken from Jerzy Kmita’s works to support his own position. They are connected mostly with Kmita’s thesis about the primary role of culturally created vision of the world as the necessary background of each knowledge. The political aspect of fundamental role playing today by cultural sciences is linked with the main role played by information in today world and especially in so called cognitive capitalism. Author’s thesis is that cultural sciences can take critical shape showing the relative character of all dogmas of today capitalism or they can play effective role in capitalist world as important and useful element of its mechanisms. (shrink)

The paper treats about the relation between ideas of democracy and justice produced by a leading American political philosopher - John Rawls and ideology of multiculturalism. The author tries to show that Rawls’ arguments cannot meet the expectations of partisans of the ideology in question because they are very much Western or ethnocentric at the bottom. He argues that such a predicament is not to be lamented about because to be Western or ethnocentric when Euro-American culture is at stake is (...) not something bad. On the contrary, being true to the some ideas of Western culture, especially these ones that are connected with individualism, human rights and liberal democracy, is worthy of acceptation. The conclusion of his paper says that the ideology of multiculturalism can be accepted only in its moderate forms and should be rejected in its extreme forms. It means that the limit of approval of multiculturalism lies at the political level and is connected with the relation of this ideology to the core political values of the Western culture. (shrink)