While thrusting the importance of knowledge, Bertrand Russell highlights one special utility of it, i.e., knowledge promotes a widely contemplative habit of mind; and such knowledge, he terms ‘useless’. For Russell, the habit of contemplation is the capacity of rationalized enquiry which enables individuals to consider all questions in a tentative and impartial manner, frees them from dogmas and encourages the expression of a wide diversity of views. Besides ‘useless’ knowledge, Russell admits the importance of ‘useful’ knowledge too, but his (...) appreciation for the intrinsic value of ‘useless’ knowledge more than the extrinsic value of ‘useful’ one brings to light the significance of knowing, i.e., to know is to know something for its own sake. Pursuit of such knowledge is possible only in case of ‘useless’ knowledge; and not in case of ‘useful’ one. Highlighting contemplative habit of mind as the greatest advantage of ‘useless’ knowledge, Russell says that such habit, in order to get accelerated, has to be guided by education; but education without freedom cannot perform the job. To be free, according to Russell, means, to be free from the forces of tradition; and also from the tyranny of one’s own passions. Freedom is thus seen to be the cardinal force in fostering contemplative habit, and is closely found to have been associated with ‘useless’ knowledge. In the present paper, by highlighting the nature of contemplative habit of mind, I have argued that ‘useless’ knowledge has to be appreciated more than ‘useful’ knowledge. Moreover, I have shown why freedom in education has to be considered a necessity for accelerating habit of contemplation. (shrink)

Education, a creative impulse, according to Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), must vouch a platform for the creation of genuine thoughts in children. In order to discern how genuine thoughts are to be inculcated in education, Russell’s concept of rationality needs to be paid special attention. This is so because it is by adhering to the theoretical as well as practical sides of rationality, thoughts can progress genuinely. Once rationality gets implanted in children, they learn to grow freely. To learn to grow (...) freely here means to learn to preserve individuality and also to grow socially. For the preservation of individuality in children, Russell argues, education needs to pay heed to one principle of growth which is instinctive nature—the principle which directs impulses and desires. It follows therefore that the growth of children depends both on the principle of growth which is creative and instinctive in nature, and also on rationality which is critical in its outlook. The present paper argues that Russell, by considering education as a creative impulse, in fact, provides a special stature to education, i.e. he throws a critico-creative light to the nature of education. By arguing so, the paper commemorates Russell on his 150th birth anniversary and re-emphasizes his much underrated relevance to the field of education even in contemporary times. (shrink)

Bertrand Russell, while expressing his deep concern for a prevailing negligence about an intrinsic aspect of science, which he terms culture, opines that culture is not to be understood as something divorced from science. His demarcation of old culture from young culture; and his claim that it is the young culture which is responsible for valuing science for its usefulness rather than its intrinsic aspect, i.e., prepares the stage for arguing in favour of endorsement of cultural intrinsicality of science. The (...) paper argues that viewed from Russell’s perspective, understanding culture as something unrelated to science will be a mistake, because it will carry a message to the mankind which is detrimental to the entire fabric of social cohesion. The paper focuses on the inculcation of scientific habit, an intrinsic aspect of science, as culture. While doing so, the paper intends to stress on the point that the scientific habit, which is linked to the Russellian method of analysis, common to both science and philosophy, plays a significant role in enabling one to focus on the cultural aspect of science. Analysis, in the province of philosophy, is used by Russell primarily to analyze language. (shrink)

J. M. Coetzee's novels pay equal ethical attention to human and nonhuman animal suffering. By addressing ethical issues about animals through the medium of fiction, Coetzee responds to and investigates both the actual and discursive exploitation of nonhumans. This essay looks at two of Coetzee's important apartheid-period novels and shows how the author uses various literary methods to posit an ethical and ontological equality of all living creatures and to stress the shared embodiedness of humans and animals. In Coetzee's fiction, (...) this embodiedness is often presented as the ground for equal consideration of nonhuman animals. (shrink)

The main aim of this paper is to analyse David Lewis’ version of contextualism and his solution to the Gettier problem and the lottery problem through the employment of his Rule of Relevance and Stewart Cohen’s response to these problems. Here I analyse whether Stewart Cohen’s response to David Lewis’ solutions to these problems is on the right track or not. Hence, I try to analyse some concept in David Lewis and Stewart Cohen which has remained unanalysed. Cohen tries to (...) show that when we try to solve some variation of the lottery problem and the Gettier problem by applying Lewis’s Rule of Relevance, then it generates some counterintuitive result. So Cohen gives Lewis some alternatives (which are explained in “The Strategy of Biting the Bullet and the Problem of Interference” and “Biting the Bullet Strategy as a Natural Extension of Contextualist Resolution to the Sceptical Problem and the Pity Poor Bill Variation of the Lottery Problem” sections) to avoid this counterintuitive result; this attempt, however, affects some other presuppositions of the contextual theory of David Lewis. My aim in this paper is to show how without taking these alternatives suggested by Cohen, Lewis can apply his Rules of Relevance to solve the lottery problem and the Gettier problem without any counterintuitive result. (shrink)

Rorty has been criticized for his pragmatic rationality by different thinkers like Stout, Steven carter. Here in this article our main focus is Novoa's criticism of Rorty's solution to the challenges of evidentialism (Novoa in Rorty’s Demands on Religious Belief: Looking for a Pragmatic Rationality. Retrieved October 20, 2019, from Researchgate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321729830_rorty's_demands_on_religious_belief_looking_for_a _pragmatic_rationality, 2017). Novoa feels that religion needs not be conversation stopper as long as it does not compromise on capabilities (Novoa, 2017). This is what he calls pragmatic rationality. He (...) takes pragmatic rationality based on capabilities. So in this article we argue against Novoa saying that capabilities are not clearly defined and hence the criteria set forth by Novoa have to be revised. The criteria set forth by him are too general, for instance world relationships, etc. The reasons for revising the criteria are too general, no unanimity in what are capabilities and even the specified capabilities are not precise. (shrink)

Tato studie je recenzní statí ke knize Andrew MCGETTIGAN, The Great University Gamble: Money, Markets and the Future of Higher Education. London: Pluto Press, 2013. Klíčovým motivem studie je využití McGettiganovy analýzy technických aspektů reformy univerzitního systému započaté v Anglii na konci první dekády jednadvacátého století pro výklad vzestupu specifického režimu vzdělávání vyjádřeného v jazyce a logice „trhu a peněz". Vzestup tohoto režimu je interpretován s ohledem na procesy odpojování univerzitního prostředí od dosavadního vzdělávacího rámce spojeného s veřejnými zájmy. Studium (...) způsobů, jakými procházejí peníze zaváděným systémem vzdělávání, odkrývá novou podobu konfrontace klasických ideálů univerzitní výchovy s realitou masového vzdělávání. (shrink)

Šios analizės tikslas yra trilypis. Visų pirma, bandoma nustatyti pagrindinius Nietzsche’s subjekto kritikos aspektus. Visų antra, bandoma identifikuoti centrinę šios kritikos funkciją. Visų trečia, bandoma interpretuoti Nietzsche’s ginamą subjektą kaip kūnišką stimulų, instinktų, ir reikmių daugialypumą. Esėje parodoma, kad standartinis subjekto problematikos Nietzsche‘s kūriniuose svarstymas nėra adekvatus. Pasak tokio svarstymo, Nietzsche atsisako subjektyvistinių mąstymo kontūrų ir pakeičia juos radikaliai nauja paaiškinamąja schema. Esėje taip pat parodoma, kad Nietzsche niekad nesiekė pateisinti atomistinės ar anarchiškos subjekto sampratos. Nietzsche siekė suprasti subjektyvybę dvigubo (...) patvirtinimo būdu – kaip valdančio stimulo ir subjekto tapsmo patvirtinimą. Tokio dvigubo patvirtinimo dėka, savastis atsiskleidžia kaip tekstas ir jo interpretacija.Esminiai žodžiai: ego, kūnas, Nietzsche, savastis, subjektas.The following analysis has a threefold task. First, it aims to identify the central aspects of Nietzsche’s critique of the subject. Secondly, it aims to identify the main function that this critique serves. And thirdly, it aims to interpret the subject Nietzsche defends and endorses in terms of a bodily multiplicity of drives, instincts and needs. The paper argues against the standard interpretation of the problematic of the subject in Nietzsche, according to which Nietzsche abandons the subjectivistic approach in favor of an entirely different explanatory framework. The paper shows that far from supporting an atomistic or an anarchic view of the subject, Nietzsche’s narrative endorses a notion of subjectivity that entails a double affirmation: the affirmation of the ruling drive of the body and of the style of the subject’s becoming. In virtue of such a double affirmation, the self discloses itself as both the text and its interpretation.Key words: body, ego, Nietzsche, multiplicity, self, subject. (shrink)

Straipsnyje nagrinėjama televizija bei informacinės technologijos egzistencinės kūrybos perspektyvoje. Keliamas klausimas, ar medijuoti vaizdai gali tapti egzistencinės kūrybos veiksniais. Autorius priešina gyvenseną ir gyvenimo stilių. Pirmoji siejama su mąstymo ir egzistencijos dialektika, antrasis – su medijuotų vaizdų niveliuojančiu poveikiu. Teigiama, kad egzistencijos sąranga – ne tik kalbinė, bet ir vaizdinė. Pasak autoriaus, kūrybinė aplinka palaikoma skirtingos prigimties egzistencinių vaizdų sąšaukos dėka. Iškeliama didžioji tezė: mūsų egzistencinis projektas formuojasi skirtingų vaizdiškumo plotmių sąveikos žaizdre. Ši tezė seka iš prielaidos, kad mūsų gyvenamasis (...) pasaulis ir egzistencija jame – vaizdiški. Mažosios tezės: reginiai vertintini pagal jų vietą egzistenciniame vaizde; ekrano reginiai padeda žiūros išsklaidai; reginiai šiapus ir anapus ekrano išbandomi egzistencijos fenomenų aplinkoje. (shrink)