An integrated overview of the themes and discourses of feminism and multi-culturalism surrounding the politics of difference. It introduces the challenges posed to theorists such as Rawls, Raz, and Kymlicka, and outlines their response to these challenges.

Kant considers unity of aim as connected to the form of a whole, what makes impossible to reject any of its parts. Science emerges a priori as an idea which, requiring for its own realization a scheme, due to unity of the aim architectonically makes the whole possible. Scheme of science divides the whole in connection with its idea. Kant opposes science and technic, i.e. accidental efficient deeds, which cannot constitute the whole. Plato considers the One to be prior principle. (...) Connection between the One and intelligible to the mind is indicated by scheme. Therefore, the author aims to compare two types of schematism. Need do divide the whole serves as a basis for comparison. Plato needs it to dialectically envisage scheme of division the whole. Kant – to divide the whole in connection to aim. (shrink)

The Enlightenment invented a new unique format for philosophical thinking, turning philosophy into a force that affects the real world. The author calls for recognition of the productive forces of the Enlightenment, which appear as defenders of rational transparency and intellectual honesty. By rejecting the teleological context and focusing on formal aspects, Enlightenment ideas lead to a loss of connection with concrete reality and the purpose of actions. The last decades have seen a revival of the classical tradition, but there (...) are difficulties in understanding the physical order and its relationship with the moral order. The author agrees with the criticism of the Enlightenment project, but opposes the rejection of any universalist project in general. Considering value pluralism as a result of the late Enlightenment, the author points out that the universalist project is opposed by various forms of relativism. It is in this context that tradition should resume its role. (shrink)

У статті автор розмірковує над проблемою феноменологічної деструкції у творчості М. Гайдеґґера, яка отримала остаточне завершення в його фундаментальній роботі "Буття і час". Відтворюючи динаміку методологічних пошуків М. Гайдеґґера, автор статті обґрунтовує, що німецький філософ радше відходить від методу феноменології, аніж творчо розвиває його.

Although Habermas's sophisticated conception of constitutional patriotism successfully avoids the charge of trying to ground patriotism in a set of principles that is too thin and abstract to sustain a real sense of solidarity and belonging, his optimism regarding the prospect in modern pluralist societies of building a genuinely shared political culture is misplaced. The march of modernization as rationalization is neither as relentless nor as inevitable as Habermas assumes. Hence the rational consensus on liberal constitutional principles that is to (...) provide the basis for a shared political culture remains elusive. However, while Habermas's solution to the `solidarity gap' that confronts many contemporary liberal democracies remains problematic, he is right to point to the importance of a shared identity that is strong enough to turn strangers into fellow citizens. The challenges that cultural diversity and value pluralism pose for contemporary states cannot be resolved via a procedural approach that focuses solely on political legitimacy. Yet the difficulties that surround Habermas's conception of `constitutional patriotism' suggest modern states will struggle to build a collective political identity that can generate a genuine sense of solidarity. If this is so, modern pluralist states face a more profound challenge than writers such as Habermas assume. (shrink)

Although Habermas's sophisticated conception of constitutional patriotism successfully avoids the charge of trying to ground patriotism in a set of principles that is too thin and abstract to sustain a real sense of solidarity and belonging, his optimism regarding the prospect in modern pluralist societies of building a genuinely shared political culture is misplaced. The march of modernization as rationalization is neither as relentless nor as inevitable as Habermas assumes. Hence the rational consensus on liberal constitutional principles that is to (...) provide the basis for a shared political culture remains elusive. However, while Habermas's solution to the `solidarity gap' that confronts many contemporary liberal democracies remains problematic, he is right to point to the importance of a shared identity that is strong enough to turn strangers into fellow citizens. The challenges that cultural diversity and value pluralism pose for contemporary states cannot be resolved via a procedural approach that focuses solely on political legitimacy. Yet the difficulties that surround Habermas's conception of `constitutional patriotism' suggest modern states will struggle to build a collective political identity that can generate a genuine sense of solidarity. If this is so, modern pluralist states face a more profound challenge than writers such as Habermas assume. (shrink)

Review of Chiappero-Martinetti, E., Osmani, S., & Qizilbash, M. (Eds.). (2020). The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.