Remiantis F. Nietzsche’s ir G. Deleuze’o tekstų analize, siekiama parodyti, kad pagal klasikinio mąstymo kanonus ypač problemišku dalyku tampa naujos minties pasirodymo galimybė. Klasikinis mąstymas traktuojamas kaip sėslios egzistencijos tipas ir jam priešinamas klajokliškas, nomadiškas mąstymas. Pasitelkiant Deleuze’s išskirtus atpažinimo ir susitikimo modelius, pirma, siekiama pagrįsti požiūrį, kad ir Nietzsche’s filosofiją galime vadinti nomadišku mąstymu ir atitinkančią susitikimo modelį ir antra, siekiama išryškinti naujybės specifiką ir jos steigties transcendentalines sąlygas. Reikšminiai žodžiai: valia siekti galios, interpretacija, simptomatika, sėslusis mąstymas, nomadizmas, atpažinimo (...) modelis, susitikimo modelis. F. NIETZSCHE AND G. DELEUZE: THE SEDENTARY LIFE SYMPTOMATICS AND NOMADIC THINKING CONFRONTATIONS Arūnas Mickevičius Summary The article deals with F. Nietzsche’s and G. Deleuze’s attitude to classical thought. Nietzsche’s theoretical constructs are based on the principle Wille zur Macht, where he emphatically praised active forces and accused all classical thinking of turning away from life and associating it with reactive, negative forces. Nietzsche’s philosophy denies the exceptionally unique true opinion of the world and offers, instead, a variety of interpretations, i. e. a perspectivist approach to the world. In describing architectural metaphors of classical thinking he shows that it is reactive, life-denying, that its assumed grandeur in fact hides the poverty of life. On the other hand, Nietzsche attempts to release the metaphoric power from the single axiom of Truth, to release creativity, to legitimize a perspective, interpretative view of the world, based on the mentioned “will-to-power” principle and related to assertive powers of active life. Also, there are analyzed two models of knowledge, recognition and encounter, proposed by G. Deleuze. The main aims of the article is to demonstrate first, that Nietzsche’s philosophy can be named as nomadic thinking which corresponds to the model of encounter and, second, reveal the transcendental conditions of innovation. Keywords: will to power, interpretation, symptomatics, sedentary life, nomadism, encounter model, recognition model. (shrink)

The article seeks to highlight and thus draw attention to some important features of A. Sverdiolas’s thinking and his hermeneutic research. The article discusses three models of cultural hermeneutics: “weak hermeneutics,” “strong hermeneutics,” and “deep hermeneutics.” The aim of the article is to substantiate the thesis that A. Sverdiolas’s hermeneutics can be assigned to the so-called “strong hermeneutics,” but with elements that are also characteristic of the so-called “deep hermeneutics.” The article emphasizes that A. Sverdiolas considers and discusses in his (...) texts the conceptual approaches of the so-called “weak hermeneutics,” but does not theoretically engage in it. It should be emphasized that A. Sverdiolas considers and discusses the conceptual approaches of the so-called “weak hermeneutics,” but does not theoretically engage in it. Also, based on the metaphorical image of “urbanization,” the article seeks to draw attention to A. Sverdiolas’s contribution to expanding and deepening research in the field of culture in Lithuania. (shrink)