Problemos 2020-04-28T08:07:50+00:00 Nijolė Radavičienė Open Journal Systems <p>A peer-reviewed journal of philosophy founded in 1968 that publishes research articles, book reviews and an academic chronicle. Indexed in the Scopus database from 2002 and in the Web of Science database from 2005.</p> Editorial Board and Table of Contents 2020-04-23T09:04:04+00:00 Nijolė Radavičienė <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> 2020-04-21T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Authors Reciprocal Cosmopolitanism 2020-04-28T08:07:50+00:00 Dorota Drałus <p>In the paper I analyse Daniele Archibugi’s conception of the new cosmopolitanism, aimed at formulation of a theory of cosmopolitan democracy capable of facing contemporary global problems that go beyond the competences of nation-states. My claim is that the advocates of the new cosmopolitanism have yet to come up with a theoretical minimum to which all parties of the cosmopolitan debate would subscribe. I argue that the main obstacle in formulation of a viable cosmopolitanism are attempts at imposition of the universalist uniformity inscribed in the traditional cosmopolitanism or, at best, a straightforward acceptance of cultural differences. In opposition to this, I outline the idea of reciprocal cosmopolitanism which, I believe, should proceed from the acknowledgement of human diversity, thus becoming a more inclusive project than its existing alternatives.</p> 2020-04-21T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Authors The Transformation of Scientific Political Philosophy into a Speculative Philosophy of History 2020-04-28T08:07:35+00:00 Linas Jokubaitis <p>The paper presents an analysis of the three stages of the development of political philosophy since the 17th century. The rise of modern political theory was marked by attempts to develop a philosophy along the lines of natural sciences. These attempts lead to the development of highly speculative and abstract doctrines; political philosophy ceased being a practical discipline. The paper argues that an important aspect of the traditionalist political thought of the 18th century was an attempt to reestablish the link between theory and practice. In the 19th century, the interest in history was supplemented with new premises about the historical process. Political philosophy, which strived to become scientific, became highly dependent on the premises of various philosophies of history.</p> 2020-04-21T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Authors Foucault Panopticism and Self-Surveillance: from Individuals to Dividuals 2020-04-28T08:07:29+00:00 Aušra Kaziliūnaitė <p>The paper analyses the concept of panopticism formulated in Foucault’s works and its possibilities of relevance in contemporary power and (self)surveillance studies. In the book “Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison”, Foucault, applying Jeremy Bentham’s idea of a panoptical prison, writes about the power of the sovereignty that is replaced by the society of discipline. Foucault discusses panopticism in order to unfold the concept of the society of discipline. Here the essential measure of the society of discipline and panopticism becomes the concern for the individual per se. Deleuze in his text “Postscript on the Societies of Control” states that we no longer live in a society of discipline, but rather in a process, where we switch from the society of discipline to the society of control. In these changed circumstances, according to Deleuze, there are no longer individuals, rather dividuals. In these circumstances, is it possible to talk about panopticism? The paper shows that panopticism is still relevant while switching to the society of control. Also, it states that the currently unfolding scheme of the society of control has been programmed in the asymmetry of the panoptical gaze. Precisely in the processes produced in the asymmetry of the gaze gain its flexible totality in the society of control.</p> 2020-04-21T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Authors Machiavelli’s Revolution and Koselleck’s Sattelzeit 2020-04-28T08:07:24+00:00 Gonzalo Bustamante Kuschel <p>This article suggests that human action in Machiavelli is both materialistic and temporalized. It further argues that Reinhart Koselleck’s view of Machiavelli’s understanding of time as historical circularity is misleading. The author is making the case that Machiavelli drew from Lucretian materialism to strip political concepts of content via an animal-materialist anthropology and ontology holding that man, as any animal, is material reality acting under an atomic arrangement wherein no time, whether linear or circular, can exist. The conclusion is that Koselleck’s interpretation of the circularity of time in Machiavelli kept him from seeing his role as an antecedent of the conceptual and temporal revolution underlying the&nbsp;<em>Sattelzeit</em>.</p> 2020-04-21T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Authors Ethics of Responsibility and Ambiguity of Politics in Levinas’s Philosophy 2020-04-28T08:02:18+00:00 Luc Anckaert <p>The destruction of man in the Shoah or Holocaust did not mean that Levinas argues in favor of turning away from the socio-historical reality to cultivate his own little garden. The deepest truth of subjectivity can be found in an alterity that calls for a socio-political responsibility. The political implications are rooted in different layers of Levinas’s thought. In his Talmudic comments, Levinas questions the reality of war as the truth of politics. But his explorations of subjectivity, ethical relationality and society allow to understand different political options such as contract theory (responsibility in the first person), liberation philosophy and human rights (responsibility in the second person) and the necessity of building a just society (ethics in the third person). Paradoxically, a just and equitable society ignores the uniqueness of the unique other. While organized responsibility is necessary, it introduces a new form of violence. In this article, we bring together the different layers in Levinas’s political vision and we explore its limits. A fundamental question is whether Levinas’s vision of politics is based on ethics or whether his ethics is a critique of politics.</p> 2020-04-21T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Authors The Moral Grounds of Arendt’s Conception of Politics 2020-04-28T08:05:08+00:00 Simas Čelutka <p>Many critics of Hannah Arendt claim that her account of politics lacks moral guidelines and constraints. In their view, she radically dissociated politics from morality. Such an interpretation is mistaken. These critics fail to acknowledge that Arendt’s conception has its own resources of normativity. Fundamental categories of Arendt’s political theory (plurality, natality, freedom, equality, forgiveness, promise) serve moral, as well as political, purposes. The internalization of these categories strengthens political actors’ moral judgment and their sense of responsibility. Active participation in political life engenders respect for human dignity and the multiplicity of different perspectives. Critics ignore the moral dimension of Arendt’s conception of politics because they confuse different levels of analysis of the relationship between politics and morality. In the paper, these levels are discussed using the metaphor of a three-storey house.</p> 2020-04-21T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Authors Tom Regan’s Philosophy of Animal Rights: Subjects-of-a-Life in the Context of Discussions of Intrinsic and Inherent Worth 2020-04-28T08:05:02+00:00 Erwin Lengauer <p>Modern animal rights debates began in the 1970s, mainly as part of the budding field of applied ethics in Anglo-American philosophy. In just a short time, these animal rights discourses received international academic respect, especially through analytically trained philosophers. Central for this development was the analysis that rights language can be principally used species neutrally. This paper’s contribution is to examine the central terms of Tom Regan’s still widely discussed theory for their actuality and usefulness. Hence strengthening these arguments for modern animal rights theory as a serious approach in (inter)national ethical and legal disputes.</p> <p>Translated from German by&nbsp;Gary Steiner, Bucknell University</p> 2020-04-21T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Authors Recalcitrant Emotions: A Phenomenological View 2020-04-28T08:04:56+00:00 Kristjan Laasik <p>In this paper, I sketch an account of emotion that is based on a close analogy with a Husserlian account of perception. I also make use of the approach that I have limned, viz., to articulate a view of the kind of “conflict without contradiction” (CWC) which may obtain between a recalcitrant emotion and a judgment. My main contention is that CWC can be accounted for by appeal to the rationality of perception and emotion, conceived as responsiveness to experiential evidence. The conflicts in question can be regarded as obtaining between different strands of evidence, and our perceptual and emotional experiences can be thus conflicted even among themselves, not only in the special case of a conflict with a judgment.</p> 2020-04-21T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Authors Apparent L-Falsity and Actual Logical Structures 2020-04-28T08:04:51+00:00 Miguel López-Astorga <p>In 2012, Orenes and Johnson-Laird found interesting results from the cognitive point of view but problematic if analyzed under methods such as the semantic one of extension and intension presented by Carnap. The main difficulty in this way is that Orenes and Johnson-Laird showed that people tend to accept, in the case of certain inferences, conclusions that, by themselves, are, according to the aforementioned semantic method, false in absolutely all of the state-descriptions that can be imagined. However, in this paper, a way to overcome that difficulty is proposed. That way is based upon the idea that the real logical forms of the conclusions accepted by the participants in Orenes and Johnson-Laird’s experiments were not the apparent ones, but they corresponded to other very different structures that can be true in some state-descriptions.</p> 2020-04-21T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Authors