Suchergebnisse

The article deals with the issues of correlation of external and internal freedom, freedom of thought and wisdom, and their participation in creative choice and action as unintentional thoughts caused by the self-isolation regime. The authors show that the concept of freethinking is closely related to the understanding of freedom in this era. In the free-thinking as its incarnation lay two essential features: negative — "freedom from" and positive — "freedom for". The historical retrospective of their balance appears as a certain regularity, which the authors conventionally call the "swing of free thought": the birth of a new branch of spiritual culture is due to the growing criticism of the previous one and the appearance of a galaxy of thinkers who form it.Thus, in the freethinking of Antiquity, with its tendency to reject the pressure of fate, at first "freedom from" prevailed, to which later, as a result of the positive work of numerous philosophical schools, "freedom for" was added. The formation of Christianity as a branch of spiritual culture was accompanied by criticism of previous philosophy (for example, by Neoplatonists) and the creative work of the apostles and Christian thinkers of the patristic era. In the medieval acquisition of freedom as a gift of God, "freedom for" was asserted, which, under the influence of late dogmatism, turned into negative freedom by the Renaissance. Anti-clericalism and anti-dogmatism were overcome by modern thinkers who, creating the methodology of science (English empiricism and continental rationalism), established new goals and meanings of knowledge, and freedom became necessary "for" the knowledge of the laws of nature. The birth of ideology as a branch of culture in the late XIX-early XX centuries, although it did not occur against the background of criticism of science, still produced a new field of freedom — political freedoms marked by bourgeois-liberal ideas. Global humanity, which now has a common destiny, is approaching a new "axial time", which will probably require a new freethinking — both negative, which is already embedded in the ideas of Western postmodern philosophy, and positive, for example, in the framework of the philosophical-religious-scientific synthesis prepared by Russian religious philosophers. ; В статье рассматриваются проблемы соотношения свободы внешней и внутренней, свободомыслия и мудрости и их участия в творческом выборе и действии как нечаянные мысли, вызванные режимом самоизоляции. Авторы показывают, что понятие свободомыслия тесно связано с пониманием свободы в данную эпоху. В свободомыслии как его ипостаси заложены две сущностные черты — негативная — «свобода от» и позитивная — «свобода для». Историческая ретроспектива их баланса предстает как некая закономерность, которую авторы условно называют «качелями свободомыслия»: рождение новой отрасли духовной культуры происходит за счет нарастающей критики предыдущей и появления плеяды мыслителей, ее формирующих.Так, в свободомыслии Античности с его устремлением к отказу от давления рока сначала преобладала «свобода от», к которой позже в результате позитивной работы многочисленных философских школ добавилась «свобода для». Становление христианства как отрасли духовной культуры сопровождалось критикой предыдущей философии (например, неоплатониками) и созидательной работой апостолов и христианских мыслителей эпохи патристики. В средневековом обретении свободы как божьего дара утверждалась «свобода для», которая под влиянием позднего догматизма превратилась к эпохе Возрождения в негативную свободу. Антиклерикализм и антидогматизм был преодолен мыслителями Нового времени, которые, создавая методологию науки (английский эмпиризм и континентальный рационализм), утвердили новые цели и смыслы познания, и свобода стала нужна «для» познания законов природы. Рождение идеологии как отрасли культуры в конце XIX — начале ХХ вв., хотя и происходило не на фоне критики науки, все же произвело новое поле свободы — политические свободы, обозначенные буржуазно-либеральными идеями. Глобальное человечество, отныне имеющее общую судьбу, подходит к новому «осевому времени», которое, вероятно, потребует нового свободомыслия — негативного, которое уже заложено в идеях западной философии постмодернизма, и позитивного, например, в рамках философско-религиозно-научного синтеза, подготовленного русскими религиозными философами.

Klappentext: Andrew Michael Ramsay (1686-1743) ist ein zu Unrecht vergessener Denker. Vor allem mit seiner überaus erfolgreichen "Kyrupädie" und der Lebensbeschreibung seines Lehrers Fénelon entwickelte er sich zu einem bedeutenden Autor der Aufklärung und der Frühaufklärung. Seine populären Schriften machten ihn unter anderem zu einem der Vordenker des Aufgeklärten Absolutismus und der Toleranz. Doch als nicht minder spannend erweist sich seine Biographie: Unter dem Einfluß der Mystik zum Katholizismus konvertiert, erlebte der schottische Jakobit mit dem Aufstieg zum Hauslehrer Bonnie Prince Charlies sowie zum Fellow der Royal Society eine außergewöhnliche internationale Gelehrtenkarriere. Schließlich wirkte Ramsay zudem als einer der Pioniere des Freimaurertums in Frankreich. Die text- und kontextgetreue Analyse seines vermeintlich paradoxen Projektes eines "True, Noble, Christian Freethinking" leistet so einen wichtigen Beitrag zur europäischen Geschichte des 18. Jahrhunderts.

""This is a book about humanists, but even humanists cannot agree on what a humanist is," declares Sarah Bakewell. Indeed, for centuries now, thinkers, writers, scholars, politicians, activists, artists, and countless others have been searching for and refining a philosophy of the human spirit. Humanism can be found in writings of Plato and Protagoras and in the thought of Confucius. It is ever-present in the work of Michel de Montaigne, and guided the thinking and activism of Harriet Taylor Mill. When Zora Neale Hurston writes, "Somebody else may have my rapturous glance at the archangels. The springing of the yellow line of morning out of the misty deep of dawn, is glory enough for me." That is humanism par excellence. In Humanly Possible, Bakewell puts forward that all the different meanings of "humanism" are worth looking at together because they are all concerned with humanitas, or, as she puts it, "our culture and learning, our words and art, our good manners and sociable desire to say hello to the universe." What unites humanists, religious or not, scholarly or not, philosophical or not, is that they all put the human world of culture and morality at the center of their concerns. What could be more human than that? Embracing and indeed celebrating humanism's swirling, kaleidoscopic, rich ambiguity, Bakewell sets out not just to trace this vital philosophical lineage through the lives of its major protagonists but in fact to make her own dazzling contribution to its expansive literature. The result is an intoxicating, joyful celebration of the human spirit from one of our most beloved and charming writers"--

Lie #1. People care which company they work for -- Lie #2. The best plan wins -- Lie #3. The best companies cascade goals -- Lie #4. The best people are well-rounded -- Lie #5. People need feedback -- Lie #6. People can reliably rate other people -- Lie #7. People have potential -- Lie #8. Work-life balance matters most -- Lie #9. Leadership is a thing -- Truths.

Freethinking as an idea understood today was finally developed in late 19th century. Therefore, we can perceive the concept of freethinking as an ideology based on correct thinking (logic) and science as the only way to acquire the knowledge of reality. Freethinkers refuse to associate scientific knowledge, public (social) and politic views with authorities, dogmas, traditions. The spread of freethinking in the First Republic of Lithuania was supervised by Jonas Šliūpas as well as ECSF (Ethical Culture Society of Freethinkers) organization established in 1922 , the latter being quite important and necessary in order to spread freethinking ideas. Since the idea of freethinking was versatile, its spread in the public life of the First Republic of Lithuania was also quite diverse. Freethinking ideas were manifested through various areas of life: politics, civil registry, education, relationships with religion, public and cultural life, publishing. Consequently, freethinking was developed precisely in these directions in the First Republic of Lithuania.

Freethinking as an idea understood today was finally developed in late 19th century. Therefore, we can perceive the concept of freethinking as an ideology based on correct thinking (logic) and science as the only way to acquire the knowledge of reality. Freethinkers refuse to associate scientific knowledge, public (social) and politic views with authorities, dogmas, traditions. The spread of freethinking in the First Republic of Lithuania was supervised by Jonas Šliūpas as well as ECSF (Ethical Culture Society of Freethinkers) organization established in 1922 , the latter being quite important and necessary in order to spread freethinking ideas. Since the idea of freethinking was versatile, its spread in the public life of the First Republic of Lithuania was also quite diverse. Freethinking ideas were manifested through various areas of life: politics, civil registry, education, relationships with religion, public and cultural life, publishing. Consequently, freethinking was developed precisely in these directions in the First Republic of Lithuania.