This paper explores two primary propositions: a) philosophical mediation is a vital component of cultural diplomacy, historically evolving from a practice based on cultural sensitivity, critical analysis, and public discourse; b) in the realm of diplomacy, philosophical mediation delineates the principles of cultural “adaptability,” addressing local social dynamics and epistemologies where the art of negotiation is applied. This approach does not seek to dismantle or expose prejudices, ideological and religious beliefs, pseudo-historical anticipations, and political narratives. Instead, philosophical mediation strives for (...) a delicate equilibrium; supporting tolerance of accepted traditions alongside democratic and constructive criticism, and promoting enlightenment and progress. (shrink)

The purpose of the article is to analyze how existential phenomenology and hermeneutics of Sverdiolas helps to understand the formation of culture as a transcendental process in the periods of the social and cultural crisis. Sverdiolas explains in detail the egology of Greimas and the cultural sociology of Kavolis, their understanding of the crisis, the exile and decline of cultures, and the radical choices of public intellectuals. Since much is said about egology and participatory understanding, the article develops the concept (...) of hermeneutical anthropology. In this connection, we discuss Sverdiolas’s relation to the hermeneutical anthropology of Cl. Geertz and the condition of the transgressive being, which partly explains the role of personal choice in the time of cultural crisis. The article asks where and how do existential hermeneutics become anthropological or sociological. Greimas is discussed in the context of the crisis of meaning and phenomenological egology, and Kavolis in the context of group symbolic interactionism, the sociology of trust and friendship. (shrink)

Straipsnyje analizuojami filosofo ir antropologo Edmundo Gendrolio filosofiniai ntropologiniai samprotavimai apie žmogaus savivokos, save suvokiančio mąstymo raidą. Gendrolis nuosekliai rėmėsi socialinės ir kultūrinės antropologijos teorijomis, empiriniais paleoantropologijos tyrinėjimais, etologijos prielaidomis. Straipsnio tikslas yra parodyti Gendrolio filosofinių antropologinių samprotavimų pecifiškumą, išskiriant jo bendruomeninės abstraktaus mąstymo kilmės teoriją, pabrėžiant solidarumo ir kultūros tvermės formų svarbą žmogaus raidai nuo seniausių Homo erectus laikų. Straipsnyje parodoma, kad Gendrolis nuosaikiai kritikavo marksistinę darbo teoriją, zoologinį individualizmą, linijinį evoliucionizmą, filosofinės antropologijos spekuliatyvumą, ir tvirtinama, kad jis savitai, (...) dialektiškai plėtojo neoevoliucionizmo teorijas, papildytas F. Boaso teorinėmis prielaidomis. Gendrolis atskirai išskyrė istoriškumo bei evoliucijos daugialinijiškumo teorijas, tokiu būdu siekdamas suformuoti savitą sociokultūrinės antropologijos metodologiją ir pasipriešinti unifikaciniam europocentrizmui bei kolonializmui. Pagrindiniai žodžiai: filosofinė antropologija, sociokultūrinė antropologija, neoevoliucionizmas, bendruomeniškumas, darbas, zoologinis individualizmas. E. Gendrolis’ Theory of Communitarian Development of the Human Being Gintautas Mažeikis Summary Considerations of philosopher and social anthropologists Edmundas Gendrolis about selfimagination and self-understanding of human beings from the point of social and cultural anthropology and paleoanthropology are analyzed. Gendrolis supported his considerations by theories and ethodologies, researches of social and cultural anthropology, paleoanthropology, ethology, Marxist philosophy. The aim of the article is to show the specificity of his philosophical anthropological considerations, especially of theory of communitarian ideation, development of conscious solidarity, cultural continuity from the time of Homo erectus. The article shows that Gendrolis moderately criticized the Marxist theory of work, zoological individualism, linear evolutionarism, Eurocentrism, racism and cultural segregation. He tried to resist the colonial and neocolonial tendencies in anthropological discourses and to support common po stcolonial attitudes to the history of tribes and small nations. On the contrary, he developed ideas of F. Boas, multilinear cultural Evolutionarism, ideas of L. A. White, M. Sahlins, E. R. Service and the dialectical approach to the complexity of issues of the human being. Such issues are morphological changes of paleoanthropos and neoanthropos, domestic life and household, exogamy and taboo, totems and early forms of faith, tools of the work and art pictures. He tried to develop the humanistic approach to the Homo erectus and Neanderthals as the basis for the future humanistic interpretation of traditional tribes and small nations. Such considerations corresponded to the Lithuanian world conception and to the attempts to liberate themselves from the Soviet occupation and Soviet cultural hegemony. He maintained the main subject of self-comprehending thinking to be community and its skills of cooperation and ideation. Ideation is the process of forming and relating ideas, images and ideals. The process of ideation, the making of abstract solutions and conceptual memory depends on community network, trust, solidarity that could be supported by common rituals, games, art, by the process of education of children. Ideation influenced the skills of hunters, pickers, formed wedding rules, trade among the modern Homini sapiens. And vice versa: all human activities supported and developed the process of abstract thinking and collective ideation. The integral approach to the issues of human being and the theory of multilinear evolution of them became the basis for criticism of Marxist anthropology. He criticized Marxism as well as social Darwinism and any other evolutionism as too much teleological, deterministic and dogmatic theories. His other critical point is about zoological individualism which accumulates a lot of negative interpretations of savages and provides cultural aggression. However, Gendrolis stayed alone from the European social or cultural anthropological movement, and his very large and quite deep considerations didn’t become the beginning of the institutional development of social or cultural anthropological studines in Lithuania. He developed a very little dialog with local ethnologists, and it was the reason for narrow interpretations of his theories. However, his books, articles and ideas are interesting and actual for modern social and philosophical anthropologists. (shrink)

Straipsnyje analizuojamos Karsavino Eurazijos ir simfoninės asmenybės teorijos ir jų įtaka asmeniniam Karsavino likimui, jo sofiologinėms mesianistinėms nuostatoms. Aptariama svarbiausių filosofinių Karsavino idėjų genezė: gyvo religingumo ir bendrojo religinio fondo, gnostinės pleromos interpretacijos, Šv. Trejybės dialektika ir jos santykis su N. Kuziečio filosofija, simfoninės asmenybės teorija. Pagrindinis teiginys apie Karsavino ir Kuziečio filosofijų skirtumą yra pagrįstas kristologiniais Karsavino argumentais apie Kuziečio filosofijos nepakankamumą aiškinant Dievo kaip Possest eksplikacijos ir komplikacijos problematiką. Karsavinas, remdamasis ortodoksiniais kristologiniais teiginiais, simfoninės asmenybės bei ideokratijos teorija (...) bei tipologine, istoriosofine civilizacijų klasifikacija, pagrindžia kairiąją Eurazijos sąjūdžio ideologiją, kuri išliko aktuali ir šiandienos Rusijos politinei situacijai. Straipsnyje parodomos lietuviškosios filosofijos ir Karsavino samprotavimų paralelės ir keliamas klausimas dėl Eurazijos ideologijos nesvarstymo tarpukario Lietuvoje. Straipsnio pabaigoje grįžtama prie filosofinio Karsavino apsisprendimo, saikingų, asmeninių mesianistinių jo nuostatų ir sokratiško likimo tardymų, įkalinimo Abezės lageryje laikotarpiu. Pagrindiniai žodžiai: gyvasis religingumas, simfoninė asmenybė, panteizmas, gnoticizmas, mesianizmas. Historiosophical Messianism of L. Karsavin and the Idea of Eurasia Gintautas Mažeikis Summary The historiosophical and messianistic ideas of L. Karsavin and his ideology of left Eurasia were based on the theological and gnostic symbolism of the early 20th century, F. Schelling’s philosophy of Myth and Universality, Vl. Solovjov’s Philosophy of Universality, Mystics of Christology, the Orthodox understanding of Saint Trinity, typological theory of civilizations. At the beginning of his mediaeval researches Karsavin investigated sacral events in rural areas in the 17th–18th centuries, especially in Italy, magic activities and popular beliefs in Christian Saints, based on uncritical, natural, live religious feelings and spontaneous faith. He maintained live religious faith to be the background for the significance and utility of all canonical religious rules and churches. These ideas are similar to the French school of Annales and to the M. Bakhtin’s theory of Carnival issues of the Mediaeval tradition of laughter. However, Karsavin re lated his consideration of spontaneous hierophany to the gnostic tradition of Divine Pleroma. It is important to them in order to interpret the philosophy of Nicolaus Cusanus, especially his conception of God as Possest and a permanent and contradictory process of explicatio and complicatio. On the basis of Cusanus’ philosophy, Karsavin developed his personal idea of dialectics of Saint Trinity as a union of Divine personalities. Karsavin maintained that the conception of Cusanus is insufficient because Cusanus didn’t explain the role of Christ in the full reunification of sinful human beings with God. By Karsavin, Cusanus avoided pantheistic tendencies and therefore couldn’t develop the theory of divination of personality. On the contrary, Karsavin develops the idea of divination of oneself in his theory of Symphonic personality. Every personality is a form of free solution and responsibility, love and self-sacrifice. Therefore, the personality develops itself from an autonomous individual into the personality as a family, the personality as a nation, as a state, and finally the personality transforms into a cosmic human being, or Adam Kadmon. The hierarchic growth of personality, his ontology presupposes his essential responsibility for the development of nation, state, culture and civilization. It was the basis of Karsavin’s messianism. The nation or culture couldn’t be developed in the necessary direction, towards divinity, without creative and self-sacrificing activity of the individual. The hierarchical conception of the world personality presupposes the ideocratic form of government. The idea of the ideocratic power makes Karsavin’s political considerations similar to the Soviet system of power. Karsavin from 1925 until 1929 was the leader of the left wing of the Eurasia movement which was located in Paris. He initiated and supported a dialog with Bolsheviks’ representatives. However, Karsavin strongly criticized communism and Bolsheviks from the Orthodox point of view. Karsavin was a deep believer and couldn’t support the destruction of churches by the Soviet regime. However, today it is possible to say that Karsavin’s political visions are very similar to the modern Vl. Putins’ regime in contemporary Russia. Eurasia and Symphonic Personality ideas became important motives for Karsavin’s coming to Lithuania in 1928. However, after arrival he didn’t participate in any political movement and developed his civilization ideas, the conception of ideocratic power and Symphonic Personality there. In the Lithuanian period, he becomes closer to the Russian Orthodox tradition of Old Believers and its ideas of self-sacrifice to populace. Karsavin didn’t emigrate from Lithuania in the threat of Soviet occupation. On the contrary, he spread his ideas of Symphonic Personality, dialectics of Trinity, self-sacrificing after the War and even in the concentration camp in Abeze until his death in 1952. Keywords: live religions, Symphonic Personality, pantheism, gnosticism, messianism. -size: 11pt;">. (shrink)