Rakstu krājums "Filosofiskā antropoloģija III"

Permanent URI for this collection

http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/15530

Browse

Browsing Rakstu krājums "Filosofiskā antropoloģija III" by Author "Graudiņa, Elīna"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Cilvēka dabiskais stāvoklis Hobsa, Loka un Ruso skatījumā
    (Rīgas Stradiņa universitāte, 2024) Graudiņa, Elīna
    Elīna Graudiņa in her article “The Natural State of Human According to Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau” examines the views and visions of Enlightenment thinkers on the position of an individual and society in relation to the State, society and each other. Hobbes describes the natural human condition as a selfish desire for self-preservation, characterised by a spirit of competition, distrust and fear. It is the development of “natural law” according to which a man is free to do whatever they like, and “the state of war of all against all” begins. In his natural state, man has both external freedom of action and internal freedom of will, and therefore a natural right to everything. A state where duties and rights are based on contract is a system in which the individual’s selfishness is overridden by his duty to himself, to his neighbour and to the state at large. John Locke argues that there is no innate knowledge in the individual and that man is born as a “blank slate”. He believed that an individual’s personality, knowledge and character are formed as a result of the influences of the world around him. All human beings are free, equal and independent by nature. Thomas Hobbes’s social contract theory was further developed and simultaneously criticized by Jean Jacque Rousseau. He describes transition from the state of nature to the state of citizenship. This transition brings about a remarkable change in man, replacing instinct with justice in their behaviour, giving their actions a moral meaning. What man loses with the social contract is their natural freedom, limited only by the forces of an individual. It must be distinguished from civil liberty, which is limited by the general will and property. Rousseau defends the thesis that man is good by nature and only society corrupts them morally. The philosopher cites a faulty education as one of the reasons for this, and therefore calls for an immediate reform of pedagogy, replacing traditional methods of education with “natural education”. The reform in question is based on precise knowledge of the nature of the child. Several centuries have passed since Hobbes’s conclusions on the selfishness of human nature, but this does not change the fact that the “natural state” of man has not really changed, emphasises Elīna Graudiņa.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Cilvēka dabiskais stāvoklis mūsdienās
    (Rīgas Stradiņa universitāte, 2024) Graudiņa, Elīna
    In the first article of this volume, Elīna Graudiņa examined the “natural state” of human in the works of three Enlightenment thinkers: Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. Further research on the topic has led to the insights summarised in the new text entitled “The Natural Condition of Human Today”. The link between Enlightenment ideas and modernity begins with Kant’s anthropology. In this section Graudiņa focuses on the theme of values and its correlation with the concept of freedom, education, development of democracy and civil society. In this context, Hannah Arendt’s analysis of totalitarianism is relevant, which leads to conclusion that in totalitarian regimes human right to life is devalued to its lowest point. Crowd thinking is the key: the masses of people have reached a stage where they can believe in everything and nothing at the same time, they can think that everything is possible and nothing is true. The author discusses Habermas’s ideas in more detail, since the theoretical framework he developed is dedicated to discovering possibilities of reason, emancipation and rational-critical communication hidden in modern institutions and in man’s capacity to become aware of and pursue rational interests. In further development of Arendt’s thesis of power as a collectively constructed phenomenon, Habermas points out that political power derives from communicative power, which is generated in the public sphere between members of civil society. It is defined as the result of free interaction in the public sphere, where important policy issues are discussed, new ideas are generated, socially significant problems are solved and development of the country is thereby promoted. Habermas stresses that democracy is not inherently rooted in civil society or individual autonomy but in communicative relations, as these foster both mutual harmony and reasoned discourse. Consequently, education systems in democracies must be able to provide full understanding of the meaning and basic principles of democracy. Elīna Graudiņa discusses Habermas’s theory of communicative rationality in light of current problems. Namely, as the amount of information increases, so does misinformation that affects individuals and civil society, which is so important for democracy. Nowadays, every individual, whether in office or not, is able to address the public, not only by expressing their opinion, but also by influencing it. The threat to an individual is that there is a growing disbelief in facts, in science, in reasonableness, and a growing tension in society which could lead to the “state of war of all against all” as referred to by Thomas Hobbes. Communities of supporters of certain ideas are formed in the vast information space, which, without verifying veracity of the information, end up denying the role of public institutions. The author quotes Timothy Snyder, who argues that the individual begins to succumb to tyranny the moment he fails to notice the difference between what he wants to hear and what is actually the case. Against the background of the problems of the present, Kant’s insights, discussed at the beginning of the article, on the nature of man, which allows a free choice of the path of moral life – one can choose good or evil – are particularly relevant. Actions are not necessarily contrary to the law, but the mindset of their subject can be corrupted, and that subject can therefore be considered evil.