This ethos includes the rejection of what I would call "blackmail" Education. I think the Aufkl(rung as a set of political, economic, social, institutional, cultural events that are today we largely depend, is preferred the scope of analysis. I think also that Education, as an attempt to directly to associate the progress of truth and the history of liberty has set the philosophical question, which still stands in front of us. Finally, I think - and I tried to show this in connection with the text of Kant, that the Aufkl(rung defines a special method of philosophizing. But all this does not mean that we should be "for" or "against" Aufkl(rung. On the contrary, it means that you should abandon everything that appears as a simplistic and authoritarian alternative: or make Aufkl(rung and stay in the tradition of its rationality (some believe it is something positive however, something reprehensible); or to criticize Aufkl(rung, trying in this case to get away from these principles of rationality (this, again, can be seen as good and bad side). From the power of this blackmail impossible to get through the introduction "dialectical" nuances, attempts to define good and bad in Aufkl(rung. You need to try to analyze ourselves as historical beings to some extent, deterministic Aufkl(rung. This task includes series accurate as possible in historical research; and the research should not be oriented retrospectively to the "essential core rationality", which can be seen in the Aufkl(rung, and which in any the case should have been retained. They should be focused on "actual the boundaries of the necessary," that is, that is not, or is no longer is necessary for the Constitution of ourselves as Autonomous subjects.
This ethos includes the rejection of what I would call "blackmail"
ReplyDeleteEducation. I think the Aufkl(rung as a set of political,
economic, social, institutional, cultural events that are
today we largely depend, is preferred
the scope of analysis. I think also that Education, as an attempt to directly
to associate the progress of truth and the history of liberty has set the philosophical question,
which still stands in front of us. Finally, I think - and I tried
to show this in connection with the text of Kant, that the Aufkl(rung defines a special
method of philosophizing. But all this does not mean that we should be "for" or
"against" Aufkl(rung. On the contrary, it means that you should abandon
everything that appears as a simplistic and authoritarian alternative: or make
Aufkl(rung and stay in the tradition of its rationality (some believe it is something
positive however, something reprehensible); or to criticize
Aufkl(rung, trying in this case to get away from these principles of rationality
(this, again, can be seen as good and bad
side). From the power of this blackmail impossible to get through the introduction
"dialectical" nuances, attempts to define good and bad in
Aufkl(rung.
You need to try to analyze ourselves as historical beings
to some extent, deterministic Aufkl(rung. This task includes
series accurate as possible in historical research; and the
research should not be oriented retrospectively to the "essential core
rationality", which can be seen in the Aufkl(rung, and which in any
the case should have been retained. They should be focused on "actual
the boundaries of the necessary," that is, that is not, or is no longer
is necessary for the Constitution of ourselves as Autonomous
subjects.