Straipsnyje svarstoma filosofijos pagrindimo, arba nau dojantis paplitusiu tarptautiniu terminu - legitimacijos, problema. Filosofavimas kaip veikla nuo pat filosofijos atsiradimo pradžios buvo problematiškas. Jau klasikinėje Graikijoje buvo ryškios kelios alternatyvos filosofų kaip kalbėtojų ir rašytojų veiklai: politika ir poezija. Atsižvelgiant į šiuolaikinę filosofijos padėtį, mėginama dar kartą svarstyti, kas palaiko filosofiją kaip veiklą, kaip filosofas gali pasiteisinti visuomenės akivaizdoje. Nuosekliai atmetamos galimybės filosofiją “estetizuoti“, t.y. priartinti ir suplakti ją su literatūrine veikla, o taip pat “politizuoti“ paverčiant ją viena iš padalinto visuomenėje darbo funkcijų. Filosofijos prasmė jaučiama tik išmintyje, t.y. patarimo plačiausia prasme galimybėje. Laikantis šios pozicijos vertinama enciklika “Fides et ratio“. Taip pat atskleidžiamas savotiškas enciklikos nedogmatiškumas, o filosofiškumas ką tik nurodytąja prasme.

The article is dedicated to the futher researches of the main problems in the philosophy of movement. Previous researches were described in the same magazine - Soter, Nr. 1 (29). In this article the causes of the acceleration - the phenomenon mentioned in the previous article - are related with a movement under compulsion, the description of the notion of which may be found in the writings of famous Greek philosopher Aristotle. Recently we know many philosophers who are famous especially because of their care for a dialectics of freedom and compulsion in various fields (for example - the works of Michel Foucault). Also - many various groups (for example, the feminist movement, the green movement and soon) which are fighting against the various violation and forcing. Dialectically: parallel to the care of freedom we feel a growing attention to the all forms of compulsion and violation. An opposition to a movement under compulsion, according to Aristotle, is a movement by nature, or simply - a natural movement. A movement by nature seems to be the cure from an overspeeding.

The article is dedicated to the problems of philosophy of movement, or, to be more exact, to the problem which is related with the philosophy of movement itself. Because until now the philosophy of movement has not the separate and independent meaning in the whole system of philosophy or sciences at all. We are used to speak about different movements in the field of philosophy, or to speak about movement of philosophy, but how about the philosophy of movement itself? Are we clear enough thinking, speaking or writing about movement? What difference is between the notion of movement and the notion of change? We usually think, that movement can be attributed only to material things, and change not only to material. But the Greek word kinesis (movement) has more wide meaning than ours, and therefore Greek philosophy, especially Eleatic, was solving the metaphysical problem of kinesis (movement). The change is only one aspect of the whole notion of movement. Aristotle even said, that there are six species of movement (Cat 15a). But the problem, of course, is not in the exact number of different notions, but in the main understanding of one notion analogically, through many different aspects. Despite the different meanings which are attributed to the same notion of movement, used in different spheres of being, we can speak about one analogical notion of movement like we speak about one analogical notion of being. Until now the problem of movement was generally solved in the field of physics. But especially in physics the metaphysical side or the essence of movement was suspended, so Descartes speaks only about one meaning of movement, that is- about a body changing a place. Such understanding of movement can not help us, when solving the problems of the history of physics, for example. Is it heterogeneous (discreet movement) or homogenous (continuous movement)? Would we speak about the revolution or the evolution of science? All the same, at first it depends from our understanding of movement. Also the lack of the general notion of movement is the cause, why we have not any theory, except Aristotelian, as Pope John Paul II says in his fundamental philosophical work “Person and action”, for explaining the human dynamism. The physics of Aristotle is interesting only for the history of physics, but not for physics itself. But we can not say this about the general Aristotelian understanding of movement. One of the most important problems of nowadays experience in practice is an acceleration, or the cause of our hurrying.. Acceleration forces us to revive the philosophy of movement. Modern physics can not give us the ground for solving the problem of acceleration, because of the narrow notion of movement. But it is possible to use the notions of Newtonian physics not in the strict, but in the metaphorical sense. The ground for such an action is the fundamental ground for analogy in the notion of movement itself. So the problem of acceleration, as we suppose, can be interpreted with the help of the most important notion in the physics from G.Galileo and R.Descartes - the main principle of physics, which is called inertia. Already Descartes pointed out the prejudice, that it is easier to start moving than to stop. The experience of acceleration in nowadays remembers us the principle of inertia in physics. The main problem in nowadays practice is not the starting of moving but rather stopping. The cause of our hurrying is the growing of speed, i.e. we can do more works in the same time or we spend less time for the same w'ork. But the growing of speed causes the growing of impulse or vis inertiae, and that means, that we need more and more force to stop movement or to change the direction of movement. To say more: we are afraid of stopping, because we are afraid of being thrown away from our graphics of movement. Our graphics of movement are very compact because of the acceleration. We always have our personal plans, but often we are unconscious about the impersonal vis inertiae. We have not time decide to stop or to run on, because we already are in the state of furious running. Making of decision requires to stop. But stopping means, that decision to stop is already made. To run forth means not to make decision. But that also means that decision to run forth is already made. So we feel the dialectics of our movement, the dialectics of our busyness, which can be illustrated with the metaphor of running in the circle. Where is the force, which would help us to overcome the vis inertiae? Isn’t it our will? That means, that the opposite for our free will is not only necessity or compulsion, but also the vis inertiae.

It seems that dance is an opposite of reflection. Cicero had said: "No sober man dances". But in spite of this attitude to dance in Western tradition of philosophy, a man dances not only when he loses his mind, but also when he attempts to master his body. Therefore, ecstatic and reflective dances have to be considered. Then the general capacity of human reflection is considered. According to preliminary insights into the intentional field of Dasein, there is more than one form of reflectivity. For the time being six forms are detected and described in the article: auto-reflectivity, theatrical reflectivity, objective reflectivity, inter-subjective reflectivity, mimetic reflectivity, and strategic re flectivity. As the conclusion made in the article follows the definition of dance as it may be understood in a phenomenological way: dance is a play of invariants and variations of movement.

The aim of this article is discussion of an experience of dance in the context of everydayness. A phenomenon of modern ballroom dance is studied as an event in an everyday context, connected with essential change of the attitude from pragmatic to balletic (the concept offered by Langer, 1953, 202). Refering to the philosophy of dance developed by Valery which he formulated in a few articles and lectures (Valery, 1936) phenomenon of dance is compared to poetic phenomenon, and purposeful movements differentiated from aimless movements. The statement of Merleau-Ponty is taken into account: "Light is thus thrown upon the distinction between abstract and concrete movement: the background to concrete movement is the world as given, whereas the background to abstract movement is built up" (Merleau-Ponty, 1996, 111). It is noticed that the phenomenon of modern ballroom dance is constituted in three different hermeneutic horizons: as Sport, Art and Show (Vermey, 1994). Discussing the genesis and the further development of modern ballroom dance phenomenon, contrasting evaluations in Lithuanian philosophy as the accusation of modern ballroom dance as sexual orgiasm (Salkauskis, 1928) are pointed and discussed.

This article investigates the main book of St. Augustine "The City of God", considers problematics of the title of the book and puts the question: how contemporary Western society could be evaluated according to the thought of St. Augustine and what transformations of the society of God could be noticed in the context of transformations of the society terrene.

This article investigates the problem of naturalization of phenomenology, i.e. the problem of coordination of the first- and the third-person approaches in scientific inquiry. Contemporary classification of sciences is established on the basis of modern science tradition and recent trends in modern science. Five domains are distinguished in Lithuania: Humanities, Social sciences, Physical sciences, Biomedical sciences, Technological sciences. Nevertheless, this structure could and should be questioned philosophically and practically, looking for clarification, marginalities and alternatives. Referring to the main ideas of phenomenology, the first argument follows: the fields of scientific research are established not only as “object-fields”, but also as “intentional-fields”, including not only the object, but also the mode of approach to the object. Referring to the main ideas of structural semantics, the second argument follows: an already established intentional field develops by the means of involutionary differentiation. Therefore it is possible to distinguish intentionally established fields of differentiation (see 1 diagram) that are relevant for theoretical discussion of the classification of sciences, and also for practical aims of creating scientific interfaces and creation of multidisplinary teams. The recent project of naturalizing phenomenology formulated by multidisciplinary group of scientists is based on the idea of the interfaces between the fields of experiential and physical (including biomedical) or behavioural differentiation. In phenomenological sense, to naturalize means to switch to natural attitude. As Zahavi pointed it means to leave the attitude which keeps in transcendental phenomenology and keep to phenomenological descriptive psychology. And for phenomenology it means to be naturalized in cognitive science. [...]

Straipsnyje analizuojama Šv. Tomo Akviniečio judėjimo filosofija. Ypač susitelkiama į santykį tarp sąvokų judėjimas (motus) ir veiksmas (actus). Nagrinėjamos Arno Anzenbacherio ir Karolio Wojtylos siūlomos Šv. Tomo Akviniečio judėjimo filosofijoje naudojamų sąvokų interpretacijos. Svarstoma sąvokos judėjimas (motus) siejimo su gamta, o sąvokos veiksmas (actus) – su žmogiškosios veiklos sfera – problema. Daroma išvada, kad toks siejimas, nors ir giliai įsišaknijęs interpretacijos tradicijoje, yra nepakankamai pagrįstas. Todėl svarstoma kitos interpretacijos galimybė.

Straipsnyje plėtojama kasdienybėje išryškėjančių patirčių – įkvėpimo ir estetinio patyrimo – deskripcija ir interpretacija. Atskleidus šių patirčių epistemologinius motyvus, parodoma, kad įsigalėjusi pasyvaus subjektyvizmo nuostata, kuria pateisinamas kasdienės ir „aukštosios kultūros“ lygiavertiškumas, implikuoja fundamentalų patirties ir kasdienybės fenomenų nesupratimą.