Lecturing philosophy as its actualization
Keywords:lecturing philosophy, self-determination of philosopher, responsibility, responsibility of the philosopher, task of modern philosopher
The present times are full of various challenges, as it always used to be. Having in mind the rapid development of science and technology, we inevitably find ourselves under their influence. Thus, technology not only makes our life easier, but is also capable of shaping human perception in new obstacles. It can influence our choices and responsibility beyond them. Such a dynamic rate of producing new ideas and technology does not allow a proper and forehanded evaluation of their response in our near future. Since philosophers work with relatively constant terms, they have to be in the avant-gardé of a conceptual analysis and problem-shaping of the challenges facing modern people. In such circumstances, lecturing philosophy should hold a prominent position. The sphere of morals and ethical evaluations forms value basis for human self-cognition and performs as a stimulus to a more responsibly deliberated life. In this situation, a philosopher finds himself in a crucial role as a person, who provides this knowledge. The use of philosophical means has to start with the analysis of those, who are in charge of their usage. In order to remain frank with the audience and himself, a philosopher should start lecturing from himself, his self-cognition, as well as from a clear deliberation of his personal moral guidelines and personal responsibility. The situation, in which a philosopher shapes his personal ideas, formulates concepts, analyses, and provides arguments without proper elaboration of their premises and basic principles, raises concerns. Within the scope of this article we attempt to designate the term “philosopher” and philosopher’s position in the modern world. In order to articulate this term properly, we suggest a distinction in terminology between “philosophers of aim” and “philosophers of purpose”, which serves as a marker to estimate philosophic activities in their full scope. In my opinion, any philosophic activities, in their basis, perform as a practice of essential responsibility. The abovementioned definitions provide us with an ability to notice a distinction between philosophers and pseudo-philosophers, as well to evaluate the importance of the ones and the perniciousness of the others.
Friedland, J. (2019). AI can help us live more deliberately. In MIT Sloan Management Review, 60(4).
Habermas, J. (1998). The philosophy as a placeholder and interpreter. In Heneza: Filosofiya, istoriya, politolohiya, 1-2(6-7), 64-74 [in Ukrainian].
Horkheimer, M. (2006). The Critique of Instrumental Reason. Kyiv: PPS-2002 [in Ukrainian].
Marcel, G. (2001). Tragic Wisdom and Beyond. In Path to philosophy. Anthology. Moscow: PER SE, 243-269. [in Russian].
Maritain, J. (2001). A philosopher in the city. In Path to philosophy. Anthology. Moscow: PER SE, 274-280. [in Russian].
How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication;
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.