Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Universalism
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

Uniwersalizm i etnocentryzm w polskim kinie

100%
Hendrykowski M.
Kwartalnik Filmowy
|
2016
|
issue 95 Transnarodowość kina polskiego
52-60
EN
Odrzucając teorię „składnikową”, autor prezentuje interakcyjną teorię uniwersalności utworu filmowego. Teoria ta eksponuje różnicę potencjałów kulturowych między tym, co uniwersalne, a tym, co lokalne. Podkreśla przy tym wagę lokalności (unikatowości jednostkowego i zbiorowego doświadczenia) w procesie odbioru filmu. Za sprawą różnicy potencjałów kulturowych oba jego aspekty – „lokalny” i „uniwersalny” – łącznie ustanawiają w procesie odbioru rodzaj wielorako nośnej asymetrii znaczeń: nieustannie interferując i oscylując między sobą. Strategia wygrywania tej różnicy, podniesiona do rangi sztuki filmowej, pozwala twórcom filmowym organizować i czerpać z pierwiastków „lokalnych” kina jego uniwersalny sens.
XX
Rejecting the theory of “ingredients”, the author presents an interactive theory of the universality of film work. This theory exposes the difference in cultural potentials between that which is universal and that which is local. It highlights the importance of locality (uniqueness of the individual and collective experience) in the process of film reception. Due to differences in cultural potential, both its cultural aspects – “local” and “universal” – jointly establish in the process of film reception the type of the asymmetry of meanings: constantly interfering and oscillating between them. The strategy of winning this struggle, raised to an art form in film, allows filmmakers to organize and draw from elements of “local” cinema its universal meaning.
2

RESISTING NIHILISM SINCE 1989 Keynote Address to the 12th World Congress of the International Society for Universal Dialogue, Lima, Peru.

83%
Brown C.
Dialogue and Universalism
|
2019
|
issue 1
9-16
EN
The International Society for Universal Dialogue (ISUD) was founded, in a moment of optimism and hope, to be an active part of a global resistance to nihilism while working to realize a more peaceful, humane, and just world order. Today, the hope for cultural renewal has faded as we sense that our ability for authentic public discourse on issues of meaning and value has diminished. The cultural dominance of instrumental rationality along with the steady spread of market practices and market logic into our everyday taken-for-granted understanding of things frames the pursuit of individual self-interest and calculative impersonal relations as the model of rationality and all social relations. Our bonds of attachment and our sense of shared community are replaced with impersonal contracts and Hobbesian self-identities. The result is that what Edmund Husserl and Jürgen Habermas called the “lifeworld,” our taken-for-granted background of shared meaning from which cultural achievements emerge and from which meaning is created and replenished through the sharing of perspectives and open dialogue—has now been corrupted, captured, colonized by creeping nihilism. This paper argues that the contemporary challenge for ISUD and philosophy itself is to repair and replenish our shared and overlapping lifeworlds through the recovery, critique, clarification, and renewal of authentic values, insights, and achievements from the widest possible plurality of traditions, cultures, and philosophical visions. We must liberate the life world from the snares of creeping nihilism. We must repair and replenish the life world through open and honest communication, through philosophical dialogue among an ever-greater plurality of perspectives and points of view.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The challenges of Holocaust instruction and remembrance - Particular and universal aspects in formal and informal interdisciplinary curricula in Israel and abroad

83%
Davidovich N., Soen D., Hezkelovich A.
Images. The International Journal of European Film, Performing Arts and Audiovisual Communication
|
2011
|
vol. 8
|
issue 15-16
49-65
PL
The present article examines Holocaust instruction in Israel and in France, addressing formal and informal aspects of teaching practices. Specifically, the article examines whether Holocaust instruction constitutes a unifying factor that stresses what is common to human beings, among adolescents at schools in Israel and abroad, or whether it is a continuation of the methodic axis of the general model of the school and its credo. The study was conducted as part of a large-scale project evaluating 20 years of journeys to Poland by Israeli youth. It is based on a qualitative research apporoach that included analysis of interviews with policymakers, representatives of Holocaust institutes and foundations, teachers, students and guides. It also made use of field observations and official documents. The qualitative analysis revealed that that the dominant didactic models in Israel and France differ from one another in the importance that they attribute to universal versus the particular elements. Each of the models was built based on a didactic foundation of educational and teaching activity at the school in general, and Holocaust instruction in particular. The study findings indicate that in general, the Holocaust instruction in Israel continues to emphasize the particular. It serves as a tool for strengthening the unique values of the event, and stresses Israeliness, Zionism, and Jewishness. The climax of the modal is an eight-day journey to Poland, centering on a visit to Auschwitz. In contrast, Holocaust instruction in France emphasizes the universal. The curriculum positions the journey as the climax of the scholastic experience but, unlike the Israeli curriculum, it emphasizes the historical and universal aspects of the Holocaust and represses the singularity of the event in the context of the Jewish people. A comparison of the two countries underlines the substantive differences separating the two different educational systems, which have adopted different sets of values.
EN
The challenges of Holocaust instruction and remembrance - Particular and universal aspects in formal and informal interdisciplinary curricula in Israel and abroad The present article examines Holocaust instruction in Israel and in France, addressing formal and informal aspects of teaching practices. Specifically, the article examines whether Holocaust instruction constitutes a unifying factor that stresses what is common to human beings, among adolescents at schools in Israel and abroad, or whether it is a continuation of the methodic axis of the general model of the school and its credo. The study was conducted as part of a large-scale project evaluating 20 years of journeys to Poland by Israeli youth. It is based on a qualitative research apporoach that included analysis of interviews with policymakers, representatives of Holocaust institutes and foundations, teachers, students and guides. It also made use of field observations and official documents. The qualitative analysis revealed that that the dominant didactic models in Israel and France differ from one another in the importance that they attribute to universal versus the particular elements. Each of the models was built based on a didactic foundation of educational and teaching activity at the school in general, and Holocaust instruction in particular. The study findings indicate that in general, the Holocaust instruction in Israel continues to emphasize the particular. It serves as a tool for strengthening the unique values of the event, and stresses Israeliness, Zionism, and Jewishness. The climax of the modal is an eight-day journey to Poland, centering on a visit to Auschwitz. In contrast, Holocaust instruction in France emphasizes the universal. The curriculum positions the journey as the climax of the scholastic experience but, unlike the Israeli curriculum, it emphasizes the historical and universal aspects of the Holocaust and represses the singularity of the event in the context of the Jewish people. A comparison of the two countries underlines the substantive differences separating the two different educational systems, which have adopted different sets of values.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Prawa człowieka – między krytyką i apologią europejskiego modelu politycznego

71%
Rakusa-Suszczewski M.
Studia Europejskie-Studies in European Affairs
|
2016
|
vol. 1
11-33
EN
Human rights are one of the main European policy horizons, and also the basic pillar of the social and moral order in contemporary world. This does not change the fact that specific and complex narrative of human rights provokes important controversies, as well as open criticism. In the present article we indicate the main thrust of these doubts and objections. Three distinguished fi gures of this criticism we describe as cultural, epistemological and political. Each of them has its numerous representatives, but we introduce only few of them. They are Charles Taylor, Richard Rorty and Pierre Manent. What strikes us in this debate is the fact that it focuses most of the major dilemmas associated with the European integration project. The disagreements about human rights refl ects indeed the debate over the future shape of Europe.
5
Content available remote

Scope and Limits of “Inclusivism” in Modern South Asia: Questioning Tagore’s and Agyeya’s “Universalism”

60%
Pozza N.
Politeja : Pismo Wydziału Studiów Miedzynarodowych i Politycznych Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego
|
2016
|
issue 40
197-214
EN
During the twentieth century, it had become increasingly common among scholars working on modern India to oppose Indian leaders and authors advocating the idea of multicultural and secular India to those promoting a nation based solely on the so‑called “Hindu way of life.” While the discourse attributed to the former category has regularly been qualified as “universalist,” “inclusivist” or “tolerant,” the kind of nationalism fostered by the latter has variously been called “communalist” or “exclusivist.” While these antagonistic positions might certainly fit with the positions of iconic and emblematic figures such as M.K. Gandhi or V.D. Sawarkar respectively, they might well be misleading and too restrictive when applied to the discourses of authors such as Rabindranath Tagore (1861‑1941) and S.H. Vatsyayan ‘Agyeya’ (1911‑1987), to take into consideration only two among the most influential and celebrated authors and poets of modern India. Based on the analysis of Tagore’s and Agyeya’s texts, this contribution questions the accuracy of such a dichotomist categorization and more specifically the assertion that the works of twentieth‑century authors considered as “universalists” were actually presenting a picture of a united India with both Hindus and Muslims looking forward to a peaceful future together (Cush and Robinson, see footnote 3). It shows that, notwithstanding the real cosmopolitan worldview of both these authors, the Muslim realm is almost completely absent from their works. In conclusion, it is argued that far from being an exception, the position of these writers is illustrative of what can be called a “non‑exclusive Hindu nationalism,” which was pervasive among the Indian intellectuals of the twentieth‑century India.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.