Search

The paper examines the historical account of punishing individuals from the earliest civilized societies to the current postmodern era. The notion of punishment is interpreted in the paper as a moral sanction (internal and external), as well as a physical punishment, which over ages turned into torture whose purpose was punishment for punishment's sake, not moral correction of violators of custom or law, to be useful upon their return to society. The transition from torture as a religious ritual to torture which grows into a culture of punishment is pointed out. Punishment in conditions of war and peace has a specific dimension. War as a teacher of violence (Thucydides) in most cases takes away the meaning of punishment which has a moral function in peacetime. But even in times of peace, punishment is relativized. Michel Foucault writes about the contemporary panopticon and the supervision of the individual in society, who is, above all, punished by the institutions of positive morality and remains without personal identity, no longer as a self-conscious individual but as a simple individual. Under the influence of biopolitical power, he is deprived of responsibility for his own existence. He is entangled in invisible threads of social roles, like a spider's web, that he eventually stops being the bearer of. When he wants to make a moral judgment about a social relationship or a phenomenon that does not coincide with his understanding of the social world, he feels powerlessness or remorse because he cannot bear that his isolated value judgment clashes with the interests and public opinion of the dominant social group.

In this paper, the author offers an interpretation of Huntington's account of three possible faces of America, the socio-political state of America in the immediate future. He derived these three perspectives from his paradigm of the clash of civilizations. These three faces of America are: 1. America as an open society to the rest of the world; 2. Imperial America, in which the world would be transformed into America; 3. America remains America, as opposed to spreading a new wave of ideas through the media about multiculturalism as the most humane way of existence of culturally diverse population in the human community. Between these three choices, Huntington opts for the third option, because only if America remains America can the national identity be preserved on the foundations of Anglo-Protestant culture. Immigrant assimilation is the key to solving the problem for the survival of the United States. In this text, the author discusses Huntington's three interpretations of the concept of assimilation and comes to the conclusion that through the concept of a foreigner, the other, who moves away from the domicile population like a quasar, as an embodiment of human alienation, all three possible imaginary histories of America are broken.

In this paper, the author chose Fukuyama's interpretation of Tocqueville's teaching on the nature of aristocracy and democracy as the subject of his research. He took particular note of Fukuyama's observation that Tocqueville, in his thoughts on advantages and shortages of American society, anticipated Nietzsche's teachings on aristocratic morality, wondering about what was lost after the change of government and whether the spirit of time changed. The unequivocal answer of the French historian and politologist was that the former aristocratic values had been lost. There is no more daintiness in behavior or nobility in social relations, nor are there independence and distrustfulness, which Nietzsche desperately needed to shadow the ideal of the overman. Instead of a complete man we meet a partial man, an individual hiding in a community of equal citizens who can save their freedom only by moving and working in a group, masquerading as members of an increasing number of associations that take on the power and responsibility for the individual's existence. Tocqueville finds that in the American civic society the relation of trust - mistrust has turned into the relation of debtor - creditor. He examines in which of all the institutions of American democratic society, which did not originate from the revolution, he could perceive a loss of aristocratic values and examines paradoxical situations where from recently matured democracies a new aristocracy emerges.

The author discussed the philosophy of history of Nikolai Berdyaev on the basis of appropriate literature. His understanding of the meaning of history and the new Middle Age is based on philosophy of freedom. History without freedom is void of any meaning. A man realizes his freedom only in the community with the Holy Trinity. The arrival of Christ was the victory of freedom over the kingdom of necessity of a sinful nature. The pagan concept of destiny was expelled from the vocabulary of a free man. In the history of mankind, as a common spiritual basis of the Renaissance and Reformation, Berdyaev sees humanism. In the analysis of the internal nature of humanism, Berdyaev recognizes the man's rebellion against God. He follows the unity of man and god through the Renaissance, whose end extends beyond its temporal boundaries in futurism and cubism of the twentieth century. The philosopher of freedom points out that humanism, paradoxically, turned completely against mankind. In order to illustrate this idea, in the history of art, science, and philosophy, he finds examples of the disappearance of man. Berdyaev compared the spiritual state of mankind of the ninety twenties to the epoch of the Roman emperor Diocletian, when the mass exile of the Christians began. According to many signs, European society should enter a new historical era similar to the 7th, 8th, and 9th centuries, in the pre-Medieval period. The author believes that the feudalization of Europe, with the weakening of the role of the state and transnational companies in political life, is only formal, insufficient that it can be concluded that we are getting closer to the new Middle Age, because a man through his wanting to be the measure of all things, has diminished himself as a thing.

The paper reviews Sorokin's cyclical conception of history through relevant literature. The social role of war is analysed, in accordance with Sorokin's understanding of the three cultural types (sensate, idealistic, and ideational) which alternate through the history of mankind. Due to the fact that war as a social phenomenon depends on the cultural style that is dominant at a given moment in history, its social role changes as well, manifesting as a regress or progress in sociocultural process. Sorokin ascertains that we can notice the decrease in values of the dominant sensate culture in the twentieth century in all aspects of life. By examining Sorokin's sociology of war, the author concluded that war lost the meaning it had for mankind due to the acceleration of military-technological development and that by being estranged from it, it became its own cause, turning into a conflict that may or may not lead to war. Such a conflict as a surrogate of war, that Sorokin hadn't predicted, has no social role but leads to a destruction of civilization.

The author of this paper attempted the interpretation of Huntington's thought that the clash of civilizations is tribal conflict of global proportions. In the first interpretation of the conflict, we think of civilization as a tribe in conflict with the other tribes, they mutually perceive each other as barbarians, denouncing each other's civilizational identity. In the second interpretation, the clash of civilizations is perceived as a clash of postmodern immigrant groups (tribes) with the dominant culture of the local population within a state. In the age of the universal conflict, we see Huntington's pessimistic view of the social world and the temporary man, whom we characterize as a synthesis of immigrants, migrants and foreigners, as a kind of personification of the spirit of the times of postmodern twenty-first century.

In this work author presented Edgar Moren's antrolology of death. This thinker understands and explains event of the universe, humans and the end of the life. Myth is one of the ways for human to become the master of the death, but science becomes new weapon in mans war against it. Morens worns us that death and life can not be separated, and every human desire for physical immortality is absolutely absurd.

'End of the History' Fukuyama wrote under strong influence of Hegel's philosophic history. Since 1806 year there is no essential political progress, according to Fukuyama, abroad principles of French bourgeois revolution there is no advance. History which appears to be progressive and directional, suggest Fukuyama, ends right there. Word is divided into historical and post historical, social balance of the first one depend of the social misbalance of the second. Professional corporation are the surrogate for family, last man will substitute family moral with professional.