Aleksandar Prnjat

This paper explores Ksenija Atanasijević's (1894 - 1981) understanding of the ethical basis of feminism. It highlights her understanding that feminism as such has an ethical basis. Her criticism of the degrading position of women which, according to her, has its origins in a family based on the male violence against women is also pointed out. The paper also points to Ksenija Atanasijević's understanding of the universal goals of feminism, goals that are not directed only at women. The author points out that despite the explicit distancing of Ksenija Atanasijević in relation to Marxism, especially the Marxist conception of class hatred, some of her positions are similar to the positions which Karl Marx presented criticizing Hegel. The author notes that at the time when she wrote her works, these views of Marx could not have been known to her. In conclusion, the author points out that for Ksenija Atanasijević the freedom of the individual forms the ethical basis of feminism.

In this paper, the author presents Jaspers’ view of the relationship between the state and university. According to Jaspers, universities should be free from any state control. Jaspers’ attitudes are mostly normative. According to Jaspers, the very existence of the institution of universities means that the state strives to provide a space where truth can be investigated, a space that would be independent of any kind of influence. Therefore, according to Jaspers, there is a certain tension, or even hostility, between the state and university. Although Jaspers is aware that freedom to investigate at university may be abused, in the sense that teachers may become indolent, he believes that it is a risk worth taking. As far as political conflict is concerned, it can be a research topic at university, but university must not be an arena for political fighting. Jaspers indicates that, although every university belongs to a certain nation, its mission is supranational. Because of this, universities must not take sides in the struggle between nations. National issues may be investigated alongside other subjects; however, according to Jaspers, national issues must never become the objective and purpose of the existence of universities.

In this paper, the author considers the concepts of xenophobia and nationalism. He distinguishes between three diferent forms of nationalism: 1) classical nationalism, 2) anti-colonial nationalism, and 3) identitarian nationalism. The frst is based on a belief in the racial and civilizational superiority of one’s nation, and is used to justify colonialism as a kind of messianic civilizing of the “inferior” Other. The second type emerges as a reaction to the frst one and acts as a defense against the cultural subordination carried out by colonizers. To these two categories, the author adds a new kind of nationalism: identitarian nationalism. This type of nationalism shares with anti-colonial nationalism a defensive rhetoric, but it also advocates the preservation of the home culture’s specifcity, which is believed to be threatened by impoverished immigrants. In today’s Europe, we see this in the reaction to Muslim immigrants. The author argues that the right of foreigners to settle in other countries as immigrants cannot be unlimited, but also suggests that the demand of identitarian nationalists to preserve their own cultural identity from foreigners who change it does not apply in the case of wealthy foreigners who contribute to the economy of the country they come to.

Mogućnost samouništenja čovečanstva čini stalnu prateću temu u svim knjigama Svetozara Stojanovića napisanim posle njegovog doktorata o metaetici. Kakve god da su teme inače obrađivane, našlo bi se ponešto i o ovome, isprva kao usputno zapažanje i mogući ugao gledanja na glavnu temu, a kasnije, sve više kao posebna oblast razmatranja ili čak kao vodeća perspektiva. U ovom radu rekonstruišem Stojanovićevo tretiranje ove teme. Pošto je kod Stojanovića reč o apokalipsi u sekularnom smislu, ja za nju predlažem, u otvorenoj protivrečnosti sa izvornim značenjem reči, izraz apokalipsa bez otkrivenja. Reč je o apokalipsi u kojoj je preostao samo još kataklizmički aspekt, i utoliko ovaj izraz dobro sledi Stojanovićeve izvorne intencije. U radu izlažem i komentarišem sve faze Stojanovićevog rada na ovoj temi tvrdeći da ona čini jedinu konstantu u filozofskim i političkim menama njegovog mišljenja

In this paper, I consider an important objection to moral motivation of believers. It is the objection that their acts are motivated by self-interest,i.e. their personal salvation. Such motivation is sometimes identified as selfish. Therefore, I demonstrate the distinction between self-interest and selfishness. I would like to remind the reader that the critique of self-interest as moral motivation of believers appears within the very traditions of the major world religions. Then, I argue that some contemporary forms of secular ethics still refer to a certain form of self-interest.

In this paper, I present some remarks about an example of Christian anti-Semitism. It is about well known anti-Semitic attitudes that Zoran Kindjic supports in his paper with some scholarly pretensions. I use this example to illustrate one kind of unacceptable paternalistic discourse. Namely, I argue that when it comes to basic eschatological teachings of Abrahamic religions, even the mildest form of what I have previously defined as linguistic-expressive paternalism – what could also be called conversational paternalism – cannot be reasonably justified.