{"id":{"repo_id":"vilnius","oai_identifier":"oai:vu.lt:elaba:210585193"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vilnius/oai:vu.lt:elaba:210585193","repository":{"repo_id":"vilnius","name":"Vilnius University","base_url":"https://epublications.vu.lt/oai"},"display":{"title":"Autoritetas demokratijoje: Carl Schmitt ir Alexander Kojeve perspektyvos /","abstract":"The bachelor thesis explores the interplay between the theories of authority and democracy by analyzing the concepts of authority by Alexandre Kojeve and Carl Schmitt. The main question addressed is: \"Are there preconditions for political authority in a democracy?\" The study is structured around the following objectives: 1) To introduce and review the ideas of selected authors on the issue of authority. 2) To investigate the philosophical assumptions of the authors that influence their concept of authority. 3) To identify the points of contact in the authors' interpretations of authority. 4) To analyze the relationship between liberal democracy and authority. The central thesis defended in this work is that the notion of political authority is not inherently incompatible with liberal democracy. Democracy itself does not prevent the emergence of political authority. Both democracy and political authority as concepts can be reconciled and function together within the state. Contemporary political thought, which focuses on the implementation of human freedom and equality, often exhibits a negative view towards authority. However, this thesis aims to demonstrate that democracy does not contradict the concept of authority, and that these two concepts can coexist effectively in politics. Analyzing Kojeve's concept of authority reveals that in the context of modern ages, authority encounters a crisis. By distinguishing four irreducible types of authority—Father, Master, Leader, Judge—Kojeve emphasizes that the principle of the separation of powers, by dispersing authority, has consequences for both the stability of the state and the understanding of authority itself. A more detailed analysis of Schmitt's concept of authority highlights the theological doctrine of sinfulness, which, according to the author, is a precondition for the emergence of politicization. In this context, the concept of politicization generates authority. The review of the philosophical premises of both authors determines similar concepts of authority from different perspectives. For Schmitt, these are theological premises, for Kojeve, anthropological ones; however, the points of contact for both authors are the factors of human risk and conflict. The concepts of authority are based on human conflictuality from different philosophical premises: Kojeve relies on the master-slave dialectical analysis, while Schmitt draws on theology. 35 The conclusions emphasize that while authority can theoretically exist in a democracy, the mechanisms of modern democracy often create unfavorable conditions for the emergence of authority, weakening, eliminating, or preventing its occurrence.","abstract_html":"The bachelor thesis explores the interplay between the theories of authority and democracy by analyzing the concepts of authority by Alexandre Kojeve and Carl Schmitt. The main question addressed is: "Are there preconditions for political authority in a democracy?" The study is structured around the following objectives: 1) To introduce and review the ideas of selected authors on the issue of authority. 2) To investigate the philosophical assumptions of the authors that influence their concept of authority. 3) To identify the points of contact in the authors' interpretations of authority. 4) To analyze the relationship between liberal democracy and authority. The central thesis defended in this work is that the notion of political authority is not inherently incompatible with liberal democracy. Democracy itself does not prevent the emergence of political authority. Both democracy and political authority as concepts can be reconciled and function together within the state. Contemporary political thought, which focuses on the implementation of human freedom and equality, often exhibits a negative view towards authority. However, this thesis aims to demonstrate that democracy does not contradict the concept of authority, and that these two concepts can coexist effectively in politics. Analyzing Kojeve's concept of authority reveals that in the context of modern ages, authority encounters a crisis. By distinguishing four irreducible types of authority—Father, Master, Leader, Judge—Kojeve emphasizes that the principle of the separation of powers, by dispersing authority, has consequences for both the stability of the state and the understanding of authority itself. A more detailed analysis of Schmitt's concept of authority highlights the theological doctrine of sinfulness, which, according to the author, is a precondition for the emergence of politicization. In this context, the concept of politicization generates authority. The review of the philosophical premises of both authors determines similar concepts of authority from different perspectives. For Schmitt, these are theological premises, for Kojeve, anthropological ones; however, the points of contact for both authors are the factors of human risk and conflict. The concepts of authority are based on human conflictuality from different philosophical premises: Kojeve relies on the master-slave dialectical analysis, while Schmitt draws on theology. 35 The conclusions emphasize that while authority can theoretically exist in a democracy, the mechanisms of modern democracy often create unfavorable conditions for the emergence of authority, weakening, eliminating, or preventing its occurrence.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Švereika, Ugnius,"],"institution":"Institutional Repository of Vilnius University","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2024,"date_issued":"2024","date_published":"2024","updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:55:52Z","subjects":[],"languages":["lit"],"rights":["info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://repository.vu.lt/VU:ELABAETD210585193&prefLang=en_US","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Švereika, Ugnius,"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2024"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Institutional Repository of Vilnius University"]},{"key":"dc:relation","label":"Dc Relation","values":["https://epublications.vu.lt/object/elaba:210585193/210585193.pdf"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["lit"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://repository.vu.lt/VU:ELABAETD210585193&prefLang=en_US"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["The bachelor thesis explores the interplay between the theories of authority and democracy by analyzing the concepts of authority by Alexandre Kojeve and Carl Schmitt. The main question addressed is: \"Are there preconditions for political authority in a democracy?\" The study is structured around the following objectives: 1) To introduce and review the ideas of selected authors on the issue of authority. 2) To investigate the philosophical assumptions of the authors that influence their concept of authority. 3) To identify the points of contact in the authors' interpretations of authority. 4) To analyze the relationship between liberal democracy and authority. The central thesis defended in this work is that the notion of political authority is not inherently incompatible with liberal democracy. Democracy itself does not prevent the emergence of political authority. Both democracy and political authority as concepts can be reconciled and function together within the state. Contemporary political thought, which focuses on the implementation of human freedom and equality, often exhibits a negative view towards authority. However, this thesis aims to demonstrate that democracy does not contradict the concept of authority, and that these two concepts can coexist effectively in politics. Analyzing Kojeve's concept of authority reveals that in the context of modern ages, authority encounters a crisis. By distinguishing four irreducible types of authority—Father, Master, Leader, Judge—Kojeve emphasizes that the principle of the separation of powers, by dispersing authority, has consequences for both the stability of the state and the understanding of authority itself. A more detailed analysis of Schmitt's concept of authority highlights the theological doctrine of sinfulness, which, according to the author, is a precondition for the emergence of politicization. In this context, the concept of politicization generates authority. The review of the philosophical premises of both authors determines similar concepts of authority from different perspectives. For Schmitt, these are theological premises, for Kojeve, anthropological ones; however, the points of contact for both authors are the factors of human risk and conflict. The concepts of authority are based on human conflictuality from different philosophical premises: Kojeve relies on the master-slave dialectical analysis, while Schmitt draws on theology. 35 The conclusions emphasize that while authority can theoretically exist in a democracy, the mechanisms of modern democracy often create unfavorable conditions for the emergence of authority, weakening, eliminating, or preventing its occurrence."]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Autoritetas demokratijoje: Carl Schmitt ir Alexander Kojeve perspektyvos /","Authorithy in democracy: the perspectives of carl schmitt and alexander kojeve."]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:creator":["Švereika, Ugnius,"],"dc:date":["2024"],"dc:description":["The bachelor thesis explores the interplay between the theories of authority and democracy by analyzing the concepts of authority by Alexandre Kojeve and Carl Schmitt. The main question addressed is: \"Are there preconditions for political authority in a democracy?\" The study is structured around the following objectives: 1) To introduce and review the ideas of selected authors on the issue of authority. 2) To investigate the philosophical assumptions of the authors that influence their concept of authority. 3) To identify the points of contact in the authors' interpretations of authority. 4) To analyze the relationship between liberal democracy and authority. The central thesis defended in this work is that the notion of political authority is not inherently incompatible with liberal democracy. Democracy itself does not prevent the emergence of political authority. Both democracy and political authority as concepts can be reconciled and function together within the state. Contemporary political thought, which focuses on the implementation of human freedom and equality, often exhibits a negative view towards authority. However, this thesis aims to demonstrate that democracy does not contradict the concept of authority, and that these two concepts can coexist effectively in politics. Analyzing Kojeve's concept of authority reveals that in the context of modern ages, authority encounters a crisis. By distinguishing four irreducible types of authority—Father, Master, Leader, Judge—Kojeve emphasizes that the principle of the separation of powers, by dispersing authority, has consequences for both the stability of the state and the understanding of authority itself. A more detailed analysis of Schmitt's concept of authority highlights the theological doctrine of sinfulness, which, according to the author, is a precondition for the emergence of politicization. In this context, the concept of politicization generates authority. The review of the philosophical premises of both authors determines similar concepts of authority from different perspectives. For Schmitt, these are theological premises, for Kojeve, anthropological ones; however, the points of contact for both authors are the factors of human risk and conflict. The concepts of authority are based on human conflictuality from different philosophical premises: Kojeve relies on the master-slave dialectical analysis, while Schmitt draws on theology. 35 The conclusions emphasize that while authority can theoretically exist in a democracy, the mechanisms of modern democracy often create unfavorable conditions for the emergence of authority, weakening, eliminating, or preventing its occurrence."],"dc:format":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier":["https://repository.vu.lt/VU:ELABAETD210585193&prefLang=en_US"],"dc:language":["lit"],"dc:publisher":["Institutional Repository of Vilnius University"],"dc:relation":["https://epublications.vu.lt/object/elaba:210585193/210585193.pdf"],"dc:rights":["info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess"],"dc:title":["Autoritetas demokratijoje: Carl Schmitt ir Alexander Kojeve perspektyvos /","Authorithy in democracy: the perspectives of carl schmitt and alexander kojeve."],"dc:type":["info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:55:52Z"}