{"id":{"repo_id":"vilnius","oai_identifier":"oai:vu.lt:elaba:35558351"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vilnius/oai:vu.lt:elaba:35558351","repository":{"repo_id":"vilnius","name":"Vilnius University","base_url":"https://epublications.vu.lt/oai"},"display":{"title":"Liberalizmas ir socializmas Juano Donoso Corteso politinės filosofijos perspektyvoje /","abstract":"In Classical political philosophy there was a belief that religion is inseparable part of political reality and therefore to fully understand one or another political community one has to also understand its religion and theology. But this belief was changed during the Enlightenment era, when ideas such as separation of Church and State or the primacy of discussion over truth appeared. From the philosophy of the Enlightenment soon born other schools of thought, and the most significant of them were the phylosophies of liberalism and socialism, which soon became political ideologies. But, according to XIX century catholic philosopher Juan Donoso Cortes, one can not understand these ideologies without first analyzing its main metaphysical principles. These principles, as understood by Juan Donoso Cortes, are the object of this research. The problem, which this research deals with, is the analysis and evaluation of Juan Donoso Cortes insights towards the political reality constructed by the theorethical premises of liberalism and socialism, and the significance of these insights in understanding nowadays political realities of the Western world. The analysis of the methapyshical premises of liberalism and socialism shows that socialism and liberalism have the similar view to the nature of man, God, good and evil. Socialism radically rejects premises of the Catholic doctrine and therefore finds absolute goodness in man and evil in the unjust society. Man stands in the place of God and is considered to be the Redeemer of society, which is considered to be the source of evil. But liberalism refuses to answer these questions in the first place and make the political neutrality its main goal. But the vision of man can not be left empty and always contain in itself theorethical premises, even if liberals refuse to name it loudly. The man here, as in socialism, is considered to be absolutely good and sinless, and the roots of evil is considered to be in the unjust form of government. Therefore socialism‘s premises are already found in the liberalism‘s philosophy and the only difference between these two ideologies is that of courage to name the premises on which it is built and consequences of these premises. This interpretation shows that liberalism sets an open way to socialism‘s premises about the nature of man and society. But if socialism wants to stay consistent, it ultimately has to come to absolute nihilism of such human societes as family and nation and even to man himself. Socialism states that all men are absolutely good, therefore it also has to state that they can not have any responsibility for their actions and can not have any commitment to their families or nations. Socialism also states that all men are equal, therefore it ultimately has to state that families and states with its genealogical trees and national histories are the source of inequality. But without family, nationality and similar elements of human identity one can not speak about human nature, only about some abstract human being. Socialists accept only the biggest human society – humanity. But as the man here has no nature and can create it himself, humanity is understood here not as a big union of people, but as an abstract and separate substance, in which name one can even sacrifice real living human beings. This concept creates the conditions to emerge the division between human and inhuman, which made, for example, the Soviet‘s terror possible. It is also a relevant problem nowadays as the man in the Western world is considered to have a right to create his own nature. There is a possibility that in this unstable situation there will also emerge the division between human and inhuman as some people still believe that man has a nature given to him by God and therefore might become an obstacles to the creation of this kind of new man without any human attributes which Classical philosophy considered to be essential.","abstract_html":"In Classical political philosophy there was a belief that religion is inseparable part of political reality and therefore to fully understand one or another political community one has to also understand its religion and theology. But this belief was changed during the Enlightenment era, when ideas such as separation of Church and State or the primacy of discussion over truth appeared. From the philosophy of the Enlightenment soon born other schools of thought, and the most significant of them were the phylosophies of liberalism and socialism, which soon became political ideologies. But, according to XIX century catholic philosopher Juan Donoso Cortes, one can not understand these ideologies without first analyzing its main metaphysical principles. These principles, as understood by Juan Donoso Cortes, are the object of this research. The problem, which this research deals with, is the analysis and evaluation of Juan Donoso Cortes insights towards the political reality constructed by the theorethical premises of liberalism and socialism, and the significance of these insights in understanding nowadays political realities of the Western world. The analysis of the methapyshical premises of liberalism and socialism shows that socialism and liberalism have the similar view to the nature of man, God, good and evil. Socialism radically rejects premises of the Catholic doctrine and therefore finds absolute goodness in man and evil in the unjust society. Man stands in the place of God and is considered to be the Redeemer of society, which is considered to be the source of evil. But liberalism refuses to answer these questions in the first place and make the political neutrality its main goal. But the vision of man can not be left empty and always contain in itself theorethical premises, even if liberals refuse to name it loudly. The man here, as in socialism, is considered to be absolutely good and sinless, and the roots of evil is considered to be in the unjust form of government. Therefore socialism‘s premises are already found in the liberalism‘s philosophy and the only difference between these two ideologies is that of courage to name the premises on which it is built and consequences of these premises. This interpretation shows that liberalism sets an open way to socialism‘s premises about the nature of man and society. But if socialism wants to stay consistent, it ultimately has to come to absolute nihilism of such human societes as family and nation and even to man himself. Socialism states that all men are absolutely good, therefore it also has to state that they can not have any responsibility for their actions and can not have any commitment to their families or nations. Socialism also states that all men are equal, therefore it ultimately has to state that families and states with its genealogical trees and national histories are the source of inequality. But without family, nationality and similar elements of human identity one can not speak about human nature, only about some abstract human being. Socialists accept only the biggest human society – humanity. But as the man here has no nature and can create it himself, humanity is understood here not as a big union of people, but as an abstract and separate substance, in which name one can even sacrifice real living human beings. This concept creates the conditions to emerge the division between human and inhuman, which made, for example, the Soviet‘s terror possible. It is also a relevant problem nowadays as the man in the Western world is considered to have a right to create his own nature. There is a possibility that in this unstable situation there will also emerge the division between human and inhuman as some people still believe that man has a nature given to him by God and therefore might become an obstacles to the creation of this kind of new man without any human attributes which Classical philosophy considered to be essential.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Parčiauskas, Marius,"],"institution":"Institutional Repository of Vilnius University","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Radžvilas, Vytautas"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2016,"date_issued":"2016","date_published":"2016","updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:55:35Z","subjects":[],"languages":["lit"],"rights":["info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://repository.vu.lt/VU:ELABAETD35558351&prefLang=en_US","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Radžvilas, Vytautas"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Parčiauskas, Marius,"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2016"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Institutional Repository of Vilnius University"]},{"key":"dc:relation","label":"Dc Relation","values":["https://epublications.vu.lt/object/elaba:35558351/35558351.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:ELABAETD35558351&prefLang=en_US"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["In Classical political philosophy there was a belief that religion is inseparable part of political reality and therefore to fully understand one or another political community one has to also understand its religion and theology. But this belief was changed during the Enlightenment era, when ideas such as separation of Church and State or the primacy of discussion over truth appeared. From the philosophy of the Enlightenment soon born other schools of thought, and the most significant of them were the phylosophies of liberalism and socialism, which soon became political ideologies. But, according to XIX century catholic philosopher Juan Donoso Cortes, one can not understand these ideologies without first analyzing its main metaphysical principles. These principles, as understood by Juan Donoso Cortes, are the object of this research. The problem, which this research deals with, is the analysis and evaluation of Juan Donoso Cortes insights towards the political reality constructed by the theorethical premises of liberalism and socialism, and the significance of these insights in understanding nowadays political realities of the Western world. The analysis of the methapyshical premises of liberalism and socialism shows that socialism and liberalism have the similar view to the nature of man, God, good and evil. Socialism radically rejects premises of the Catholic doctrine and therefore finds absolute goodness in man and evil in the unjust society. Man stands in the place of God and is considered to be the Redeemer of society, which is considered to be the source of evil. But liberalism refuses to answer these questions in the first place and make the political neutrality its main goal. But the vision of man can not be left empty and always contain in itself theorethical premises, even if liberals refuse to name it loudly. The man here, as in socialism, is considered to be absolutely good and sinless, and the roots of evil is considered to be in the unjust form of government. Therefore socialism‘s premises are already found in the liberalism‘s philosophy and the only difference between these two ideologies is that of courage to name the premises on which it is built and consequences of these premises. This interpretation shows that liberalism sets an open way to socialism‘s premises about the nature of man and society. But if socialism wants to stay consistent, it ultimately has to come to absolute nihilism of such human societes as family and nation and even to man himself. Socialism states that all men are absolutely good, therefore it also has to state that they can not have any responsibility for their actions and can not have any commitment to their families or nations. Socialism also states that all men are equal, therefore it ultimately has to state that families and states with its genealogical trees and national histories are the source of inequality. But without family, nationality and similar elements of human identity one can not speak about human nature, only about some abstract human being. Socialists accept only the biggest human society – humanity. But as the man here has no nature and can create it himself, humanity is understood here not as a big union of people, but as an abstract and separate substance, in which name one can even sacrifice real living human beings. This concept creates the conditions to emerge the division between human and inhuman, which made, for example, the Soviet‘s terror possible. It is also a relevant problem nowadays as the man in the Western world is considered to have a right to create his own nature. There is a possibility that in this unstable situation there will also emerge the division between human and inhuman as some people still believe that man has a nature given to him by God and therefore might become an obstacles to the creation of this kind of new man without any human attributes which Classical philosophy considered to be essential."]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Liberalizmas ir socializmas Juano Donoso Corteso politinės filosofijos perspektyvoje /","Liberalism and socialism in the perspective of juan donoso cortés political philosophy."]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Radžvilas, Vytautas"],"dc:creator":["Parčiauskas, Marius,"],"dc:date":["2016"],"dc:description":["In Classical political philosophy there was a belief that religion is inseparable part of political reality and therefore to fully understand one or another political community one has to also understand its religion and theology. But this belief was changed during the Enlightenment era, when ideas such as separation of Church and State or the primacy of discussion over truth appeared. From the philosophy of the Enlightenment soon born other schools of thought, and the most significant of them were the phylosophies of liberalism and socialism, which soon became political ideologies. But, according to XIX century catholic philosopher Juan Donoso Cortes, one can not understand these ideologies without first analyzing its main metaphysical principles. These principles, as understood by Juan Donoso Cortes, are the object of this research. The problem, which this research deals with, is the analysis and evaluation of Juan Donoso Cortes insights towards the political reality constructed by the theorethical premises of liberalism and socialism, and the significance of these insights in understanding nowadays political realities of the Western world. The analysis of the methapyshical premises of liberalism and socialism shows that socialism and liberalism have the similar view to the nature of man, God, good and evil. Socialism radically rejects premises of the Catholic doctrine and therefore finds absolute goodness in man and evil in the unjust society. Man stands in the place of God and is considered to be the Redeemer of society, which is considered to be the source of evil. But liberalism refuses to answer these questions in the first place and make the political neutrality its main goal. But the vision of man can not be left empty and always contain in itself theorethical premises, even if liberals refuse to name it loudly. The man here, as in socialism, is considered to be absolutely good and sinless, and the roots of evil is considered to be in the unjust form of government. Therefore socialism‘s premises are already found in the liberalism‘s philosophy and the only difference between these two ideologies is that of courage to name the premises on which it is built and consequences of these premises. This interpretation shows that liberalism sets an open way to socialism‘s premises about the nature of man and society. But if socialism wants to stay consistent, it ultimately has to come to absolute nihilism of such human societes as family and nation and even to man himself. Socialism states that all men are absolutely good, therefore it also has to state that they can not have any responsibility for their actions and can not have any commitment to their families or nations. Socialism also states that all men are equal, therefore it ultimately has to state that families and states with its genealogical trees and national histories are the source of inequality. But without family, nationality and similar elements of human identity one can not speak about human nature, only about some abstract human being. Socialists accept only the biggest human society – humanity. But as the man here has no nature and can create it himself, humanity is understood here not as a big union of people, but as an abstract and separate substance, in which name one can even sacrifice real living human beings. This concept creates the conditions to emerge the division between human and inhuman, which made, for example, the Soviet‘s terror possible. It is also a relevant problem nowadays as the man in the Western world is considered to have a right to create his own nature. There is a possibility that in this unstable situation there will also emerge the division between human and inhuman as some people still believe that man has a nature given to him by God and therefore might become an obstacles to the creation of this kind of new man without any human attributes which Classical philosophy considered to be essential."],"dc:format":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier":["https://repository.vu.lt/VU:ELABAETD35558351&prefLang=en_US"],"dc:language":["lit"],"dc:publisher":["Institutional Repository of Vilnius University"],"dc:relation":["https://epublications.vu.lt/object/elaba:35558351/35558351.pdf"],"dc:rights":["info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess"],"dc:title":["Liberalizmas ir socializmas Juano Donoso Corteso politinės filosofijos perspektyvoje /","Liberalism and socialism in the perspective of juan donoso cortés political philosophy."],"dc:type":["info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:55:35Z"}