Religija ir kultūra
ISSN / EISSN : 1822-4539 / 1822-4539
Current Publisher: Vilnius University Press (10.15388)
Total articles ≅ 107
Latest articles in this journal
Religija ir kultūra pp 68-76; doi:10.15388/relig.2017.16
In this article some important aspects of Heidegger’s philosophy of technology is addressed. It is argued against Don Ihde’s observation that Heidegger’s philosophy of technology mostly concerns the large scale technological phenomena of industrial revolution – actually in Heidegger’s oeuvre we can find reflection on such micro-scale post-industrial technologies as cybernetics, biotechnologies etc. The critique of the essentialism of Heideggerian philosophy of technology by such authors as Andrew Feenberg, Don Ihde and Peter-Paul Verbeek is presented. It is suggested that earlier Heidegger’s concept of the essence of technology as “machination” (Machenschaft) is less susceptible to such criticism: whether technologies are exploitative and turning nature into “standing reserve”, or whether they are ecological and nature-friendly, whether they are understood as autonomous force, or democratically controlled process – it could be said that through contemporary technologies reality is increasingly turned into artifice and entities are revealed as makeable and producible.
Religija ir kultūra pp 55-67; doi:10.15388/relig.2017.15
The article deals with the relationship between religion and contemporary art, discussing their configurations from two different perspectives – the one of secularization and the postsecular one. The author mantains that in the perspective of secularization the fields of religion and art are treated as autonomous and separate, therefore the passage to postsecular condition implicates the destruction of principle law of autonomy, by this opening the possibility of the interlaying of the contexts of religion and art. The article comes to the conclusion that postsecular approach supposes that the relationship between religion and contemporary art becomes possible only by accepting the refusal of the direct representation and this means that religious implications can be recognised not as the representations of religious contents, but rather as the track of them, which can assume the forms of profanation or reflection on the experience of secularization.
Religija ir kultūra, Volume 16, pp 144-160; doi:10.15388/relig.2015.10
Religija ir kultūra, Volume 16, pp 39-50; doi:10.15388/relig.2015.3
Religija ir kultūra, Volume 16, pp 18-38; doi:10.15388/relig.2015.2
Religija ir kultūra, Volume 16, pp 64-77; doi:10.15388/relig.2015.5
Religija ir kultūra, Volume 16, pp 51-63; doi:10.15388/relig.2015.4
Religija ir kultūra, Volume 16, pp 7-17; doi:10.15388/relig.2015.1
Religija ir kultūra, Volume 16, pp 89-99; doi:10.15388/relig.2015.7