search  
print
22.05.2004 | Vsevolod Rechitsky

INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY AND THE STATE.

   

(FROM THE BOOK "LIBERTY AND THE STATE")
Kharkiv Group for Human Rights Protection


The intellectual political activity foreruns, as a rule, all other kinds of the political activities - that is a peculiarity of the intellectual one. This a first order activity compared to practical activities, which are those of the second order. In this capacity the theoretical activity appears to be the core of politics. B.Spinosa meant something similar when he wrote that man is active as long as he cognises, and V.Vernadsky used to say about the power of free thought and free personality, whose realm awaits us in the future. D.Dewey expressed it more definitely: "It may sound surprising, but the question set by I.Kant means that the opportunities provided by knowledge make the fundamental political problem of the modern time" [1]*). In M.Novak’s opinion, ideas and symbols of our times overpower reality, that is they which make the new reality [2]. That is why moral and cultural aspects move to the foreground in the development of modern political systems. According to O.Toffler, information and imagination become the most important factors in the "third wave" civilization. Essentially, this is natural, since in every century a grandiose idea incorporates into intellectual needs of society, penetrating into the most remote corners of our life [3]. Ideas, organized in the proper way, always were decisive weapons of politics. That is why the cemeteries of history, as W.Ebenstein wrote, are filled with "realists" like Napoleon, Wilhelm II, Hitler and Mussolini [4].

Civilization is pushed ahead by people’s energy released by quite new institutions and constitutions [5]. Properly speaking, this somewhat stronger than energy; it is a collective imagination .

Linking politics and theoretical thought, G.Mosca wrote that every country and epoch possess a certain set of ideas and beliefs that affect in a determining way the political mechanism. For J.-F.Revel the beggarty of peoples is the consequence of politics based on bad ideas [6]. D.Pisarev affirmed that the political rulers possess the greatest sum of developed mental forces. As early as in 1826 D.Canning predicted that the coming European war will become the war of outlooks [7]. For R.Reagan the decisive factor of a modern war is a competition of minds and ideas, spiritual values, convictions and ideas. However, much earlier F.Nietsche wrote on the struggle that would be conducted on behalf of philosophical principles [8].

For P.Weinzweig ideas are the main source of human energy [9], and for F.Hayek the conservation of the number of population is directly related to the technology of retrieval and transmission of information [10]. As Yu.Kanygin wrote, successes and defeats of nations are due to the mentality of their vanguard groups [11], since the potential of a modern society is determined not by the volume of the accumulated knowledge, but by its entropy, their spread and the capability of its accumulation [12]. Nowadays all agree that the place of any country and people in the 21 century will be determined by their intellectual power. The conditions will be dictated by intellectually strong countries [13]. In B.Malinowsky’s opinion, the struggle for the future will be won by those societies, where the education will be more liberal and universal, whereas the goals will be selected in a spontaneous way. On the contrary, systems, which will continue to produce individuals who shall serve as tools for reaching a pre-programmed target, will lose the battle [14].

Z.Brzezinski believes that the society of the future will move its focus to the significance of philosophy and spiritual aspects of life. Since information means power, the regime in which information is treated becomes a political-legal problem. Must data banks be controlled by the government or let them develop freely is the most important question for each society [15]. It is noteworthy that even T.Hobbes stated that a sovereign must not meddle into opinions and their expression, if they do not threaten peace [16]. Even now the accelerating rate of information transmission is a political question [17], and databases are considered to be the core of the managing process [18].

Geniuses are born in provinces and die in Paris, states a French proverb. The intellectual power is randomly scattered spatially, temporally and politically. That is why neither a current political situation, nor the remoteness from the intellectual center, nor unfortunate times must prevent intellectual activities, if the society cares for its future. According to A.Zinovyev, isolation of some regions of the world results in xenophobia in other regions, thus reducing the potential ability of each region to fight the evil [19]. K.Kirkwood demonstrated, on the example of Japan, how difficult it is to predict at which moment of its development a society can use the fruits of the information exchange. Either government-controlled strategies of the enlightenment of the people or the medieval cult of knowledge supported by most enlightened monarchs never led to any noticeable results in closed and conservative societies. Europe went out from the medieval darkness not obeying the enlightened emperors, but thanks to the awakened social spirit. It is not a random coincidence that, according to the UNESCO data, a political choice and the freedom of transferring of information become a distinctly expressed political need [20].

It is logical that an optimal development of all such processes requires constitutional guarantees. The freedom of intellectual activity, Z.Brzezinski wrote, is an essential question because democracy is unable to define what is actually a good life [21]. Democracy is capable of selection, not of creation. The values that determine people’s behavior are generated by culture and philosophy, so the latter must be maximally free. T.Jefferson wrote about the freedom of information as of a political requirement, since he was, as well as C.-A. Helvetius, sure that a free and thinking people will rule peoples which do not think. This was the base that later supported the constitutional imperative which prohibited the government to judge anyone’s opinions or beliefs.

According to A.Tocqueville, the democratic rule is based on simple principles, but, in the capacity of its foundation, it presupposes high culture and enlightenment of the society [22]. C.Young also agreed that political prosperity is defined by intellectual health. Too much in the modern world depends on sober thinking. If people panicked, hydrogen bombs would be exploded [23]. A.Schlesinger asserted that intellectual work stimulates the idea of the equality of rights and diversification of the society. As early as in the times of the Roman forum or Novgorod veche democrats suggested a certain way of the fixation, retrieval and exchange of information. All dictatorships resisted the freedom of information and vice versa, and the latter won more often [24].

Z.Brzezinski has noticed that in the 20-th century the drastically grown intellectual activity of Latin America, South-East Europe, Egypt and India enabled them to become susceptible to criticism. This is important, since intellectually active societies sometimes need a little push to start advancing along the way of changes.

In Portugal such a push was a book written by a general, in Iran - the voice of Khomeini recorded on a tape. In Poland of 1980s the Pope could instigate any events on his own choice [25]. As K.Popper wrote, thoughts and ideas are not only tools, but also kinds of political actions, while the intellectual honesty is the foundation of what we value. The value of "general ideas", according to A.Tocqueville, is that these ideas permit us to evaluate a situation where many subjects act. N.Shlemkevich too wrote about the political outlook setting all things in order [26].

Intelligence is usually defined as the capability of a system (man, computer, society) to turn data into knowledge, to extract meaning from data. The level of intelligence is defined by the size of the memory and the efficiency of the deduction [27]. In the moral or political sense the intellectual activity appears as the activity of the society with the aim of seeking justice. To this end, all the restrictions on intellectual efforts should be omitted to make problems solved on the basis of all facts accessible to the public mind [28].

In the structural sense the intellectual activity of the society is a collective mind’s action, synthellectics. Its main characteristics is the capability to perceive, accumulate and store knowledge, produce ideas and then implement them [29]. Intelligence here appears a tool of transforming the subtle matter of consciousness. In the political sense intelligence appears a "vibrating structure"(term by Yu.Kanygin) of the social body, which is represented by public opinion (mass media), religious confessions, political movements, as well as such layers of the population as students, scientists and writers [30]. Long ago W. von Humboldt used to say that a human individual is an idea

embodied in a phenomenon. In other words, an idea assumed the form of an individual in order to uncover itself. Another variation of this idea was given by P.-A. Holbach: thought is an activity in Man.

Since the general sense of intellectual activity for a society is to perceive the environment, to develop a strategy and tactics of how to react to an uncountable manifold of situations, the political intellectual activity includes mainly those forms of mental activity that reduces to communication or discourse. In most cases this activity reveals itself on a scientific, religious, cultural and every day levels. Thanks to this activity, efforts in education, science and art are agreed. The activity can be oriented at a concrete result or at a self-valued verbal or visual expression. But most often it reveals itself in a search of new or long-forgotten meanings, producing symbols, developing concepts, doctrines, social paradigms. It is responsible for almost every organizing provisions of progress.

E.Fromm considered man’s intelligence to be a result of independence, bravery and toughness [31]. That is why the juridical guarantees of intellectual activity must be nonstandard legal instruments. In the set of constitutional guarantees they must daintier the subspace of freedom, where the state control is impermissible.

The fact that intellectual activity is a necessary condition of any changes does make it a political factor. In this capability it is an action of "etheric" type, which, in A.Toynbee’s opinion, is more similar to the God’s act than to a Man’s one. Unlike J. Lamettrie who regarded intellectual activity as "airing opinions" [32], Aristotles regarded it as the highest form of the "praxis", as a contemplation for seeking truth; he also called it mental intuition, relative to which the discourse already appears as a kind of activity.

According to L.Feuerbach, theoretical activity is a factor of self-assertion; he wrote: "Philosophical systems are necessary, unavoidable viewpoints of reason, such viewpoints where the divine truth for once contemplates itself with a clear satisfaction" [33]. W.Heisenberg added political coloring to this fact, noticing that, having chosen the outlook once, many people consider it as the "foundation of life", which no experience or new knowledge can shatter. Such an irrational belief is a significant political factor in history, although many thought at first that a belief can be easily ousted by rational analysis [34].

V.Vernadsky understood theoretical activity as a concentrated clot of man’s thought: it contains religious outlook, art, ethics, social life and philosophical thought. After P.Sorokin abstraction is "imum fundamentum" of the social order, which serves as a support of duration, strength and power of societies. After M.Duverget political myths play a similar role, which are based on beliefs, traditions and social climate [35]. The same function is fulfilled by "serving ideals", which require a delicate attitude to life and independence of thought.

J.Schumpeter regarded intellectuals as people who have the power of word and bear no responsibility for practical deeds [36]. Sometimes intellectuals devote themselves to social critics, i.e. mastering the world through its negation, which E.Shevardnadze considers a variety of politics [37]. However, even in fairy tales and tragedies, where mythological goals are transcended and for which people are prepared to sacrifice themselves, a political sense is vividly expressed [38].

As to the technology of intellectual processes consisting in distributing "the unpredictable contained in the message" (A.Mole [39]), it is clear that between this process and the authorities there exists an organic contradiction, reflecting a more general contradiction between "life and freedom" (F.Hayek), a controversy between the civil society and the state. As is known, the US Supreme court set the information openness under the protection of Amendment I of the US Constitution, which forbids any (legislative included) attempt to restrain the freedom of speech, of conscience and of petitions, thus leading the processes of information exchange to the legal space devoid of constraints. In the political-informative sense this means that rhema is free ("rhema" is that part of the "thema" that bears new information) [40]. It is the rhema that makes people to be eager to have a free access to information, this is an important facet of their freedom.

According to N.Amosov, the theoretical activity of man is based on algorithms of reason and biological demands. Reason generates and trains hypotheses, thus making them a source of man’s activity, together with the center of biological demands on the other hand. This is the scheme that led to the historical hypothesis of God and idealism, on material forces and materialism, as well as other ideas concerning justice or distribution of property and power [41]. That is the way that was most frequently taken by the process of evolutionary cephalization, jump-like perfection of the central nervous system, which remade biosphere into noosphere [42]. It was not essential that from time to time materialists deserted materialism and deterministic psychologists deviated to indeterminism in physics [43]. Reality always astonishes us, and thinking always creates, which serves as a base for an open dialogue system, within which people express fantasies, if they find reality insatisfactory [44]. Castles of political fantasies seem more attractive to people than material goods [45], because a political order is a realm of fictions, in which, as P.Valery said, the critic of ideals rages and shines.

Perhaps, man’s ability to develop an outlook should be regarded as a political one. Not without reason A.Schweitzer identified this capability with a highest sense of orientation, while D.Dontsov called it a "wall of fanatism" that cannot be destroyed by any mockery and provocations [46]. The capability to sacrifice one’s own life for the sake of ideals has always been considered as organic to the Indo-European race [47], whose civilization always tended to beauty rather than to use. Sacred spots appeared before railroads and electric bulbs [48]. Since refined theoretical thought develops regardless of considerations of use, it cannot and it must not depend on the state support. As is known, P.Chaadaev considered the transition from material to intellectual and moral demands to be brought in by Christianity, which caused great debates in the masses. After B.Danem, the attitude of people to the Bible, as to a source of intellectual inspiration, is immanent to a personality nature, which tends to break away from the materialistic outlook [49]. Sometime people do sacrifice what is the most precious to them in order to preserve beauty [50]. Criticizing materialism, K.Popper reproached K.Marx that he underestimated advantages of freedom as compared to necessity [51]. In his turn, F.Fukuyama considered utilitarism and weakening belief in the force of ideas as one of the dullest consequences of marxism [52]. Actually, conscience is a cause and not a consequence of human activity, and that actually the concealed basis of events is, after all, ideology [53].

After H.G.Gadamer, social practice cannot do without the function of rhetoric [54], and after H.Spencer social actions follow from emotions ruled by ideas of our forefathers and contemporaries [55]. After J.Habermas the progress is rooted not in the natural science and technology, but in the "productive force of communication", whereas after L. von Mises thinking people are separated by a precipice from those who cannot think autonomously [56]. G.Mosca considered historical events to be caused by mass illusions, reminding that it was madmen who gathered sane people around themselves, and not vice versa [57]. Young K.Marx in his letter to A.Ruge justly complained of L.Feuerbach that the latter sets great hopes on nature and little on politics [58]. As J.Dewey wrote: "They say that the Supreme Authority is Experiment, but in actual fact everything decides an idea implemented into experiment, into practice, not abstracted from them [59].

"The very idea of reason, - said I.Kant,- urges it to leave the region of its empirical application and, in its pure application, dares to reach its extreme limits of cognition where sole ideas reign and come to rest only having closed the circle in a certain autonomously existing systematic entirety" [60]. It is interesting that E.Fromm separates belief and disbelief with a precipice. Epochs of belief seem to him brilliant, elevated and fruitful whereas disbelief passes without trace. The Spirit of the Tree exists, wrote G.Soros provided that we believe it.

It is easy to understand, I.Lysiak-Rudnitsky wrote, that ideology is much needed by the political power for self-acquittal, using some spiritual principle [61]. Myths are long-living, since they are needed by governments for survival and forcing peoples to obey, although it is sometimes accompanied by a certain rationalization of the irrational.

D. de Trassy is known to use the term "ideology" for the first time in 1796. Since that time the term has been used for denoting morals, religion, metaphysics, etc. In particular, K.Marx wrote on "ideological forms" [62], and B.Russell remarked that every politician corresponded to some ideologist. For instance, we have pairs: Cromwell - Hobbes, Napoleon - Rousseau, Hitler - Hegel. K. von Stein applied the term "metapoliticians" to politicians inspired by some ideology [63].

Saint-Simon wrote that ideologies serve the goal of integrating humanity, and D.Easton regarded them as sample goals for future actions of a political power [64]. R.Johnstone called ideologies as social paradigms possessing their own understanding of the meaning of things and ways of revealing these meanings [65], while M.Yankov defined an "ideological paradigm" as a set of theories, concepts, ideas, models, samples, criteria, values and norms defining the pattern of life of the modern society [66]. After Yu.Skuratov, ideology is a common component of all elements of the political system [67], while D.Grant considered that ideologists should seduce masses ideologically [68]. M.Rocard wrote about ideology as philosophy of the world and life, while A.Ballock calls it not more than a closed system of party doctrines [69].

K.Jaspers regards ideology as a system of ideas giving a subject a surrogate of truth [70], while E.Fromm thought that ideology serves to justify actions which are immoral from an individual point of view. B.Havel considered ideology props for "superindividual" and a "veil of the lost being" [71], a bridge between a political regime and the people, whileM.Shimecka called ideology a mirror from whose cracks "the mug of reality peeps out. N.Berdiaev wrote that "pragmatism of lie" is realized in ideology, and the former is needed in social life [72].

A.Bogdanov considered ideology as something like social glue needed by the society to concord and link it. For R.Aron ideology is the factor determining what must be done, while for O.Lange this is just a systemized collection of public ideas. D.Bell regarded ideology as a tool that transforms ideas into social levers [73], while E.Wiatr defined it as a systemized set of views having a functional relation with interests and aspirations of social groups, that incorporate the ideas which appeared in the group on the basis of the group’s experience, the ideas which reflect and assess reality and serve as directives to actions based on these ideas [74].

Ideologies support values and principles, render theories of the past, justify the present and feed the dreams on the future. They assist to formulate the approach to modern problems, stimulate energy and determine the motives needed for the efficient solutions,

As G.Kahn wrote [75]. That is why ideology contains convictions, theories, beliefs, as well as the expression of the latter in words, written symbols, drawings, jestures and in other ways [76]. K.Levi-Strauss considered ideology to be a derivative of mythology, while B.Chivilikhin regarded it as a political idea, resistance to which usually leads to a revolution [77].

As V.Rozanov wrote, wine, tea, "big fishes", jam and a comfortable apartment as symbols of capitalism crept stealthily to Russia by smuggling [78]. It is obvious that ideologies penetrate society just in this way. Although in the economic science the treatment of abstract words as equivalents to things was recognized as early as in the second half of the 19-th century [79], even now "unheard words affect conscience as much as the perception is retained that they are not just words [80]. After P.Bourdieu, the ideological suggestion is inflicted by a state’s agent, who possesses the monopoly of legitimate symbolic violence [81], which enables a political functionary "to make the future true" [82]. Discussing the predominance of "abstract thought", M.Bakunin wrote that behind it the monopoly of the elite for knowing the truth is concealed [83]. After G.Marcel, ideologies are bad because they can force people to follow dead postulates [84]. Indeed, every doctrine restraining the freedom of choice weakens individual responsibility. Thus it creates psychological principles supporting a totalitarian state [85]. So it is not surprising that Z.Brzezinski and D.Bell bind their hopes of the human happiness with the end of the "century of ideologies" [86].

Nowadays deideologization captured the post-totalitarian countries and is reflected in their constitutions. However, a political life without strategies is hardly possible. That is why a real problem of post-totalitarian countries seems to consist not so much in a refusal of ideology, as in recognizing a pluralistic ideology, a human right for a nonconformistic behavior and resistance to organizations which are based on a monoideological or just collective interest. It is obvious that citizens of modern states should be protected from not only physical, but from an ideological violation too. Their intellectual freedom must be protected not only from the government, but from democracy as well. Even now laws appear too often just levers of the executive power of the state.

However, the problem is even wider and concerns not only laws. The negation of a single ideology implies that any possible state expertise of intellectual projects of the civil society cannot and must not regarded as final. The state shall not certify private educational establishments, to approve their curricula, etc. [87]. In other words, citizens of post-totalitarian countries shall be protected from the remains of the intellectual corporative violence.

It should be noted that the state understood long ago the force of ideas, which are capable of toppling the world, and that the social dynamics of the world is based on convictions. By negating the discourse of different individuals" minds on the basic questions of existence, the state usually pays service to tradition, as the main guard of the public order. Long ago T.Hobbes wrote that the political power likes to judge opinions that impede or promote establishment of peace; to judge people who address the masses with their speeches and to judge doctrines in still unpublished books [88]. After J.Locke [89], a ruler can forbid making public any opinions subverting the power of the government, and after V.Rozanov, a government functionary must be free of the "yoke of the press" and base his actions only on his own convictions and principles.

A.Miller wrote that there exists no government which would not conceal an undesirable truth [90]. The nature of a government is to preserve stability. According to F.Braudel, a state always supervised the achievements of culture that are contrary to traditions, because it was unwilling to be trapped by some novelties. The proofs of this statement we find both in the epoch of Lorenzo the Magnificent and on the eve of the French Revolution. In other words, the logic of the power unavoidably contradicts to that of the press - in all times and in all countries [91]. The fates of Anaxagoras and Socrates reminds us that in Greece too dissent was confused with heresy and free thought - with dangerous thought.

Since the state cannot resolve the collision of science and forbidding ideology, the scientific thought may not block with the state ideology. The genuine scientific thought is mainly the source of the public, not state well-being.It is noteworthy that quotations from Lenin on intellectual freedom are different and even contradictory, depending on the role Lenin assumed: that of a representative of the public or that representing the state [92].

After D.Furman, any tyranny pretends to be elected by people, any oligarchy is an elite of talents, any political dogma is a scientific theory [93]. This is the reason why not only governments, but most parliaments as well try to control mass media [94]. D.Pisarev explained the astonishing patience to Voltaire on the side of monarchs by the reason that in Voltaire’s times the force of ideas and their consequences was not comprehended yet. According to G.Shpet, "by lightening state fires, one must not avoid putting down the free propagated light" [95], since any government regards doctrines not as true or false, but as helpful or dangerous for the targets of the government. A doctrine is orthodox in the former case and heretic in the latter one.

After T.Adorno, anti-intellectual attitude is rooted in the state thinking. And although the state permanently repeats that criticism must be responsible, this means only one thing - that the political establishment only has the right to criticize. In this way the civil duty and a human right criticism becomes a privilege. It is not surprising then that all the people functionally connected with the political regime usually abstain from criticizing the political regime [96]. As M.Saltykov-Shchedrin wrote here we have a circulus viciosis: the initiative of the public seems to be needed and not to be needed. Thus, only the "criticism of a certain kind" is needed [97].

After L.Erkhard, the position of the state does not cause the people’s enthusiasm, since the state tends to promote the freedom with strings attached [98]. B.Spinosa regarded governments that forbid individuals to say what they like as violent ones.

The authorities always want to know what citizens, who threaten the political control system, think, whereas simple folks like to know what are the bureaucrats" decisions that contradict with simple folks" interests; this stands to reason [99]. That is why the governments, which forbid the subordinates to write about the questions of governing, are inadequate [100], while the governments, which permit everything, are despotic [101].

Since, according to modern views, the inaccessibility of information for one half of the population destructs the mechanism of democracy, the concealment of information compromises the authorities more than taking bad decisions. As a result, the state establishment works out a special language of politics which seems open only at a first glance [102]. This is the way how the phenomenon of political "logocracy" arises. This is a modern version of distorting words [103]. As M.Shimechka remarked, people in the street, in this sense, can only imitate professionals [104].

Evaluating the political behavior of the Soviet bureaucracy A.Obolonsky pointed at the usage of cliches by its representatives, these cliches making a special language for those who knew the secret [105]. Certainly, the language of political dominance was always applied for legitimization of the state [106], and the threat of desorientation of the public opinion by demagogues never stopped to be real [107]. As J.Meslier wrote, the authorities always want the masses not to know too much about what exists and to believe in what does not exist [108]. In other words, the authorities are always willing to supress the imagination of the civil society and distribution of the atmosphere of intellectual isolationism.

That is why the intellectual activity of the civil society does not coincide with that of the state. And although, in the final count, a state profits from freedom and democracy, this profit exists for the state strategically, as if in the historical prospects. On the contrary, the civil society can develop only in the conditions of daily intellectual freedom, though strategically it is also interested in order and stability.

J.Schumpeter was perhaps right, when he wrote that not a single modern society provides absolute freedom and not a single state reduces it to zero [109]. However, in contrast to the state, the imperative of intellectual freedom in a civil society is dominant. "Having transformed to a government", A.Comte wrote, "the thought is seduced at once". In the healthy state it does not like the state of things. If our century is really that of freedom, then it is simultaneously the century of criticism, which governs all. In fact, it is better not to think at all than to agree". Really, how can one learn the truth without knowing opinions contradictory to his own, asked J.Lamettrie [110].

According to W.von Humboldt, the guarantee of progress can be given only by the autonomous position of the society with respect to the state power. In other words, to guarantee progress it is necessary to combine the ruling and the subordinate parts of the nation in such a way that the former would have guarantees of preserving power, and the latter will have privileges of the freedom. That is why he regarded as optimal the political system capable of breeding in citizens a high respect to others" rights combined with the love to their own freedom. Besides, the state must not threaten the individual freedom, since, from the viewpoint of people’s sovereignty, the intellectual censorship is politically absurd. So, it is logical that in a free society the only efficient way of neutralization of the negative influence of the press is the increase of its sources to infinity [111].

Actually, the antagonism of the state order and freedom of the civil society is better to recognize openly. Since the interests of progress demand to value the civil freedom more than the state order, it follows that the freedom of intellectual activity must be defended by the Constitution, and the informational activity of the civil society must not be regulated by law (except in such technical questions as the rules of mail). In other words, if any governmental or other official instances forbid to distort the truth, then it is sufficient for creation a mortal danger to the intellectual freedom. This really means that someone knows the real truth or the criteria for recognizing it [112]. So one must not be astonished when learning that the American constitutional system considers the freedom of convictions more sacred than the honor of the national banner [113]. It is noteworthy that within the American tradition of the freedom of press people may print and distribute unreasonable, uncivilized, unpleasant, false, dangerous and instigating information. For this, as J.Webster writes, is sometimes the worth of freedom [114].

In his Nobel lecture A.Solzhenitsyn called the state intrusion into information processes "a frantic danger". Since any interception of information leads to entropy and destruction [115], all obstacles for the free exchange of ideas in a society must be destroyed. It is interesting that C.-A.Helvecius regarded any limitation of the freedom of speech as insulting a nation. Unheard voice of the people generates apathy, and apathy can destroy democracy.

It is noteworthy that in Sweden the citizens" right of access to the state information has been one of the basic constitutional principles for already 200 years. As early as in 1766 a special law was adopted to guarantee the free access for the population to the documents from state archives [116].

It is known that V.Vernadsky regarded the theoretical activity of the civil society as free in Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries and as not free in the USSR [117]. After M.Djilas, not a single great scientific discovery was made in the country, where the desperate spirit created under a mask of optimism [118]. On the contrary, in the USA the opinions of independent scientists stimulated the Congress to take the decision to apply in all governmental plans a scientific approach where possible [119]. However, as G.Orwell once remarked, a writer in politics is always rather a guerrilla than a soldier. There is a popular opinion that in tsarist Russia literature played the role of the Parliament [120], and it was writers of the Central Europe who tried to implement morals into politics [121]. That is why they took upon themselves even more political responsibility that their colleagues in the West. Exceptions here only confirm the rule. As I.Lysiak- Rudnitsky wrote the political regime of B.Khmelnitski collapsed because of the shortage of intellectuals, publicists and wise legislators.

In his time O.Wilde wrote on the value of people capable to go out the framework of the prose of life. Usually it is individuals not bearing authority that provide the renaissance of ideas [122]. And ideas can exist only under the conditions of free competitions. K.Jaspers admitted some restrictions during a war, but only on the information about events, not upon opinions. In a free country, as A.Morois wrote, the criticism of the authorities, even unjust, is useful. Nothing can revolt citizens of the USA more than an attempt to conceal information because someone decided that it is harmful for some authorities [123]. It is not astonishing that A.Sakharov considered that intellectual freedom is the only guarantee for not contaminating people with mass myths.

It is usually considered that one should not demand from a man’s political activity anything more than distribution of opinions which he himself believes. An intellectual truth is obtained mainly in the efforts of moral and intellectual sort. That is why T.Dezamy regarded any constraints on the freedom of discussion as enemy to progress, and L.Feuerbach considered that books should be defended as citizens" lives. Original books are nothing but "suns in the night of times", as C.-A.Helvetius said.

As is known, V.Vernadsky regarded as necessary the existence of mutually exclusive intellectual concepts and systems. Since a point of view, as H.G. Gadamer remarked, which is the highest as genuinely true, is a pure illusion [124]. That is why there is no conflict between science and religion. A.Einstein, N.Bohr, E.Schroedinger, T. de Chardin were mystics [125]. M.Heidegger thought that human history, philosophy and politics are not determined in the marxist sense [126].

To create truths is a difficult affair, said F.Nietsche. L.Shestov regarded the verbalization of thought as "real art", which, after Heidegger, is accompanied by the horror of creative boredom opposing the peaceful conceit of cosy occupations [127]. Upon the whole, man’s thinking is so complicated, brittle and subtle, that every organized violence destroys it. In P.Yurkevich’s opinion, the human spirit contain what catholics call "super-duty obligations of their saints" [128]. It is natural that the freedom of speech, cultured, religious and political pluralism remains the object of the greatest care in the eyes of intelligentsia in post-totalitarian countries. It is here that a writer can imagine himself in the seat of the highest political ruler (A.Dovzhenko).

As was demonstrated by G.Lakoff and M.Johnson, the idea of the existence of the absolute objective truth is dangerous in the social and political aspect [129]. However significant is the effect of the logical in history, human thinking all the same should be treated as a psychological process [130]. That is why Ortega-y-Gasset called rationalism one of the forms of intellectual hypocrisy and A.Bierce defined "realism" as the art of depicting the world from the point of view of a frog [131]. "I think: that is not a source, it is a curtain", said G.Marcel [132]. After A.Whitehead, mentality is a simplifying factor, so the mental vision is in turn a mere simplified reality.

Perhaps, it was the reason why A.Vaida rejected the prime role of a political idea as opposed to human happiness, while P.Valery said about human mind acting contrary to human nature. The more mind develops, the less is the function of imagination, wrote abbot Trublet as early as in 1735. That one is genuinely free who manipulates with ideas, using not only logics. Logics, as P.Gary wrote, is similar to a prison, and rigid principles are capable not only to lighten the world, but to set it on fire. For G.Mosca, bloodshed and persecutions were always started on behalf of doctrines, which proclaimed liberty, equality and fraternity. That is why a demand to realize our ideals in this real world is a prison, from which wisdom should escape, as B.Russell wrote.

In the final count, any ideas remain obscurant. After A.Bogdanov, each word not only fixes the content of experience, but at the same time narrows it. A word is a dogma, and a dogma is an explicit prohibition to think, L.Feuerbach said. The dogma is called "a massive idea’s costume" after A.Bogdanov, it is a "pig iron cast" after A.Whitehead. A dogma keeps the thought in the "ten-shun" posture. According to M.Weber, "everyone, who ever worked with the use of marxist notions, knows well how great is the heuristic value of these ideal types, if one uses them for comparisons with actual reality; he also knows how dangerous they might become, if one considers them as empirically significant or even real (i.e. in essence metaphysical) "acting forces", "tendencies" and so on" [133].

Not only simple but rather sophisticated dogmatism is come across in the theoretical political activity. Being represented by virtuoso dogma-makers the sophisticated dogmatism might be even dialectical. But even in this case it is contrary to reason. Doctrines, W.Samner said, are aweful tyrants. They master man’s mind and then betray it. It is not occasional that philosophy strives to power, it pretends to be a causa prima [134].It is worth of noting that, according to N.Berberova, both H.Wells and M.Gorki counted themselves the best minds in the world which cannot be mistaken [135], while E.Canetti found the same syndrome in J.Swift, who always hinted the reader that he, Swift, would certainly rule the depicted kingdoms in a much better way. Even M.Luther wanted to pack human thought "into a specially prepared cardbox" (D.Pisarev). It is known that L.Swartzschild considered K.Marx a person sure of his right to manipulate people. So it is not astonishing that E.Canetti, A. de Saint-Exupery, and A.Bierce were quite seriously afraid of people, who know too much, while A.Bakunin regarded "overdrawing of one’s knowledge" and "disdain to all who do not know" as organic drawbacks of scientists. Permit a pedant to act, and he will start experiments on human beings like on cats and dogs, he said [136]. After P.Sorokin, clever guys in politics always cheated ignorants [137]. That is why intellectual despotism as a whole, beginning with the crazy witch hunt, was always a substantial political problem [138].

Taking into account the number of copies of the published books of classics of marxism-leninism and the energy, with which these books were distributed, one must be amazed not with how popular the marxist doctrine is, but, on the contrary, how much it failed. As J.-F.Revel wrote, the uprisal against democratic capitalism in 1968 was led by students of the best universities of the world, who paradoxically preferred to all other ideas the ideas of Fidel Castro and Mao Tzetung; according to these ideas terror replaced reasonable rule, economic incompetence replaced social justice and freedom was replaced by criminal pressure against it [139].

In order to avoid political dictatorship, we must live in a patient, dynamic, intellectual environment, open to imagination and diversity of styles. Such a life is sometimes perceived rather like a game than "genuine life". Its tempo and rhyme, as well as its traditional risks are not dictated by the authorities, but arise spontaneously. On the other hand, such a life needs "negative" legal guarantees of not interference.

In the constitutional aspect this means that the intellectual creative infrastructure of the civil society shall be protected from any official, first of all, state interference. This also means that no information may be considered secret for an unlimited time-span, that private persons must not and cannot bear responsibility for duivulging state secrets, that the freedom of speech shall neither be limited by the alive political power (embodied in state officers) nor by the abstract power of laws. Any restraints are lethal for freedom. On the other hand, the state security does not demand pushing citizens" minds in one direction [140]. In the sphere of intellectual competition open to everybody the state should not pretend on the buskins and nimbus [141], since it is considered well-proven that intellectual paternalism leads only to degradation and intellectual idiocy (Yu.Kanygin).

The moral crisis experienced nowadays in the post-totalitarian countries seems to be a quite natural development. It is typical that even the way out of it is felt like a frustration, like a "post-totalitarian depression" (S.Huntington). On this background more prosperous nations continue to progress. Having stepped over industrialization and universal use of information technology, leading countries are oriented now to the values of the collective imagination. In other words a new reality is appearing, in which such values as fashion, sex, honor, aristocratism, etiquette and good breeding become dominant and stop to be treated as "rubbish", as in totalitarian times. It is an easy, playful attitude to life that makes the life civilized in many respects. When one contemplates what woes and what threats to humanity were caused by centuries of the serious work of mind, as G.Greene wrote, one wants to look back and find where we lost our way [142].

As to legal aspects of the topic, one should admit that the constitutional forms of guaranteeing theoretic political activity in post-totalitarian countries are rather similar. Censorship was prohibited almost everywhere. This prohibition is set in Article 67 of the Constitution of Uzbekistan (1991); Article 33 of the Constitution of Moldova (1994):"creative activity must not be subjected to censorship"; Article 22 of Japan (1947): "No censorship is admitted"; Article 44 of the Constitution of Lithuania (1992): "Censorship of mass information is forbidden"; Article 29 of the Constitution of Russia (1993); Article 38 of the Constitution of Croatia (1990): here the prohibition of censorship is supplemented with the right of newsmen to a free access to information and a free way of presenting information; Article 21 of the Constitution of Italy (1947); Article 5 of the Constitution of Germany (1949): "Censorship does not exist"; Article 15 of the Constitution of Ukraine (1996); Articles 14,54 of the Constitution of Poland (1997). In Article 61 of the Constitution of Hungary (1990), adoption of any laws on oversight of the public mass media is possible only if two thirds of the National Assembly voted for it.

The autonomy of higher educational institutions is ensured by Article 35 of the Constitution of Moldova, Article 58 of the Constitution of Slovenia (1991), Article 40 of the Constitution of Lithuania, Article 67 of the Constitution of Croatia, Article 53 of the Constitution of Bulgaria (1991), Article 46 of the Constitution of Macedonia (1991), Article 33 of the Constitution of Italy (where the academical freedom is also given to private schools considered equal to state ones) [143].

In Article 70 of the Constitution of Hungary it is affirmed that "to solve scientific questions... and determine scientific significance of investigations is a prerogative of the professionals" [144].

General freedom of the intellectual creative activity is protected in post-totalitarian constitutions in a more diverse way. For example, Article 32 of the Constitution of Moldova says about the freedom of thought and expression, including the freedom of opinions and public declarations. Article 59 of the Constitution of Slovakia (1991) declares the freedom of scientific and artistic creation. Article 29 of the Constitution of Uzbekistan protects the freedom of thought, speech and conviction. Article 19 of the Constitution of Japan guarantees the freedom of thought, consciousness, speech, press and all other forms of expression of opinions, while Article 42 of the Constitution of Lithuania fixes the freedom of culture, science and investigations. Articles 27 and 29 of the Constitution of Russia guarantee the freedom of thought, speech, as well as artistic, scientific and technical creative activity. The freedom of literary activity and teaching is treated in Article 44 of the Constitution of Russia. Article 38 of the Constitution of Croatia guarantees the freedom of thought and its expression, including the freedom of press and other mass media, freedom of speech, as well as organizing and creating mass media for informing public. In Article 68 of this Constitution freedom of scientific, artistic and cultural creative activity is added. Articles 37 and 54 of the Constitution of Bulgaria guarantee the freedom of consciousness, thought, the choice of religious confession, as well as freedom of artistic, scientific and technical creative activity. Article 16 of the Constitution of Macedonia (1991) guarantees the freedom of opinions, consciousness, thought and their public expression. The Constitution also guarantees the freedom of personal appeals and creation of free mass media. In accordance with Article 33 of the Constitution of Italy, art, science and teaching are declared free. After Article 5 of the Constitution of Germany every one can bail knowledge from acceptable sources. The autonomy of higher school is ensured by Article 70 of the Constitution of Poland.

As to constitutional restraints on the intellectual activity in the post-totalitarian countries, they are present in the majority of their constitutions, although the number and the conditions of such restraints differ from country to country. For example, Article 32 of the Constitution of Moldova bans and punishes any negation of the existence of the state and people, appeals to an aggressive war, national and racial enmity, instigation of discrimination, territorial separatism, civil violence as well as other actions threatening the constitutional regime [145]. In Article 34 of this constitution it is written that the right for access to information must not contradict to the protection of citizens" and national security. Article 29 of the Constitution of Uzbekistan bans distribution of information directed against the existing constitutional regime. The freedom of opinions and their expression may be restricted for the reason of disclosing state or other secrets [146]. In Article 18 of the Constitution of Germany it is written that everybody who uses freedom of expressing opinions, that of press and teaching for the struggle against the foundations of the free democratic society, shall be deprived of their basic rules [147]. In Article 41 of the Constitution of Bulgaria the right of distribution of information may not be used against the rights and honest names of other citizens, national security, civil order, health and morals of the population. Article 29 of the Constitution of Uzbekistan prohibits to seek, receive and distribute the information directed against the existing constitutional regime. Besides, the freedom of thought and expression is limited by the reasons of keeping state or other secrets [148]. Article 21 of the Constitution of Italy forbids printed matter, spectacles or manifestations contrary to good morals. The freedom of teaching must be compatible with the loyalty to the Constitution, declares Article 5 of the Constitution of Germany.

The truth of information as an obligatory condition of its distribution is formulated in Article 67 of the Constitution of Uzbekistan, Article 34 of the Constitution of Moldova. Information freedom is specially pointed out in the Constitutions of Uzbekistan, Moldova, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Lithuania, Italy and Germany. The prohibition to monopolize information media is fixed in the Constitution of Lithuania.

What concerns guarantees of intellectual political activities in the Constitution of Ukraine, they begin in Article 15 of the Constitution of Ukraine (1996) where the principle of political and ideological pluralism is fixed. In accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine no ideology shall be recognized as obligatory. It should be noted that this formula, if understood literally, forms a conceptual circle where the thesis annuls itself, since the ideology of this very article is also not obligatory. Perhaps, it would be better to proclaim in this article the ideology of the open, free and democratic society. By rejecting any ideology the Constitution of Ukraine formally affirms the political havoc.

The freedom of political activities, which are not forbidden in Ukraine, is guaranteed in Section 4 of Article 15 of the Constitution. However, in this case a kind of structural tension appears. Following the logic of the article, politics appear in the Constitution as a post-right entity, whereas in many respects it remains a pre-right entity, since in the historical, political and temporal sense (order) a political discourse precedes tendencies, principles and direct contents of laws.

Besides, everyone’s right of the freedom of thought and speech, free expression of opinions, the right to retrieve, use and distribute information fixed in Article 34 of the Constitution of Ukraine may be restricted by law in the interests of the national security, territorial integrity or public order with the aim of preventing clashes or crimes, for protecting the population’s health, for protecting reputations or other people’s rights, for preventing the divulging of the confidential information, for the maintanance of the authority and objectiveness of courts. All in all there are 11 causes when the freedom of information is limited.

The right for the freedom of outlook and religion, as formulated in Article 35 of the Constitution of Ukraine, can be limited by 5 causes. The right of Ukrainian citizens to form political parties and organizations for the protection of their rights and freedoms and satisfaction of their political and other interests (Section 1 of Article 36 of the Constitution of Ukraine) can also be limited in the interests of the state security, public order, protection of the population’s health and rights and freedoms of other people. Article 37 of the Constitution of Ukraine contains 14 more goals whose achievement is an unsurmountable obstacle for creation and activities of political parties and other public organizations in Ukraine.

Article 54 of the Constitution of Ukraine guarantees the freedom of literary, artistic and technical creative activities, as well as the protection of the intellectual property and author’s rights. Article 50 of the Constitution declares the free access to information on the state of the environment, the quality of food products and consumer goods, as well as the right to distribute such information. This information shall not be classified as secret.

Section 2 of Article 105 of the Constitution of Ukraine establishes responsibility for libel against the President, and Section 1 of Article 65 fixes the duty of Ukrainian citizens to respect the state symbols. The information security of the country is declared to be "the matter of all the people", which is difficult to comment.
[1] Dewey D. The Essential Writings. - NY: Harper Torchbooks, 1977, p.61.
[2] Novak M. The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. - London: IEA Unit. 1991, p.183.
[3] Easton D. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. - Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965, p.367.
[4] Ebenstein W. Monarch, state, society. - Znanie - sila, 1990, No.9, p.70 (in Russian).
[5] Toffler A. The Third Wave. - NY: Bantam Books, 1994, p.441.
[6] Revel J.-F. Democracy Against Itself. - USA: Free Press, 1993. p.167.
[7] Dontsov D. Appeal of the Day. - London: Publishing House of the Union of Ukrainians In Great Britain, 1968, p.128 (in Ukrainian).
[8] Camus A. The Rebellious Man. - Moscow: Politizdat, 1990, p.178 (in Russian).
[9] Weinzweig P. The Ten Commandments of a Creative Personality. - Moscow: Progress, 1990, p.36 (in Russian).
[10] Hayek F. The Fatal Conceit. - Moscow: Novosti, 1992, p.212 (Translation to Russian).
[11] Kanygin Yu. Basics of Cognitive Social Science. - Kyiv, 1993, p.208.
[12] Ibid., p.33.
[13] Ibid., p.167.
[14] Malinowsky B. Freedom and Civilization. - London: George Allen, 1947, p.94.
[15] Bell D. Social Framework of an Informational Society: A new technocratic wave in the West (A Russian translation). - Moscow: Progress, !986, p.335.
[16] Gray J. Post-Liberalism - London: Routledge, 1996, p.9.
[17] Losev S. Deepen perestroika by practical deeds. - Izvesiya, 1987, 16 July, p.2 (in Russian).
[18] Nazarov A. To the concept of noosphere being organized. In Cybernetics and Noosphere. - Moscow: Nauka, 1986, p.47 (in Russian).
[19] Zinovyev A. Yawning Peaks. Vol I. - Moscow,PIK publishers, 1990, p.231 (in Russian).
[20] From the editorial board. UNESCO Courier, Nov. 1990, p.11 (in Ukrainian).
[21] Brzezinski Z. Out of Control. - USA: 1993, p.75.
[22] Tocqueville A. Democracy in America. Vol.I. - NY: Arlington House, p.200.
[23] C.Young. Remembrances, Dreams, Ruminations. (Translation to Russian). - Kyiv: Air-Land, 1994, p.138.
[24] Smirnov K. Horse powers for a computer. - Izvestiya, 1990, 23 January, p.3 (in Russian).
[25] Gavrilishin B. Roadsigns to Future. - Kyiv: Osnovy, 1993, p.55 (in Ukrainian).
[26] Shlemkevich M. Ukrainian Lost. - NY: 1954, pp.107-108 (in Ukrainian).
[27] Kanygin Yu. Foundations of Cognitive Social Science. - Kyiv: 1993, p. 18 (in Russian).
[28] Rawls J. A Theory of Justice. - NY: Oxford University Press, 1973, p.449.
[29] See [27], pp.6-7.
[30] Ibid., pp.117-118.
[31] Fromm E. Man’s soul (translation to Russian). - Moscow: Respublika,, 1992, p.364.
[32] Lamettrie J. Collected Works (translation to Russian). - Moscow: Mysl, 1983, p.301.
[33] Feuerbach L. Collected works. Vol II (Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Mysl, 1974, p.26.
[34] Heisenberg W. Physics and Philosophy. Part and whole. (Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Nauka, 1989, p.129.

[35] Blagosh Y. Forms of Rule and Human Rights in Bourgeois States. - Moscow: Yuridicheskaya Literatura, 1985, p.81 (in Russian).
[36] Schumpeter J. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. - London: George Allen, 1976, p.147.
[37] Shevardnadze E. The scale of responsibility. - Izvestiya, 1989, 23 March, p.5 (in Russian).
[38] Aulker H. Fairy-tales, Tragedies and Ways of Rendering the World History. - In: Language and Modelling Social Interaction (Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Progress, 1987, p.434.
[39] Mole A. Sociodynamics of Culture. - Moscow: Progress, 1973, p.102.
[40] Kapustin V., Kukharenko B. - In: Cybernetics and Noosphere. - Moscow: Nauka, 1986, p.92 (in Russian).
[41] Amosov N. Realities, ideals and models. - Literaturnaya Gazeta, 1988, 5 October, p.13.
[42] Vernadsky V. Philosophical Thoughts of a Naturalist. - Moscow: Nauka, 1988, p.27.
[43] Chesterton G. The Eternal Man. - (Translation to Russian). -Moscow: Politizdat,1991, p.35.
[44] Freud Z. On Psychanalysis. - (Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Nauka, 1912, p.60.
[45] Dontsov D. Appeal of the Day. - London: Publishing House of the Union of Ukrainians In Great Britain, 1968, p.115 (in Ukrainian).
[46] Dontsov D. Nationalism. In: Ukrainian Social-Political Thought in 20 Century, vol.2. - Munich: Suchasnist, 1983, p.125 (in Ukrainian).
[47] Franko I. Beyond the Possible. In: Outcome of Rights of Ukraine. - Lviv: Slovo, 1991, p.77 (in Ukrainian).
[48] Two Concepts of Ukrainian Thought: V.Lypincky - D.Dontsov. USA: UKKA publishers, 1990, p.173.
[49] Erkhard L. Prosperity for all. - USA: Posev,1990, p.212.
[50] Gary P. Selected works (Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Polaris, 1994, p.23
[51] Popper K.R. The Open society and its Enemies. Vol.2, (Translation to Russian). - Moscow, Feniks,1992, p.128.
[52] Fukuyama F. Has history ended? (Translation to Russian). - Voprosy Filosofii, 1990, No.3, pp.137, 139.
[53] Ibidem.
[54] H.G.Gadamer. Truth and Method. (Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Progress,1988, p.634.
[55] H.Spencer. The Man vs. the State. - USA: Indianapolis, 1981, p.100.
[56] Mises, L. von. Anticapitalist mentality. (Translation to Russian). - NY, Telex, 1992, p.80.
[57] Mosca G. The Ruling Class. - USA: Greenwood Press, 1980, p.187/
[58] Marx K., Engels F. From Early Works.(Translation to Russian). -Moscow, 1956, p.257.
[59] Dewey J. The Essential Writings. - USA: Harper Torchbooks, 1977, p.75.
[60] Kant I. Writings, in 6 vols. (Translation to Russian), vol.3. - Moscow: Mysl, 1964, p.656.
[61] Lysiak-Rudnitsky I. Between History and Politics. - Munich: Suchasnist, 1973, p.279 (in Ukrainian).
[62] See: Djilas M. Face of Totalitarism (Translation to Russian)- Moscow: Novosti, 1992; Lifshits M. Vico Giambattista. - In: "Vico G. foundations of a New Science on General Nature of Nations". - Moscow-Kyiv:REFL-book, 1994, p.VII (In Russian).
[63] Heidegger M. Basic concepts of metaphysics (Translation to Russian). - Voprosy filosofii, 1989, No.9, p.144.
[64] Easton D. A System Analysis of Political Life. - Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965, p.43. D.Easton develops his definition by adding that ideology can be described as a wide spectrum of demands presupposing authoritarian decisions with the aim of reaching ideals already incorporated into the ideology. Ibid., p.44.
[65] Johnstone P. Geography and Geographers. (Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Progress, 1987, p.185.
[66] Yankov M. Constructive Critic and Rational Administration (Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Progress, 1987, p.185.
[67] Skuratov Yu. On the constitutional content of certain political categories. - Pravovedenye, 1986, No.1, pp.22-30 (in Russian).
[68] Grant D. Philosophy, Culture, Technology: prospects of the future. In: A new Technocratic Wave in the West. (Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Progress, 1986, pp.158-159.
[69] Ballock A. Geniuses of evil. - Za Rubezhom, 1992, No.12, p.17. (In Russian).
[70] Yaspers K. The Sense and Intention of History. (Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Politizdat, 1991, p.146.
[71] Havel B. The power of powerless. - Novoe vremia, 1991, No.16, p.41.
[72] Berdiaev N. The Russian idea. - In: On Russia and Russian Philosophical Culture. - Moscow: Nauka, 1990, p.177 (In Russian).
[73] Bell D. The End of Ideology. - USA: Free Press, 1960, p.370.
[74] Wiatr E. Sociology of Political Relations. (Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Progress, 1979, p.401.
[75] Kahn G. The coming rise: economic, political, social. In: A New Technocratic Wave in the West (Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Progress, 1986, p.187.
[76] Sorokin P. Famine and the ideology of society. - In Quintessence. - Moscow: Politizdat, 1990, p.376 (In Russian).
[77] Chivilikhin V. Memory. - Nash Sovremennik, No.6, 1983, p.61 (In Russian).
[78] Rozanov V. Religion and Culture, vol.1. - Moscow: Pravda, 1990, p.563 (In Russian).
[79] Wallas G. Human Nature in politics. - London: Constable and Co.,1910, p.140.
[80] Batkin L. Resuming history. In: Nothing Else Is Given. Moscow: Progress, 1988, p.157 (In Russian).
[81] Bourdieu P. Sociology of Politics. (Translation to Russian). -Moscow: Socio-Logos, 1993, p.72.
[82] Ibid., p.206.
[83] Bakunin M. Philosophy, Sociology, Politics. Moscow: Pravda, 1989, pp.433-434 (In Russian).
[84] Marcel G. To Be and to Have. - Novocherkassk: Saguna, 1994, p.145 (In Russian). In this context the thought of G.Wallas is interesting that in politics the preference of reason to emotions is quite inefficient, since emotions not only motivate a political thought, but also fix the scale of values used in a political discourse. - See Ref. [79], p.188.
[85] Dewey J. Freedom and Culture. - NY: Capricorn Books, 1963, p.172.
[86] Brzezinski Z, Has the cold war ended?. (Translation to Russian). - Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn, 1989, No.10, p.35.
[87] Analyzing the practice of the USA Supreme Court, R.Dworkin mentions the "four essential freedoms" of American universities: a) freedom to determine the academic freedom of education; b) freedom to choose teachers; c) freedom to choose the methods of teaching; d) freedom of choosing students. - Dworkin R. A Matter of Principle. - USA: Harvard University Press, 1985, p.313.
[88] Hobbes T. Leviaphanos (Translation to Russian). - Moscow, Izd-vo Sotsyalno-ekonomicheskoy literatury, 1936, p.150.
[89] Locke J. Works in 3 vols. (Translation to Russian), vol.3. - Moscow: Mysl,1988, p.72.
[90] Miller A. The struggle for truth shall be protected by law (In Russian). - Izvestiya, 1992, 26 June, p.7.
[91] Marynovych M. Ukraine through the Desert (in Ukrainian). - Kharkiv: Folio, 1993, p.83.
[92] The following extracts are typical: Lenin V. Complete Works, vol.8, p.442; vol.9, pp.4-6,10; vol.10, p.355; vol.15, pp.73, 297; vol.16, pp.164-165; vol.32, p.388; vol.34, p.239; vol.39, p.117.
[93] Furman D. Our way to normal culture. In: Other is not Given. - Moscow, Progress, 1988, p.572 (in Russian).
[94] Badenter R. The fifth man in the fifth republic. - Argumenty i fakty, 1989, No.47, p.7 (in Russian).
[95] Spet G. Writings (Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Pravda, 1989, p.282.
[96] Adorno T. Is real reasonable? -Novoe vremia, 1989, No.46, p.34 (in Russian).
[97] Saltykov-Shchedrin M. To heartache... - Izvestiya, 1989, 10 May, p.4 (in Russian).
[98] Erkhard L. Prosperity for All. - USA: Posev, 1990, p.277.
[99] Bolinger J. History is a Linguistic Problem. In: Language and Modelling Social interrelations. (Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Progress, 1987, p.27.
[100] Helvecius C. - A. Writings. In 2 vol. (Translation to Russian), Vol.2. - Moscow: Mysl, 1974, p.137.
[101] Holdbach P. - A. Selected works. In 2 vol. (Translation to Russian), Vol.2. - Moscow: Mysl, 1963, p.248.
[102] Blacard P. Language as an Instrument of Social Power. In: Language and Modelling Social interrelations. (Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Progress, 1987, p.105.
[103] Claude A. Opportunities of language. (Translation to Russian). - UNESCO Courier, 1986, April, p.24.
[104] Shimechka M. My comrade Winston Smith. - Problemy Vostochnoy Evropy, 1989, Nos.27-28, p.251 (In Russian).
[105] Obolonsky A. A bureaucratic deformation of consciousness and struggle with bureaucratism. - Sovetskoye gosudarstvo i pravo, 1987, No.1, p.56.
[106] Hilbert D., Malkey M. On Opening of Pandora’s Box: Social Analysis of Opinions of Scientists. (Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Progress, 1987, p.29.
[107] Selye H. From Dream to Discovery: How to Become a Scientist. (Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Progress, 1987, p.149.
[108] Meslier J. The Will. (Translation to Russian), Vol.3. - Moscow: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1954, p.338.
[109] Schumpeter J. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. - London: - George Allen, 1976, p.271.
[110] see [32], pp.304, 320.
[111] see [22], pp.168-171.
[112] see [80], p.163.
[113] Feofanov Yu. Citizens and authorities. - Izvestiya, 1989, 1 November (In Russian).
[114] Webster J. Creation of free and independent mass media. In: Materials on Freedom. (Translation to Russian). - USA: USIA, 1998, p.3.
[115] Solzhenitsyn A. Nobel lecture. - Novy mir, 1989, No.7, p.142 (In Russian).
[116] Goldberg S. Public access to information. In: Reports on Freedom, No.6. - USA: USIA, Regional Program Office, 1998, p.5 (in Ukrainian).
[117] See [42], p.104.
[118] See [62], p.288.
[119] Price D. Science, technology and the constitution. - America, 1987, No.370, September, p.5 (In Russian).
[120] Mennert K. On Russians today. What they read, what they are? (Translation to Russian). - Inostrannaya Literatura, 1987, No.11, p.18.
[121] Salteris S. Tales of Northern Athens. - Moscow News, 1990, No.63, p.16.
[122] Toynbee A. A Study of History. (Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Progress, 1991, p.605.
[123] Kapp I. On reasons of violence in the USA. - America, 1972, January, p.15.
[124] Gadamer H.G. Truth and Method (Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Progress, 1988, 442.
[125] Groff C. Curing Opportunities of extraordinary States of Consciousness (Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Progress, 1990, pp.455-467.
[126] Heidegger M. A talk on the Country Road (Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola, 1991, p.146.
[127] Heidegger M. What is metaphysics? In: A New Technocratic Wave in the West (Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Progress,1986, pp.40-41.
[128] Yurkiewicz P. Philosophical Works (Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Pravda, 1990, p.182.
[129] Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors we live with. In: Language and Modelling Social Interrelations (Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Progress, 1987, p.148.
[130] Weber M. Selected Works (Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Progress, 1990, p.397
[131] Bierce A. Tales and Fables. Moscow: , Progress, 1982, p.461.
[132] Marcel G. To be and to Have. (Translation to Russian). - Novocherkassk: Saguna, 1994, p.24. Vaida A. Fearlessness of memory. - Ogoniok, 1989, No.5, p.10 (In Russian).
[133] See [130], p.404.
[134] Nietsche F. On that side of Good and Evil (Translation to Russian). - Voprosy Filisofii, 1989, No.5, pp.127-128.
[135] Berberova N. An Iron Woman. - Moscow: Knizhnaya Palata, 1991, p.300 (In Russian).
[136] See [83], p.435.
[137] Sorokin P. The problem of social equality and socialism. - Kommunist, 1990, No.12, p.79 (In Russian).
[138] Cornwell G. Devil’s tricks and extremes of fancy. (Translation to Russian). - Za Rubezhom, 1992, No.11, p.15.
[139] Revel J.-F. Democracy Against Itself. - USA: Free Press, 1993, pp.91-92.
[140] Humboldt W. von. Language and Philosophy of Culture (Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Progress, 1985, pp.74,76.
[141] Marx K., Engels F. Works (Translation to Russian). - Moscow, Vol.7, p.280.
[142] Greene G. Travel without Map.(Translation to Russian). - Moscow: Progress, p.214.
[143] Constitutions of Bourgeois States. Moscow: Uridicheskaya Literatura, 1982, p.130 (In Russian).
[144] Constitutions of New States of Europe and Asia. - Kyiv: UPF, 1996, p.337 (In Ukrainian).
[145] Ibidem, p.199. In the American constitutional theory, J.Rawls wrote, the absence of such a concept like rebel-causing libel against the government is evaluated as a pragmatic test of the freedom of speech (See: Rawls J. Political Liberalism. - NY: Columbia University Press, 1993, pp. 342, 347).
[146] New Constitutions of the CIF and Baltic States. - Moscow: Manuscript, 1994, p.441 (In Russian).
[147] See [143], p.177.
[148] See [144], p.347.

Recommend this post
X




forgot the password

registration

X

X

send me a new password


on top