Jakub Švec

As early as within the ancient period and the emergence of the Roman law and then also in the Middle Ages, the contract theory played an important role in establishing order. Contractualism has assumed great importance in the milieu of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. It was primarily concerned with agreements that were intended to secure the covenants of people with God and took on the character of a normative contract as a source of law. In the field of state and law, the influence of contract theories asserted itself particularly on the threshold of the modern period in the context of the development of liberalism in its early forms. Contract theories emerge in this period in a dominant part of writers of the early liberalism, with the central motivation being to secure the protection of an individual against the arbitrary will of another individual or authority of any kind. The basic motivation of contract theories became the objective to establish a sovereign in the state. Such process of choice is accompanied by a legally unstable state of nature, which is characterized by the existence of the lex naturalis (natural law) and ius naturale (natural right). This article deals with the definition, analysis, and comparison of the concepts of natural law and natural right in the context of the three most relevant thinkers of the given period, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke. The aim of this paper is to highlight overlaps and differences in the way of discussing these concepts, which at the time formed the basis of what we now call the statecraft. In addition, the text is also enriched by author’s criticism and analyses of problematic or content-inconsistent passages in the philosophy of individual authors.

Except to the Theory of Justice from 1971, which fundamentally changed the view of pluralist democracies with a market system on the welfare state and redistribution, John Rawls was also responsible for another application of philosophical doctrine to political practice by the form of the idea of political liberalism. This approach, as in the case of the „Theory of Justice“, was to once again solve the fundamental dilemma of democratic and pluralist societies built on the value basis of liberal tradition and market economy, how to approach opinion opponents who hold other ideological attitudes, which operate in democratic frameworks. In the presented text, we tried for an objective definition of John Rawls's political liberalism, while the study had the ambition to analyze the perspectives and pitfalls of this concept for the contemporary civil-political discourse. For the purpose of the presented study, we chose the method of analysis of the author's original work as well as secondary literature. Subsequently, we synthesized the obtained partial findings into statements and knowledge of new quality. The study demonstrated that, similar to the author's work „Theory of Justice“, this concept of the author in the form of „Political Liberalism“ is workable and applicable in civil-political practice. However, the text also works with the idea, that this approach is currently accepted rather formally, and the idea of political liberalism necessarily runs into the problem of gradual preference of liberal conceptions of the good life. By referring to authors from domestic and also foreign philosophical communities, the text demonstrated the international and interdisciplinary scope of the problem, which extends into the broad field of humanities and social sciences..

Predkladaný článok sa venuje aktuálnej téme o možnostiach a limitoch obmedzovať prejav v demokratickom občiansko-politickom, verejnom a mediálnom priestore v kontexte raných myšlienok Johna Stuarta Milla, predovšetkým tých, ktoré prezentoval v diele O slobode. Toto úzkoprofilové vymedzenie je účelové, nakoľko rané postoje autora boli v druhej polovici jeho tvorby revidované. Text na problematiku nenahliada interdisciplinárne, ale cez úzku a špecifickú optiku politickej filozofie Johna Stuarta Milla - vrcholného predstaviteľa liberalizmu. Text čitateľovi poskytuje úzko profilovanú analýzu a syntézu kľúčových myšlienok predmetného filozofa vo forme úvahy, ktorá vo výsledku poskytujú neortodoxný záver. Ten okrem akcentu na ochranu slobody slova a prejavu hovorí aj o špecifických situáciách, kedy aj z hľadiska liberálnych filozofických pozícii za istých okolností môže autorita pristúpiť k obmedzeniu indivídua. Filozofické stanovisko predstavuje popri právnom, etickom či sociologickom pohľade na problematiku ďalšie rozšírenie diskusie o možnostiach a limitoch slobodného prejavu.

Liberalizmus od svojho vzniku predstavuje perspektívny a ambiciózny hodnotový koncept, ktorý spĺňa všetky atribúty plnohodnotnej ideológie. Z historického hľadiska je však potrebné rozlišovať jeho vývojové štádiá. Vo svojich počiatkoch ho tvorili myšlienky, ktoré štandardne nezaraďujeme len do liberálneho spektra, aj keď obsahovali jeho nosné prvky. Na pozadí vývoja liberalizmu sa odohrával aj jeho vnútorný spor, ktorý je aktuálny dodnes. Aké podmienky ovplyvnili jeho historicko-kultúrny vývoj? Kde sú korene dominancie liberalizmu v politickom a spoločenskom diskurze? Predložený príspevok poskytuje odpovede na dané otázky v historicko-filozofických súvislostiach.

Predložená štúdia pojednáva o historických zdrojoch poznávania v kontexte filozofie výchovy. O prepojení filozofie a výchovy evidujeme písomné doklady už v spisoch antických klasikov staroveku. Aj v zmysle tejto skutočnosti polemiky o hľadaní relevantnejšej, staršej či dôležitejšej vedy z uvedenej dvojice nepredstavujú konštruktívnu tému pre vedecké skúmanie. A síce všetky vedy sú považované za odvodené od filozofie, treba sa taktiež pýtať, či môžeme vznik pedagogiky mechanicky presunúť až do obdobia kreovania systematicky pracujúcich vzdelávacích inštitúcií zasadených do školského systému, alebo by sme mali o pedagogike premýšľať kontextuálnejšie a zamyslieť sa, či nefungovala ako v zásade vyprofilovaná disciplína už omnoho skôr. Odpoveďou sú historické zdroje venujúce sa gnozeologickým otázkam, ktoré evidujeme už od staroveku a neskôr vo všetkých relevantných obdobiach, ktoré sú identické aj pre filozofiu. Vo svetle súčasných zmien vo výchove a vzdelávaní by pre tieto disciplíny mali predstavovať doposiaľ získané poznatky z oblasti filozofie výchovy relevantný zdroj inšpirácie a prístupov, ale na druhej strane aj istú formu filtru, prostredníctvom ktorého na základe historicky získanej a overenej empírie dokážeme selektovať úspešné metódy od tých, ktoré zostávajú skôr predmetom historického výkladu a dnes ich chápeme ako archaické či zastarané. Cieľom predkladaného článku je poskytnúť čitateľovi prehľadovú teoretickú štúdiu, ktorá pojednáva o historických zdrojoch poznávania z hľadiska filozofie a filozofie výchovy. K tomuto cieľu štúdia využíva diela a prístupy kľúčových predstaviteľov filozofie a pedagogiky z obdobia antiky, stredoveku a novoveku. Ich názormi a postojmi k vybraným problematikám sa štúdia zaoberá prostredníctvom metódy analýzy, komparácie a následne syntézy, čím štúdia zabezpečuje pridanú hodnotu diela. Informácie vyplývajúce z komparácie a následnej syntézy jednotlivých výchovno-vzdelávacích postojov vybraných autorov prinášajú a pripúšťajú viaceré závery, ktoré vyvracajú isté dogmatické paušalizácie v tejto oblasti filozofie a filozofie výchovy. Nestotožnenie sa autora tejto štúdie s často neverifikovanými generalizáciami o gnozeologických postojoch vybraných autorov v rámci filozofie výchovy je zároveň aj objasnením motivácie k napísaniu tejto štúdie. Prostredníctvom už uvedenej analýzy a komparácie vybraných postojov a následnom syntetizovaní získaných poznatkov štúdia ponúka informácie novej kvality, ktoré prispievajú k poznaniu v oblasti predmetných vedných disciplín.


The aim of the presented article is to provide the reader with an overview theoretical study that discusses the historical sources of knowledge from the point of view of philosophy and philosophy of education. To achieve this goal, the study uses the works and approaches of key representatives of philosophy and pedagogy from antiquity, the Middle Ages and modern times. The study deals with their opinions and attitudes towards selected issues through the method of analysis, comparison and then synthesis, which ensures the added value of the work. The information resulting from the comparison and subsequent synthesis of the individual educational attitudes of the selected authors brings and admits several conclusions that refute certain dogmatic generalizations in this area of philosophy and philosophy of education

Výchovno-vzdelávacie ale i politicko-filozofické názory Jean Jacques Rousseaua predstavujú aj v tretej dekáde 21. storočia relevantný zdroj inšpirácie ako aj kritiky. Autorove v mnohom pokrokové myšlienky narúšajú tradičné nazeranie na proces dospievania a výchovy a prakticky od času ich publikovania predovšetkým prostredníctvom diela „Émile ou De l'éducation“ z roku 1762 predstavujú moment, ktorý pri inováciách, nových úvahách či prístupoch nie len v pedagogike nie je možné obísť. Dôležitým aspektom Rousseauovho prístupu sú aj filozofické postoje, ktoré na jednotlivca a jeho rozvoj v občiansko-politickej spoločnosti priamo vplývajú. Prostredníctvom nich totiž môžeme lepšie pochopiť autorove motivácie k niektorým nekonvenčným riešeniam v oblasti výchovy a naopak – kontextuálnym vnímaním výchovno-vzdelávacích názorov autora je možné zasadiť Rousseauove filozofické myšlienky o vznešenom divochovi a jeho dokonalej autonómii do širších súvislostí.

Ideológia liberalizmu, napriek hlbokej úrovni filozofického prebádania, aj v dnešnej dobe ponúka priestor pre hľadanie nových inšpirácií a myšlienok. Súčasná pandemická situácia a istá miera regulácie osobnej slobody v dôsledku opatrení národných vlád okrem iného evokuje pocit obmedzenia osobnej integrity jednotlivca zo strany autority. Kánonické interpretácie liberalizmu ako bezvýhradne individualistickej hodnotovej koncepcie sú vo filozofii prekonané, no v praxi politickej a občianskej spoločnosti súčasnosti predstavujú status quo. Nesúlad medzi teóriou a praxou liberalizmu spôsobuje určitú mieru nepochopenia hodnotového rámca predmetnej ideológie. Môže liberalizmus obhájiť obmedzenie individuálnej slobody jednotlivca so zreteľom k spoločenskému dobru? Dokáže liberalizmus ponúknuť ideu sociálnej zodpovednosti za spoločnosť napriek faktu, že do popredia kladie slobodu individuality? Je prípustné požadovať sociálny zmier a istotu odvolávajúc sa na liberalizmus? Cieľom príspevku je odpovedať na tieto otázky prostredníctvom interpretácie sociálneho rozmeru diela J. S. Milla s poukázaním na výzvy k sociálnej a občianskej zodpovednosti za spoločnosť zo strany jednotlivcov aj štátu.

The welfare state in its infancy even in the period of greatest expansion after World War II could not draw their legitimacy from the philosophical justification. This policy was the result of sharing of positive economic growth and efforts of political elites to prevent a leftist working-class movement. The welfare state urgently needed argument, which this approach offers a higher moral or philosophical principles and to release him from the status of preventive policies towards the extreme left respectively. to social unrest. Change is coming in 1971 with the arrival of the work A Theory of Justice by one of the greatest political and moral philosophers of 20th century J. Rawls which as a liberal legitimizes some leftist ideas. This work is a selection of the author's arguments which legitimize redistribution in politics of welfare state.

What is the shape of current liberalism in the public space? Is liberalism a truly objective moral-social doctrine? How it is about the rationality of the action, which the supporters of liberalism refer to? Why do we not perceive current liberalism as an ideology, that includes its shortcomings and benefits? What are the dangers of a bad understanding of liberalism for society?? The aim of this paper is to briefly assess of selected issues of liberalism, which is not a space, where there is no more to look for. In the light of absolute merging with the system, it is necessary to recall the dangers, which this moral concept brings. How it is about the rationality of the action, which the supporters of liberalism refer to.

The need for deeper solidarity, not governed by human compassion or volunteering but directly by state policy, existed even before John Rawls' groundbreaking A Theory of Justice was released. However, it was the conclusion of this study in the 1970s, that definitively philosophically justified, the policy of the need for active equalization, or compensating for social inequalities between individuals, which was not sufficiently argued until this point. Based on the inherent self-interest of author, he concludes that an agreement on an adequate ratio of profits and losses arising from the memorandum of association could not arise in the space of knowing the physical and mental predispositions of individuals involved in its design. John Rawls therefore brings back contractualism to philosophy and introduces the "Veil of Ignorance", which separates the knowledge of one's physical and mental aptitude from its bearers in order to achieve fairness. Thanks to this imagination, he presents to the world the philosophical and moral doctrine that both politicians and philosophers have relied on to defend the welfare state and contractualism to this day.

Liberalism urgently needs social renaissance. By uncritical discussion of its shortcomings and advantages, we have committed a situation, where we regard this ideology as a synonym of neoliberalism, libertarianism or the policy of the new right, which excludes deeper social thinking and the need of eliminating inequalities among people. The text has the ambition to point to the example of one of the most relevant followers of social line - John Dewey, to prove, that liberalism is, on the contrary, a deep social ideology which agrees with the possibility of negative consequences of the natural lottery on the individual or with the redistribution in society, which is often referred as the socialist instrument . The result of the text is to update and correctly interpret the social thinking of this ideology.

Liberalizmus súčasnosti naliehavo potrebuje sociálnu obrodu. Nekritickou diskusiou o jeho nedostatkoch i výhodách sme dopustili stav, kedy túto ideológiu pokladáme za synonymum neoliberalizmu, libertarianizmu či politiky novej pravice, ktorá vylučuje hlbšie sociálne myslenie a potrebu odstraňovania nerovností medzi ľuďmi. Príspevok má ambíciu poukázať na príklade jedného z otcov tejto ideológie – J. S. Milla, že je, naopak, hlboko sociálnym myšlienkovým prúdom, ktorý nevylučuje možnosť negatívnych
dopadov prírodnej lotérie na jednotlivca či redistribúciu v spoločnosti, ktorá je často označovaná ako nástroj socialistov. Výsledkom príspevku je aktualizácia a správna interpretácia sociálneho myslenia tejto ideológie.

As the world enters the digital and green revolution,
the risk of social exclusion increases. The COVID-19
pandemic, which is still very active in many corners
of Europe, is showing its social consequences.
Understanding the risks, the European Union (EU)
has approved an action plan: the European Pillar
of Social Rights (EPSR). According to the European
Commission, ‘the 20 principles of the European Pillar
of Social Rights are the beacon guiding us towards a
strong Social Europe and set the vision for our new
“social rulebook”. They express principles and rights
essential for fair and well-functioning labour markets
and welfare systems in 21st century Europe’ (ESPR
Action Plan 2021, 6). After the EPSR remained on
stand-by for a few years, in March 2021 the Action
Plan for the EPSR brought public attention back to
it. The plan sets out a long list of actions: i) three
headline targets for 2030; ii) a list of more detailed
actions which the Commission will take; iii) other
points where the member states are encouraged
to intervene; as well as iv) a revision of the Social
Scoreboard. Despite the optimism, and even though
the EPSR Action Plan is an achievement in a long
history for better social rights in the EU, many citizens
feel at bay. The impact of the financial crisis of 2008
to 2012 and the fragilities of the system exposed
by COVID-19 give many citizens a feeling of social
stagnation, fuelling new versions of nationalism and
illiberalism around the continent.
Through its eclectic 20 principles, the EPSR is
an opportunity to break silos and look at social
development as the network of challenges that it truly
is. Departing from the rather long history of European
social rights, the implementation of the EPSR must
follow a holistic approach, identifying synergies with
discussions it already hints at in its 20 principles.
In order to contribute to the identification of such
synergies, this paper attempts to shed light on three
transversal issues that national governments and
the European Commission must bear in mind when
implementing the EPSR: civil rights; labour relations;
and gender equality. The analysis departs from
the setting of the current model of welfare state in
post-World War II Europe and it ends with the Porto
Summit 2021, reflecting on the documents approved
and what they can mean for a post-COVID-19 Social
Europe.
The first section offers a historical and theoretical
analysis of the idea of ‘Social Europe’ in order to
frame the discussion. Looking at the many steps
and documents that brought Europe to this point,
this section looks at the role left-wing parties have
played in the evolution of the concept of Social
Europe. This section demonstrates the philosophical
legitimacy of the welfare state as well as the social
pillar. The analysis is based on the idea that the
different forces on the left should once again focus
on the traditional split line of positive and negative
freedom as those are precisely the politics of the left
that dominated the times when it drove the direction
of European policies.
The second section explores the relation between
social and civil rights. The growing number of mobile
Europeans poses challenges regarding access to
civil and social rights. The EU citizens studying or
working temporarily in a country other than their
home country see their rights limited, even though
they are directly benefiting from the space created
by the EU itself. Using access to voting rights as a
case study, in this section we explore how the EPSR
can be part of the solution.
The EPSR is largely concerned with workers’ rights,
which is a promising step forward for the European
left. In the third section we will address the topic of
labour relations, the conditions of workers in the
current conditions of the European labour market,
and the dominance of financial shareholders within
companies.
We will also deal with decent working and living
conditions as the cornerstone for a strong social
Europe.
The third issue in our analysis, explored in the fourth
section, is that of gender equality or equal pay for
women and men for equal work. In particular, we
look at the role of the main actors and interest
groups contributing to the inclusion of ‘Gender
Equality’ as a key EPSR principle. This part of our
work points out the fact that ‘for those who live in the
European Union, gender equality issues are still not
perfectly resolved and women are still confronted
with a degree of injustice, especially in the sphere of
unequal pay for equal work.
The final section places the discussion within the
context of the current pandemic. During the spring
of 2020, society witnessed many restrictive steps in
the field of the economy, which led to a significant
restriction on the economy. Various measures
which produce a number of questions regarding
the preservation of social rights even in times
of pandemic are well known. In this section we
emphasise the fact that the current epidemiological
situation cannot be the reason for the rising
inequalities and at the same time point out the
need for better preparation for similar situations in
the future. On the one hand, the EPSR must be at
the heart of the EU’s recovery strategy; on the other
hand, it must contribute to a swift transition through
green and digital transformations. This segment
concludes that the assumptions that the pandemic
hit Europe in times of prosperity is erroneous,
because, as the chapter shows, the ‘run-up’ of the
economic crisis does not automatically calm with
the economic growth. In fact, this means that the
overall economic recovery may not have taken place
in all EU countries, and thus the consequences of
the pandemic risk being all the stronger. Hence, this
section underlines how the synergies promoted by
the EPSR lie at the heart of the solution.
This paper was written between 2020 and 2021
during the COVID-19 pandemic. All work was done
remotely and none of the authors ever met each
other in person.
The paper is grounded on desk research and is the
reflection of the many events that took place during
its writing. The release of the EPSR Action Plan,
the Porto Declaration, and the Social Scoreboard
were all important events that continuously led
us to re-evaluate our arguments and proposals,
pushing us to be more ambitious. The feedback of
our academic mentor, Professor Matjaz Nahtigal,
of our political mentor, Member of the European
Parliament Alicia Homs, and of the FEPS YAN team,
Anja Skrzypek, Angelika Striedinger, and Elena
Gil, were fundamental for the achievement of this
research. We are very thankful for their comments.
With this paper we hope to contribute to the debate
on Social Europe, most certainly the most important
of this decade.

Slovak society has been facing the pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus for two years. These two years have struck a social organism on a planetary scale in a way that no one could have ever imagined, not even in any dystopian Hollywood blockbuster movie. The situation resulted in the modification of social life, despite political regimes and social orders. Changes due to restrictions ap-plied by national governments have affected every area of ordinary life, both socio-political and economic. The subject and purpose of these considerations is to assess the current state of civil and political society from the point of view of humanities and at the same time to evaluate a book that deals with this important topic in an interdisciplinary way. This book is considered unique, as there are just a few similar instances of assessment of the afore mentioned topic within the academia.

The ideology of liberalism is still relevant in the current political and philosophical discourse. However, through careful analysis, we find that liberalism, in the light of various influences, loses the status of a value ideology that is an equal partner to conservatism and socialism. Liberalism has become a prominent school of thought in family ideology, increasingly referring to economic and individualistic rationality. In our research, therefore, we seek to interpret one of the most important representatives of 20th century liberalism - John Rawls. Based on the analysis and our own interpretation, we try to prove that Rawls' work "A Theory of Justice" fundamentally changed the view of the individualistic form of liberalism and at the same time refutes the usual stereotypes about the mentioned ideology. In our study, we have tried to prove that Rawls' philosophy contains deeply social ideas and thus deviates from the tendentious and canonized notions of the non-social and individualistic conception of liberalism. The basic starting point for this statement is for us Rawls' recognition of the phenomenon of the "Natural Lottery" and its negative effects on the fate of individuals. We also present the authors' attitude to private property, which they do not consider inviolable and unlimited. In conclusion, we explain that the dominance of personal freedom over the public interest is approved by the author, but only in the case of a society that does not suffer from social difficulties. Otherwise, progressive taxation is possible based on Rawls theory. It is this argument that still serves the basic argument for the left-wing spectrum in defending this policy. The present study also aims to show, that this turnover did not occur only in the philosophy of the author, but also in the works of philosophers such as J. S. Mill and J. Dewey, who formed the social branch of liberalism before J. Rawls. Despite the existence of earlier socially oriented works, we consider J. Rawls' arguments to have been accepted in the second half of the 20th century as a philosophical justification for the essence of building a welfare state. The works of J. Rawls still represent a set of arguments that cannot be neglected when considering social justice.

Current trends in the development of transport are moving towards to an increasing degree of environmental friendliness, autonomy and a reduction of the cost of production of means of transport. At present we can observe social as well as political efforts to apply these approaches in transport in practice. In the segment of reliability, safety and speed of transport, we are experiencing the most dynamic progress in history. In the context of these trends, the social sciences consider as very necessary to think about the possible risks of implementing technical advances in transport in practice. Although national governments as well as European Commission regulations aim to promote sustainable transport and at the same time gradually regulate energy-inefficient and non-ecological modes of transport, it is necessary to ask whether the nation state has a legitimate right to restrict or force individuals to a particular type of transport for the public good.

The ideology of liberalism is not a closed intellectual space where inspiration
can no longer be found. Based on a comparison of three philosophers – Thomas
Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and their approaches to the key
concepts of freedom, autonomy and property, the article explains the context of
the historical evolution of liberalism in its early stages. The aim of the article is
to show that liberalism does not have just one understanding of these concepts.
In the context of this statement, we consider it as necessary to reconsider the
traditional view of liberalism as an ideology that promotes laissez-faire policy
and does not seek to actively counter social inequalities or to some extent interfere with the freedom and property rights of individuals