LUMEN NASHS 2020 – ANTONIO SANDU: WHEN ACADEMIC FREEDOM GOES AGAINST POLITICAL (IN)CORRECTNESS
Virtual presentation within THE 7th LUMEN CONFERENCE NASHS 2020 | JUNE 25-26 | ONLINE CONFERENCE By: Antonio Sandu (”Stefan cel Mare” University of Suceava, Romania) Presentation title: ”When Academic Freedom Goes Against Political (In)correctness” This presentation was recorded the 17th of June, a day after the criticized law Project was adopted by the Romanian Parliament. Abstract: The paper starts from a critical analysis of a proposal to amend the Romanian National Education Law, which prohibits in any educational institution – including universities – the exposure in any form of gender identity theory which states that gender identity does not absolutely coincide with the sex with which the individual was born. We believe that such a ban limits academic freedom, the freedom of expression, the university autonomy, introduces the premises for censorship of research, making very difficult and practically prohibiting gender studies. This is, in our opinion, intolerable, as long as politics intervenes in the choice of research topics and censors the presentation of scientific theories, even if they are rejected by the majority of the population and possibly by the entire scientific community. Instead of censoring politically undesirable theories, the epistemological distancing of the researcher from the expressed theories should be supported as well as the expression of the methodological reservation regarding a possible subsequent invalidation of the theory. From ethical point of view, the delimitation of academic freedom opens the way for discretionary manifestation in education and research and for discrimination on the basis of political opinion or even on the basis of gender criteria or gender orientation.
LUMEN NASHS2020 -GABRIELA NEAGU: ANOTHER DIMENSION OF INEQUALITY IN EDUCATION – DIGITAL INEQUALITIES
Virtual presentation within THE 7th LUMEN CONFERENCE NASHS 2020 | JUNE 25-26 | ONLINE CONFERENCE By: Gabriela Neagu (Research Institute for Quality of Life, Bucharest, Romania) Presentation title: ”Another Dimension of Inequality in Education – Digital Inequalities” Abstract: The priority objective of the authorities in the context of the current health crisis is to maintain a balance between protecting the health of the population and the functioning of social systems as close as possible to normal. Regarding the educational system, the closure of educational institutions is the measure by which the health of students and teachers is protected and the relocation of educational activity online is part of the measures to “normalize” the functionality of the system. The decision taken by the authorities on how to carry out educational activity in times of crisis is a compromise that does not solve one of the major problems of our education system: the inability to use successfully modern technology in the educational process. Objective: Analysis of digital inequalities in the Romanian education system. Methodology: To analyze this type of inequality we will use a quantitative methodology and we will analyze the databases PISA 2018 and ISCWeB 2017. Conclusions: One of the most important conclusions of the data analysis is that both the results of PISA 2108 and other international research, warned the Romanian authorities that our education system is severely deficient in terms of digital infrastructure, educational software and the digital skills of students and teachers. Another conclusion is that, in Romania, access to modern technology, digital skills have a direct relationship with socio-economic, family, cultural inequalities, etc. from different categories of population.
LUMEN NASHS 2020 – OLGA POROSHENKO: WHO ARE WE: LIMITS OF WESTERN RATIONALITY
Virtual presentation within THE 7th LUMEN CONFERENCE NASHS 2020 | JUNE 25-26 | ONLINE CONFERENCE By: Olga Poroshenko (Kazan State University of Architecture and Engineering, Kazan, Russia) Presentation title: ”Who Are We: Limits of Western Rationality” Abstract: If we don’t go deep into scientific definitions and interpretations, then such words as “Self”, “Subjectivity”, “Internal World” appear to be the same. At least, they all stand for something inside the human, inside the intimate spiritual world that is hidden from curious eyes. That all would be fine and even congruent with us, like in “macrocosm” if only that internal world was not so fragile. What terrible tragedies do we experience when confronted in minor internal conflicts with others arising from “misunderstanding”, “non-inclusion” and “disrespect”, not to mention life tragedies, such as “disregard”, “solitude” and “self-destruction”. “To be or not to be?” that is the question the rational western “I” asks the self. There is only one answer to this question – “to be”. And it is not just “to be” it is to exist: to act, to create, to move forward. In one word to be a Subject. So, western personas, you and I, face an insolvable contradiction: we want to create, as we are subjects, not stupid animals, but postmodernists forbid us. Since it is forbidden to change the external world, there is only one choice: to refute the external world (as old) and turn your gaze into yourself. Compared to East people, we, people of the West, have limited imagination. In our fantasies or scientific theories, if you wish, we cannot go beyond – over the limit: finite – infinite, knowable – unknowable, immanent – transcendent, profane – sacred, expressible – inexpressible, etc., etc. Thanks to “protestants’ ethics” or contrary to it, rational West arrived at its last harbour, which it named “Dasein” and that’s it. The hole was made in Existence and the ship leaked. If we freed our mind from pragmatic chains, we would clearly see that sociological problem of self-identification is a more fundamental problem, it is a problem of self-justification of “my I”, i.e. a problem of my personal anthropodicity. “Who is he?” is “his” problem, let “him” think of it. I will never understand “who” she/he is, if I don’t understand “who” I am. We need something rational and technologically sound. We are used to living according to the “idea”, sample and model. We are the children of paternalist culture. Give us a theory and we will live according to it! Therefore, a western “internal observer” is a sober reflexing “I”, the subject of our subjectivity, and the object for it is not “external”, but “internal” world and everything that is presented in it: Existence, God, Cosmos, Brahman etc. The external world is an objectivation of the internal one. For the external world the principle of reflection is replaced by the principle of interpretation. There are a lot of objectifications of the internal world like multiple Atman modes. Objective modes of the human internal world are represented in all spheres of human activity: science, culture, art etc. The question- What is the meaning of being-Dasein? can be posed only if ontology does not turn into a doctrine of the totally closed existence of entity. A man must understand what he is inside from the very beginning, and this “beginning” lies deeper than his “ontology”. “I myself” suggests not only heroism but also loneliness. A man is alone from the beginning and forever. “I am alone” is an axiom and with a greater degree of certainty than “I think”. Solitude is an ontological state that “captures” a person completely: rationally, emotionally, socially, existentially and physically. It is at this “moment of truth” that we realize and experience our self, our final and last “I”. Our new Robinson is an authentic subject aware of his uniqueness recognizing himself and “his” always and everywhere: space, culture, society, God, another person. He does not care whether to return to “civilization” or stay in the wild. His “I” is always “above”, “over”, “meta”, etc. Having realised and accepted our solitude, we become free. Only after going this way, you can allow yourself to “return” to the other “I” s, to society, because now we will not demand from our neighbor that which he could never give away – his “I”. However, the oriental metaphysics is impenetrable to the West. Attempts to search for a “common” language have been made more than once. The entire “esoteric” line of European philosophy from Plato to Heidegger can be called the “technique of translating” oriental metaphysics into the language of European science. Our western “Universal Spirit” is the same as that of the Indians, i.e. one for all. Therefore, it is up to the East to demonstrate it, and the West – to describe it, to each their own. And there will be “world peace”, tolerance and homogeneity!
