Įž algos / Insigh s 285
NAGLIS KARDELIS
The Uni e si y o Vilnius
ORCID id: o cid.o g/0000-0002-2179-3754 Di ec ions o
academic esea ch: philosophy o language,
philosophy o an iqui y, philosophy o he Middle Ages, philosophy o eligion.
This Regula ion shall en e in o o ce on he wen ie h day ollowing ha o i s publica ion in he O icial Jou nal o he Eu opean Union.
FILOSOFIJA IR GIMTOJI KALBA
The ques ion o wha language a philosophe should use o philosophize seems o be
e y simple, as is he answe o i : he language used o philosophize should be he
language used o hink […] because he essence o philosophy is he essence o
hinking, no jus any kind o hinking, bu he essence o alking and hinking. I one
is no comple ely imme sed, one hinks in one's na i e language, o mo e p ecisely,
one's mo he ongue, hen he answe o he ques ion o which language is mo e
sui able o philosophizing is al eady qui e clea and simple, especially om he
poin o iew o e e yday and pe sonal expe ience: one should philosophize in one's na i e language, one's mo he ongue.
Ne e heless, he ques ion in which a philosophe should philosophize, despi e i s
eal o supposed ease, is an essen ial philosophical ques ion equi ing e lec ion
and deepe heo e ical analysis. Al hough he o iginal un e lec ed in ui ion,
consis en wi h e e yday expe ience and common sense, ha philosophizing
should be done mo e in one's na i e language, should be conside ed co ec in
i sel , i is desi able o include his insigh in he heo e ical a gumen s
suppo ing i , and his is wha we will y o do in his a icle. Bu why should we
e en aise and conside his ques ion? Is i ele an and o wha speci ic
easons o na i e-language ad oca es and philosophe s hemsel es? Pe haps i is
possible o philosophize equally well in any o he language lea ned la e , so ha
philosophizing in o eign languages does no lose any hing nei he he mo he ongue no philosophy i sel ?
Looking a he his o y o secula philosophy, we can clea ly see ha he as
majo i y o g ea hinke s - om an iqui y o he p esen - w o e hei
philosophical wo ks in hei na i e language. Is i possible o imagine Pla o and
A is o le, philosophe s o he han he ancien G eeks speaking and w i ing, as well
as Soc a es ( hough he w o e no hing), he sneaky A henian ci izen […] o
communica ing wi h his own inne daemon […] some o eign language? O Kan , Hegel,
Nie zsche, and Heidegge , he philosophe s in Ge man? And how much mo e Sa e
o De ida, who w o e in non-F ench? Howe e , he e a e cases in he his o y o
secula philosophy when ex s o he highes heo e ical le el and linguis ic sub le y
NAGLIS KARDELIS
The Ac a Linguis ica Li huaniana (LXXIX) was w i en in Li huanian. The mos
s iking, hough no he only, examples o ep esen a i es o medie al scholas ic
philosophy w i en in La in, especially S . Tom Aquinas, he shops. Some Roman
hinke s, such as Cice o, we e so p o icien in he ancien G eek language ha
hey no only ansla ed i in o hei na i e La in, bu e en Cice o - he c ea o
kalbą Pla ono dialogus, be i gebėjo g aikiškai iloso uo i bei saky i e o ines
o philosophical La in - pu his powe o hough and speech o he bes use in he
s ich o his na i e La in. The in ellec ual Roman empe o Ma cus Au elius, du ing
his mili a y campaign, w o e in G eek a dia y no o be published, bu only o
himsel . A e he dea h o he ca e , hese insc ip ions, in which he unbo n
language opens o i sel he sec e s o he mos in ima e soul seeking he
meaning o li e, we e published, we migh say, agains he will o he au ho
himsel , and om ha ime on hey a e known o he whole wo ld by he eloquen
name gi en by he publishe s […] […]Sau pačiam[…].
I we go back o he his o y o Li huanian philosophy, we see ha in he days o he
LDK, he old Li huanian philosophy was c ea ed mainly in La in by ep esen a i es o
a ious peoples li ing in he s a e, including e hnic Li huanians. This de e mined he
hen s a us o La in as a uni e sal medium o he expansion and dissemina ion o
Eu opean science. The con ou s o mode n Li huanian philosophy began o eme ge a
he end o he 19 h cen u y, wi h he onse o he na ional e i al mo emen , which he
pe cei ed pe ec ly and cons an ly emphasized in his w i ings he impo ance o he
na i e Li huanian language o he awakening and educa ion o he na ion. Howe e ,
e en he mos eminen hinke s o his pe iod, such as S asys Šalkauskis, whom we
could conside he ounde s o mode n Li huanian philosophy, w o e hei doc o al
disse a ions in a o eign language while s udying ab oad. Al hough S asys Šalkauskis,
P anas Ku ai is, An anas Maceina, Juozas Gi nius and o he p ominen Li huanian
hinke s o he in e wa pe iod we e able o w i e philosophical ex s in o eign
languages, hei con ibu ion o Li huanian philosophy is mos app ecia ed aking in o
accoun he Li huanian-w i en philosophical ex s o hese hinke s and he wo k o
Li huanian philosophical c ea ion, especially he o ma ion o he e m Li huanian
philosophy. The case o he eloquen and in e wa Russian philosophe Le Ka sa in in
Li huania: his hinke lea ned he Li huanian language pe ec ly, so he was able o
w i e no only wo ks o philosophy and cul u al his o y in Li huanian, bu also au ho 's
philosophical ex s, bu , despi e his, he mos aluable philosophical and heological
wo ks o Ka sa in we e w i en in na i e Russian.
I is no di icul o see a ce ain deg ee o consis ency wi h he speci ic his o ical
ci cums ances ha explain why, a ce ain pe iods o he de elopmen o
philosophy, hinke s had o philosophize in a o eign language: each ime a pa icula
cul u e and i s ela ed language, such as he language o ha cul u e, became he
basis o a cul u e ha claimed a g ea e o lesse deg ee o uni e sali y, his
cul u e also became dominan in ha geog aphical egion and ime. No only he
Filoso ija i gim oji kalba
cul u al p es ige o he dominan lingua anca, bu also he acili a ion o cul u al
and academic communica ion i sel led o a single sphe e o science and cul u e. Fo
example, in he Ch is ian Eu ope o he Middle Ages and he New Age, Jewish
na ionalis hinke s w o e hei philosophical wo ks in La in, while Islamic
a ki os uni e salia apusios a ne o maliai okia p ipažin os kalbos įsigalėjimą
ci iliza ions w o e hem in A abic. An in e es ing and eloquen example is ha o
he b illian Jewish philosophe and poe Solomon ibn Gabi ol (A iceb on): he w o e
eligious and secula poe y in Heb ew, and a philosophy o ex ao dina y sub le y in
A abic. In he geog aphical a ea, which o a long ime was cul u ally domina ed by
Indian ci iliza ion, hinke s o a ious peoples w o e hei philosophical ex s mos ly
in Sansk i , which was he lingua anca o he a ea.
I we ecognize ha e e y ue science mus be uni e sal in i s con en and
o m and uni e sally alid, and i we also conside ha philosophy is a science o a
ce ain kind, i is no di icul o unde s and why, in he con ex o a ce ain
ci iliza ion, philosophy was expec ed o become a uni e sal science, c ea ed by a
uni e sal language. The ecogni ion o he s a us o one o ano he uni e sal
language is based on he assump ion ha human na u e i sel , like all human
expe ience, is uni e sal in i s deepes essence, independen o local cul u al
di e ences, and he e o e can be exp essed in uni e sally alid philosophical
concep s ha all speake s o he uni e sal philosophical language a e able o
c ea e and use.
Unlike he seman ically plas ic language o g aphic ex s, which is cha ac e ized
by he plu ali y o wo ds and in which he clus e s o wo ds used in di ec and
pe iphe al meanings play ully in e wine and in e sec , scien i ic language
ope a es wi h e ms wi h s ic ly de ined meanings. The meaning o he e ms
used in he na u al sciences o desc ibe empi ical eali y does no depend on he
peculia i ies o speci ic human cul u es, which a e con eyed in di e en
languages in he beau i ul li e a u e, and does no e lec hese peculia i ies.
Since he e ms o science […] especially na u al science […] lack cul u al
speci ici y, which is easy o exp ess in he mo he ongue, de eloped in he soil o
one's own cul u e, language, bu di icul o con ey in o he languages, exp essing
he na u e o o he cul u es, scien i ic ex s a e no di icul o ansla e in o
o he languages because o he e ms used. In ac , he e is no much - o any -
di e ence in he way a na u al ex is w i en in language, because ega dless o
he language, i s ill con eys he same scien i ic in o ma ion, in no way ela ed o
he speci ici ies o human cul u es. When i is assumed ha he e is no
di e ence in he language in which scien i ic ex s a e w i en, he iew
na u ally a ises ha he e y di e si y o he languages in which science is
w i en and i s de e mining necessi y o ansla e scien i ic ex s om one language o ano he only leads o a was e o human esou ces.
NAGLIS KARDELIS
288 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXXIX does no gi e any addi ional alue o he
ansla ion, bu o he subjec i sel . The conclusion is he e o e consis en ha ,
in iew o he uni e sali y and globali y o science and in o de o acili a e
scien i ic communica ion, i is necessa y o encou age he use o a leas one o
mokslininkus, kalbančius ski ingomis gim osiomis kalbomis, mokslinio bend-
he languages al eady widely used in science in he ield o de elopmen o
di e en na ionali ies. Simila o La in in he academic wo ld o medie al Eu ope,
he lingua anca o science globally in ou ime has become English. Howe e , e en
i we hough ha he wo ld's science, p oduced by a leas one dominan language,
would no lose any hing in i sel , and pe haps e en win his o ha , we would s ill
ha e o admi ha he delibe a e exclusion o local languages om he ield o
science would g ea ly impo e ish na ional languages and cul u es. Science is no
only a peculia o m o human in ellec ual ela ion o eali y, bu also an impo an
pa o high cul u e, o ming, so o speak, a sepa a e egis e o human
expe ience, so i we enounce ou igh and du y o c ea e science in na ional
languages, we would elimina e om hem he en i e egis e o human expe ience
along wi h he possibili y o i s exp ession in he language i sel . The sciences and
he a s a e he pinnacle o man's spi i ual ac i i y, his highes spi i ual
expe ience, and i his highes spi i ual ac i i y and expe ience is no ini ially
spoken and communica ed in he na ional language, i loses wha we migh call i s
uppe loo and oo , i s spi i ual and social p es ige, i s digni y, i s a ac i eness
and i s communica i e cha ism, and he e o e g adually begins o all o he lowes
and lowes le els: om he a ea o he lowe chambe s o he a ea o he lowe
chambe s. The language, which al eady speaks only o po a oes in he ki chen, will
ine i ably end up in he ki chen's ga bage can along wi h po a o peels.
E en i i does no add any alue o global science i sel , he w i ing o scien i ic
ex s and he c ea ion o scien i ic e minology in local languages de elops and
ma u es na ional cul u es, which by hei e y exis ence and p ospe i y make an
impo an con ibu ion o he de elopmen o wo ld cul u e. I is also impo an
o emphasize ha science is much mo e han a science o na u e, al hough i is
o en conside ed he s anda d o science because o i s accu acy. I we conside
he disciplines o he humani ies in gene al o be sciences, namely he sciences o
man, i is necessa y o ecognize ha hey analyze human eali y no only in e ms
o he uni e sali y o human expe ience, bu also in e ms o i s locali y. Unlike
na u e, humani ies, which is conce ned wi h bo h he uni e sali y o human
expe ience and i s di e si y in geog aphical loca ion and his o ical ime, no only
akes in o accoun he peculia i ies o cul u es, bu also pays special a en ion o
i as an objec o s udy o he g ea es in e es and espec . Al hough he
humani ies also seek o c ea e a s ic sys em o scien i ic e ms, and o make
he sciences hemsel es as p ecise as possible, he objec s o he humani ies
Filoso ija i gim oji kalba
hemsel es, wha e e hey may be, a e no sepa a ed om cul u al peculia i ies,
so hey a e a om being he same as hose discussed in science. Humani a ian
science ex s w i en only in Ra, wi hou a doub , can also be ansla ed in o o he
languages, bu wi hou a oiding a leas minimal loss o dis o ion o he meaning
con eyed. Humani a ian wo ks a e much mo e di icul o ansla e in o o he
languages han na u al languages, since ce ain subjec s ela ed o cul u al
peculia i ies may be easie o name and explain in one language han in ano he . So
e en i we conside he humani ies o be a science (and we ha e a basis o doing
so), he ex s o he humani ies w i en in di e en languages somewha
esemble he wo ks o ic ion w i en in hose languages - al hough i is possible
o ansla e some and o he s a leas sa is ac o ily in o o he languages, nei he
o which can be ansla ed unnecessa ily, wi hou g ea e o lesse lack o
meaning, excess o dis o ion. Jus as a ansla o o a humani a ian ex w i en
in a local language in o a language o global science ha is conside ed uni e sal will
ne e be able o ansla e ha ex wi hou losing some o i s meaning, so a
humani a ian schola who ini ially ied o w i e his wo k no in his na i e language
bu in he language o global science will no be able o con ey his hough s as he
would when w i ing in his na i e language. Obedience o he insis ence ha he
humani a ian, like he ep esen a i es o he na u al sciences, e en ually mo e o
a single uni e sal language o science, will do e en mo e damage han in he ield o
na u al sciences: he exclusion o local languages om he humani a ian would be
no only, as in he case o na u al sciences, only one o he o he na ional language
and cul u e, bu also he impo e ishmen o he wo ld's cul u e, wi hou
unde mining he global science i sel . In cases whe e he objec o s udy i sel is
essen ially ela ed o he peculia i ies o languages and cul u es, he abili y o
p ope ly pe cei e and adequa ely scien i ically explain ha objec depends a
leas in pa on he angle o iew gi en o he esea che by he pa icula
language, and in gene al on he sub le means o linguis ic exp ession.
Bu le 's go back o he ela ionship be ween philosophy and mo he ongue. The
ques ion o wha he philosophe loses by e using o hink, speak and w i e in his
na i e language is ela ed o wo o he ques ions: is philosophy in gene al a science,
and i so, o whom - he na u alis s o he humanis s - will he app oach his na u e.
Wes e n philosophy, bo n in ancien G eece, can be conside ed he mo he o all
sciences and he c adle o science. Bo h philosophy and he sciences ha gi e ise
o i a ise om man's desi e o know and unde s and he wo ld a ound him, a e
based on he c i ical powe s o he mind and cul i a e a a ional ela ionship wi h
eali y. Howe e , philosophy goes beyond he speci ic sciences by abs ac ly […]
o ming me hodological app oaches o he applied sciences, i e lec s and
suppo s he achie emen s o o he scien i ic disciplines, and hus exp esses
i sel as a sup ascience o science abou sciences (me ascience). Bu philosophy, especially unde s ood as i was unde s ood by i s c ea o s, he G eeks, is called

NAGLIS KARDELIS
290 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXXIX
o e lec no only on he ou e eali y bu also on he inne wo ld o man, on he
spi i ual expe ience o he hinke , and o p opose bold isions o he
ans o ma ion o human being. Philosophy, e en i in some espec s i can be
conside ed a science, a sup ascience o a me aphysics, is a om being me ely a
science - i is also ela ed o he a s, because i in i es us no only o know and
bei ha moniją, a skleisdama nuo empi inių ak ų nep iklausomą e inių i es-
unde s and he wo ld, bu also o con empla e i s g ea ness, he beau y o i s
alues, he abs ac a icula ion o man's aes he ic expe ience and he
consequences o his e hical choices. In he classical concep o he se en libe al
a s […] se en libe al a s […] he idea o he kinship o he a s and sciences
cul i a ed by he ee man is clea ly seen: a e all, he se en ee a s can also be
called he se en ee sciences, because he La in wo d a s and i s G eek
p edecesso echnē, meaning mas e y in a pa icula ield, can e e o bo h a
and science. Among he se en libe al a s, we also ind disciplines ha we would now
call sciences, namely a i hme ic, geome y, and as onomy, and hose ha we would
undoub edly conside he menu, namely music. The idea o he kinship o classical
sciences and a s is also exp essed in he nine a eas supe ised by he Museums,
some o which we would now call science and some o which we would call a .
The ci cums ances o he bi h and de elopmen o philosophy in ancien G eece a e
a ine example o how umpa egis philosophy can be ega ded as a me e science,
despi e he ac ha i can be ega ded as he c adle o science, he mo he o
science, he science o all science, o a kind o sup eme science. The ac ha
philosophy is no jus a science […] o ha i is no jus a science o jus ano he
science, es i ies, among o he hings, o he di e en his o ical a e o he
esul s o philosophical hinking compa ed o he a e o scien i ic achie emen s.
On he one hand, philosophy, unlike science, which seeks o e eal he e e nally alid
laws o na u e and o e eal he " inal u h" abou hem in s ic ly ma hema ical
e ms, has ne e claimed o p o ide inal answe s o he undamen al ques ions o
being, unless i o e s hypo he ical a ian s o such inal answe s. Howe e ,
despi e he modes y o his philosophy, no o he philosophy c ea ed in ancien imes
is as hopelessly ou da ed as any science o ancien imes. Thus, he me aphysics o
he ancien G eeks emains in e es ing and ele an no only o he his o y o
philosophy bu also o mode n philosophy, and wha we would call he physics o he
ancien G eeks (no in he ancien sense, bu p ecisely in he mode n sense o he
apsk i ai nesens a – a ba ji nė a linkusi sen i aip g ei ai, kaip sens a mokslas.
wo d "physics") is no ele an o anyone excep he his o ians o science. We could
igh ly a gue ha mode n Wes e n philosophy, un o una ely, did no p ese e no
only he idea o he uni y o he a s and sciences, bu also he concep s o classical
philosophy, which sough o co e and combine he expe ience o he a s and
sciences wi h a heo e ical iew, while ele a ing i o an e en highe le el o
Filoso ija i gim oji kalba
uni e sali y. The ins umen al a ionali y o mode n Wes e n consciousness has
a ally unde mined wha we would call he sepa a ion o science om he a s, o
he schism o he egis e s o science and a , o he expe ience o scien i ic and
a is ic eali y in con empo a y Wes e n cul u e. This schism is seen no only in he
la ge-scale social and cul u al p ac ice o con empo a y socie y, in which he wo lds
o science and a a e like wo un ela ed wo lds, bu also in con empo a y
philosophy i sel , as in he adical philosophical schism, in he so-called analy ical
(which is mainly p ac iced in he Anglo-Saxon lands) and he so-called con inen al
( o med in mainland Eu ope) di ec ion. This philosophical schism is he basis o
hinking abou he impo ance o he mo he ongue in philosophy. Analy ical
philosophy pe cei es and de ines i sel no e en as a science, bu almos as a na u al
science o a science o i s own kind. Un o una ely, ha ing inhe i ed om ancien
G eek philosophy he pu sui o a ional inqui y in o eali y, i has la gely los he
exis en ial, meaning ul dimension o philosophical hinking. The achie emen s in
physics, neu oscience, e olu iona y psychology, in o ma ion heo y, no o men ion
he la es ends in logic, a e a mo e in e es ing and impo an o he han wha
is happening in any humanis ic discipline. Philosophy, aken as a whole, adi ionally
belongs o he humani ies, a e y impo an pa o i , le 's say, he la ge and mo e
in luen ial pa o i , namely analy ical philosophy, is dehumanized and dehumanized
o such an ex en ha o call i a humani a ian discipline would be almos
con adic o y in adjec i e. The e ms used in he language o analy ic philosophy
ex s a e s ic ly de ined and he e o e unambiguous, and common wo ds o en
eplace logical o mulas. The language o hese ex s usually does no e lec he
singula exis en ial human expe ience o he peculia i ies o local cul u es. The
au ho s o wo ks o analy ic philosophy me hodically a oid using me apho s and
o he opes, so ex s o analy ic philosophy, as well as wo ks o exac sciences,
a e ela i ely easy o ansla e in o o he languages. Since he mo he ongue does
no add any alue o he w i ing o analy ical philosophy ex s, especially in he
o mula ion o a gumen s, he e is no di e ence in he way hey a e w i en, and
since his end has his o ically o med in he Anglo-Saxon wo ld, he ex s o
analy ical philosophy, ega dless o hei au ho s' na ionali y, a e usually w i en in
English. In his way, human esou ces a e sa ed and scien i ic communica ion is
acili a ed, since analy ical philosophy i sel is almos en i ely pe sonalized and
pe cei ed as a collec i e hough p ojec , a he han he ui o au ho 's
philosophical wo k. Simila ly, in philosophy, which we could call secula ized and
kaip lo ynų kalba scholas inėje Vidu amžių iloso ijoje, šiuolaikinėje anali inėje
me aphysical scholas icism oday, English domina es. The blindness o analy ical
philosophy o he des iny o human exis ence, human pu sui o meaning, as well as
he peculia i ies o local cul u es, by he way, p o ides no basis o unde es ima ing
he achie emen s o analy ical philosophy,
NAGLIS KARDELIS
292 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXXIX which a e indeed imp essi e,
eminiscen in hei impo ance and undamen ali y o he esul s o mode n
na u al science.
Unlike analy ical philosophy, which ope a es on mo e han one-dimensional concep s,
con inen al philosophy, despi e i s own echnicali y, elies much mo e on he
plas ici y o e e yday language, he ese es o opical exp essions, and he play
o wo ds and di e en meanings o he same wo d is used o con ey he essence o
philosophical in ui ions. Exis en ialism, phenomenology, philosophical he meneu ics,
pos s uc u alism, and pos mode n philosophy all ha e hei own specialized
ocabula y o e ms, bu he au ho s ep esen ing hese cu en s o philosophical
hinking, whe e new concep s a e spoken by philosophe s, also u n o he powe o
e e yday language, as well as o hei own pe sonal expe ience o exis ence, which is
bes exp essed by hei na i e language. When con on ed wi h wo ks belonging o
he con inen al philosophical adi ion, i is clea ha he na i e language o hei
au ho s has a clea and conside able in luence on he philosophical in ui ions
exp essed in ha language. Some o he sub le insigh s o Ma in Heidegge o
Jacques De ida canno gene ally be ansla ed in o any o he language, say, in o
some "uni e sal" language o science, such as English, wi hou much meaning. We can
only p ope ly unde s and Heidegge by eading he Ge man o iginals o his wo ks, and
we can only unde s and De ida by enjoying his philosophical F ench wo ds in he
o iginal ex s o his hinke .
I is ue ha he ex s o philosophe s ep esen ing con inen al philosophy can
be ansla ed in o o he languages, bu only oughly, wi hou a oiding he loss o
meaning, dis o ion o unwan ed addi ional meanings. The wo ks o Heidegge and
De ida, as well as he wo ks o many o he hinke s in he adi ion o
con inen al philosophy, a e no , as is he case wi h he wo ks o au ho s
ep esen ing analy ical philosophy, in any way dis inguishable om he language in
which hey a e w i en. Ob iously, hese hinke s hemsel es we e well awa e o
his di e ence - hey would no ha e no iced ha hey we e able o exp ess hei
hough s as accu a ely no in hei na i e language, bu in some philosophical
lingua anca. Simila ly, he dependence o philosophical hough on he language in
which i is exp essed, he egime and classical philosophy, exis ed e en be o e he
di ision o Wes e n philosophy in o analy ical and con inen al. Al hough ancien
G eek philosophy, cha ac e ized by espec o a ionali y and he pu sui o
clea and unambiguous hough , and con empo a y analy ical philosophy ha e many
kinių mąs y ojų eks uose is da pulsuoja p igim inės kalbos gy ybė, ad ga-
commonali ies and commonali ies, we a e opposed o claiming ha he ancien
adi ion o philosophical hough is in some espec s simila o con empo a y
con inen al philosophy. Anyone who has ead he G eek o iginals o Pla o's
dialogues is well awa e ha no ansla ion in o o he languages will e e be as
Filoso ija i gim oji kalba
accu a e o as powe ul as hei s. The gap be ween G eek o iginals and hei
ansla ions in o new languages is e en mo e p onounced in he case o he
icosoc a ics, especially he deeply hough ul and mul i ace ed speake s, such as
He acli us, in he agmen s o his wo ks. A is o le, whose philosophical concep s
a e now used in s ic e ms, is easie o g asp by eading no his ansla ions
bu he G eek o iginals o his ea ises - despi e he ac ha we may speak he
ancien G eek wo se han ou na i e o new o eign languages. So we don' e en
ha e he absu d idea ha he ancien G eek philosophe s didn' ha e any
dis inc ion in he way hey w o e hei immo al wo ks, jus as we who ead
hese ex s don' ha e any dis inc ion in he way we ead hem.
The ancien G eeks, in de eloping Wes e n philosophy as a p ojec o a comple ely
new spi i ual ela ionship wi h eali y, sough o achie e a philosophical wo ld iew
in which he expe ience o he indi idual exis en ial hinke was ha monized wi h
he mo e uni e sal expe ience o he en i e e hnic o poli ical communi y.
Con a y o wha is some imes hough , he hinking o ancien man was no
pe sonalized, no ela ed o expe ience. On he con a y, i was he philosophically
hough -ou conc e e exis en ial expe ience o he ancien man ha enabled him
o pe cei e wha anscends he indi idual expe ience o each pe son and gi es i a
uni e sal dimension. In he con ex o ancien hough , he ela ionship be ween
expe ience and na u e is e y impo an : how he expe ience o a pa icula
pe son can become ele an o he whole communi y, becoming pa o i s
expe ience, o e en acqui ing a mo e uni e sal cosmic dimension, can only be
unde s ood by seeing he pe sonali y o he pe son, he supe na u al eali y o
he communi y and he communi y o people i sel . Es ablished as a comple ely new
o m o ela ionship wi h eali y, G eek philosophy, e lec ing he wo ld and he
p ocesses aking place in i , had o e lec bo h he indi idual na u e o he
indi idual, bo h he na u al ounda ions o he exis ence o a pa icula poli ical
communi y, and he uni e sal na u e o he whole cosmos, all o de ly and ha monious eali y.
The essen ial cons an a en ion o na u e, cha ac e is ic o ancien hinking,
also allows us o g asp he impo ance o na u al languages - in o he wo ds,
na i e languages - o philosophical hinking, as unde s ood by he ancien
G eeks. The connec ion be ween he undamen al expe ience and na u e, o
which we seek o d aw a en ion, allows us o see he connec ion be ween he
conc e e and he abs ac , he pu pose and he uni e sali y, he local and he
global, which is o g ea impo ance no only o an iqui y bu also o he
dėl o būdas, ku iuo pe asmeninę pa i į a andame p igim inę sa o pačių i
philosophy o o he epochs: expe ience is na u ally linked o he conc e e and
he indi idual, and na u e o he abs ac and he uni e sal, he hea o all
eali y, he ule o he common na u e.