Inter-University Centre Dubrovnik

An independent international centre for advanced studies

31 | The future of religion:<BR>Personal autonomy and universal solidarity - reconciliation?

Duration
21 Apr 2003 - 26 Apr 2003
Language
English
Status
REGULAR
Course directors:
Gottfried Küenzlen, University of Bundeswehr München, Germany
Mislav Kukoč, University Department of Croatian Studies, University of Zagreb, Croatia
Dinka Marinović-Jerolimov, Institute for Social Research, Zagreb, Croatia
Diana Moxley, University of South Florida, United States
Tatiana Senyushkina, Vernadsky CF University, Russia
Rudolf J. Siebert, Western Michigan University, United States
Nikola Skledar, Institute for Social Research, Zagreb, Croatia
Course description:
27th International Course on
"The Future of Religion: Personal Autonomy and
Universal Solidarity - Reconciliation?
IUC, Dubrovnik, Croatia,
April 21-26,2003
Our new theme is certainly of highest actuality in the present world-historical transition- and
crisis - situation: can personal autonomy and universal, i.e. anamnetic or remembering,
present and proleptic or anticipatory solidarity, rooted in the human potentials of language
and memory and the struggle for recognition, be reconciled not only on the personal level of
subjectivity and inter-subjectivity, but also even in the familial, social, economic, political and
historical or international and in the cultural, i.e. esthetical, religious and philosophical-
scientific sphere? How can modem or post-modem marriage partners or family members or
friends or lovers balance autonomy and solidarity, distance and closeness, freedom and
commitment? How can a religious believer be tolerant and open and inclusive versus other
believers or disbelievers with a different interpretation of reality and a different orientation of
action and can still preserve his or her own identity and autonomy? How can a nation belong
to the UN and still preserve its full autonomy and vice versa? How can a nation belong to the
EC and still preserve its sovereignty and vice versa? How can one include the other without
losing oneself and vice versa? These questions retain their relevance into the present social
and historical situation and context particularly because the antagonism between the religious
and the secular, the sacred and the profane, monotheism and modernity, faith and
enlightenment, which we maybe thought had somewhat been mitigated, has nevertheless
radically been opened up and deepened again.