No description available.

As the war in Syria is about to enter its seventh year, Syrians continue to head towards Europe to seek safety and protection. This challenges European countries to provide urgent relief and services including education for a high number of Syrian refugees every year. However, the journey of Syrian refugees does not end with their arrival to safety. The refugee experience presents many difficulties including issues of wellbeing and self-worth. This qualitative comparative study examines the different platforms and solutions Mobile Learning could offer to refugees. In addition to that, it also discusses the possibility of leveraging Mobile Learning as a mean for Syrian refugees in Europe to achieve a sense of self-worth from the Kantian perspective of agency. The study starts with a comprehensive overview of the meaning of the term ‘refugee’ and the refugee experience, then it moves on to identify Mobile Learning and its impact and relationship to the recent refugee crisis. Then, the study introduces the Kantian philosopher Christine Korsgaard and her idea of agency, action, identity and value. The literature review after that discusses Korsgaard’s philosophy and links it to refugees and Mobile Learning. After viewing the research methods and methodology, the study comparatively analyses and discusses findings drawn from semi-structured interviews of 10 participants pertaining to the use of Mobile Learning platforms for higher education and language learning. The implications of these findings are that Syrian refugees in Europe have access to Mobile Learning platforms that vary in use and quality. However, when these platforms are used successfully, they do have the potential to support refugees’ sense of self-worth. The study then ends with a conclusion and suggestions for future research.

Moralės normatyvumo problema yra klausimas, kas pagrindžia moralės mums keliamus reikalavimus ir iš kur jie kyla. Šiame darbe teigiama, jog Christinos Korsgaard neokantiškas atsakas į normatyvumo klausimą yra sėkmingas: kantiškos prielaidos leido Korsgaard produktyviai suformuluoti normatyvumo klausimą, o šių prielaidų sintezė su psichologine praktinės tapatybės koncepcija leidžia vertinti Korsgaard normatyvumo problemos sprendimą kaip novatorišką ir bene sėkmingiausią neokantišką atsaką. Pirma, Korsgaard koncepcija sėkminga būtent dėl neokantiškų prielaidų – tai išryškėja internalizmo / eksternalizmo kontroversijos kontekste. Eksternalistai padalija pagrindimo bei motyvavimo funkcijas atitinkamai įsitikinimui ir troškimui, todėl teorinio reikalavimų pagrindimo sėkmė nelemia motyvacinės sėkmės: ryšys tarp jų atsitiktinis. Didžioji dalis internalistų (intuityvistai, ekspresyvistai, neohiumininkai) moralinių sprendinių pagrindimą laiko neįmanomu iš principo. Neokantiškos pozicijos pamatinė orientacija į pagrindimo užduotį ir proto funkcijų samprata, įgalinanti būtiną ryšį tarp diskursyvaus pagrindimo bei motyvacijos veiksmui, leidžia jiems bene vieninteliams iš kontroversijos dalyvių matyti normatyvumo klausimą kaip prasmingą ir į jį atsakyti. Antra, Korsgaard neokantiškas atsakas sėkmingas dėl to, kad susidoroja su Kanto etikos trūkumais: neredukuoja normatyvumo į formalųjį jo aspektą. Kantiškoje tradicijoje pamatinis veikėjo autonomijos normatyvumas perkeliamas tam tikriems... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / Problem of moral normativity is a question of what justifies the claims that morality makes on us and of their source. In this thesis we claim that the answer to this problem proposed by Ch. Korsgaard is a success as a Kantian account. First, the analysis of the internalism / externalism controversy lets us to conclude, that the success of Korsgaard’s conception of normativity was granted, first of all, by its Neo-Kantian premisses. Externalists split justificatory and motivational functions between resp. belief and desire therefore, theoretical success of justifying moral claims does not by itself lead to motivational success: the relation between the two is purely contingent. The majority on the internalist side though (intuitionists, expressivists, the neo-Humeans) consider moral judgements impossible to justify in principle. Therefore, only the Neo-Kantians are able to treat the problem of normativity as a meaningful question and to give an adequate account of it. What enables them is the Neo-Kantian orientation to the task of justification and their conception of the functions of reason, which assures the necessary relation between the discursive justification and the motivation to act. Second, the Neo-Kantian reply by Korsgaard is successful as a solution to the difficulties which the Kantian ethics meets: she does not reduce normativity to its formal aspect only. In the Neo-Kantian tradition the essential autonomy of the agent is transferred to certain fundamental... [to full text]

Qu’est-ce que la rationalité pratique ? Répondre à cette interrogation, c’est déterminer la nature du raisonnement pratique qu’un acteur se trouvant dans une situation concrète doit entreprendre ; comment, autrement dit, il doit délibérer, juger et agir. Afin de mener à bien ce projet, les philosophes contemporains mobilisent des héritages philosophiques distincts. Dans chacune des trois grandes traditions de la philosophie occidentale – les traditions française, allemande et anglo-américaine – des philosophes se revendiquant d’Aristote ou de Kant ont ainsi récemment débattu de la possibilité de fonder en raison des principes normatifs généraux, du rôle que de tels principes peuvent jouer au sein du raisonnement pratique et des liens que l’on doit tisser entre la rationalité pratique et les vertus. L’objectif général de notre recherche est de démontrer la fécondité des débats entre kantiens et aristotéliciens tout en défendant l’existence d’un kantisme transformé par l’aristotélisme qui nous permet aujourd’hui de mieux cerner les ressorts du raisonnement pratique. Un tel parcours nous fournira l’occasion de contribuer à la réception de travaux qui n’ont pas encore fait couler beaucoup d’encre en France, notamment ceux de Christine Korsgaard, d’Onora O’Neill, de Barbara Herman et de Nancy Sherman. / What is practical rationality? To answer this question, one must determine how an agent facing a specific challenge in a given situation should reason and determine how to act. In order to carry out this project, contemporary philosophers build on different historical perspectives. In each of the three main tradition of Western philosophy – the Anglo-American, German and French traditions – philosophers are thus rereading Aristotle and Kant to answer questions such as “Is it possible to ground general normative principles?”, “What role must principles play in our practical reasonings?” and “What is the relationship between practical rationality and virtue?”. My overall objective is to shed light on these debates, and then to defend a form of Kantianism infused with Aristotelian ideas that can help us paint a more satisfying picture of practical rationality. By doing so, I also contribute to the French reception of contemporary philosophical works such as the ones of Christine Korsgaard, Onora O’Neill, Barbara Herman and Nancy Sherman.