Yesterday I participated in presentation of a venia legendi by professor Tero Autio: „Globalization, Curriculum, and New Belongings of Subjectivity“, and a scientific seminar by professor Roland Axtmann: „Cosmopolitanism as Political Philosophy and Social Theory“.
Professor Tero Autio (professor at the University of Tampere, a candidate for the position of Professor of Theories of Curriculum at Tallinn University Institute of Educational Sciences) talked about the principles that should be taken into account when composing the curricula in schools and universities. The primary basis lie in philosophy and psychology. Why psychology? Because the study processes highly are inner processes, impossible to be seen by eye during the processes occur. Therefore, the educators should be aware of the scientific explanations on how the human brain accepts knowledge. One simplified structure is: emotions → consciousness → knowledge. Tero Autio also talked about the shift from (mere) morality to (also) expertise in curriculum-building and that the high level preparation of teachers in Finland guarantees that after graduation also the teachers (not only university lecturers) have high mental and technical freedom to decide the content of their classes. I must look up from my notes (that I left to the Tallinn University) the sources referred to by Tero Autio that I can thereafter link here.
Professor Roland Axtmann (University of Swansea) first defined political philosophy as embracing political citizenship, global governance, liberal market, transnational cosmopolitanism (global culture, identities, communication), cosmopolitanism in the social theory and in the methodological approach. As representative of Western culture, professor Axtmann had built his approach upon the Kantian thought about reciprocity (categorical imperative) and individual and collective diversity
My questions: Scientists should to certain extent be idealistic, but actually it is difficult to believe in the possibility of such diversity in the world, where all cultures would be regarded as equally important, rather I would see the continuous attempts to advance regional and nation-State interests, and growing attempts to methodologically control global processes. But we can still talk about legitimacy of cosmopolitan regime, because people are easy to manipulate.
Intercultural communication is not Habermasian communication based on notion of rationality, but it cannot mean solely Kantian understandings either.
In the beginning of the week, I acted as a member of the scientific commission, which commission evaluated the M.A. students’ research projects at the Institute of Political Science and Governance of the Tallinn University. Which was also an utmostly important scientific event. Although I am not entirely happy with the students’ methodological approaches, the headings and the ideas of the projects reflected really high level of awareness and expertise. Unfortunately, I am afraid that I do not have the right to reveal the students’ initial scientific ideas here.