Punktem wyjścia rozważań jest dysproporcja w udziale obu płci w tworzeniu filozofii w Polsce, Wielkiej Brytanii i w wielu innych krajach na świecie. Dysproporcja ta skłania do postawienia pytania o to, co z perspektywy samej filozofii mogłoby zostać zrobione w celu zapobiegania tej oraz innym formom filozoficznej i intelektualnej dyskryminacji. Celem artykułu jest pokazanie, iż to klasyczny pragmatyzm (koncepcje Peirce’a, Jamesa i Deweya) jest źródłem metafilozoficznych idei pluralizmu, egalitaryzmu oraz włączania (inclusiveness), które pozwalają na nowo zdefiniować podmiot, przedmiot i cele praktyki filozoficznej.

Pluralistyczny dostęp poszczególnych partii i środowisk politycznych do mediów uznawany jest za jeden z fundamentów demokracji. Odwołując się do danych dotyczących obecności polityków w najważniejszych telewizyjnych i radiowych programach publicystycznych oraz danych dotyczących rynkowego zasięgu poszczególnych nadawców, artykuł analizuje wpływ, jaki poszczególne środowiska polityczne miały na polską medialną sferę publiczną w okresie od listopada 2015 do grudnia 2017 roku. Artykuł zmierza w stronę opisu normatywnego, dostarczającego odpowiedzi na pytanie, czy i w jakim stopniu poszczególne partie polityczne są nad- lub niedoreprezentowane w medialnej sferze publicznej. Odpowiedź umożliwia zestawienie uzyskanych danych z liberalno-przedstawicielskim modelem sfery publicznej we współczesnych demokracjach (Ferree, Gamson, Gerhards i Rucht 2002). Autorzy wnioskują, że polska sfera publiczna mieści się w demokratycznych standardach wyznaczonych przez przyjęte do analizy modele, choć zarówno nadawcy publiczni jak i prywatni mają problemy z zachowaniem odpowiedniego poziomu reprezentatywności różnych partii w swoich stacjach.

Pluralism and multiculturalism are new terms in biblical studies . Pluralism used in social sciences means a conditio of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious or social groups maintain their unique cultural identities. Multicultu-ralism focuses on interactions between different groups and communities within the confines of a common society. This paper aims at analysing the practice and models of pluralism in the Bible and the evaluation of pluralism in the biblical context (from separatism in the Abraham days until the multicultural Christian community in the first century). Christianity existed as a pluralistic community from the beginning. Paul the Apostle presents the Church as the body of Christ and interactions within the Chri-stian community consisting of Jews and Gentiles are illustrated by relations between members of the body. The mission of the Church is based on various models of incul-turation (contextualisation). All of these models intersect with one another in different ways. Pluralism in the biblical studies manifests itself also in the use of different Bible translation strategies and various methods of biblical exegesis and interpretation.

The ideas of pluralism, their various theoretical developments and ideological concretizations, as well as their promotion and the attempts at implementing them in social practice, constitute a current signum temporis. Pedagogical reflection seems to be particularly sensitive to the issue of pluralism, to its understanding and practising, to multidimensional references of pluralism to the world of values. This especially concerns the values and conflicts of values which are close to various forms of educational activity. What is considered – more or less critically – in pedagogical reflection are different aspects and consequences of the idea of pluralism concerning the currently existing ideas. Simultaneously, the multitude of the ideas of pluralism is taken into account – the ideas which refer to the broadly treated sphere of pedagogical activities and institutions. Pedagogical reflection also considers the threats which co-occur with pluralism or are aimed against it and which are carried by pluralism itself, e.g. in the sphere of education. An expert in the contemporary pedagogical thought and practice, Bogusław Śliwerski, asks: “Will we manage to save the world of pedagogical thought, the pedagogy open to difference, to pluralism (not to be mistaken for another illness which is relativism)?”. By confronting pluralistic perspectives of pedagogy with current ideological and social challenges, he makes this question one of the leading issues in pedagogical and metapedagogical studies. What seems to be heard in this question as well is the appeal to save the world of pedagogical thought as an open world characterized by pluralism, doing this through honest reasoning conducted from different standpoints and perspectives. The assumption of this question comprises the axiologically consolidated belief that it is worth “to save the world of pedagogical thought, the pedagogy open to pluralism”. This is also an inspiration to undertake the (presented in this text) thought concerning the pluralistic perspectives of pedagogy and various faces of pluralisms in the critical recognition of metapedagogical reflection in the case of the Polish pedagogical thought after 1989.

In reference to Anna Śliz’s book Wielokulturowość: stygmat współczesnego świata? Próba analizy socjologicznej [Multiculturalism: The Stigma of the Modern World? An Attempt at a Sociological Analysis], the subject of this article is multiculturalism as a phenomenon, a political project, and a real kind of existing society (multiculturalism is not the same as interculturalism or transculturalism). In the discourse on multiculturalism, many specific questions arise: the inevitability of the phenomenon and its genesis; the beginnings and bases of multiculturalism as a political project and its challenges; the reality of multicultural societies—from affirmation to contestation. Model discourse over multiculturalism is confronted with a range of remarks, commentaries, and questions about its fundamental significance, for example, about the potential for realizing the idea of multiculturalism in Europe, and whether Australia and Canada are now definitely multicultural societies.

My current considerations concern the way in which the category of animals is present in contemporary philosophy, especially if it occurs in the context of moral philosophy and the theory of cognition and mind. These are, I suppose, the areas of inquiry inspiring wide interest, even if we focus on the narrow question of the place of animals in the domains of morality, cognition, and consciousness. Although John Rawls himself approaches these issues with caution, and his interest in these types of problems is marginal, they deserve some philosophical attention. There is a close relationship between the belief that non‑personal living entities such as animals are capable of feeling pain and pleasure on the one hand, and the human sensitivity or social sentience, on the other. We should face the question of what kind of society we want to live in: effective or sensitive. Ethical utilitarianism is in favor of an effective society. It may seem that there is no place for social sensitivity in it, and consequently that public interest is postulated in its place instead. However, I believe that an effective society is more sensitive to the harm done to or the plight suffered by non‑personal subjects than a sensitive society, if the latter is understood as Rawls frames it. Thus, we come to a specific paradox – which I shall refer to as the blunted sentience paradox – that the utilitarian, efficient society criticized by Rawls is in fact more morally sensitive than the egalitarian society he postulates. The paradox of the blunted sentience has its source in Rawls’s egalitarianism, for this egalitarianism is offered only to the chosen. It does not extend to those members of society who extend their care to those creatures whom Rawls denies subjectivity, but whose unhappiness constitutes an important factor in the social life of humanity. I propose to look at the fate of animals in modern society, and if we do so, we will notice some flaws in Rawls’s theory of justice that can perhaps be amended by espousing some aspects of emotivism. This proposed approach avoids what I have called the blunted sentience paradox.

Axiological chaos and unsustainable man’s acting in a contemporary world has led him to a total confusion. He constantly acts toward environmental and cultural degradation. Also in social dimension a permanent and “general” crisis dominates. The crisis is rooted on multi-category stratification and based on post-truth models of interpersonal communication in traditional and virtual realities. Neoliberal model of economical conquest, in turn, effects unsustainability in economic sphere. Thus, in common reception – for the most people in the world – such situation has become unbearable. So, it is the educators’ duty to look for – with the intention to put into practise – such concepts and pedagogies, which could prepare the whole global society to real – not declaratory false – co-creation of its life in the world, understood as an actual and common home. Taking such perspective, the theory of Argentinian philosopher – Ernesto Laclau becomes an interesting proposition. The time of mono-dimensional – protestant and neoliberal – interpretation of values comes to the end. Now the time has come to accept the equality of different – having their roots in various cultures – value understanding. Possibility of local and particular interpretation of values – along with maintaining the rule of common good – gives the chance to update the education according to real, thus multidimensional humanistic ideal. Such a standpoint presents a way to cure/reform intercultural education, which nowadays is at an impasse. Mainly it uses stiff schemes and repeated patterns, so it has become imitative and conservative. In its contemporary formula intercultural education is not able to respond to present challenges of multicultural and global society. The need to implant into its structure the concept of sustainable development emerges as a must.