This volume follows the volume Lithuanian Philosophy: Persons and Ideas. Lithuanian Philosophical Studies II1, in which we tried to present to the reader the main trends in the history of Lithuanian philosophical thought, its historical, cultural and even geographical context. This second logical step seems to be the discussion of contemporary ideas. Who can decide what are the most important philosophical problems for the contemporary philosophers in Lithuania? What is the criterion to classify professional thinkers into different schools? When the main editor of our serious cultural newspaper Siaures Atenai asked the same question in an interview, adding which philosophers did I personally prefer, my spontaneous answer was, that I like all Lithuanian thinkers, because we have very few of them and they all are ours. We have no others2. And perhaps they do not want to be classified because they feel unique. I would not enjoy being classified myself. But typecasting is unavoidable – and for purposes of typecasting I can say that Tomas Sodeika creates a very adapted phenomenological approach to Zen. Hence, I consider that there is such thing in Lithuania as a Tomas Sodeika’s philosophical school. The same is true of Arunas Sverdiolas’ school oriented to hermeneutics, Evaldas Nekrasas3  oriented to analytical philosophy, Antanas Antrijauskas oriented to the East. Arvydas Sliogeris is orientated more to himself, but with his poetically intensive and at the same time metaphysically clear thinking he is one of the most independent and brave thinkers in our country4 . Zenonas Norkus is the closest to Heaven, because he never leaves his place in the highest floor of Vilnius University Building – the White Hall of the Professor’s Library. He wrote a huge study on Weber and rational choice in German language. I am impressed by his devotion to his profession; it is a pity recently he moved from philosophy to sociology. Marius Povilas Saulauskas prefers methodological reflections on sociality. I enjoy also Vytautas Rubavicius’ style of thinking uniting philosophical and poetical aspects. For purposes of typecasting I can agree with the evaluation of me as a follower of Richard Rorty’s conception of philosophy as literary critique.

I. The first part "Classical Philosophy and Contemporary Thought" tries to answer that question. Tomas Sodeika interprets the mysticism of Master Eckehart from the perspective of Edmund Husserls’ phenomenology. Currently he is translating the Cartesian Meditations into Lithuanian. He is a translator not only of Husserl, but of Max Scheller’s and Martin Buber’s works as well. His introductions to Buber’s two volumes Ich und Du published in Lithuanian are the most eminent examples of talented contemporary philosophical interpretation5. The interesting thing is that he applied some insights taken from phenomenology to create new curriculum and new textbook for teaching philosophy in high schools6. The first chapter "What is a Man?" starts from the problem of the body, proceeds to the topic of soul, and afterwards to the problem of person, comparing man with the animal and the machine, asking the question about the puzzle and the meaning of human life. The second chapter of the textbook following Edmund Finks’ insights has the title "Phenomena of Man" and uses all the phenomena Fink suggested (work, play, struggle, love, death), but adds some new one (truth and language). The third chapter deals with the institutions of man (science, art, morals, politics, history, and religion). What is most new and unusual is the method of study suggested by the author of textbook. He suggests a triadic method: interpretation, discussion and meditation, asking the student after interpretation and discussion to choose one idea, which seemed the most important and interesting. Some methodical steps on how to relax the body and achieve the inner silence and serenity for meditation is suggested as well. Phenomenology has no such background in Lithuanian philosophical tradition, as it has for example in the Czech7 or Latvian8. Sodeika can be considered as the first representative of phenomenology here.

Jurate Baranova published some texbooks on political philosophy, philosophy of history, history of ethics and the main problems of philosophy9. Recently she published the book XX Century Moral Philosophy: Conversation with Kant. She contributes from that book the chapter "Categorical Imperative and The Face of the Other: Immanuel Kant, Emmanuel Levinas". The dialogue between Emmanuel Levinas and Immanuel Kant is extremely important. One is German, the other French, but both can be considered as the most "Lithuanian" thinkers, at least by their geographical origin. Levinas is not neo-Kantian. His style of philosophizing is postmodern, post-phenomenological and post-heideggerian. Nevertheless, author does agree with the insight of the interpreter, Adrian T. Peperzak, who concluded, that from among all modern philosophers Levinas’ thinking is the most similar to Kant’s. Levinas did not pay Kantian thought as much attention as he did, for example, to Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology or Martin Heidegger’s fundamental ontology, who were his mentors, inviting both his acceptance and disagreement. On the other hand, trying to state the status of ethics as the prime philosophy, Emmanuel Levinas took a standpoint similar to that discerned in Kant’s approach. He accepted the idea of a categorical imperative trying to distance himself from the architectonics of Kantian philosophy. Like Sartre, he distinguishes the affinity between Kant’s and Husserl’s transcendental subject and questions the acceptability of such a subject. On the other hand, at the end of the article "Outside the subject", in which he was elaborating arguments against Husserl’s conception of subject, he suddenly turns to Kant’ categorical imperative and interprets the uniqueness of the subject as ability to take responsibility for the other person’s (autrui) suffering. He sees this supposition as immanent in Kant’s categorical imperative. The author of the book suggests that the common theoretical sources uniting Kant and Levinas are their openness to the tradition of Christian ethics, stemming in Kant’s case from its justification by reason and moral law, and in Levinas case – through Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s approach of total self-rejection and consciousness of guilt. On the other hand, Levinas was more close to the sober stability in Kantian understanding the world than to the anxiety of the existential tradition. Levinas relied more on rationalistic tradition than on existential thinking. He took the idea of Infinity from Descartes and interpreted life as the place for happiness. The most interesting thing is that for this assumption he was looking for support in Kant’s philosophy as well. Nevertheless, the author of the book discerns the different approaches to the problem of happiness in the philosophy of the both. On the other hand, she concludes, that Kantian ethics is based on monologue; it is closed to the Other as a second person to me. As a Kantian in ethics I think about the Other as Each other, as the third, fourth and etc. Levinas, in contrast to Kant, first of all speaks about My openness to the Other as the second person. The discourse about each other (e.g., third, etc) he addresses to politics.

But for a just evaluation one should note, that Kant, with whom Nietzsche hotely debated, is not less popular in Lithuania than is Nietzsche – even more popular. Like Emmanuel Levinas, Kant can be considered as the most geographically "Lithuanian" foreign philosopher. J. Stradinis in his article "Did Kantian ancestors descend from the Kurshes?" writes, that together with German blood Kant has a bit not of Scottish as was suggested earlier, but of Kurshian, and it seems Lithuanian, blood. He suggests deriving the origin of Kant’s name from the place Kantwain – nowadays the village Kantvonai in Silutes district, five kilometers to the East of Priekule. Stradinis explains that Kant’s great-grandfather was a tavern-keeper in Rusne, and his father and grandfather were saddle-makers10. Perhaps due to this kinship, or perhaps to some stringent thinking, and for this reason proximity to some "archetypal forms" of Lithuanian mentality, Kant never lacked for attention from Lithuanian philosophy critics. Romanas Pleckaitis translated his works Kritik der reinen Vernunft, Prolegomena, Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, Kritik der Urteiskraft. Kristina Rickeviciute translated Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. His political treatises are translated and published as well. Kant was interpreted not only by the philosophers of the "older generation": Kristina Rickeviciute, Romanas Pleckaitis, Bronius Kuzmickas. It seems that all the philosophers of the "middle generation", before choosing their main current of professional interests, in one or another aspect established their relation to Kant’s philosophical inheritance. So in 1988 the book The Profiles of Kant’s philosophy appeared. The editor of the book, Algirdas Degutis, in explaining the reason for its appearance wrote that he thinks that the original Kantian philosophy still is active and alive because it suggests the possibility of radical reflection on the place of philosophy in contemporary culture. Sliogeris emphasizes the quite contemporary style of Kant’s thinking, Tomas Sodeika paradoxically concludes that rejecting the pretentious name of ontology and substituting the more modest name of analytic of pure intellect, Kant never rejected the possibility of the cognition of being, seeing the limited subject as capable of experiencing limited being. Aleksandras Dobryninas discusses the transition from the Augustinian question "What is Time?" to the Kantian question "How is time?" Arunas Sverdiolas discusses the Heideggerian attempts to distinguish Kantian insights from the Nietzschean and Schopenhauerian interpretations. Evaldas Nekrasas looks for Kants’ influence on the common theory of knowledge, and especially on the philosophy of mathematics11.

Leonidas Donskis12 belongs to the "young generation" as well, but his academic and personal experience is rich in events. He was a former IREX-International Research and Exchanges Board Fellow at Dickinson College, and the Swedish Institute Guest Scholar at the University of Gothenburg. Having earned his first doctorate in the philosophy from the University of Vilnius, Leonidas Donskis then received his second doctorate in social and moral philosophy from the University of Helsinki. Recently he is leading discussions on culture on TV cultural programs as well. He is also a social critic and interpreter of culture and political trends. He reasons in a very "Popperian manner": looking for the moral and political consequences of every concept and text. This interest is revealed in the title of a new book recently published in English: The End of Ideology and Utopia. Moral Imagination and Cultural Criticism in the Twentieth Century. His attention to George Orwell’ insights are not accidental as well. He uses them to analyze never-ending possibility of fanaticism and hatred in contemporary world.

II. The second part "Meeting the Challenge of Western Postmodernism" could be much broader by scope – including hermeneutics as well. Hermeneutics could have been an independent chapter, but the texts of Arunas Sverdiolas, Vytautas Rubavicius, Dalius Jonkus on this topic are missing. As a matter of fact two recently published monographs are reflections on hermeneutics. Arunas Sverdiolas in his book Being and Asking. Studies in Philosophical Hermeneutics-113 summarizers the results of many years of historical and critical study of philosophical hermeneutics, interpreting ideas of the main representatives of this movement – Wilhelm Dilthey, Martin Heidegger, Han-Georg Gadamer, Paul Ricoeur, Rudolf Bultman. Although this book does not seek to present a total picture or exhaustive history of the philosophical movement under discussion, both goals are borne in mind in each study: the reader is acquainted with the most important problem areas of philosophical hermeneutics as well as the stages of its appearances and development.

Vytautas Rubavicius’ work, Postmodern Discourse: Philosophical Hermeneutics, Deconstruction, and Art14, appeared two months after that of Sverdiolas comparing Heidegger’s and Derrida’s deconstructive strategies and their attitudes towards meaning and truth in art. It analyses the roots of postmodern discourse and the internal courses of its "aesthetisation", conditioned by the peculiarities of re-thinking art phenomena as well as the deconstruction strategy for breaking down all the oppositions between the "center" and the "periphery". The appearance of this book creates two intellectual intrigues. The first is personal, concerning the fluctuation of interest from art (poetry) to philosophy on the part of the author himself; the other is theoretical. Twenty or more years ago Rubavicius began his doctoral studies at Vilnius University, but the attraction of poetry was stronger. He wrote verses himself, published six poetry books, translated from foreign languages and criticized poetry and fiction. He wrote philosophical texts as well, developing the genre of philosophical review or essay, from which we all learned how to write in essay form. One could remember his reviews of the books of Martin Heidegger, Arvydas Sliogeris, Alphonso Lingis. The last is published here as the last chapter, "Practical philosophy". Some years ago Rubavicius finished his doctoral investigation writing a book in which he reveals his interest in postmodern discourse of art and creation treating the relation between hermeneutics and deconstruction. Two years ago Audrone Zukauskaite published a book Beyond the Signifier Principle: Deconstruction, Psychoanalysis, Critique of Ideology15, which could be considered as the first answer to the challenge of Western Postmodernism. In this book the author tries to unveil the theoretical coherence and continuity not only of psychoanalysis and the critique of ideology, but of deconstruction as well. When Sverdiolas’s book is devoted only to hermeneutics, Rubavius’s study, even in the title of book, contains both terms: "hermeneutics" and "deconstruction". The author defines the goal of the book as the intention to reveal the interaction between philosophical hermeneutics and postmodern discourse, especially deconstruction.

Rita Serpytyte16 with the article "Nihilism and Weak Thought" discusses the postmodernism of the Italian philosopher Gianni Vattimo, who having called himself a "debolist" consistently seeks also to read "debolistically" the heritage of Nietzsche, Heidegger and the Christian tradition. Serpytyte concludes, that Vattimo’s finding the end of the threat of the history of being in the weakening of the firm structures of Being means that for him being has a nihilistic vocation. Serpytyte herself is interested in the phenomenon of nihilism and is preparing for publication a book on this problem.

Zenonas Norkus in his article "Between Philosophy and Rhetoric" discusses the status and genesis of postmodernism in the contemporary philosophy of history – namely, the postmodernism connected with Hayden White’s works. But it seems that to the author the prehistory of the genesis of postmodernism in historical thinking to which he devotes more attention, is more interesting in itself than Hayden White’s project. Ten years ago Norkus published a book, The Theory of Historiography17, uniting by this name both critical and analytical trends in the history of philosophy of history. Two years ago he published a huge new book in German, Max Weber und Rational Choice18, and with it turned from philosophy to sociology. His subject of investigation is Weber’s sociological work concentrating on its relation to the rational choice interdisciplinary movement influential in the contemporary social science. The author pursued the goal of developing and substantiating a new interpretation of Weber’s legacy using the vantage point of the rational choice approach represented by the work of the social scientists working with two assumptions. First of it states, that the explanation of the social (collective) facts must be grounded in the theory of individual behavior (the principle of methodological individualism). Second rational choice theory lends better micro-foundations for sociological explanation than psychological theories of individual behavior (the principle of antipsychologism). Unfortunately with this book and habilitation Norkus moved from philosophy to sociology, changing nor only topics, but departments as well.

III. The third part of the book "Cultural Comparativistics" represents a rather strong orientated towards Eastern philosophy, the so-called Antanas Andrijauskas’ school. All the authors of the articles have not only theoretical experience in Eastern philosophy; they have experienced Eastern culture from within as well. Andrijauskas who used to give lectures in Japan, keeps constant academic relations with Japanese and Chinese academics, and organizes academic exchanges for our students and investigators of the East at the universities of these countries. Andrijauskas in his article "Traditional Japanese Medieval Aesthetics from the Perspectives of Comparative Studies" presents a broad historical sketch of the peculiarities of art, especially Zen art in Japan. This article recalls his huge book, Traditional Japanese esthetics and art1 9, published in Lithuanian two years ago.

A descendant of emigrants from Lithuania, he does not speak Lithuanian himself, but frequently visits Lithuania and gives lectures. His books, The Community of Those Who Have Nothing in Common2 0 and Dangerous emotions21, are translated into Lithuanian. Lingis travels a lot and in his books he masterly communicates to the reader his impressions of Japan, Java, Brazil or the Easter islands as unique phenomenological insights. In his books Lingis pays much attention to the possible meeting and communication between "I" and the "Other" in different situations and different parts of the world. The stranger whom "I" meet in Lingis’ books is not from my community or tribe. He can be an unknown boy, who leads me for a trip in a jungle. The stranger is also a one who simply gazes at me. The article "Word of Honor" published in this book is devoted more to the problem of self-identity. What are the possibilities of the meaning of the word "I"? One can distinguish linguistic level, but Lingis indicates also how the word "I" arises in an awakening out of the murmur of sensations; how it becomes the word related to my nobility; why the word of honor is so necessary to oneself; how the utterance "I am a dancer", or "I am a mother" commits one’s body; how it generates understanding; how it is related to self-consciousness; how we believe in this word and how we delude ourselves. All these questions are discussed in the article.

Few Lithuanian philosophers are interested in reflecting on the problem of nature. Maybe we are impressed by Immanuel Kant’s or Georg Hegel’s division between nature and freedom. It seems that the process of Geist itself is a more proper topic for reflection by philosophers than is nature. The exception – Ceslovas Kalenda’ book Ecological Ethics: Sources and Present23, which appeared a year ago. The main ideas of the book are represented in the article "The Place of Ecological Ethics’in Culture", published in a recent volume.

 1 Lithuanian Philosophy: Persons and Ideas. Lithuanian Philosophical Studies II, ed. Jurate Baranova. Cultural Heritage and Contemporary Change, Series IVA, Eastern and Central Europe, Volume 17, gen, ed. George F. McLean. – Vashngton D.C.: The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy, 2000.

 2 Mastymo pratybos-atspara chaosui. Filosofijos profesore Jurate Baranova atsako i Sigito Parulskio klausimus . – In Siaures Atenai, 2003. IV. 26, nr. 16 96500, p. 3.

 3 Published books: Loginis empirizmas ir mokslo metodologija (Logical Empiricism and the Methodolpgy of Science,1979); Tikimybinis zinojimas (Probabilistic Knowledge, 1987); Filosofijos ivadas (Introduction to Philosophy, 1993).

 4 Published books: Zmogaus pasaulis ir egzistencinis mastymas (Human World and Existential Thinking, 1985); Daiktai ir menas (The Things and Art, 1988); Butis ir pasaulis (Being and World, 1990); Sietuvos (1992); Post scriptum (1992); Transcendencijos tyla (The Silence of Transcendence, 1996); Niekio vardai (The Names of Nothingness, 1997); Niekis ir esmes (Nothingness and Essences, 2004).

 5 Sodeika, T. Martinas Buberis ir zydiskoji "graikisko mastymo" alternatyva . – In Buber, M.1998. Dialogo principas, I. Aš ir Tu. – Vilnius : Kataliku pasaulis, 1998.

 6 Sodeika, T., Baranova, J. Filosofija XI-XII kl. – Vilnius: Tyto alba, 2002.

 7 Czech Philosophy in the XXth Century. Czech Philosophical Studies, II. Edited by Lumomir Novy, Jiri Gabriel, Jaroslav Hroch , general editor George F. McLean.– Vashington D.C.: Pandea& The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy, 1994.

 8 Kule, M..Phenomelogy and Culture. – Riga: Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, University of Latvia, 2002.

 9 Politine filosofija (Political Philosophy). - Vilnius: Pradai, 1995; Filosofines etikos chrestomatija XI-XII (Reader for Philosophical Ethics, XI-XII grades), ed. Jurate Baranova. – Vilnius: Alma littera, 1998. Istorijos filosofija (Philosophy of History). – Vilnius: Alma littera, 2000; Sodeika Tomas, Baranova Jurate. Filosofija XI-XII kl (Philosophy, XI-XII grades). – Vilnius: Tyto alba, 2002; Etika: filosofija kaip praktika (Ethics: Philosophy as a Practice). – Vilnius: Alma littera, 2002; Filosofinë etika: að ir tu (Philosophical Ethics: I and Thou). - Vilnius: Alma littera, 2004; Filosofinë etika: prasmë ir laisvë (Philosophical Ethics: Meaning and Freedom) – Vilnius: Alma littera, 2004; XX amþiaus moralës filosofija: pokalbis su Kantu (20th Century’s Moral Philosophy: Conversation with Kant). – Vilnius: VPU leidykla, 2004.

 10 Stradinis, A. Ar I. Kanto proteviai kile is kursiu? – In Problemos. – Vilnius, nr. 36, 1987.

 11 I.Kanto filosofijos profiliai, ed. Algirdas Degutis. – Vilnius : Mintis, 1988.

 12 Published books: Moderniosios kulturos filosofijos metmenys (The Outlines of Modern Philosophy of Culture, 1993); Moderniosios samones konfiguracijos (The Configurations of Modern Consciousness, 1994. In English: The End of Ideology and Utopia? Moral Imagination and Cultural Criticism in the Twentieth Century. – New York: Peter Lang, 2000; Identity and Freedom: Mapping Nationalism and Social Criticism in Twentieth-Century Lithuania – London & New York: Routledge, 2002. His works are translated into Danish, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, and Ukrainian languages.

 13 Sverdiolas, A. Buti ir klausti. Hermeneutines filosofijos studijos – I (To Be and to Ask: Studies in Hermeneutical Philosophy-I). – Vilnius: Strofa, 2002.

 14 Rubavicius, V. Postmodernusis diskursas; filosofine hermeneutika, dekonstrukcija, menas.(Postmodern Discourse, Philosophical Hermeneutics, Deconstruction, Art) – Vinius: Kulturos, filosofijos ir meno institutas, 2003.

 15 Zukauskaite, A. Anapus signifikanto principo. Dekonstrukcija, psichoanalize, ideologijos kritika. – Vilnius: Aidai, 2001

 16 The Head of the Center of Religious Studies at Vilnius University. Recently published texbook for schools: Serpytyte, R. Religija ir filosofija. Vadovelis XI klasei. – Vilnius: Tyto alba, 2003.

 17 Norkus, Z. Istorika. – Vilnius: Taura, 1996.

 18 Norkus, Z. Max Weber und Rational Choice. – Marburg: Metropolis Verlag, 2001.

 19 Published books: Grozis ir menas. Estetikos ir meno filosofijos idëju istorija (Rytai-Vakarai)(Beauty and Art. The History of Aesthetics and Ideas of the Philosophy of Art (East-West, 19950; Tradicine japonu estetika ir menas (Traditional Japaneese Aesthetics and Art, 2001).

 20 Lingis, A. The Community of Those Who Have Nothing in Common. – Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1994.

 21 Lingis, A. Dangerous emotions. – California: University of California Press, 2000.

 23 Kalenda, Ceslovas. Ekologine etika: istakos ir dabartis. – Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2002.