Recognition that societies will not be able to build a future as long as they do not face the ‘demons of the past’ has become a kind of universal truth over the last decades of the 20th Century (Gibney et al., 2008, p. 1). This view, though challenging and ambiguous, is reflected in the globally present attempts to improve or rebuild relations within and between different communities at the domestic and international level. The question concerning, on the one hand, the essence and most essential elements and, on the other hand, the instruments and the limitations of rebuilding relations, as well as the political implications of those processes have become the broad area of interest and the discourse leading to significantly different ideas and solutions. The article aims at presenting different approaches referring to dealing with the conflicted and traumatized past both at the domestic and international level. Some selected instruments and methods which enable movement from a divided past towards a common future are discussed namely the strategy of engagement with the past versus the strategy of avoidance of the past. The special attention is paid to the notion of reconciliation understood as a process of rebuilding of relations through the multi-dimensional transformation of former adversaries after the period of violence and repression.

Noir creators of the 1940s, like Jacques Tourneur, had a specific way of presenting worlds behind the silver screen. Their movies were visibly different than everything else Hollywood had to offer at that time. Marked by dark colors, inhabited by gritty, lost individuals, noir worlds seem hostile yet they also attract the audience in a perverse manner. Moreover, noir creators defy truth as it is. To discover it a person has to become an investigator, and study the noir movie like a murder case. Every element of the puzzle counts, as the film’s purpose is to deceive the audience. Analyzing both outside, mimetic tools of the filmmaker and inside, diegetic elements incorporated in a story-world is vital to understand how noir successfully plays with the idea of truth.

The purpose of proof in the criminal proceedings on infringement of intellectual property rights: truth or procedural justice?

The article summarizes the existing discussible approaches of domestic and foreign scholars to understanding of the purpose of criminal procedural proof and the search for truth. The legislation of Ukraine, norms of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Criminal Procedure Codes of a number of European countries, modern approaches of US courts, the Supreme Court [of Ukraine], the European Court of Human Rights on normative consolidation of the purpose of criminal procedural proof and application of the law are analyzed. On the basis of an excursion in the history of science the basic theories of truth are highlighted. It has been established that the theory of objective truth has prevailed in science for a long time, but attention is drawn to the fact that it is increasingly criticized in favor of efficiency of criminal proceedings through applying relevant legal procedures. Judicial practice shows a shift in emphasis from establishing the truth to procedural justice aimed at achieving the optimal model of the purpose of criminal proceedings and proof. The approaches to the purpose of proof and the search for truth of various subjects in criminal proceedings on infringement of intellectual property rights and efficiency of applying conventional truth are substantiated. The own vision of the concept of the purpose of proof is proposed and propositions on improvement of the procedural legislation of Ukraine are provided.

The upcoming transformations of today’s societies into sustainable societies pose numerous problems. To avoid the destruction of the foundations of life in the Anthropocene, a profound social and cultural transformation encompassing all areas of life is required. To know how this can be accomplished requires extensive research and knowledge, the reliability of which plays an important role. The more open and diverse the global world becomes, the more difficult it is to determine which facts are important and what consequences can be drawn from them for human action. Instead of a reflexive approach to the results of scientific research, today one often encounters a populist approach to science. Its results are used to support preconceived opinions. One is not interested in new findings but aims at the disparagement of people of other opinions and their hateful insult. A destructive division of society is the result of the debates that are so important for the future of humanity.

William James’s philosophy has been treated as relativistic and sceptical, as a distortion of truth and rationality. In that way a lot of important elements crucial for understanding his philosophy have been overlooked. However, according to James, our cognition is not relativistic, because there is no room in his philosophy for a traditionally understood dichotomy between a knowing subject and a perceived object. We are all plunged into the stream of experience, and it is in it that we can find an overall picture of our world and our reality. We participate in the plurality of phenomena; we are surrounded by the plurality of things. Our world is continuous, and therefore it is continuously in the process of creation. In short, for James, the world is not a subjective construct created by human beings and his epistemology is closely related to his metaphysics to the point at which it is difficult to consider the distinction between the two. To present these crucial aspects of William James’s philosophy in the most meticulous way possible, this essay, will try to clear up doubts concerning James’s concept of Radical Empiricism, truth, and his understanding of pluralism, as well as the categories of synechism and tychism.

The subject of the article is references to the truth in the constitutions of modern states. The comparative study shows multiplicity of contexts in which the category of truth is mentioned in several dozen fundamental laws. The mention of truth in the constitutions as a component of the axiology of the legal and social order, the basis of transitional justice or the principle of court and administrative proceedings should be assessed positively. However, making the truth a limit of freedom of speech raises serious reservations. Granting constitutional protection only to truthful statements can stifle the public debate on socially prominent issues. The conducted analysis does not confirm the thesis of political liberalism that the truth is irrelevant for law and politics.

Richard Rorty postulates that we relinquish relying on the “Platonic” idea of something common to us all, something uniting us with others, and cease the search for both universal justifications and truths. Rorty fears, and backs his fears with examples from history, that referring to something uniting us may serve those who shall state that there is some right, true model of living, of collective cooperation, and that only one form of social and political organization is right for us. Because if there is a truth about human beings, about relations with others, then in accordance with the traditional way of thinking, we should act on it, and any opposing action, freethinking, should not take place. Each and every human being should act according to fixed – uncovered – standards, and those who disobey should be directed onto the right path. In short, one of Rorty’s firm beliefs is that the idea of human being, of truth, particular perspectives determine our choices – perhaps this is how Rorty’s intuition may be expressed within one sentence. But is such an opinion justified? In the hereby article I shall say it is not; whether we are universalists or constructivists, our choices may be of the same kind. At the same time, having the same metaphysical or constructivist beliefs, we may arrive at quite different choices.

Corruption as a disorder of interpersonal communication in the teachings of Pope Francis

The Pope, as the head of the Church and the head of the State, is obliged to undertake appropriate forms of criticism and counteract the improper functioning of the institutions of the Church and the State. The point is that the task of politics and the state is to strive for the common good, and one of its functions is to integrate society. In both cases, there must be undisturbed communication, and this is precisely what corruption is disturbing. In the teachings of Pope Francis, a corruption disorders a communication in a way that it creates crisis of trust and arouses suspicion among the people. It ignores the truth which is a guarantee of clarity and understanding. The corruption, that grows and continues to evolve, is transmissible and it justifies itself by creating its own doctrine. Corruption is a rejection of solidarity. Pope Francis says about halitosis and sclerosis of a spiritual heart. He says about a sin and a corruption. Corruption evokes a social paralysis, which unfortunately is paid for by the poorest. Francis claims that it is not enough to sentence corrupted people, but it is important to pray for their conversion.

Between the Left and the Right, or Should We Be Afraid of the Truth and Praise Postmodernism?

Should we be afraid of the truth? This question is important not only for the world of philosophy, but also politics. Reluctance to fixed and immutable foundation used to characterize the left . This right has traditionally appealed to what is permanent, unchanging, universal, in what social order should be rooted. And for that it is criticized. It has been suggested that we should reject the right-wing chains, reject universalism, to become free and head toward postmodernism. Postmodernism today seems to give hope for further development, including policy based on new narratives – particularly left-wing. Postmodernism, as it is seen by Grzegorz Lewicki, seems to be close to the critical theory that can help us in the liberation and emancipation. Closer analysis, however, allows us to see that also in critical theory there is a desire to discover the truth about what is reality. It also allows to see that the category of truth is not as bad as it is painted. It is not necessary to get rid of the reference to the category of truth, because truth is not the problem in itself. We can still keep it without sacrificing what was the best in postmodernism. If we are successful, then there might be the chance to reconcile the left with the right.