Constructing a philosophical voice: discursive positions in the Moldovan journal of philosophy and...

The first philosophy paper published in this issue is Arcadi Ursul's Third Millennium Law: Methodological Aspects (Ursul 2007a), written in Russian. Focusing on the concept of "sustainable development", that he abbreviates using the initials of the words (SD), Ursul suggests that this concept has to become a central one for lawmakers, helping bridge "ecological" worries with a new vision of the state and of law. I will quote a passage:

It is important to take into account the fact that any national law about SD has to be fundamentally different from any law that is already adopted or in the process of being adopted. It will signify a further step away from the traditional anthropocentric view the law system to a new, social-natural system, that was already started through the creation of ecologic law as a juridical way of realizing the ecological function of the state. The law will also have its own specific object of juridical regulation. Unlike ecological law, it has to give a juridical explanation not only to the ecological function of the state, but also to its other functions, from the point of view of their accomplishing of SD principles. Thus, it deals not just with an `ecological expansion' of the framework of juridical regulation, but a law that, fundamentally, will become a trampoline between ecological law and all the other compartments of law and would `transform' all other laws that were already passed. Thus, ecological law has an important role in `transitioning' contemporary law to the future SD law. [...] The ecological function of law, in the concepts, principles, and rules of law, has to become a unitary whole with other aspects of SD. (Ursul 2007: 12)

The paper illustrates the discursive position of the philosopher as an "unsolicited advisor" for lawmakers proposing a new legal framework and fundamental concepts for it to work under the guise of an analysis. The voice of the philosopher affirms this discursive position through a kind of confidence in what he is saying, expressed through the imperative mood, and the supposed discerning of the future signification of laws of the type he is describing. The shift towards a form of law based on sustainable development is presented as a desirable one, and the philosopher-as its lobbyist, one who understands why it should be adopted, what are its meaning and fundamental concepts, what is the relation between this proposed lawmaking paradigm and previous ones, etc. Presenting oneself in such a way, the philosopher becomes an expert figure, working on the assumption of philosophy as a special kind of knowledge that justifies one in saying "what is important" and "what has to be done".

The second paper included in this issue is Ana Pascaru's Relation and Motivation in Social Values Conditioning (Pascaru 2007). The author proposes an analysis of the relation between social change and values, in the context of the post-Soviet societies and their increased openness to other cultures. According to the author, the post-Soviet transision generated a certain lack of sensitivity to transformations / changes that were already taking place, leading to what she considers confused decisions and actions. Like other papers published in the same year-and as the title shows-values are a fundamental concept for this paper too:

... beyond the theoretical debates about national values as an element of the general-human ones, in the community environment there are various perturbations of the value circuit in the dynamics between national and generalhuman values, and quite often non-values tend to substitute values. Moreover, the crisis of values overlaps with the other crises to which communities are subjected, a fact that facilitates the imposition of non-values in the behavior and actions of the members of society. (Pascaru 2007: 16)

The values of the majority ethnicity did not manage to become the attraction center for the national minorities and to ensure the communication between national values and the general-human ones. (Pascaru 2007: 18)

The predominance of the values discourse-and the attribution of values to a group / community ("a national minority", "a nation", or even "general human values" as attributed to "humanity as such")-in the philosophical papers published in the Journal might be read as an attempt to find a topic which would not be claimed by other disciplines, a place that a philosopher could inhabit comfortably and, at the same time, speak to what they consider relevant for the society. Addressing the question of values becomes, thus, a way for philosophers to present themselves as philosophers while speaking about social issues. With the exception of (Saptefrati 2007), Moldovan philosophers working on this topic present themselves as knowing what is a "true" value, able to make a difference between "value" and "non-value", and propose hierarchies of values.

A similar attitude towards values is expressed in a continuation of (Troianowski 2007a)-Aesthetic Values: Globalization Versus Universality (II) (Troianowski 2007c). The author continues her diatribe against postmodernism, using an accusatory rhetorical move:

Having its roots in the proto-fascist philosophy of M. Heidegger, postmodernism adopts with nonchalance the idea of a lack of moral truth and of truth in general. Oriented towards destructing traditional normative systems and laws, a flagrant violation of canons, excelling in its already compromised intent of modeling the world and emphasizing the negative in the plane of reason, postmodernism destroys hierarchies, generating/encouraging chaos and grotesque. This phenomenon criticizes traditional values, rationalism, humanism, historicism, it denies the personality's possibility of being responsible for its own acts, decisions, and behavior, and the human individual's capacity to oppose the social-political and ideological stereotypes. In opposition with the traditional and with modernism, postmodernism insistently postulates the importance of freeing oneself from the force of power, discharging norms, rules, social dependence, with skepticism, relativism, and nihilist tendencies being its peremptory particularities. On this ground, we consider that postmodernism has to be viewed as a diagnosis of contemporary culture, not as its actual state. (Troianowski 2007c: 22)

Again, we see the philosopher in the role of "cultural critic" and "defender of values" in face of their "destruction" by "postmodernism". We can notice the medicalized language, like in the phrase "postmodernism as diagnosis"; or the implicit accusation of totalitarianism, when the claim is made that postmodernism has its roots in the "protofascist philosophy of M. Heidegger", which is a way of claiming that something of its "proto-fascist" character has been "inherited"; and the fact that the author is deploring the loss / destruction of "traditional values" and the "uniformization" of artistic products in mass culture. In a sense, this "defense of values" is also functioning in the logic of heritage: heritage itself ("traditional values", "traditional normative systems and laws") is deemed as "that which needs to be protected" from the threat of its destruction through the attitude of a break with tradition, identified with postmodernism (oddly opposed in this to modernism-also as a rhetorical move; both traditionalism and modernism are deemed acceptable, while postmodernism should be, according to the author, regarded as a diagnosis).

Valeriu Capcelea, in his paper Functions of Social Norms (Capcelea 2007b), proposes a review of functions of social norms, trying to construct a "systemic picture" of them, proposing a series of theses on how social norms work and their functions. A representative excerpt:

Social norms as means and forms of expressing deontic representations and reflecting the deontic sphere of social consciousness determine the fact that personality development happens in a deontic situation. Personality development happens in a situation of interactions and communication. Any interaction and communication is ensured, regulated, grounded by the system of social norms, realizing these processes depending on various functions of social norms. Social norms in general and norms of a social group, in particular, ensure the existence, functionality of the group, the inclusion of the individual in that group, in the process and mechanisms of its interaction. The norms of the social group are used not only for regulating the intrinsic behavior and contacts, interactions, and interpersonal relations, but also for transforming interpersonal interactions in a normative behavior in that group, community, or society. (Capcelea, 2007b: 36).

In this paper, the voice is, again, that of the philosopher-as-expert-as the one who knows, due to their special background, how things really operate--and tries to present a picture of it to their readers. The author's own commitments, encouraging the perpetuation of certain forms of social behavior, become "desirable outcomes" and "functions of social norms".

The last philosophy paper published in the second issue for 2007 is included in the Research Reports rubric and belongs to the PhD student Carolina Cheianu: Criteria for a Classification and Hierarchy of Values in Tudor Vianu and Lucian Blaga (Cheianu 2007). The author reviews, in the first page of her paper, various ideas about value classification, and then focuses on two 20^th Century Romanian phiLosophers-Tudor Vianu and Lucian BLaga Both of them are influential aestheticians and literary figures too.-and their theories about values. The tone that the authors adopts is one of speaking with explicitly accepting the point of view of the author she is treating and stating it approvingly. I will quote an example:

Proposing a series of criteria for grouping values, Vianu proves that each value is inscribed in a rational system of coordination, that indicates clearly the place they occupy in a values hierarchy. A value can be real or personal, material or spiritual, free or adhering to its concrete support, persevering or amplifying through its meaning and echo in the desired subject's consciousness. According to these criteria, the philosopher characterizes each category of values in an equivalent succession. Approaching the topic of value structures, together with the great philosopher T. Vianu, we seek the answer to the fundamental axiological problem, i. e. what is the nature of values? According to him, values do not become to an absolute rationality, because they are an object of desire and encompass in their interiority elements that surpass the sphere of rationality. The philosopher recognizes that inside the rational sphere of each value its irrational nucleus is hiding. This means that deep inside values there are particular elements that can be reduced to general factors. The nucleus of values is unclassifiable. This nucleus ensures the unicity and irreducibility of each value. Thus it can be explained why two types of values, apparently similar-the moral value and the religious one - profoundly differ in their essence. (Cheianu 2007: 141)

I should mention that the paper also operates in the heritage logic: the two Romanian philosophers the author is writing about are regarded as elements of heritage- supposed to be reintegrated into the Moldovan philosophical scene as part of what was neglected/insufficiently studied. The voice is, again, one of a reverent adherent: "approaching the topic... together with the great philosopher... according to him".

The third 2007 issue of the Journal of Philosophy, Social Science, and Political Science included four philosophy papers-two of them, by already established researchers, published in the Philosophy section, and two papers by PhD students.

The first paper published in the Philosophy rubric is a continuation of (Ursul 2007a)-Third Millennium Law: Methodological Aspects (II) (Ursul 2007b). The author argues that, for sustainable development, a reconceptualization of fundamental concepts of law is needed, and he tries to point out aspects of this reconceptualization. The voice he is constructing is, once again, that of the philosopher as expert-the possessor of a specific kind of knowledge that enables the seeing of what is needed now, and the offering of a response to it-a suggestion of "what needs to be changed" in the light of what was noticed.

The second paper is Vasile Gutu's Eloquence and Argumentation in Plato (Gutu 2007). It should be mentioned that, out of all the papers published in the Philosophy rubric of the journal in the years analyzed in the current article (Gutu, 2007), is the only one that mentions a non-Moldovan philosopher in the title. Papers mentioning Romanian / Moldovan philosophers like Sturdza, Eliade, Vianu, and Blaga appeared, during the years analyzed in the present paper, in other rubrics-either Heritage, or the PhD students' Research Reports In this paper, the philosopher positions himself not just as someone who reclaims the local heritage, but someone who does history of (universal) philosophy as such. The paper starts with an overview of the Ancient Greek social context that led to interest in argumentation and rhetoric, passing then to Plato's work. The author analyzes the explicit attitude about rhetoricians and sophists in dialogues like Gorgias or The Sophist, proposing then an analysis of the Socratic method of dialogue itself, with an emphasis on its "purification" function, and ending with a positive appraisal of the role of sophists as those who pioneered the study of argumentation and an argumentative ethos:

An especially important role of the Hellenic sophists is the fact that they shattered the grounds of the traditional, dogmatic thinking, whose pillars were considered the authorities of the time. Sophists were not in the least satisfied with the responses of authorities or with dogmatic interpretations. They were requesting that an orator's claims be proven, be argued for, and theoretically grounded. All these contributed to an enlivening of thinking, contributed to an escape from the lethargic state of dogmatic thinking. (Gutu 2007: 19)

This is the first appearance, in the Journal, of a philosophical voice that does history of philosophy with no explicit problematization of "contemporary issues", operating outside the logic of heritage and outside the values controversy, proposing a partial reading of classic texts and an appraisal of an avowed anti-traditionalist movement.

The two philosophy papers by PhD students published in the Research Reports section are also atypical, compared to the rest of the papers. The first of them, by Nicolae Bodean, bears the title The Role of the Economic Factor in the Creation and Manifestation of Nation and Nationalism (Bodean 2007) and it attempts to analyze, from a political economy point of view, the influence of various factors on the rise of nations and nationalism since the 19^th Century. The voice continues to be one of the philosopher as an expert-constructing an authority through stating "facts" and proposing explanations-but the difference from other papers consists in the fact that the discursive position is a consciously theoretical one, not one of a "defender of values" or of "counselor":

In order to explain why individuals want to engage in nationalist activities, we will start from the following matters of fact: first-most participants in nationalist activities claim that living together with other nationalities presents challenges or prevents the nation's self-expression, destroying its identity; second-sometimes national groups seem to accept "cohabitating" with other national groups only if they hold "power", lead the country; third-sometimes people sacrifice their wealth and life in their fight for national identity and power. (Bodean 2007: 101)

So, at least in part, the philosophical voice is one of noticing, stating what can be regarded as obvious-in order to formulate an explanation from a theoretical position. One thing a reader can notice is the presence of qualifications like "most" or "sometimes"-even if, in other places, the author returns to a more confident voice, speaking in terms of "direct consequence of..." and "only if":

The nationalization of economic policy was a direct consequence of the extension of national aspirations for the benefit of the whole population. An international order would have been compatible with the national order only if the economy was apolitical. When attention to social aspects substituted the concept of laissez faire, the global single economy was substituted by a multitude of national economies, each nation being preoccupied with the welfare of its own members. (Bodean 2007: 98)

Another PhD student publishing in that year is Andrei Perciun, who authored a paper called Philosophical Considerations Regarding a Noema of Photographic Image (Perciun 2007: 104-110). The main part of the paper is a reading of Roland Barthes' Camera Lucida-focusing on a single work being an atypical discursive strategy for most of the papers that we analyzed. Another atypical thing that can be noticed is the fact that the work analyzed belongs to a 20^th Century foreign author. Moreover, it is the only paper that presents quotes in the original language (French), without translation:

Barthes tries to measure the degree of verisimilarity of the visual image by analyzing in detail a photography in which his aged mother is represented. Barthes' game is interpretatively involved in vectorial reasoning about time. Presentifying an unlived past, the paradox of an unowned one's own is reached: "Ce n'etait pas elle, et pourtant ce n' etait personne d'autre". At the same time, the perceived image remains particularly true, and generally false; differentiating itself in order to recognize identity, the photographic image remains inessential under the aspect of present reality. The visual image's challenge focuses on the "as if" moment, akin to the definition of a dream. This induces to the gullible consciousness a tempting adventure that unfolds between a knowing and a seeing of reality. Knowing, in the true sense of the word, gradually dissolves, with a serious exuberance, in a circular game of time, reality, and being. Thus, Godard's formula is reached, "Pas une image juste, juste une image", where the visual image moves away from the seemingly so desired scientific truth. (Perciun 2007: 108)

The discursive position inhabited by the voice is that of a reflective reader: a reader that engages with the text, quotes and paraphrases it, trying to grasp what is it about and as what its topic is presented: a first attempt to use another's thinking as the medium for engaging with a topic, in this case-the status of the photographic image.

Generalizing about the papers published in 2007, we can notice a first distinction between established researchers and PhD students, a difference of topics and of discursive strategies they use. Most of the papers published in the Philosophy section dealt, in one way or another, with the topic of values, and most of the authors assumed an already given hierarchy of values and the role of "defenders of the tradition" (with the notable exception of the more relativist and quietist Saptefrati), operating in the logic of "heritage" and extending it from reclaiming authors of the past to maintaining the "values heritage of the nation". At the same time, out of the papers by PhD students, published in the Research Reports section, two of them deal with 20^th Century European philosophy, and are written either with an essayistic tone, or from the position of reflectively engaging with a single work; one of them consciously assumes a theoretical position-political economy-and tries to make sense of "noticed matters of fact" from its perspective; and one is integrated both in the "heritage discourse" and in the "values discourse", trying to speak together with the "great philosophers included in the heritage" and to present their ideas about values to a contemporary audience.

"Heritage": continuity and breaks

After these two synchronic analyses-focusing on two key years of the Journal of Philosophy and..., the year of its first independent publication in a newly independent country (1992), as Journal of Philosophy and Law, and the year of the change of its title in Journal of Philosophy, Social Science, and Political Science (2007), the possibility for a few more general reflections arises.

First, the program proposed in (Babii 1992)-the idea of "reclaiming heritage" as the main impetus for a new way of doing history of philosophy in a post-communist context-was enormously fruitful, and it was adopted by a number of authors who continue to publish in the journal for decades, and by their PhD students as well. Its first applications arose in 1992 through reclaiming "forgotten figures" of "Moldovan philosophy", such like A. S. Sturdza or P. Mogila, in a double attempt: to present their work to a contemporary audience and to position them as "our own precursors". In 2007, the main field for "reclaiming" was already that of 20^th Century Romanian philosophy. Due to the fact that the official cultural policy in Soviet Moldova was to deny its participation in the Romanian culture and its belonging to the Romanian linguistic and cultural space, figures like M. Eliade, T. Vianu, L. Blaga (to mention only those to whom studies were dedicated in the Journal) were considered taboo. Even if, in Romania, a multitude of studies touching on them appeared, and they continued to be read even during the years the Romanian communist regime was forbidding them, they were virtually unknown to the Moldovan public. In this sense, the movement of reclaiming them had two basic functions: to emphasize the belonging of Moldovan culture to the larger Romanian cultural areal and to offer relatively easy and accessible topics for doing history of philosophy: their works were relatively available, there was an abundance of secondary literature, and the task for a historian of philosophy deciding to "reclaim" them for the Moldovan space was relatively straightforward.

Second, the main discursive position in 1992-the period in which there was an attempt to find out how a philosophy paper can be written in a post-Soviet context-was that of the philosopher as an expert responding to the requirements of the present moment. There is a deep confidence in the possibility to know "how things should look like" and "what would lead to the desired outcome". The topics that are touched upon in the papers vary: the rise of unemployment, relationship ethics, social justice, the way to do history of philosophy, and, of course, the emerging topic of "heritage". 2007, on the other hand, is marked by "the great values controversy". Values (and "norms") become a central topic for almost all the philosophers publishing in the Philosophy rubric of the journal. The position adopted by most of them is that of a "defender of traditional values" in the face of globalization and "postmodernism". The only voice that makes an exception is claiming that no hierarchy of values is possible (in the condition of "postmodernism"), but encourages a certain education of sensitivity to values among the youth, without imposing the content of values. So, the voice of the philosopher becomes that of an active society member, preoccupied with what they see as a threat: either "non-values" or "lack of sensitivity to values" risks affecting / "destructing" the "already established values", and the philosophers see as their task to point out this phenomenon and, usually, propose explanations-from an "expert position"-as to the sources of the problem and possible strategies.

Third, the journal has established a clear-cut difference between "authors with a PhD" and "PhD students", publishing their papers in different rubrics: Philosophy and Research Reports (Comunicari stiintifice, problematically translated, in the English version of the contents, as Research Papers). The 2007 papers of PhD students are, indeed, different from those belonging to PhDs: they explore a more essayistic tone and are proposing positive readings of 20^th Century continental philosophers, while the papers belonging to PhDs are usually exploring more general topics ("values", "social norms"), without focusing on a particular author (the only exception in the Philosophy section is a paper on argumentation in Plato, and the one in the Heritage rubric-on "Romanian axiological identity" in M. Eliade; in the latter case, there is still a continuity of topic- "values", operating in the logic of heritage, but the paper is focused on the work of a single author). The innovative character of PhD students' work is due to an attempt to engage as readers with continental philosophy, letting the discourse of philosophers they read affect their own voice, the result being a clear difference from their PhD holding colleagues. A similar strategy of borrowing one's voice to another or speaking with is adopted by those who write about Romanian philosophers, in a "heritage" logic (the main difference here is one of stylistic experimentation, specific to the PhD students and absent from most established researchers).

These trends have continued and deepened over the years. The contemporary landscape of papers published in the Journal of Philosophy, Social Science, and Political Science has a number of similar aspects: the Heritage rubric continues to be present in the journal, publishing mainly papers on 19^th and 20^th Century Romanian philosophers; there is a tendency to write about general issues (considered as relevant for the society), but papers dedicated to single authors have slowly made their way in the Philosophy rubric as well; and, after more people influenced by 20^th Century continental philosophy have defended their dissertations, a greater stylistic difference is present in the Philosophy rubric as well, shifting from the discursive position of the "philosopher as an expert speaking about an issue relevant for the society" to the more modest position of "philosopher as reflective reader".

Bibliography

1. Anikin, V. I. (1992). Metamorfozy sociaL'nojspravedlivosti (gumanisticeskij aspekt) [from Rus.: The metamorphosis of the social justice (the humanitarian aspect)]. Revista de filosofie si drept 3(101): 16-24.

2. Babii, Alexandru. (1992). Cercetari istorico-fiLosofice in Moldova. Realizari si perspective [from Rom.: Historic-phiLosophicaL research in Moldova. Accomplishments and perspectives]. Revista defilosofie si drept 1(99): 13-21.

3. Babii, Alexandru, Vrabie, Emil. (1992). Un studiu demn de atentie [from Rom.: A study worthy of attention]. Revista de filosofie si drept 3(101): 31-35.

4. Bobana, Gheorghe. (1992). "Pro fide et patria" in conceptia Lui Petru Movila [from Rom.: "Pro fide et patria" in Petru Movila `s view]. Revista de filosofie si drept 2(100): 17-23.

5. Bobana, Gheorghe. (2007). Mircea Eliade si identitatea axiologica romaneasca [from Rom.: Mircea Eliade and the Romanian axiological identity]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie si stiinte politice 1(143): 131135.

6. Boboc, Alexandru. (1992). Filosofia si sistemul valorilor in cultura "Luminilor" [from Rom.: Philosophy and values system in the "Enlightenment" culture]. Revista de filosofie si drept 2(100): 11-16.

7. Bodean, Nicolae. (2007). Rolul factorului economic in formarea si manifestarea natiunii si nationalismului [from Rom.: pleas translate in Eng]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie si stiinte politice 3(145): 92-103.

8. Capcelea, Valeriu. (2007a). Dimensiunea filosofica a categoriei "traditie" si functiile ei sociale [from Rom.: The philosophical dimension of the "tradition" category and its social functions]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie si stiinte politice 1(143): 63-72.

9. Capcelea, Valeriu. (2007b). Functiile normelor sociale [from Rom.: The functions of social norms]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie si stiinte politice 2(144): 29-38.

10. Cheianu, Carolina. (2007). Criterii de clasificare si ierarhizare a valorilor la Tudor Vianu si Lucian Blaga: studiu comparativ [from Rom.: Criteria for classification and hierachization of values in Tudor Vianu and Lucian Blaga: a comparative study]. Revista defilosofie, sociologiesistiintepolitice 2(144): 139145.

11. Gutu, Vasile. Elocinta si argumentarea in viziunea Lui Platon [from Rom.: Eloquence and argumentation in Plato]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie si stiinte politice 3(145): 13-19.

12. Pahopol, S. C. (1992). Kul'tura bracno-semejnyh otnosenij [from Rus.: The culture on the marriage-family relations]. Revista de filosofie si drept 1(99): 21-37.

13. Pascaru, Ana. (2007). Raport si motivare in conditionarea valorilor societale [from Rom.: Relation and Motivation in Social Values Conditioning]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie si stiinte politice 2(144): 14-21.

14. Perciun, Andrei. (2007). Consideratii filosofice pentru o noema a imaginii fotografice [from Rom.: Philosophical Considerations Regarding a Noema of Photographic Image]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie si stiinte politice 3(145): 104-110.

15. Rau, Alexe. (2007). Scrierea ca daseinograma [from Rom.: Writing as Daseinogram]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie si stiinte politice 1(143): 87-95.

16. Rumleanschi, Petru, Tapoc, Vasile. (1992). Principiile de baza ale cunostintelor umane si rolul lor in creatia stiintifica [from Rom.: Fundamental Principles of Human Knowledge and Their Role in Scientific Creation]. Revista de filosofie si drept 2(100): 3-11.

17. Rosca, Alexandru. (1992). Omul ca subiect al actiunii sociale [from Rom.: Man as a Subject of Social Action]. Revista de filosofie si drept 3(101): 3-9.

18. Sarbu, I. F. (1992). Nekotorye filosofskie problemy obsej ekologii [from Rus.: Some philosophical issues of the general ecology]. Revista de filosofie si drept 2(100): 3-11.

19. Saptefrati, Silvia. (2007). Statutul valorii in postmodernism [from Rom.: The Status of Value in Postmodernism]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie si stiinte politice 1(143): 57-62.

20. Trofaila, Lidia. (1992). Divergentele in familie: aspectul social-psihologic [from Rom.: Divergences in the Family: Social-Psychological Aspect]. Revista de filosofie si drept 3(101): 9-16.

21. Troianowski, Lidia. (2007a). Valori estetice: globalizare versus universalitate [from Rom.: Aesthetic values: Globalization Versus Universality (I)]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie si stiinte politice 1(143): 49-56.

22. Troianowski, Lidia. (2007b). Escaladarea dimensiunilor eliadeene: reflexe si reflectii [from Rom.: The climbing of Eliadean dimensions: reflexes and reflections]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie si stiinte politice 1(143): 136-139.

23. Troianowski, Lidia. (2007c). Valori estetice: globalizare versus universalitate (II) [from Rom.: Aesthetic values: Globalization Versus Universality (II)]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie si stiinte politice 2(144): 22-28.

24. Ursul, Arcadie. (2007a). Pravo tret'ego tysaciletia: metodologiceskie aspekty [from Rus.: The law of the third millennium]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie sistiinte politice 2(144): 5-13.

25. Ursul, Arcadie. (2007b). Pravo tret'ego tysaciletia: metodologiceskie aspekty (II) [from Rus.: The law of the third millennium (II)]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie si stiinte politice 3(145): 5-12.

26. Varzari, Panteleimon. (1992). Productia si omul: potentialul creator al personalitatii in sfera muncii [from Rom.: Production and Man: The Creative Potential of the Personality in the Sphere of Work]. Revista de filosofie si drept 1(99): 3-13.

Размещено на Allbest.ru