Search results

The problem of inequality is presented as a constant object of reflection in the philosophy of Rousseau, pervading several of his works. Seeking to analyze the relationship between social inequality and political corruption in Rousseau's thought, through the defense of the hypothesis that social inequality is a phenomenon responsible for the advent of political corruption, we intend, in this article, first, to examine the distinctions between natural inequality and social inequality, or establish their specific characteristics, as Rousseau understands each; second, to analyse how social inequality can produce political corruption, that is, to understand why inequality of wealth, in producing luxury, can thus engender political corruption, and thirdly, to show which are the most drastic consequences of social inequality in the republic. Thus, we aim to establish a fruitful debate and a consistent reflection.

In this article we intend to establish the bases that Martín de Azpilcueta demonstrates his foundation of political authority to reflect on how this thinker articulates his argument to present the people as the original holder of the civil power by natural right. To achieve this objective it will be present how the author relates and distinguishes the ecclesiastical power from secular or civil power. So, it will be shown how the Spanish thinker establishes his foundation of popular civil authority by claiming that civil power legitimizes itself by having its origin in God because it is your natural order and it is given immediately to the community of mortals. According to the thought of Martín de Azpilcueta, it is possible to consider that the secular political authority has the people as its legitimate depository and results in the original equality of all men in public life. In order to accomplish the objective presented in this paper, we will specifically study Notabile tertium present in the work Martín de Azpilcueta called Relectio C. Novit de Iudiciis first published in Coimbra in the year 1548.

Polarization has dominated the global political outlook for the past decade and has affected public governance. This study aims to demonstrate that public managers can analyze the decision-making opportunities in government by understanding the philosophical, political, and managerial-technical backgrounds, avoiding the harmful polarization of ideas present in the public environment today. This theoretical essay contributes to comprehending the nature of the knowledge structure applied to public administration. It also contributes to separate the private and the institutional dimensions. The reflection suggests that it is possible to avoid reifying political opinions and maintaining a democratic spirit, so managers can become more conducive to consider the plurality of ideas and be more open-minded without refraining from their convictions. These steps can be followed without losing focus on improving society's quality of life as an impartial and scientific outcome of public management. ; La polarización ha dominado el panorama político mundial durante la última década y ha afectado la gobernanza pública. El objetivo de este estudio es demostrar que a través de la comprensión de los antecedentes filosóficos, la política y las técnicas de gestión; el gestor de asuntos públicos podrá analizar, con mayor claridad, las oportunidades que implican la toma de decisiones en el ámbito gubernamental, evitando la dañina polarización de ideas, presente en el ámbito público actual. Mediante un ensayo teórico, se espera contribuir al conocimiento de las naturalezas que componen la estructura del conocimiento aplicado a la administración pública, así como a la separación entre lo institucional y lo privado, a la no cosificación de las opiniones políticas y al espíritu democrático; lo que permitiría que el gestor ‒sin abstenerse de sus convicciones‒ se volviera más propicio a considerar la pluralidad de ideas y tendiera a ser más tolerante con las opiniones contrarias, sin perder el foco en mejorar la calidad de vida de la sociedad como corolario de una gestión pública imparcial y científica. ; A polarização tem dominado o cenário político global na última década e afetado a governança pública. O objetivo deste estudo é demonstrar que, por meio da compreensão do pano de fundo filosófico, da política e de técnicas gerenciais, o gestor da coisa pública poderá analisar, de forma mais clara, as oportunidades que envolvem a tomada de decisão nos ambientes governamentais, evitando a polarização nociva de ideias hodiernamente presente no ambiente público. Por meio deste ensaio teórico, espera-se contribuir para o conhecimento das naturezas que compõem a estrutura do conhecimento aplicado à administração pública, bem como para a separação entre o institucional e o privado. Com isso é possível evitar a reificação das opiniões políticas e manter o espírito democrático, o que permitiria ao gestor tornar-se mais propício, sem abster-se de suas convicções, a considerar a pluralidade de ideias e tender a ser mais tolerante com as opiniões contrárias, sem perder o foco na melhoria da qualidade de vida da sociedade como corolário imparcial e científico da gestão pública.

By looking into the relation between democratic political regimes, Alexis de Tocqueville sees that an increase of commerce & industry, the ever-growing equality among citizens & the fact that each nation in the international community increasingly resembles each other, makes it intolerable for the democratic man to resort to war. Democracies do not like war & they mistrust the military spirit. War becomes rarer. But when it finally arises, its intensity & scope are totally unusuaI. Tocqueville finds the causes of this paradox in the very nature of democratic armies as well as in the defense of democratic liberty & the fundamental equality of all human beings. He is convinced that to secure a moderate democracy, the main challenge of democratic nations in international relations is to find the right balance between self-interest & great political principles. Adapted from the source document.

In developing his materialist conception of history, Marx creates, at the same time, a critique to the Hegelian thought next to a critique of political economy. Those critiques are mainly concentrate in his works written throughout his youth, in particular 'The Misery of Philosophy'. Based on this work of Marx, the present paper aims to discourse on the metaphysics of political economy, whose critique is directed mainly to Proudhon responding to the work 'Philosophy of Misery', in which Proudhon tries to provide, in a metaphysical bias, the bases for the social problems, applying the Hegelian dialectic to the method of political economy. For Marx, the Proudhonist ideology, which is expressed in that work, is totally reformist and utopian. In contrast to the Proudhonist thought, and explaining simultaneously the foundations that constitute the theory of social being, which is woven by the capitalist mode of production, Marx publishes in 1847 his work 'The Misery of Philosophy' in response to Proudhon's 'Philosophy of Misery'.

This paper aims to explore the articulation of Marxism, psychoanalysis & political theory in the particular reading of Ernesto Laclau. Consequences in two main areas are analyzed: discourse theory & political philosophy. This author reconfigures the conceptual basis of hegemony & ideology from an original position close to the Althusserian tradition (by means of deconstruction, Foucauldian archaeology & Lacanian Psychoanalysis) to a standpoint that he himself has described as post Marxist. In that frame, his conception of discourse makes a claim for a renewal of the concept of hegemony, giving up the Marxist topic of base & superstructure. Adapted from the source document.