Search results

U prvom dijelu ove studije, objavljenom u prvom broju časopisa "Svjetionik", autor je ukratko izložio osnovne elemente filozofije politike karakteristične za historiju savremenih nacija u kojem je analizirao odnose pojedinca, naroda, nacije i države. Drugi dio ove studije fokusira se na odnos Bošnjaka prema kolektivnom sjećanju koje je, kako autor smatra, pod utjecajem dugoročne političke strategije susjeda, dovedeno na prag amnezije. Autor smatra da poljuljana kolektivna memorija predstavlja najneuralgičniji problem i najveću opasnost za historijsku reintegraciju i homogenizaciju Bošnjaka kao naroda i nacije. Autor naglašava da je "Bosanac" teritorijalna odrednica i potpuno isključuje nacionalnu odrednicu "Bošnjak". Koketiranje s formulacijom "Bošnjaci/Bosanci", koja se često koristi, ne samo što ne afirmira etničku i nacionalnu pripadnost Bošnjaka nego još dodatno negira njihovu posebnost – a time dovodi u pitanje i samo postojanje Bošnjaka. Bošnjak se rađa, Bošnjak se ostaje. "Bosanac" se postaje, "Bosanac" se prestaje biti. Bošnjak koji živi u Bosni ujedno je i "Bosanac". "Bosanac" koji nije Bošnjak, nigdje, pa ni u Bosni, ne postaje Bošnjak. Bošnjak koji ne živi u Bosni ostaje Bošnjak, ali prestaje biti "Bosanac". Cilj supstituiranja historijskog imena Bošnjaci teritorijalnom odrednicom "Bosanci", očigledan je: Razbiti homogeno jezgro Bošnjaka brisanjem svijesti o njihovoj etničkoj posebnosti, imenu, nacionalnom jedinstvu, zajedničkoj historiji, kulturi, jeziku, ukratko – zajedničkoj prošlosti, sadašnjosti i budućnosti. Također u studiji se podsjeća na razliku savremenog shvatanja nacije od načina na koji je ovaj društveni fenomen bio tumačen sve do sredine 20. stoljeća. Iza razgraničenja nacije od naroda, kao njegove navodno superiorne forme, u pozadini se krije nastojanje da se narod, kao objektivna činjenica, relativizira, uzajamne veze njegovih pripadnika oslabe i da se cijelo stanovništvo podvede pod kontrolu centralne političke moći – kao prividno integrirana i homogena cjelina. ; In the first part of this study, published in the first issue of the magazine Illuminatio/Svjetionik/Almanar, the author briefly outlined the basic elements of the philosophy of politics characteristic of the history of modern nations in which he analysed the relations of the individual, the people, the nation and the state. The second part of this study focuses on the attitude of Bosniaks towards collective memory, which, according to the author, was brought to the threshold of amnesia under the influence of the long-term political strategy of their neighbours. The author believes that the shaken collective memory represents the most neuralgic problem and the greatest danger for the historical reintegration and homogenization of Bosniaks as an ethnicity and a nation. The author emphasizes that "Bosnian" is a territorial determinant and completely excludes the national determinant "Bosniak". Flirting with the phrase "Bosniaks/Bosnians", which is often used, is not only a denouncement of the ethnic and national affiliation of Bosniaks, but further denies their uniqueness – and thus calls into question the very existence of Bosniaks. A Bosniak is born, a Bosniak remains. A "Bosnian" becomes, a "Bosnian" cease to be. A Bosniak living in Bosnia is also a "Bosnian". A "Bosnian" who is not a Bosniak does not become a Bosniak anywhere, not even in Bosnia. A Bosniak who does not live in Bosnia remains a Bosniak, but ceases to be a "Bosnian". The goal of substituting the historical name Bosniaks with the territorial designation "Bosnians" is obvious: Break the homogeneous core of Bosniaks by erasing awareness of their ethnic identity, name, national unity, common history, culture, language, in short – a common past, present and future. The study also recalls the difference between the modern understanding of the nation and the way in which this social phenomenon was interpreted until the middle of the 20th century. Behind the separation of the nation from the ethnicity/people, as the supposedly superior form, lies the effort to relativize the ethnicity/people, as an objective fact, to weaken the mutual ties of its members and to bring the entire population under the control of central political power – as a seemingly integrated and homogeneous whole.

U ovom članku autor na sugestivan način ukazuje na važnost razumijevanja nacije i države u kontekstu evropske filozofske misli i prakse o naciji i državi. Iako su mu povod nacija Bošnjaka i bosanska država, autorova razmišljanja su aplikativna za sve skupine slične naciji Bošnjaka, kao i za države slične bosanskoj državi. Osnovna misao u ovom članku je da ideja univerzalne nacije, kulture i civilizacije niti osporava niti negira partikularni osjećaj i subjektivni doživljaj nacije i države. Članstvo u Evropskoj uniji ne oduzima pravo nijednoj naciji u Evropi da gaji i razvija svoju nacionalno-kulturnu i nacionalno-državnu svijest. Zapravo, u mjeri u kojoj je svaka nacija i svaka država u Evropi aktivno svjesna svoje nacionalne i kulturne specifične vrijednosti, čini Evropu, odnosno Evropsku uniju, snažnom i važnom u globalnom svijetu. Otuda i Bošnjaci, odnosno Bosanci, kao nacija i kao država (nacija) nemaju potrebe da se povlače, već imaju historijsku obavezu da istaknu svoju specifičnu bosansku kulturu i bosansku državu kao bogatstvo vrijedno pažnje ne samo u Evropi već i u svijetu. ; In this article, the author suggestively points to the importance of understanding the concept of nation and the state in the context of the European philosophical thought and practice regarding the nation and the state. Although the occasion is about the Bosniak/Bosnian nation and the Bosnian state, the author's reflections are applicable to all groups similar to the Bosniak/Bosnain nation, as well as to all the states similar to the Bosnian state. The basic premise of this article is that the idea of a universal nationality, culture and civilisation does not oppose or negate the particular feeling or the subjective experience of either the nationality or the state. The membership of European Union does not detract the right for any nation in Europe of the right to cultivate and develop its national culture as well as its particular state consciousness. In fact, in the extent of which every nation and every state in Europe has an active awareness of its national and cultural specific value, gives Europe, indeed – the European Union strong and important role in the global community. Hence, the Bosniaks/Bosnians, both as a nation and a state (nation) have no need to withdraw, but rather have the historical opportunity to feature their specific Bosnian culture and Bosnian state as a richness worthy of appreciation, not only in Europe, but also in the world.

Treći, završni dio ove studije, analizira odnos Bošnjaka i Bosne kroz interakciju tri hronološki i problemski povezana procesa. Prvim postupkom, definiranim kao 'arheologija politike zaborava', rekonstruiraju se, u svim dosadašnjim istraživanjima potpuno zapostavljeni, aspekti geneze historijskih i političkih faktora projekta negiranja Bošnjaka kao posebnog naroda/nacije, brisanja njihovog historijskog imena, naziva jezika te etničkog, duhovnog, kulturnog i državotvornog identiteta. Drugo, razmatra se pitanje odnosa Bošnjaka kao naroda/nacije i Bosne kao njihove matične države, koju su oni stvorili i odbranili, iz generalne problemsko-teorijske perspektive kao i iz novijih zbivanja i aktuelne situacije. Treće, argumentira se teza da je očuvanje historijskog imena "Bošnjaci", vraćenog 28. septembra 1993. godine, trajni strateški imperativ svih Bošnjaka svijeta i conditio sine qua non opstanka Bosne kao države i kao koncepta. Kritički se analizira inicijativa da se umjesto historijskog imena upotrebljavaju teritorijalne odrednice "Bosanci", odnosno "Bosanci i Hercegovci" što ima za cilj definitivno ukloniti s historijske scene Bošnjake kao narod/naciju. Budući da je opstanak Bošnjaka nužni uvjet opstanka i postojanja Bosne, imperativ historijskog trenutka nalaže bezrezervno prihvatanje historijskog imena "Bošnjaci", obnovu osjećanja zajedničke pripadnosti i uzajamne povezanosti Bošnjaka kao naroda/nacije, jačanje emotivne veze sa sopstvenim nacionalnim bićem te uspostavljanje svijesti o moralnoj obavezi svakog pojedinca Bošnjaka prema svom narodu, Bošnjacima, i njihovoj matičnoj državi Bosni. ; The third, final part of this study, analyses the relationship between Bosniaks and Bosnia through the interaction of three chronologically problem-related processes: 1. The procedure defined as 'The Archeology of the Politics of Oblivion' reconstructs in all previous research completely neglected aspects of the genesis of historical and political factors of the project of denial of Bosniaks as a separate people / nation, erasing their historical name, language name and ethnic, spiritual, cultural and state identity; 2. The issue of the relationship between Bosniaks as a people / nation and Bosnia, as their home state, which they created and defended, from the general problem-theory perspective as well as from recent events and with the current situation being considered; 3. The thesis is argued that the preservation of the historical name "Bosniaks", returned on September 28, 1993, is a permanent strategic imperative of all Bosniaks in the world and a conditio sine qua non of the survival of Bosnia as a state and as a concept. The initiative to use the territorial determinants "Bosnians" or "Bosnians and Herzegovinians" instead of the historical name, which aims to definitively remove Bosniaks from the historical scene as a people / nation, is critically analysed. Since the survival of Bosniaks is a necessary condition for the survival and existence of Bosnia, the imperatives of the historical moment require the unconditional acceptance of the historical name "Bosniaks", the renewal of the sense of common belonging and mutual connection of Bosniaks as a people / nation, strengthening the emotional connection with one's own national being and establishing the awareness of the moral obligation of every individual Bosniak towards his/her Bosniak people and their home state of Bosnia.

In addition to national and international armies - armed forces of states and alliances, paramilitary armed formations (the so-called paramilitary) play aprominent role in contemporary international and non-international armed conflicts. They are made up of so-called voluntary fighters (patriots, contracts), i.e. mercenaries or "looters" (so-called war dogs) within armed formations that are not officially part of, and most often not under the command, of regular armed forces. As a rule, they are formed, armed, equipped, trained, paid and controlled by certain political centers of power - foreign governments and intelligence, hostile political emigration, political parties, criminal and other extremist (pseudo-patriotic, nationalist and para-religious) organizations (the so-called warlords) for whose account the paramilitary formations occupied part of the territory of the sovereign state in which the armed conflict took place and established power on it. They are often associated with numerous war crimes, terrorist attacks and robberies. Since the terms 'warlords', 'paramilitary', 'mercenaries', and 'war dog' are oftenincorrectly usedin everyday communication of media, public and even scholars, this paper attempts to conceptualize and make a clear distinction between these phenomena. ; Осим националних и међународних војски – оружаних снага држава и савеза држава, у савременим међународним и немеђународним оружаним сукобима све значајнију улогу узимају паравојне оружане формације (тзв. паравојске). Њих чине тзв. добровољни борци (патриоте, уговорци), односно плаћеници или "пљачкаши" (тзв. пси рата) који су део наоружаних формација које званично нису у саставу, а најчешће ни под командом регуларних оружаних снага. Паравојске по правилу формирају, наоружавају, опремају, обучавају, плаћају и контролишу извесни политички центри моћи – иностране владе и обавештајне службе, непријатељска политичка емиграција, политичке партије, криминалне и друге екстремистичке (псеудопатриотске, националистичке и параверске) организације (тзв. господари рата) за чији рачун су паравојне формације и заузеле део територије суверене државе у којој се одвија оружани конфликт и на њој "успоставиле власт". За њих се неретко везују бројни ратни злочини, терористички напади и пљачке. Како се у животу, а неретко и у теорији безбедности не разликују и погрешно употребљавају термини "господари рата", "паравојске", плаћеници и "пси рата", у раду је учињен покушај појмовног одређења и дистанцирања ових појава.

The author analyses the symbolism of the concepts such as stick, rod, club and birch in the metaphorical political terminology. The author shows that these symbols are present both in the language of the Western political philosophy and the non-Western cultures, while their connotations vary: they are reminiscent of a phallus, of a warrior's spear and arrow, a cudgel which a master uses on his disobedient slaves and family members, a shepherd's staff for managing his herd and the accoutrements used both in black and white magic. (SOI : PM: S. 169)

The author analyses the concept of neo-classicism in contemporary political philosophy. The study begins with a description of contemporary neo-classic developments and continues with a precise delineation of Plato's and Aristotle's philosophy of politics. In the end, the author concludes that the antiquity-inspired philosophy of politics today has the corrective function to steer liberal society towards community. (SOI : PM: S. 156)

Antonio Gramši posvetio je znatnu pažnju razmatranju kulturnih praksi i njihove funkcije u društveno-istorijskim procesima u svojim teorijskim spisima. Važan segment njegovog istraživanja predstavljala je i analiza umetnosti i književnosti modernog doba koju je na posredan način uključio u širu raspravu o problemu podesnosti istorijskog marksizma kao filozofske i društvene prakse, društvene moći i njene kulturne i istorijske pojavnosti, kulturne i političke emancipacije podređenih slojeva itd. Fokusirajući se u najvećoj meri na eksplikaciju sociokulturnih, političkih i istorijskih dimenzija italijanske književnost od renesansnog do modernističkog perioda, Gramši je razvio nacrt sopstvene verzije marksističke estetike, ponudivši specifična tumačenja problema društvene funkcije umetničkih praksi, prirode umetničkog stvaranja i umetničkog dela, kao i potrošnje umetničkih produkata. U ovom tekstu ćemo razmotriti Gramšijeve uvide o umetnosti u kontekstu njegovih obuhvatnih teorijskih, filozofskih i istorijskih ispitivanja sa namerom da na njihovoj osnovi izvedemo model za analizu muzičkih praksi modernog i postmodernog doba. Cilj takvog poduhvata je ispitivanje dometa / ograničenja gramšijevske analize muzike iz koga bi proistekao kritički osvrt na način primene ključnih koncepata ovog teoretičara u postojećim istraživanjima muzičkih pojava. ; Antonio Gramsci dedicated a lot of his attention in his writings to the analysis of the cultural practices and their function in the socio-historical processes. An important segment of his work included the analysis of art and literature of modern times which was indirectly incorporated into the discussion of the problem of usefulness of historical materialism as a philosophical and social practice, social power and its cultural and historical appearances, cultural and political emancipation of subaltern classes etc. Mostly focusing on the explication of socio-cultural, political and historical dimensions of Italian literature of Renaissance and the modern period, Gramsci elaborated a sketch of his own version of Marxist aesthetic proposing specific interpretations of the problem of social function of artistic practices, the nature of artistic action and artwork and the consumption of artistic artifacts. In this paper we will discuss Gramsci's thought on art in the context of his comprehensive theoretical, philosophical and historical research aiming at elaborating a Gramscian model of analysis of music practices of modern and postmodern times. One of our results should be the examination of the possibilities of the analysis of music based on Gramsci's theory as well as the critical review of the application of its main concepts in the existing body of research on music.

In his main oeuvre from the field of political philosophy ('Basic Traits of the Philosophy of Right'), Hegel wished to reconcile civil society with state. Civil society is for Hegel the way of abstract notion of property concretization. Subjective form of property is evolutioning into objective relationships among title holders. It is in the state where the will is set free from its particular interests and is becoming free in the widest sense of the word. Since civil society is established as per marketing principles, it is subject to inequalities. Since inequalities bear destructive effect on the life in community, civic particularism may be overcome only in institutional way. That institution is the state as the 'seriousness of the spirit', and the essence of civil society. Civil society is a liberal one, and the state is based on liberal principles. For Hegel, contrary to Hobbes and Locke, liberal society is not a social contract among individuals who possessed some natural rights (property), but reciproque and equal agreement among citizens and states which wish to recognize themselves mutually. It is not an own interest, but searching for rational recognition. The same as citizens, states also wish to reconcile themselves mutually, what in the situation in Kosovo and Metohia alike gets the original form.

Due to the increasing globalization and the danger of reducing all beings to things, it is central to point out again and again that a human being is not a thing among other things, and that the appreciation and realization of their life requires nurturing and cultivating the variety of human knowledge pertinent to different spheres of the historical world of life. Thus, the relevance and the role of practical philosophy is gaining significance regarding the - to the historical Being - proper understanding and fulfilIment of human potentials in today's world. (SOI : PM: S. 25) + The author first defines the various facets of globalization in today's world and emphasizes the key changes that are stepping up and intensifying communication among peoples, nations, and cultures all over the world. However, parallel to this there are other pressing problems: from the ecological crisis, to the realization of human rights, to the anomie of life and work. All this proves that globalization is not only an economic and technical but, ultimately, practically an ethic/political issue. Along the lines of Hegel's philosophy of world history and Aristotle's practical philosophy, the author has come to view the contemporary globalization as a step forward of world civilization, i.e. as a possibility of the realization of freedom and good life. Globalization, of course, scares people with its unpredictability and the erratic development of "global society" which (in line with Beck's distinction between the First and the Second Modernism) today is represented as a society of nation-states on the one hand, and as a "global society of transnational actors" on the other