In the paper I present an analysis of the critical approach to the phenomenon of modern bureaucracy by Hannah Arendt within the theoretical framework of cultural evolution. Bureaucracy, understood as the thoughtless rationalization of human behavior, is a process leading to the minimization of the public sphere, understood as the domain of freely performed politics, and consequently to the creation of impersonal tyranny. Contemporary concepts of cultural evolution allow to search for a new model of explanation of this phenomenon, which transforms the understanding of politics and man himself in the contemporary world.
The process of modelling political phenomena, subject to the methodological principles of science, creates problems at various levels of reconstructing reality. The problems result from the application of these principles in isolation from the basic goal, which is the adequacy of the model in relation to real phenomena. This adequacy is considered primarily from the point of view of the possibility of explaining the observed phenomena. The presented analysis concerns the problem of assumptions made in relation to players in game theory and their relation to the social world, but first of all, from the point of view of the relationship between subjectivity, identity and the ability to make decisions by political players based on the semantic interpretation of the world of politics.
Artykuł przedstawia tezę, że decyzja rozumiana jako akt wyboru jest możliwa do wyjaśnienia w ramach teorii kontroli, która przekłada się na rzeczywistą autonomię człowieka. Decyzja w tym ujęciu nie jest typem fenomenu oderwanego od przyczynowej struktury świata ani też rodzajem poręcznej konstrukcji teoretycznej w wyjaśnianiu zachowań, ale funkcjonalnym aspektem umysłu zgodnym (kompatybilnym) z naturalistycznym obrazem świata, obejmującym również humanistykę. W ramach takiej struktury wyjaśniania możemy umieścić decyzje jako element struktur kontroli, które funkcjonują równolegle do struktur przyczynowości i stanowią niezbędny składnik każdego autonomicznego systemu. Co więcej, przy założeniu, że umysł spełnia funkcję semantycznego silnika możemy zarysować kierunek badań, w ramach którego semantyka (język oraz znaczenia i treści kultury) może być interpretowana jako podstawa wyborów (decyzji) dokonywanych w ramach kontekstu kulturowego. The Problem of the Category of Decisions in the Context of the Naturalistic Paradigm of Social Sciences The paper presents the thesis that a decision understood as an act of choice could be explained within the framework of the theory of control, which implicates real human autonomy. A decision in this perspective is not a type of phenomenon detached from the causal structure of the world, nor a kind of handy theoretical structure in explaining behaviour, but a functional aspect of the mind compatible with the naturalistic view of the world, including the humanities. Within such an explanatory structure, we can place decisions as part of the control structures that function alongside causality structures and are a necessary component of any autonomous system. Moreover, if the mind acts as a semantic engine, we can outline the direction of research within which semantics (language, cultural meanings, and content) can be interpreted as the basis for choices (decisions) made within the cultural context.
The paper presents a model of the analysis of politics from the perspective of aesthetic values based on the basic assumptions of game theory. The model includes three values: pathos, sublime and comism. The analyzed values are considered as features of cultural images of political games appearing in different contexts of political actions. Three types of contexts referred to by politicians have been distinguished: archaic, revolutionary and modern eschatological contexts.
The paper presents a model of the analysis of politics from the perspective of aesthetic values based on the basic assumptions of game theory. The model includes three values: pathos, sublime and comism. The analyzed values are considered as features of cultural images of political games appearing in different contexts of political actions. Three types of contexts referred to by politicians have been distinguished: archaic, revolutionary and modern eschatological contexts.
