Suchergebnisse

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.

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.

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.

The notion of public opinion as a process cannot be limited solely to the empirical basis of a theory, it must also focus on the position that this notion occupies with respect to the interpretation of society. Jürgen Habermas's approach to public opinion stems from his classic work on Bourgeois Advertising. Habermas constructs the Normative Theory of Democracy, which is based on the communicative conditions in which a Discursive Formation of the Opinion and Will of a public formed by the citizens of a State can take place as an unfolding of the analyzes about the public opinion. In this argumentative way, Habermas takes up the historical-philosophical project of modernity, attributing to the public opinion the function of legitimizing the political domain through a critical process of communication based on the principles of a rationally motivated consensus. The scope of this article is to make explicit the constitutive elements of the habermasian reflections on the Rational Formation of Opinion and Will, since it is from this primordial concept that we can understand the legitimation of the Rule of Law. We will trace what led the habermasian reflection to seek the conditions of an authentic participation of individuals in a public space, where there is responsibility and solidarity in the execution of the solutions of the problems of a community, and its consequent unfolding that leads to the theory of political power.

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.

Can humanism be post-colonial? What is Africana Philosophy? Who is Lewis Gordon? This paper presents some typical elements of the Jamaican philosopher Lewis Gordon's thought and relates it to the field of Africana Philosophy. For this purpose, it seeks to delineate its theoretical influences and the usage of concepts, such as theodicy, bad faith and reason to understand anti-black racism. In this sense, the following argument pivots on Lewis Gordon's singular contribution to different areas of study, especially political philosophy, social sciences and the humanities. Keywords: Lewis Gordon; Africana Philosophy; Post-colonial Humanism; Existential Phenomenology. ; O humanismo pode ser pós-colonial? O que é a Filosofia Africana? Quem é Lewis Gordon? Este artigo apresenta alguns elementos típicos do pensamento do filósofo jamaicano Lewis Gordon e relaciona-o ao campo da Filosofia Africana. Para tanto, procura delinear suas influências teóricas e o uso de conceitos, como a teodiceia, a má-fé e a razão para entender o racismo anti-negro. Nesse sentido, argumenta-se em torno da contribuição singular de Lewis Gordon para diferentes áreas de estudo, especialmente filosofia política, ciências sociais e humanidades. Palavras-chave: Lewis Gordon; Filosofia Africana; Humanismo Pós-colonial; Fenomenologia Existencial.

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'.

Using the Foucaultian framework, we examine here the basic assumption of the modern and contemporary political order, namely the decisive conception that men are governable. In the genealogical path opened by Michel Foucault we examined the political reworking of what was originally the Judeo-Christian spiritual power of governing souls. For Foucault, the modern political government of men is situated at the intersection of two sets of powers foreshadowed in early Christianity: a) the pastoral art of conducting conduct displaced from the eschatological destination of souls to the calculated management of (biopolitical) biological life and b) the dual production of the knowledge necessary for good governance; the utilitarian production of the truth that serves the pastoral art of government itself and the pure or aleturgical manifestation of the truth with regard to the governable.

In the present paper we will analyze one of the trends of Russian legal philosophy which exerts a considerable influence on the political processes on-going in this country. This trend is revealed in so called state-centralism: an ideology according to which the State is omnipotent and can interfere with any matters without any limitation from inside or outside. This "ideology of Leviathan" has been many times articulated in legal philosophy, to begin with Plato or Aristotle. In Russia this ideology has found a fertile soil, as its waste spaces, heterogeneous population and unfriendly environment (both in political and natural senses) made it clear for many that without powerful central authorities there will be no further for such a big country. To wit, it will either fall apart as the French, British and other empires, or will need to get modernized and restructured according to the models of other big Western counties (like the US). This paper is developed on the base of two lectures that the present author gave in 2013 and 2014 at Law School of the Federal University of Parana grace to kind invitation and support of this School and to relentless efforts of Professor Cesar Serbena. We do hope that this paper will be an important adjunct to our lectures and will be helpful to those of our Brazilian colleagues who seek to understand the actual political situation in Russia, its implications and perspectives in the light of philosophical debates that underpin these discourses. ; No presente artigo analisaremos uma das tendências da filosofia jurídica russa que exerce uma influência considerável nos atuais processos políticos deste país. Essa tendência manifesta-se no chamado centralismo estatal: uma ideologia segundo a qual o Estado é onipotente e pode interferir em qualquer assunto, sem nenhuma limitação interna ou externa. Essa "ideologia do Leviatã" foi por muitas vezes articulada na filosofia jurídica; para começar, com Platão e Aristóteles, e, na Rússia, encontrou um solo fértil, pois seus territórios devastados, sua população heterogênea e seu ambiente pouco amigável (tanto política quanto naturalmente) deixaram claro para muitos que, sem autoridades centrais fortes, não haverá futuro para esse país tão grande. Em resumo, ou a Rússia ruirá como a Inglaterra, a França e outros impérios, ou precisará se modernizar e se reestruturar de acordo com os modelos de outros grandes países ocidentais (como os EUA). Este artigo foi desenvolvido com base em duas palestras que o presente autor apresentou em 2013 e em 2014 na Faculdade de Direito da Universidade Federal do Paraná graças ao convite e suporte desta Faculdade e aos esforços incansáveis do Professor Cesar Antonio Serbena. Nós sinceramente esperamos que este artigo seja uma importante adição às palestras e que seja de alguma ajuda aos nossos colegas brasileiros que buscam compreender a situação política atual da Rússia, assim como implicações e perspectivas sob a luz dos debates filosóficos que permeiam estes discursos.