Suchergebnisse

ch. 1. Pluralism and law -- ch. 2. Pluralism and law (continued) -- ch. 3. Pluralism and representative government : functional representation -- ch. 4. Administrative decentralization -- ch. 5. Pluralism as a solution of the problem of the relation between economics and politics -- ch. 6. Pluralism as a political theory -- ch. 7. Pluralism as a political theory (continued) -- ch. 8. The philosophical background of political pluralism -- ch. 9. Political pluralism and the state as an ethical ideal -- ch. 10. General conclusions.

THE ARTICLE EXAMINES THREE DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES WHICH APPEAR TO BE CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH NATIONAL EFFORTS TO ENGAGE WITH SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. IT IS ARGUED THAT THESE PHENOMENA REQUIRE SERIOUS ATTENTION FROM POLITICAL SCIENTISTS.

Does modern philosophy of art reject the principles and methods of mastering the reality of classical aesthetics, in particular, the category of the beautiful, em­phasizing, on the contrary, the ugly, ugly, terrible, disgusting? The authors strive to find answers in the dialogue of great philosophical masters – "Zeus the Olympian of the German classics" by Hegel and the preacher of "progressive negation" on the border of modernity and postmodernism Theodor Adorno. Hegel insists on the transcendental origin of the beautiful as the coincidence of idea and reality, the sensory phenomenon of the absolute, the resolution of con­tradictions between the subjective and the objective, the universal and the indi­vidual, the finite and the infinite. Adorno opposes, claiming the rights of "beauti­ful negativity". He abandons the transcendental character of beauty and shifts the emphasis to the social sphere. The ugly, the ugly, the ugly should not be hidden. But to portray him in such a way as to arouse disgust towards him, the desire to create a project of "righteous life" But the development of the dialogue reveals that both thinkers ultimately agree on the main thing: the beautiful is inescapable and remains the defining category of both aesthetics and life.

This paper focuses on political transformation processes in post-Communist countries of the current Visegradgroup or as it is also referred to, Central and East European countries, trying to find similar trajectories orsome general patterns of their political development in comparison both with each other and also otherpost-Communist countries.

ABSTRACTThis article explores the value and application of using comic images to teach difficult political texts. We presented either visual or textual portions of the Constitution to 71 American 18- to 22-year-olds using Survey Monkey Audience, measuring and comparing their knowledge of the Constitution before and after viewing. Respondents viewing the comic of congressional duties experienced statistically significant gains in pretest to posttest mean knowledge scores. Respondents viewing the text also experienced an increase in mean scores pretest to posttest; however, these changes were smaller and not statistically significant. This indicates that students may better comprehend content from visual depictions of difficult texts. We conclude by providing an example of one way that we use comics of political texts as a tool for student learning in an international civics exchange program.

In this short paper I ask to what extent the sharp contrast between the
political and the comprehensive, on which political liberals such as Rawls
and Quong place primary emphasis, caters to a truly ?political? conception of
liberalism. I argue that Quong?s own take on this point is more distinctively
?political? than Rawls?s, in that it assigns far less weight to citizens?
comprehensive doctrines. Indeed, I suggest that Quong?s exclusion of
comprehensive doctrines (exemplified by his worries about an ?overlapping
consensus?) has more radical implications than Quong himself seems to think.
In doing so, I offer a streamlined version of Quong?s critique, which
encompasses two more or less direct criticisms of Rawls?s doctrine of the
overlapping consensus. I will call them the ?sincerity objection? and the
?liberal objection?.

This article examines some of the contributions to the contemporary debate over the question of whether there is an important distinction to be made between the natural and the human sciences. In particular, the article looks at the arguments that Charles Taylor has put forward for the recognition of a radical discontinuity between these forms of science and then examines Richard Rorty's objections to Taylor's distinction and argues that Rorty misunderstands the reasons for this distinction and thereby misses the political implications of failing to make such a distinction. In this regard, some arguments made by Anthony Giddens and John O'Neill, respectively, around Alfred Schutz's "postulate of adequacy" are used to show how the social sciences must be conceived so as to avoid consequences inimical to the reproduction and maintenance of participatory, democratic institutions. Additionally, the article uses O'Neill's argument that the Schutzian conceptualization of interpretive sciences can be critical in a way that Giddens and Jürgen Habermas require, while including a translation and accountability principle, to demonstrate how we ought to respect participatory, democratic forms.

Quentin Skinner's thesis 'that political life itself sets the main problems for the political theorist' marks a turning point in the study of the history of political thought. The Protestant princes who revised Luther's doctrine of disobedience in order to save Lutheranism as a political force are the best example of this 'Skinnerian revolution' in The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. This is in accordance with his claim that principles play a legitimating and innovating role in politics. A tacit implication of the thesis is that we should not only read theorists as politicians but also read politicians as theorists. The politician possesses a special competence in discerning between various types of situation, has a distinct contestational imagination, is a person who is prepared to acknowledge the inherent paradoxes of the situation and who has the capacity to deal politically with limited time.