Suchergebnisse

The author analyses globalization and freedom by discussing the works of Dahrendorf and Giddens. Examining issues like risk, tradition, family and democracy, Giddens explores the influence of globalization on societies and states, and on individuals and their everyday life. Dahrendorf discusses the concept of freedom as an "action for realization of opportunities" and in that sense he sees freedom is an action and not as a state. Dahrendorf also discusses globalization as de-democratization. Adapted from the source document.

The author claims that freedom is what makes philosophy possible in its essence. Along with Kant, the author sees in freedom the spring of pure reason. It is in freedom, as a self-construed concept, that pure reason has its substance. The author goes then goes into the negative & positive concepts of freedom & analyzes the practical notion of freedom whose principles might secure world peace. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes the relationship among legal nationhood, social nationhood, & democracy in democratic constitutional states. After identifying the definitions of democratic constitutional state, he concludes that it is an efficient structure within which one can investigate the relationship among democracy, legal, & social nationhood. He suggests that these three principles have their normative roots in human freedom, ie, in the freedom of participating in political negotiation, in the freedom from coercion & unjust rule, in the freedom from exigency, & in the free participation in the "we" of the modern industrial, technological & information society. Finally, the author analyzes the tension between the legal & social nationhood which may be fruitful only if democracy contributes to the accomplishment of major social changes that maximize human freedom. Adapted from the source document.

The author looks into the relation between politics, state and religion from the political-science perspective, as part of an analysis and evaluation of tasks, achievements and failures of polity, policy or politics from the standpoint of normative-constructive philosophy of equity. At present the central task of policy is to stimulate and strengthen the Western political culture based on the fundamental distinction between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" pluralism. "Reasonable" pluralism rests on the assumption that the state is a just power, the sovereignty of which can be recognized in distinguishing the "public" and the "private", the just and the good, and, in connection therewith, it is almost self-understandable that such a liberal guaranteed private sphere must be the primary arena of religious practice and religious freedoms. The crucial trait of the relation between state and religion is manifest in the fact that only the legal state and the liberal constitution are competent to state what the freedom of individuals consists of within the framework of norms of what is just. The author defines "religion" in the comprehensive sense as central to the processes of forming cultural identity, and he deems that cultural policy (which, in principle, has to do with relations between state and religion), as policy of equitable integration of multi-culturally shaped political unities, must be oriented toward stimulation of those attitudes and values which make possible the reasonable pluralism defined according to Rawls. Since the political encompasses also the possibility to make enemies, the author advocates the cultural policy of "weakening the feelings of enmity" (N. Elias). In this way, a systematic concept of policy would be created, one which would reflect and preserve the conditions of reasonable pluralism. On the policy level and, in particular, on the politics level, cultural policy is a very demanding project. Perhaps it is precisely Switzerland, with its special prospects of civil democracy, that offers promising cultural-policy opportunities for activity, which are as yet still insufficiently researched. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyses globalization and freedom by discussing the works of Dahrendorf and Giddens. Examining issues like risk, tradition, family and democracy, Giddens explores the influence of globalization on societies and states, and on individuals and their everyday life. Dahrendorf discusses the concept of freedom as an "action for realization of opportunities" and in that sense he sees freedom is an action and not as a state. Dahrendorf also discusses globalization as de-democratization. Adapted from the source document.

The revival of the nation has shocked German intellectuals who think that the nation-state is historically obsolete & that new models should be upheld: the united Europe, a world community of responsible states, globalization of markets, a universe of human rights. The contrary tendencies in today's world are marked by giving up on huge political entities, which have been replaced by smaller nationality-based states. It seems that political freedom leads to the formation of nation-states based on democratic constitution. This process requires looking into the relation between the nation-state & democracy. The key for the explanation of their relationship can be found in the notion of nation. Citizenship mediates between the people (in its real manifestation as a social group), & democracy as a constitutional principle. It gives to the state as a personal entity legal structure on which to build a democratic form of the state & guarantees legally applicable taxonomies & limitations. Adapted from the source document.

The fundamental attitude of genuine individualism is humility toward the process by which humankind has achieved things that are not designed or comprehended by a single individual & that go beyond individual acumen. It remains to be seen whether human reason is to confine itself with the chains of its own design. Individualism teaches us that the society is bigger than the individual only when free. When controlled or directed, it is limited to the powers of individual brains that control or direct it. If the presumptuousness of modern spirit that dismisses everything not consciously controlled by the individual mind is not checked in time, Edmund Burke cautions that we may "be sure everything around us is to gradually disappear, until our interests eventually shrink to the dimensions of our brains.". Adapted from the source document.

The fundamental attitude of genuine individualism is humility toward the process by which humankind has achieved things that are not designed or comprehended by a single individual & that go beyond individual acumen. It remains to be seen whether human reason is to confine itself with the chains of its own design. Individualism teaches us that the society is bigger than the individual only when free. When controlled or directed, it is limited to the powers of individual brains that control or direct it. If the presumptuousness of modern spirit that dismisses everything not consciously controlled by the individual mind is not checked in time, Edmund Burke cautions that we may "be sure everything around us is to gradually disappear, until our interests eventually shrink to the dimensions of our brains.". Adapted from the source document.

The author demonstrates how the individual is implied in the very idea & concept of democracy as being free in principle & equal to other individuals. The emancipation & subjectivization of man in the new era appears to be the fundamental presupposition of every democracy, including, of course, the pluralistic one. In a political community in which the free individual does not happen to be the starting point & the purpose of the political system, there is no democracy. Neither is there any demos, as this entity is only possible if a full & unalienable political subjectivity of the individual is presupposed. Without the philosophy & the historical experience of liberalism, there would be no possibility for a modern pluralist democracy either. Pluralism suits human nature & relationships among people more than all other political forms. Man himself is "structured pluralistically" because of the complex mental structure & the different interests that activate him. No social order or political system based on the principle of collectivity (regardless of its social, national, religious, or philosophical origin) has any chance either to promote social progress or to survive. Adapted from the source document.

The prerequisites for achieving perpetual peace are the settlement of the entire Earth; the establishment of republican government (the most stable type of government); & the exchange of goods as a way of bringing peoples together, peoples among whom racial & religious differences have often sparked animosities. Kant attributes these prerequisites to "the great artist Nature," since they occur as a part of the egoistic material interests of men -- at the level of men as natural beings, without influencing their intellectual will. Starting with Kant's proviso that morality does not suffice for achieving the prerequisites for perpetual peace, the author deals with the opposition between man's material interests & the purpose of reason in Kant's ethics. She goes on to show that Kant understands the practical mind as one's disposition for a complete realization of one's humanness. The polarity between the purpose of reason & man's natural strivings she identifies in the exclusion of sensory & emotional impulses from moral acts. The author analyzes this exclusion in combination with Kant's concept of freedom, defined as the causality springing from the freedom of rational will. 11 References. Adapted from the source document.

The development of awareness of human rights is an important part of the process of the democratization of democracy: the development of citizens' participation, civil society, people's self-protection, self-development, & self-fulfillment. The awareness of rights should be understood as an awareness of "the right to the possibility" of personal action, & not only as the right to "unbounded" activity. Human rights should be understood as being empowered to realize the freedom for something & not only the freedom from something. That is why the awareness of human rights is increasingly becoming part of people's civic & democratic political culture. The research has shown how the human rights awareness increases the democratization potential of any country & that the development of this awareness does not depend so much on social demography (class, gender, education, age) -- though there are some inter-ethnic differences -- as on the leftist political inclinations. This has been corroborated by our survey of Croatian university students. The research has also shown that the average number of respected rights is relatively high in many countries, but that there are significant differences regarding certain rights. 3 Tables. Adapted from the source document.

The author looks into the meaning of law in Kant's practical philosophy for the constitution of a political community. First, he defines the specific character of modern knowledge by referring to Heidegger & Fink & how this knowledge is reflected in Kant's philosophy of morality & law. Then he goes on to define the external legislation & list its applications. After the author has defined Kant's concept of law, he shows how freedom & its security -- not happiness, well-being, or interest -- are central to Kant's political philosophy. Freedom becomes the foundation of all activities & laws, & freedom can only be based on law & not morality. Thus, individual freedom is possible solely within a law-abiding community. Adapted from the source document.

The author demonstrates that the envisaged solutions for the conflict between the liberal concept of freedom & the common good differ greatly. Also presented is a miscellany of possible solutions as well as the related contentious issues. However, the analysis has shown that almost all the mentioned authors see the need for some common good, for a "measure of freedom," but their proposed ways for solving the issue vary: while some think that the universal common good is necessary for regulating procedures conducive to the achievement of freely chosen individual aims, others think that the tolerance of cultural & value differences is a sufficient condition for solving the said problem. For example, J. Raz emphasizes moral pluralism as the basis of autonomy, while S. Nathanson thinks that pluralist aims can exist, but not morally varied ways of their achievement. These different concepts of the relationships between freedom & common good can have different effects on the concepts & the practice of public politics in contemporary societies. That is why the need for looking into the conflict between freedom & common good, differences & unity, private & public interest, is highly topical & represents a true challenge for all those who want to contribute to solving the problems of modern age & liberal democracies. Adapted from the source document.