Search results

Das politische Denken Ernst Cassirers steht im Mittelpunkt der vorliegenden Forschungsarbeit, die von einer kritischen Auseinandersetzung mit der Rezeptionsgeschichte ausgeht und eine spezifische methodische Perspektive einführt, um dieses Problem in einem neuen Licht erscheinen zu lassen und um zu erklären, wie und inwieweit legitim von einem politischen Denken im Falle der Kulturphilosophie Cassirers gesprochen werden kann. Unter der Annahme einer Kontinuitätshypothese wird auf diejenigen Hauptmomente fokussiert, in denen Cassirer die Grundsätze seiner politisch-philosophischen Auffassung entwickelte, und zwar auf die Werke "Leibniz' System in seinen wissenschaftlichen Grundlagen" 1902 und "Freiheit und Form. Studien zur deutschen Geistesgeschichte" 1916: in diesen Untersuchungen über die ethisch-rechtliche Grundlegung der Geisteswissenschaften und über das Problem der Freiheits- und Staatsidee lassen sich zwei Grundmotive aufzeigen, die alle folgenden Entwicklungen der Cassirerschen politischen Reflexionen zwischen dem Ersten Weltkrieg, der Weimarer Republik und dem Nationalsozialismus bestimmen: vom Streit um den Begriff der Nation mit dem Philosophen Bruno Bauch über die Verteidigung des republikanischen Konstitutionalismus am Ende der 1920er Jahre und über die ethisch-rechtlichen Beiträge der Exilzeit in den 1930er Jahren bis hin zum posthumen The Myth of the State 1946. Das Leitmotiv dieser politisch-philosophischen Überlegungen Cassirers ist in der Tat die Betrachtung des Problems der idealistischen Verwandlung des Staatsbegriffs in einen normativen Kulturbegriff bzw. in eine Kulturform unter systematischer Berücksichtigung von der Geschichte der politischen Philosophie und Wissenschaft der europäischen Moderne. In Bezug auf diese Hauptmomente der Cassirerschen politischen Produktion werden ihr philosophisch-geschichtlicher und kultureller Kontext sowie ihre Quellen beleuchtet. ; The political thought of Ernst Cassirer is the focus of the present research work, which starts from a critical assessment of his reception and introduces a specific methodological approach in order to reconsider this issue and to clarify the sense in which it is legitimate to speak of a political thought in Cassirer's Philosophy of Culture. Assuming that there is a continuity in his philosophy, this research focuses on the two fundamental moments in which Cassirer develops the principles of his political thought, that is to say the works "Leibniz' System in seinen wissenschaftlichen Grundlagen" (1902) and "Freiheit und Form. Studien zur deutschen Geistesgeschichte" (1916). In his investigations on the ethical-legal foundation of the Geisteswissenschaften and on the problem of freedom and state can be recognized two crucial issues as the basis of all developments in Cassirer's political thought between the World War I, the Weimar Republic and the Nazism: from the controversy with the philosopher Bruno Bauch about the concept of nation to the defense of a republican constitutionalism at the end of the 20's, from the ethical and legal contributions of the 30's till the inquiries on the political myth in his posthumous work "The Myth of the state" (1946). In this philosophical-political elaboration Cassirer's main concern is to study the problem of the idealistic transformation of the state into a normative cultural concept and into a form of culture in the light of the history of political philosophy and political science in modern Europe. For each of the main points of Cassirer's political production are therefore highlighted the historical-philosophical and cultural context, along with the sources and the most important references.

Naglasak je stavljen na promišljanje prepoznatljivosti nacije na temelju segmenta njezine glazbene kulture te redefiniranju hrvatskog kulturnog identiteta s pozicije glazbe. Propitivala se primjenjivost uspješnog austrijskog modela "nacije kulture" koji se potiče kao važna komponenta austrijskog imidža na Hrvatsku. Prikazan je glazbeni segment u isticanju specifičnosti tijekom formiranja kulturnog identiteta nacije, a teorija o neapsolutnosti identiteta koji se konstituiraju novom uspostavom mjerila i granica, koristila se u prikazu mogućnosti redefiniranja hrvatskog kulturnog identiteta na primjerima festivalske politike. Brendiranje zemlje, proces u kojem se iskazuju i naglašavaju različitosti i jedinstvenosti države, upotrijebljen je kod prikaza načina postizanja prepoznatljivosti i modaliteta primjene u kulturnom segmentu.

Defining the dimensions of political culture is a precondition in the elaboration of the theory of this phenomenon & for its systematic empirical study. It has been demonstrated that Almond-Verba's concept of the dimensions of political culture, in the form of a matrix of the three orientations (cognitive, affective, & evaluative) times four political objects ("system," "input-objects," "output-objects," & "I" as an object) is not plausible. If political culture is defined as a set of beliefs about politics (which it indeed is), then it is clear that each belief at the same time contains an intricate mix of knowledge, emotions, & evaluations. This makes it difficult to determine the dimensions according to the mentioned orientations. It seems this was sensed by Almond himself in one of his later works. Using his more recent concept, we define the dimensions of political culture according to the "objects" of politics & not vice versa, according to the orientations in relation to these "objects." Thus, we have elaborated on the three fundamental dimensions according to the three fundamental objects of politics: the "system" as a universal object, the "process" as a dynamic object of politics, & the "conduct" as a manner of decision making & the outcome of governing. It has been found that each of these basic dimensions of political culture has a series of subdimensions (a total of about 25). Surely, this matrix may be added to or perhaps amended, but basically it is unassailable, since it represents a sort of map of political culture. 1 Table. Adapted from the source document.

The purpose of this essay is to prove the connection among political culture, political structure, & democracy. All the arguments pointing to such a connection have been analyzed within the framework of two fundamental approaches to the relationship between culture & structure, ie, within the framework of the classical approach to their correspondence (which claims -- primarily in line with the functional theory of culture -- that there is a functional concordance between culture & structure, that democracy is mirrored by the civic political culture, ie, that "culture is a structure's way of life," that culture determines the structure) & the contemporary interactional approach (in which -- primarily in line with the theory of culture "as meaning" or "social functioning" -- complex relations among various cultural variables & structural variables are analyzed as well as their combined effect on democracy as the consequence of these relations). The latter approach considers democracy not as a "fixed condition" but rather as a dynamic phenomenon or the end result of the combined interactional relationships between culture & structure. The analysis has shown that both approaches are legitimate & useful in understanding & maintaining democracy. Of course, the interactional approaches are more complex, as well as more important & more vital for understanding democracy. The analysis has shown how political culture (democratic legitimation or political trust, support for civil freedoms, satisfaction with the functioning of democracy, etc.) often depend on the elements of the very political structure (party systems & coalition models, election patterns, patterns of democracy, positions in power structure, etc.). Political culture is autonomous in relation to political structure, but frequently its role greatly depends on the relations among political actors & the variables of the political culture itself. The analysis has also demonstrated how these investigations into the interaction (combined effects) between political culture & structure are extremely sophisticated & that in the future they are going to become the most fruitful part of political science, making possible not only a deeper understanding of the "dynamic regularities" in the functioning of democracy but also the attempts at its "innovative sustainment" & gradual development. 1 Table. Adapted from the source document.

The essay describes the evolution of the concept of political culture, from the concepts such as Comte's 'consensus,' Durkheim's 'collective awareness,' Weber's 'significance of individual actions,' to Parson's 'action frame of reference,' & Mead's 'national character.' The development began with Comte's search for differentia specifica of social sciences in relation to other positive sciences & finished in 1963 with the introduction of the concept of political culture into political science by G. Almond & S. Verba. Our analysis has shown that many definitions of political culture point out that its essence lies in people's beliefs since political culture is a set of beliefs regarding politics. As much as it may seem a paradox, it cannot be reduced to mere individual beliefs, but represents a system of inter-subjective opinions on various political objects. This explains the possible discrepancies between the political events & the political beliefs of the people, between their behavior & political culture, & so on. Contrary to the belief of some authors, it has been shown how political culture may & should be taken as a common denominator for a variety of opinions on politics. Political attitudes, values, norms, public opinion, & political ideologies are nothing but different manifestations of political culture. Thus, the concept of political culture includes diverse facets of the subjective attitude of people towards politics. This is the asset & not the downside of this concept, as some authors would have it. It is pointed out that the manifold manifestations of political culture do not carry the same 'weight' in explaining the political activism of people & the functioning of political systems. The relationship between these manifestations is extremely complex & a challenge for research. It is this very relationship that could explain the stable & less stable (ie, stable & vacillating) reactions of people in their political activity. Adapted from the source document.

In this paper the author deals with the nature of culture, the culture of peace, education as an eminently cultural activity, & the projections of the future. The author defines culture as people's cooperation in improving the quality of their lives & considers it at the same time to be both a part of individuals & a part of communities. Furthermore, the author advocates the culture of peace & cooperation & argues that culture in principle promotes peace, eliminates war & immanently strives for the ascendancy of peaceful cooperation among people. For the sake of peace & understanding the author thinks that the united Europe ought to standardize learning & education concerning the optimal forms of togetherness. & finally the author promotes the concept of "project identity" i.e. emerging identity. Adapted from the source document.