Suchergebnisse

The approaches of Jurgen Habermas & Jean-Francois Lyotard are compared with respect to issues in ethics & the philosophy of law. Though both consider language to be both the pivot of & the means to sociopolitical action & events, they differ in their diagnoses about the pathology of politics & society. Their opinions about language, law, morality, & the role of philosophy, politics, & science are compared, & sketched against the background of their general philosophy. While Habermas is a strong defender of the Enlightenment project & maintains that it is possible to apply philosophical ideas in the interest of democratization & the nonviolent settlement of conflicts, Lyotard's postmodern philosophy is more skeptical, asserting that no metadiscourse can exist in the social world that would allow real mediation & conflict settlement. The paradoxes in Lyotard's "language-ontology" philosophy, of which he is well aware, are explored. 6 References. Modified HA

Sport is traditionally governed by international sports organizations (ISOs), which are at the top of self-regulatory networks that extend further over continental and local levels. These organizations attach great importance to their autonomous functioning, making any form of government interference in their activities is studiously avoided. For decades knew the world of sports in this way to enforce his own place in society: the idea of a kind of private government activities that normally are part of the job of a political system, exercises such as the issuing of rules and sanctions and conduct various forms of social policy. This sport largely escaped the normal application of general legal standards as the labor and tax law. In addition to the hierarchical structure of the self-regulatory networks in sport those at the bottom of these networks, ie clubs and players, rarely consulted and almost never actively involved in their policy processes. Adapted from the source document.