Suchergebnisse

The author shows the importance of Hobbes' political thought in formulating the modern state. His contractual argument did not become obsolete as his scientific method. Hobbes breaks from the Aristotelian & natural rights tradition, or rather, he gives the concept of natural right an entirely new meaning. In this context the state of nature, contract & state are logical constructs, & not concepts in direct causal relationship. Hobbes' contract is not just a contract about the system of government; it is what society begins with. The contract is only the ground for the formation of the sociability of the individual, if it is at the same time the ground for establishing the government. The author emphasizes that, just like Kant, Hobbes & Locke consider leaving the state of nature necessary, not simply because of pragmatic reasons, but because the state has to legitimate itself as a claim of pure practical reason. Therefore, the author, following Kant, holds that the duty towards civil society & state cannot be based in the context of Hobbes' & Locke's philosophy, because, although the creation of state can be seen as an act of prudence, that in itself does not show a real obligation to pass from the state of nature to the state of law. The author also notes Hobbes' error in constructing a state independent from ownership. Contrary to him, Kant reasonably & legally bases theory of property as decisive part of his contractualism & creates a philosophical & legal foundation for the philosophy of the state. References. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes the pre-political & political genesis of human rights, followed by the later process of positivization of human rights. The subject of the author's analysis are, on the one hand, contractual theories by Locke, Hobbes, Kant, & their critique by Hegel, & on the other, the genesis of human rights after the Declaration on the Rights of Men and Citizens. In the end, on the basis of Rawls's postulates, the author describes the state of human rights in democratic pluralist civil states & contemporary constitutional states governed by law, which have been trying to restrict democracy by means of either new contractual theories or by insisting on an autonomous & active constitutional judiciary. Adapted from the source document.

U radu se razmatra Lockeovo poimanje prirodnoga stanja kao prve sekvence njegove kontraktualističke naracije te razlozi za napuštanje toga prirodnoga stanja i dragovoljni ulazak pojedinaca u političku zajednicu. Pojedinci na temelju izričitog pristanka, odnosno društvenog ugovora, postaju članovima političke zajednice. Motiv za stvaranje političke zajednice je očuvanje vlasništva koje je u Lockeovoj filozofiji politike, suprotno teoretičarima njegova doba kao što su Grotius, Hobbes i Pufendorf, pojmljeno kao pretpolitička kategorija. Locke vlasništvo poima na dvostruki način: u širem smislu riječi ono podrazumijeva život, slobodu i imetak pojedinca, a u užem smislu riječi vlasništvo označava samo imetak. Političkoj zajednici kao ustanovljenoj državi namijenjena je samo instrumentalna uloga koja se sastoji od toga da kao nepristrani sudac razrješava sporove, osigura očuvanje imovine te da među pojedincima sprečava moguće nasilje i prevare koje nastaju zbog velikih razlika u vlasniš¬tvu. Država sprečava osobno provođenje prirodnog zakona jer se time politička zajednica i njezini građani štite od pristranosti posrnulih pojedinaca. Autor u članku nastoji ponuditi kritičko-analitičku rekonstrukciju Lockeove argumentacije prirodnog stanja i kontraktualističkog opravdanja same konstitucije i načina djelovanja političke zajednice. ; This paper discusses Locke's conception of the natural state as the first sequence in his contractualism narration, and the reasons for the abandonment of natural state and voluntary entry of individuals into political community. Individuals under the explicit consent apropos social contract become the members of political community. The motive for the creation of political community as the preservation of property was conceived as a pre-political category in Locke's philosophy of politics, contrary to the theorists of his time such as Grotius, Hobbes, and Pufendorf. Locke thinks of the ownership in two ways: in the wider sense of the word, it means life, liberty and property of the individual, but in the strict sense it means to posses property. Political community, established as state, is intended to have an instrumental role which consists of having an impartial judge settling disputes, ensuring the preservation of property, and preventing possible violence and deception among individuals, arising from large difference in the property possession. The state prevents the personal implementation of natural law because it is the way in which the state can protect political community and its citizens from biased troubled individuals. The author seeks to offer the critical and analytical reconstruction of Locke's argument of natural state and the contractualist justification for the constitution and modus operandi of the political community.

Autorica u tekstu polazi od premise da je politički subjekt neoliberalizma, vladajuće političke racionalnosti, individua koja se može okarakterizirati kao isključivi i nepodijeljeni posjednik samog sebe. Preispitivanjem tropa ne/ovisnosti razlažu se pretpostavke koje su uključene u pojam individue, a potom se, analizom konteksta njegove upotrebe u 19. stoljeću, pokazuje da je on bremenit genealogijama koje ograničavaju njegovu političku upotrebljivost u 21. stoljeću. Misliti protiv neoliberalizma zahtijeva napuštanje ideje individue kao suverenog vlasnika koji vlada sobom. Promišljanje alternativnog političkog horizonta, traganje za homo politicus-om koji se uistinu razlikuje od homo oeconomicus-a, iziskuje napuštanje političkog mišljenja koje polazi od pojedinca. ; The text is based on two premises. The first is that we live in the times of neoliberalism, and the second is that the political subject of neoliberalism is the individual, the "one" qualified as indivisible, independent, sole owner of one's self. To define what an individual is, I will revisit several 19th-century claims which at the same time posit individual as an empty universal – anyone qualifies for entitlement of an individual – and reveal it as profoundly exclusionary – as the holder of entitlements. I will claim that the indivisibility of an individual is also the basis for its understanding as sovereign and self-actualized. Liberal politicization of a sovereign possessor of interests introduces not only homo oeconomicus, but it also integrates economic mode of governmentality into the sphere of the political, it becoming a space of incessant play of exclusions and inclusions. If another kind of political imaginary is to be developed, I argue we need to distance ourselves from the figure of the individual, bearing in mind that homo oeconomicus triumphs today as the exhaustive figure of the human, amidst the patently unequal distribution not only of precarity but also of vulnerability. Critical engagement with neoliberalism assumes engaging with the political centrality of a figure of an agentic individual.

The author draws our attention to the European unfamiliarity with American political thought. He also talks about Jefferson's natural law theory that he took over from Locke & adapted to American circumstances. The features of American political thought are outlined by means of comparing common law & rule of law with the concept of Rechtstaat. The author suggests that natural law & common law are a powerful determinant of the concept of republicanism that deeply influences American political thought. Adapted from the source document.

In a lecture given to colleagues at the department of political science at the U of Zagreb on the occasion of the 41st anniversary of the department, the speaker points out that not only is the state of the field particularly strong at present, but that political science is especially relevant to today's Croatia as it advances to candidate status for accession to the European Union, & as the feeling of a common European citizenship grows throughout the continent. This new & hopeful era inspires a closer look at political philosophers from Aristotle, Locke, & Kant to contemporary figures such as John Rawls; the example of the peaceful dissolution of the Czechoslovak state followed just over a decade later by the decision of both successor states to join the European Union is one that holds promise even for Croatia & its evolving political realities. A. Siegel

Haberle clarifies his conception of constitution as culture & discusses his interpretation of the relationship between state & society, both based on the fundamental principles spelled out in this document. Other, related issues addressed here are the following: (1) the concept of political culture; (2) constitution as the expression of a nation's mentality & cultural heritage; (3) the constitution-public relationship; (4) constitutional theory as a theory of open society; (5) culture as a sine qua non element of the creation & functioning of the state; (6) the fallacy of Carl Schmitt's friend-foe theory; (7) the tradition of constitutional theory in Germany; (8) the significance of the year 1989 in the history of Europe; (9) the preparation of a draft of the Constitution of the European Union; (10) optimistic & pessimistic views of humans, ie, John Locke vs Thomas Hobbes; & (11) the constitution & constitutional theory & law in Croatia. Z. Dubiel

The author writes about Jefferson's political philosophy. There is no text by Jefferson that would set out a certain political issue. There are numerous texts of his, written in the course of fifty years, but a collage of them would not amount to a political theory or a doctrine. Jefferson was not interested in theoretical but solely in technical & practical issues. This makes him a typical 18th-century lawyer of the common law vein. Common law of that time was an amateur area, devoid of any technical or professional expertise & part of general moral principles. Jefferson was deft at formulating the widely held ideas of his time, embracing some century-old well-known political truths by Grotius, Milton, Locke, & Burlamaqui. The author suggests that Jefferson was first & foremost a statesman, & his judgments were politically tainted. Nevertheless, he was the most educated statesman ever among American presidents. Adapted from the source document.

The author claims that the concept of the separation of powers was known to writers of antiquity such as Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, & Cicero, who dealt with the question of the balance of power or the balance of different forms of government. In the modern age, liberal thinkers such as Montesquieu, Locke, Madison, & Hamilton postulated the principle of the tension between the opposing functions of the state as the foundation of a liberal & democratic constitutional system. The principle of separation or division of power has maintained its significance in the 20th-century democracies, despite the relativization of the role of the national state through the interdependence of the global society as well as the development of other principles & mechanisms of curtailing the power of the state (political parties, human rights, the autonomy of the mass media & of various social sectors). The author asserts that the principle of the separation of power is functioning today primarily as a form of labor division among various government institutions; this division gives rise to a miscellany of the participants' opinions & preferences. Adapted from the source document.

Demokracija kao pučka vladavina, od svojega nastanka i praktičke provedbe u antičkoj Grčkoj, pa do suvremenog etabliranja kao sakrosanktnog neupitnog svjetskog poretka, vazda je praćena i osmišljavana filozofijskom raščlambom i promišljanjem u djelima najvećih socijalnih i političkih filozofa, od Platona i Aristotela, preko Lockea, Rousseaua, Montesquieua, Tocquevillea, Kanta, Hegela i Milla, do Deweyja i Rawlsa, što Pavo Barišić u svojoj knjizi Ideal vladavine puka. Uvod u filozofiju demokracije sustavno i pregledno dokumentira i kritički razglaba. Uz osvrt na njegova promišljanja razvoja demokracije od antike do suvremenosti, u ovome se prilogu razmatraju razni njezini aspekti i dimenzije u kritičkom dijalogu s filozofima i ostalim teoreticima demokracije, od Platona i Aristotela, do Deweyja, Lippmanna, Poppera, Wintersa i Scholtea – s posebnim naglaskom na perspektive razvoja demokracije u epohi suvremene globalizacije. ; Since its genesis and practical implementation in the ancient Greece, up to its contemporary confirmation as a sacrosanct unquestionable world order, democracy as the rule of the people has always been conceived by philosophical analysis and reflection in the works of the most significant social and political philosophers, from Plato and Aristotle, through Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Tocqueville, Kant, Hegel and Mill, to Dewey and Rawls. This general content of Pavo Barišić's book The Ideal of the Rule of the People: Introduction to the Philosophy of Democracy is in its pages systematically and comprehensively documented and critically discoursed. Reflecting to his consideration of the development of democracy from antiquity to modernity, this paper discusses its various aspects and dimensions, together with the critical dialogue with philosophers and other theoreticians of democracy, from Plato and Aristotle to Dewey, Lippmann, Popper, Winters and Scholte, particularly focusing on the prospects of the development of democracy in the age of contemporary globalization.

If it is true that a systematic understanding of modern society cannot be constituted without relying on the major works of the political thinking of modernity, the opposite is also true, ie., that none of those works cannot be properly understood unless from the viewpoint of a developed theory of modernity. In his General Theory of Modernity, Jacques Bidet points out that his metastructural theory of the modern epoch finally makes it possible to critically reexamine & reconstruct the entire "political metaphysics" of modernity. His intention is sufficiently (at the very least) outlined in his interpretations of Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke, Rousseau, Kant & Hegel. The author singles out Bidet's pregnant interpretation of Hobbes, & faces the question: what is to be done with the Leviathan? The first part of the article gives a detailed account of Bidet's basic hypotheses & insights into Hobbes' crucial role in finding an adequate conceptual definition of the logical starting point of exposition of the theory of modernity as a purely discursive relation in the formula of the social agreement. The second part puts forward a critical appraisal of Bidet's key reconstructional thesis that Hobbes' theory of authorization is perceived as the actual logical starting point of exposition of metastructural theory categories. In part three it is shown that Hobbes' theory of political representation & authorization could indeed be the starting point to a political theory of modernity (because it establishes man as the "author" of politics, & his representative or the sovereign as his "actor" or representative). In the author's judgment, Bidet's reconstructional thesis, which denies the epistemological status of the "natural state" as the first & most general concept in the sequence of exposition, is not valid. In the natural state, man's nature is not ahistorically postulated as that of a wolf; it is essentially dual. At issue here is primarily the modern man (and not merely man in general) in the epochal constellation wherein he, simultaneously & contradictorily, exists as a particular individual (bourgeois), which pursues his natural right, & as a moral subject (a Christian believer), which, as a being of conscience, fathoms & follows the imperatives of the natural or moral or divine laws. Precisely this duality, his inner cleavage of modern man, is also the starting supposition of Hobbes' theory of modernity encompassed in the key concept of the "natural state." In view of Bidet's argumentation, & relying above all on Zarka's fundamental interpretation of Hobbes' political philosophy as semiology of power, we are constantly faced with the Leviathan as an incomparable challenge to our cognitive faculty. Adapted from the source document.