Suchergebnisse

The article distinguishes two ways in which Heidegger can be a subject of research. In one type of research, he is a historical figure of political events, & as such a subject of history as a science. Such research has to satisfy the scientific criteria of historiographical method regardless of how critically it treats its subject. In the second type, the subject are Heidegger's work & the philosophical motives of his political involvement at the start of the Nazi regime in 1933/34. An analysis has in both cases come up with some sloppy scientific procedures & shown that frequently the a priori assumptions get the upper hand, & tend to lean in favour of proving his guilt. A brief introductory overview of the debate is followed by a concise historical outline of the stages in this controversy, & then by an excursus about the essence of the scientific method, & finally by a critical review of the works of some historians which serves the author to demonstrate how it is possible for research to get off the right track when not respecting the criteria & the standards of the scientific method. The second part focuses on the question of the interpretation of the relationship between philosophy & political activism. The thesis (with critical references to some recent ideas by Fried, Kisiel, Thoma) is that the philosophical motives of Heidegger's "leap" into politics should primarily be sought in the methodological dimensions of his work, primarily in those linked to the problems of grounding, & not so much in certain notional concordances of his categories with the Nazi terminology & concepts. 54 References. Adapted from the source document.

Autor polazi od stava da je za kritičko razumijevanje postsocijalizma (kojeg uvjetno određuje kao stanje i proturiječni procesi u Istočnoj Europi nakon demokratske revolucije) i njegovih razvojnih perspektiva upravo primjeren koncept civilnog društva. Upućuje na tri različite društvene struje koje su doprinjele obnovi problematike civilnog društva: neoliberalizam, postmarksizam i disidentski građanski otpor totalitarizmu. Zatim utvrđuje pojam civilnog društva, u smislu koji je dobio u novovjekovnim teorijama prirodnog prava. Na tom tragu precizira vlastito određenje ovog pojma kao analitičkog oruđa za analizu socijalizma i postsocijalizma. Kad je riječ o socijalizmu ukazuje na stalnu napetost između države i neautonomnog ali »realnog socijalističkog društva«, u kome se uvijek iznova javljaju klice autonomne civilne sfere. Na kraju raspravlja o (ne)ispunjenju tri temeljne pretpostavke civilnog društva u aktualnim postsocijalističkim procesima na europskom Istoku, uključujući Hrvatsku i Jugoslaviju. ; The author expresses the opinion that for a critical understanding of postsocialism (which he conditionally defines as the situation and contradictory processes in Eastern Europe after the democratic revolution) and its development perspectives, the most adequate is the concept of civil society. He indicates three different social currents which contributed to the renewal of the civil society issue: neoliberalism, post-Marxism and the dissident civil opposition to totalitarianism. He then determines the concept of civil society within the meaning it had obtained in the modem theories of natural law. Following this line of thought he specifies his own definition of this concept as an analytical means for studying socialism and postsocialism. When it is a question of socialism, he indicates the constant tension between the state and unautonomous but »real socialist society«, in which new seeds of the autonomous civil sphere keep appearing over and over again. Finally, he discusses the non-fulfilment of the three fundamental pre-suppositions for civil society in contemporary postsocialist processes in the European East, including Croatia and Yugoslavia.