The author shows how Fichte's concept of the nation, although modern, originates in a long philosophical tradition that postulates the importance of the community above that of the individual. Fichte's original philosophy of humanity, inspired by enlightenment & especially Kant, he later transferred to the abstract ethical unit of nation. In it the concept of humanity (later 'nation') is the most general community toward which the individual aspires to become a member because of his longing for the absolute. The general understanding of nations transforms into Fichte's later philosophical hypostasis of the German nation. According to Fichte, only the German nation, as a community tied by a "living language" has general human importance & a world historical mission to be accomplished in the future. The German nation, however, must become a dynamic unit through elevating its people above political & social divisions. This occurs through the education of individuals for love of the nation, based on "true" philosophy (Fichte's philosophical teachings). The author concludes that the concept of a nation in Fichte's later works (in which the relationship between the individual & the state is an educational dictatorship & the complete destruction & individuality) creates a fertile ground for totalitarian, nationalistic ideology. 27 References. Adapted from the source document.
The author presents the central postulates from the latest works by John Rawls & Michael Walzer as the most prominent representatives of liberalism & communitarianism in contemporary American political philosophy & points to their predecessors & parallels in practical philosophy, from Kant & Hegel to Mill & Dewey. Since liberals & communitarians of today do not any longer advocate a "society" or a "community" in the traditional sense, but the "post-traditional" liberal-democratic community in which the liberal principles of justice & human rights can be realized, their thinking is interesting also to those peoples who have set out to build liberal-democratic societies outside the states of the developed West. Naturally, the realization of freedom & human rights depends on the cultural tradition of each people & on the historical "lebenswelt" in general, but also on the virtues of liberal citizens who, in a communal political life, realize "postulates of communality comprised in liberalism" (Walzer) & thus foster a free & good human life. Adapted from the source document.
The author presents the central postulates from the latest works by John Rawls & Michael Walzer as the most prominent representatives of liberalism & communitarianism in contemporary American political philosophy & points to their predecessors & parallels in practical philosophy, from Kant & Hegel to Mill & Dewey. Since liberals & communitarians of today do not any longer advocate a "society" or a "community" in the traditional sense, but the "post-traditional" liberal-democratic community in which the liberal principles of justice & human rights can be realized, their thinking is interesting also to those peoples who have set out to build liberal-democratic societies outside the states of the developed West. Naturally, the realization of freedom & human rights depends on the cultural tradition of each people & on the historical "lebenswelt" in general, but also on the virtues of liberal citizens who, in a communal political life, realize "postulates of communality comprised in liberalism" (Walzer) & thus foster a free & good human life. Adapted from the source document.
The impact of the thought of political scientist/philosopher John Rawls on Croatian political science in general, & the department of political science at the U of Zagreb in particular, is commemorated with this overview of the significance of Rawls's writings on justice, tolerance, & the spirit of pluralism as part of a conference held at the university on 7-8 Mar 2003. The effect of Rawls's Theory of Justice on Croatian political philosophy is as great as that of Hobbes's Leviathan & Rousseau's Social Contract. Rawls is commended for his wisdom & call for tolerance, a value in short supply both in recent Eastern European & American history. A. Siegel
Poslije kratka presjeka važnijih događaja vezanih uz povijest Franjevačke provincije Bosne Srebrene autor analizira važnije odredbe franjevačkoga zakonodavstva s obzirom na školstvo koje su omogućile njegov snažan razvoj u razdoblju poslije Tridentskoga koncila i koje su bitno utjecale ne organizaciju i rad franjevačkih obrazovnih ustanova na ovim prostorima. Poseban je naglasak na odredbama što su se odnosile na studij filozofije čija je svrha bila pripremiti studente za što kvalitetniji studij bogoslovije. S tim je ciljem na generalnom kapitulu franjevačkoga reda održanome u Rimu 1694. godine propisano da se filozofija predaje najmanje tri godine i da se u njezinu okviru studiraju summulae (logica minor), logika (logica maior), fizika, metafizika, animistika (znanost o duši), učenje o nastanku i propadanju tvari te kozmologija. Nastavni je sadržaj bio vezan uz učenje Ivana Duns Škota i Bonaventure. Metoda je bila strogo skolastička. Međutim, daljnje su reforme išle za približavanjem državnih i crkvenih sveučilišnih programa. Iz odredaba vezanih za studij filozofije u Bosni Srebrenoj vidljivo je da su provincijske uprave nastojale što dosljednije provoditi propise što ih je donosio general reda i, koliko je to bilo moguće, držati korak s trendovima na zapadnim učilištima. Kada to okolnosti nisu dopuštale, svoje su gojence slali na studij u inozemstvo. ; After a short review of more important events related to the history of the Franciscan province Silver Bosnia the author analyzes more significant regulations of the Franciscan legislature with regard to education which enabled its strong development in the period after the Trident Council and which had a strong influence on the organization and work of the Franciscan educational institutions in these areas. The special emphasis is on the regulations which referred to the study of philosophy, the purpose of which was to prepare students for the quality study of theology. With that goal the general Franciscan body of canons held in Rome in 1694 stipulated that philosophy must be taught at least three years and that in its framework summulae (logica minor), logics (logica maior), physics, metaphysics, science about soul, study about the emergence and decadence of a matter and cosmology must be learned. The teaching content was connected with the study of Ivan Duns Scotsman and Bonaventure. The method was strictly scholastic. However, further reforms went in direction of drawing closer the state and church university curricula. From the regulations related to the study of philosophy in Silver Bosnia it is visible that the provincial authorities were trying to implement the regulations made by the general of order and, as much as possible, keep pace with trends in the western educational institutions. When the circumstances did not allow that, they sent their students to study abroad.
This article analyzes the relations among "communicology," "novitology," & journalism as the practice of public communication. Communicology is defined as a general science on public communication (philosophy of communication), novitology as a specific science dealing with all the singularities of mass communication by means of the mass media (radio, newspapers, TV, & the new media), & journalism as a practice defined by means of the methodology of direct journalistic activities. This leads to the introduction of epistemological order into a number of sciences. Also, misunderstandings & overlappings are avoided, as well as totally erroneous attitudes pernicious for the theory of public communication & journalism as the practice of public polylogue in the media. 9 References. Adapted from the source document.
The author's starting point is the principle of contemporary phenomenology: we are able to comprehend & adequately evaluate our own & new regimes in general, only if familiar with their predecessors & their traditions in their otherness. Naturally, in this paper the otherness is neither the essential natural world nor its cosmological structuredness as a universe, but a historical & political world as well as the possibilities of its alterations & transformations. Despite the changes it has gone through in the course of history, it has retained its cultural-historical continuity & its "fundamental features" in the form of a certain, in Husserl's words, "contingent a priori," that precedes certain cultural & historical experiences, but not "the entire experience," as Waldenfels points out. In order to adequately grasp these complex problems of cultural & political world, the author refers to Aristotle who, when asked in the second volume of his Politics about the best state, uses the then known forms of the state to show "what is right & useful in them" & what is not, & also that it is possible not only to transcend the existing forms but to elaborate them & search for "something new." Contrary to the modern reduction of the concept of the state to "the organization of government," Aristotle defines the state by means of three prerequisites: the land, the people, & the government & "always by one of these three components, while the other two are somehow implied." Thus, in all its various forms, the state always includes all these three components: the land as territory, the people as identity & the sum of its citizens, & sovereign government as state authority of the people. Regarding the opportunities for political activity in the contemporary global world, the author opts for a certain practical philosophy that, despite the universal crisis of today's society shows that the practice of good life is still possible & that not everybody has given up on it. This also means that in reflecting upon & in accomplishing the good life it is possible to build upon Aristotle's practical philosophy. Besides the phenomenological & practical philosophy, the final part of the paper looks into the political philosophy of American communitarians & shows that communitarian universalism & historicism are complementary to the European phenomenological & hermeneutical philosophy & productively assist it in developing a new historical thinking as practical knowledge that is applicable to our contemporary situation & that, historically, & in a variety of spheres & at different levels enables us to act ethically/politically in today's global world. 12 References. Adapted from the source document.
Ages ago, Plato understood justice as the purport & the essential purpose of the very existence of the state. Though Plato distinguishes between the political justice of the state & the personal justice of the individual soul, it was Aristotle who in his practical philosophy developed, apart from the general justice, an appropriate understanding of the special or particular justice & its significance for social progress. The first part of this paper deals with the different types of justice, & the second with civil society. In order to understand the contemporary theories of political justice & the roles of civil society in its realization, the author looks into the history of the European political thought & "civil society," since "civic" or "civil society" ("societas civilis"), was originally a political society. In modernity, Hegel began differentiating between the state as a political community & the "civil society" as a nonpolitical society; his intention was not to separate but to integrate them by means of the public scrutiny & the citizens' governance, Thus Hegel linked Locke's & Montesquieu's opposing definitions of the relationship between the civil society & the state. This is all the more important since Hegel's philosophy is often misinterpreted as the state totalitarianism since we overlook the dangers coming, especially today, both from the civil society reduced to economy & the absolute state, the dangers that Hegel, with his concept of customariness, detected & avoided. 11 References. Adapted from the source document.
Na temelju Sabranih djela I–III (1997) Bonifaca Badrova (Livno, 1896. – Sarajevo, 1974), franjevca i profesora filozofije na Franjevačkoj teologiji u Sarajevu, u radu se obrađuje njegov pristup renesansnoj filozofiji i hrvatskim renesansnim misliocima. Badrov je u trećem dijelu svoje Povijesti filozofije (Sarajevo, 1959), koju je namijenio studentima za internu uporabu, uključio i neveliko poglavlje o renesansnoj filozofiji (1450–1600). On nalazi da su specifična filozofska i društvena strujanja na početku Novog vijeka iznjedrila nove, međusobno sasvim disparatne, renesansne filozofske sustave sa samo jednim zajedničkim obilježjem: odbacivanje tomističke filozofije. Prema Badrovu renesansna filozofija ima četiri glavne sastavnice: 1. obnova starih sustava: neoplatonizam, neostoicizam i hedonizam, 2. filozofija prirode, 3. politička filozofija i 4. skepticizam. Badrov hrvatske renesansne mislioce ubraja isključivo u prvu skupinu, dakle među pojedince koji su nastojali obnoviti stare filozofske sustave, i opet – isključivo među one mislioce koji se oslanjanju na Platonovu filozofiju. On smatra da je renesansni platonizam u svojoj bîti zapravo »eklektički neoplatonizam«. Na tragu spoznaje da je antički novoplatonizam eklektički zato što iz Platonovih, ali i drugih teorija probire, prihvaća i primjenjuje ono što mu se čini najprikladnije, gornju Badrovljevu tvrdnju treba razumjeti u smislu da se renesansni platonizam eklektički odnosi prema Platonovim djelima, ali i misaonim dostignućima antičkog novoplatonizma. Ipak, čini se da Badrov ne propituje detaljno izvore i izvornost renesansnog platonizma. Badrov se pojedinačno bavi trima hrvatskim filozofima: Jurjem Dragišićem, Benediktom Benkovićem i Franom Petrićem. Dodatno, o Dragišiću ističe da se bavio logičkim problemima, a da se Benković u pristupu Škotovim djelima koristio Aristotelovim logičkim aparatom. Pišući o Petriću Badrov citira Filipovića koji, pozivajući se na Überwegov Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, tvrdi da je Petrić preteča i učitelj Giordana Bruna te da je utjecao na Bernardina Telesija. U kasnijim izdanjima Überwega naprotiv nalazimo da Brunov odnos prema suvremenicima nije dovoljno jasan i da se Petrić naslanja na Telesija u nekim svojim stavovima. Nadalje, Badrov o Petriću tvrdi da pobija Aristotelovu filozofiju i drži platonizam bližim kršćanskoj misli te u osnovnim potezima iznosi Petrićev nauk o svjetlu: ono je nematerijalna supstancija, samoegzistentno i sveprisutno, prvotni uzrok i princip svih stvari. Dalje, zbog stava o prostoru kao onom koji je postojao prije svijeta, neovisno o stvarima, Badrov Petrića smješta među mislioce koji imaju ultrarealističko mišljenje o prostoru. Načelno, takvi mislioci prostor poimaju kao neku apsolutnu i beskonačnu realnost, različitu od svih drugih tjelesnih realnosti, a za Petrića on je čak počelo, prvo od njegovih četiriju počela tvarnoga svijeta. Pri izradi svojih najopsežnijih skripata Povijest filozofije Badrov se, kako dokumentira njegov popis literature, oslonio na 17 djela iz povijesti filozofije tiskanih u 20. stoljeću, a u prikazu o hrvatskim renesansnim misliocima u mnogome na Filipovićevu Filozofiju Renesanse (1956). S obzirom na kratko izvješće o Petriću, nije utvrđen utjecaj Bazaline Povijesti filozofije, a Šanc u drugom dijelu svoje Povijesti filozofije hrvatske renesansne filozofe ionako ne spominje. ; Based on Sabrana djela [Collected Works] I–III (1997) of Franciscan Bonifac Badrov (Livno, 1896 – Sarajevo, 1974), professor of philosophy at Franciscan Theology in Sarajevo, the paper examines his approach to Renaissance philosophy and Croatian thinkers of this period. In the third part of Badrov's Povijest filozofije [History of Philosophy] (1959), which he wrote for the students' internal use, he also included a small chapter on Renaissance philosophy (1450–1600). He finds that specific philosophical and social mainstreams of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries gave way to new, mutually disparate Renaissance philosophical systems sharing a single common feature: rejection of Thomistic philosophy. According to Badrov, Renaissance philosophy has four main components: 1. revival of old systems: Neoplatonism, Neostoicism and hedonism; 2. natural philosophy; 3. political philosophy; 4. Renaissance scepticism. Croatian thinkers of the Renaissance, Badrov holds, fall exclusively within the first group, that is, among those who worked on the revival of old philosophical systems, or more precisely, among the philosophers who leaned on Plato's philosophy only. In its essence, he views Renaissance Platonism as eclectic Neoplatonism. Grounded on the understanding that Neoplatonism of the Antiquity was eclectic because from the theories of Plato and others it selected, accepted and applied what it considered to be most appropriate, Badrov's statement should be understood in the sense that Renaissance Platonism had an eclectic approach to Plato's works, but also to philosophical achievements of the classical Neoplatonism. However, it seems that Badrov's analysis of the sources and originality of the Renaissance Platonism lacks depth. The philosophers that Badrov treats individually are Juraj Dragišić, Benedikt Benković and Frane Petrić. In addition, he emphasizes that Dragišić devoted himself to logical problems, and that Benković in his approach to Duns Scotus' works used Aristotle's logical apparatus. While writing on Petrić, Badrov paraphrases Filipović's Filozofija Renesanse [Renaissance Philosophy] (1956): »Überweg considers Petrić to be the forerunner and teacher of Giordano Bruno. He also influenced another Renaissance philosopher, Bernardino Telesio.« In the later editions of Überweg's Geschichte der Philosophy, by contrast, we find that Bruno's relationship to Petrić lacks clarity and that Petrić leans on Telesio in some of his views. Badrov states that Petrić refutes Aristotle's philosophy and holds Platonism to be closer to Christian thought. The Sarajevo professor outlines Petrić's doctrine on light. Further, on account of Petrić's view of space as that which exists before the world, regardless of all things, Badrov places the philosopher of Cres among the thinkers who share an ultrarealistic view of space. Mainly, these philosophers understand space as some kind of an absolute and infinite reality, different from all other bodily realities, while for Petrić it is even a principle, the first of his four principles of the material world. While preparing his most extensive manual Povijest filozofije, Badrov, as documented in his bibliography, drew from 17 works of the history of philosophy: three Zagreb editions (Albert Bazala, Franjo Šanc and Vladimir Dvorniković), five Belgrade editions (Borislav Lorenc, Branislav Petronijević, Dragan Jeremić and Bertrand Russell), six German and three French. All these books were published in the course of the twentieth century. Being too short and general, Badrov's outline of Petrić offers sparse information for the establishment of any connection with Bazala's statements on Petrić published in the second volume of Bazala's Povjest filozofije [History of Philosophy] (1909). Šanc, however, in the second part of his Povijest filozofije [History of Philosophy] makes no reference to Croatian philosophers of the Renaissance.
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 Ministry of Science of the Republic of Croatia decided on a new Rule Book of Definition of Scientific Areas. According to the book, Politology is a scientific field in the area of social science. It is divided into 3 branches: (1) Politology, (2) Theory and History of Politics, & (3) Political Philosophy. By using documents, the author of this article shows how political science is differently structured by IPSA & APSA. The author describes 120 years of dominantly American development of political science & of professions of political scientists, which brought out a recent new world standard with around 100 subdisciplines & areas of expertise that are structured in 8 fundamental disciplines: (1) Political Institutions, (2) Political Behavior, (3) Comparative Politics, (4) International Relations, (5) Political Theory, (6) Public Policy & Public Administration/Management, (7) Political Economy, & (8) Political Methodology. The author points out that a voluntaristic intervention in the definition of scientific areas could mean an attack on the development of science, research organization, renewal of teaching staff at the university, & academic education of political scientists, as well as internationally comparable competence of Croatian experts & Croatian democratic political thought & political culture in general. 133 References. Adapted from the source document.
Mixed government, which is commonly regarded as a distinctly medieval form of government, is relevant also to contemporary constitutional states. It is the best form of government, since the aristocratic element is a continuous source of virtue, especially of justice, & a check not only on the executive, as the monarchical element which is the seat of political power, & the legislature, as the democratic element which expresses the will of the majority, but also groups & institutions that have the might & will to impose themselves as oligarchies. Mixed government is also the form of government that is practiced by most developed contemporary constitutional states: US, UK, France, Switzerland, Germany, etc. European nobility is the original aristocratic institution, by virtue of the fact that it was a system for the transfer of both virtue & general conditions of life. Three institutions that emerged in the late Middle Ages assumed structures & functions of the nobility. The first is the clergy. When, as a result of the differentiation of feudal society ethical & intellectual virtues of the nobility could no longer maintain general conditions of life, the clergy, by virtue of their abstract knowledge that ranged from philosophy & theology to law & medicine, became a class of new experts in generalities & thereby a new aristocracy. The second modern aristocratic institution is the judiciary, which has a structure & function similar to earlier aristocracies. The task of judges is to establish the highest virtue of constitutionalism. It is justice by law, which regulates general conditions of life in the state & society. What qualifies judges for the task is expertise in the new generality. The expertise includes not only education & experience in law but also impeccable private life & demonstrated professional ethics. The third modern aristocratic institution is the profession, whose most important instance is the legal profession. It shares its structure & function partly with the judiciary & partly with other professions. It seems that modern professions are degenerating. In the key area of data processing, due to rapid changes of technology, professions as systems of the transfer of virtue do not even seem to be possible. Professional aristocracies are replaced increasingly by oligarchies of capitalists & technocrats. Adapted from the source document.
Pokrovčeva knjiga Slobodno stvaranje prava: Herman U. Kantorowicz i slobodnopravni pokret (2018) nameće pitanje izraženo naslovom ovog rada na koje rad odgovara u tri koraka: prvo, pretpostavkom da je pitanje odgovorivo samo idealnim tipovima pravnih disciplina / funkcija; drugo, upućivanjem na kontekst Kantorowiczevih gledišta, osobito na objavu presuda; treće, ocjenom da je Kantorowicz podijelio pravnu znanost u prepletene funkcije a ne u odvojene discipline. U tu svrhu rad nudi idealne tipove disciplina i funkcija pravne dogmatike, pravne historije, pravne teorije i, kao najsloženiji i najkorisniji skup funkcija, pravnopolitičku analizu. Pretpostavka je, koja se ne dokazuje, da ne postoji ni oštra granica između pravne znanosti i susjednih znanosti: sociologije, ekonomije, psihologije, filozofije. ; Is Herman U. Kantorowicz's classification of legal disciplines - which includes general legal science, legal dogmatics, legal history, sociology of law, philosophy of law, and legal policy - a division of scholarly knowledge of law into distinct disciplines/sciences or into intertwined functions of a single scholarly discipline/science? The question is prompted by the book written by Zoran Pokrovac entitled Slobodno stvaranje prava: Hermann U. Kantorowicz i slobodnopravni pokret (Free Law: Hermann U. Kantorowicz and the Free Law Movement ) and published by "Breza" and the Faculty of Law of the University of Split in 2018. Answering this question may assist Croatian legal scholars in finding standards of scholarly excellence, especially of research de lege ferenda. This paper offers an answer in three steps. The first is the recognition that scholarly practices differ considerably, which means that the question may be answered only by construing and correlating ideal types of legal disciplines / functions that are compatible with Kantorowicz's general ideas, prominent interpretations of legal scholarship, and Croatian mainstream legal scholarship since. The second step provides a context of Kantorowicz's ...
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.
The central preoccupation of Dag Strpic is the theoretical paradigm of understanding modernity -- specifically, in the sense of Marx's project of political economy critique. The focal point of his line of argument is the theory of labour value: a complex perception thereof should acquire core status within the "general theory" of modern society. Marxist political economy insisted on an immediate market application of Marx's value theory, and it showed indirectly that the theory was operatively inapplicable. At the same time, however, in doctrinaire versions of "economics" both the value theory and the entire corps of Marx's critique were dropped out. In opposition to the profuse ideologized practical-normative elaboration of the doctrine of self-administrative association of labour, at the time of its uncontested domination, Strpic clearly discerned that we are dealing with the principal orientation of the epochal social, economic and, above all, technological and communicational transformation which can be observed in global relations. But for him the essential theoretical question had to do with the underlying principles of the actual unfolding of the processes of socialization and association. In this respect, it is fitting at present to point to the paradigmatic change which Negri perceives in the tendential hegemony of non-material labour, resulting in the necessity to circumscribe the political language of transfer from modernity to postmodernity in the analyses of political science and philosophy. Adapted from the source document.
