Suchergebnisse

The intention of this research is to elaborate on Socrates' philosophy and its serious consequences for the relationship between philosophy and politics, hence making them hostile to each other, and Socrates an enemy of the people. The author explores the tension between philosophy and public life by comparing and contrasting two opposing philosophical projects – Socrates and Plato's – while illuminating different methods and paths they follow in their understanding of philosophy and politics. Since the author makes a claim that Socrates' philosophy is anti-political and subversive, perceived useless for public life and leading to political instability, it tragically fails when confronted with political power, as Plato subtly reveals in the dialogues. On the contrary, Plato's political project, regardless of its own contradictions, failures and turnovers, represents a radical shift. It is the project of re-founding the city on the new political grounds, attempting to make philosophy political, and the city safe for philosophy by permanently looking for a modus vivendi between philosophy and politics. ; Namjera ove studije je pojasniti posljedice Sokratove filozofije za razumijevanje odnosa između filozofije i politike, njihove međusobne tenzije i Sokrata kao neprijatelja naroda. Autor istražuje tenziju između filozofije i javnoga života usporedbom dva suprotstavljena filozofska projekta – one Sokrata i Platona – pojašnjavajući različite metode i smjerove koje slijede u svojem shvaćanju filozofije i politike. Autorova je tvrdnja da je Sokratova filozofija antipolitička i subverzivna, beskorisna za javni život, te vodi političkoj nestabilnosti i, kako Platon otkriva u svojim dijalozima, tragično osuđena na propast u susretu s političkom moći. S druge strane, Platonov politički projekt, uz sve njegove kontradikcije, neuspjehe i preokrete, predstavlja radikalni zaokret od Sokratove filozofije. Radi se o projektu osnivanja grada na novim političkim temeljima, pokušavajući učiniti filozofiju političkom, a grad siguran za filozofiju stalnom potragom za modus vivendijem između filozofije i politike.

The separation of theory and practice of the European integration created a very dangerous situation for the European Union. The article presents this crisis from the points of view of philosophy, political science and journalism. The"European poison of thought" expressed by a lack of trust of citizens towards the EU institutions perceived as inadequate in addressing the most fundamental problems of the EU citizens, as well as scepticism towards the enlargement of the Union, aversion to financial solidarity with weaker Member States, and disappointment with legal overregulation and money wasting, are just a few out of a long list of problems that make people lose their trust in the European integration. The author also considers the greatest weaknesses of the European Union: preferring interests of those who are present and well-organised on the political arena and the fact that the real majority of EU citizens stays outside the formal democratic structures thus becoming a part of the process of exclusion and fragmentation. The state of affairs in the EU, following according to Karl Jaspers, is called a limit situation, where it possible either to withdraw or rise and exceed restrictions. The author considers hope and radicalism as two forces that power the European political activists; in order to unite them, a new faith, values and hope based on the traditional foundations are needed. This new way of thinking about the EU, the joined-up thinking, is possibly a response to the demand for a radical revival in the EU.

The separation of theory and practice of the European integration created a very dangerous situation for the European Union. The article presents this crisis from the points of view of philosophy, political science and journalism. The"European poison of thought" expressed by a lack of trust of citizens towards the EU institutions perceived as inadequate in addressing the most fundamental problems of the EU citizens, as well as scepticism towards the enlargement of the Union, aversion to financial solidarity with weaker Member States, and disappointment with legal overregulation and money wasting, are just a few out of a long list of problems that make people lose their trust in the European integration. The author also considers the greatest weaknesses of the European Union: preferring interests of those who are present and well-organised on the political arena and the fact that the real majority of EU citizens stays outside the formal democratic structures thus becoming a part of the process of exclusion and fragmentation. The state of affairs in the EU, following according to Karl Jaspers, is called a limit situation, where it possible either to withdraw or rise and exceed restrictions. The author considers hope and radicalism as two forces that power the European political activists; in order to unite them, a new faith, values and hope based on the traditional foundations are needed. This new way of thinking about the EU, the joined-up thinking, is possibly a response to the demand for a radical revival in the EU.

pt. 1. Principles of government. Monarchial government.--pt. 2. Of aristocracy. Aristocratic governments.--pt. 3. Of democracy. Mixed monarchy. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Includes index (v. 2). ; At head of title: Under the superintendence of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. ; Mode of access: Internet.

The purpose of this study is to identify the similarities and differences between the political philosophy ofPlato and political philosophy of Aristotle. Such comparative study is very important for politicalthought in general. The main significance of this paper is the precise meaning of the political philosophyof Plato and political philosophy of Aristotle, as well as the meaning of differences and similarities.Often, Plato's political ideas appear as Aristotle political ideas, and Aristotle's political ideas appear asPlato's political ideas. The main method of study in this paper is the comparison method. The ancientpolitical debate between Plato and Aristotle is important to modern political philosophy as it is the basisof modern political theories. The data for paper are taken from the books of these two authors. Thepolitical philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, although they have similarities in some points, but differ inmany other issues, such as: different categories of political analysis, different methodologies of policystudy, and different reasons for state creation, different opinions why democracy is a bad form ofgovernment and why aristocracy is the right form.

The emergence of the first literature concerning the methodology of political philosophy, which we have witnessed over the last decade, indicates a general methodological shift within the discipline. This shift can be interpreted as a sign of the ongoing adjustment of political philosophy to the domain of science that had already begun when analytical political philosophy incorporated from logical positivism the premise of the unity of method of science and philosophy. The urge to have an epistemic source of justification for normative political theories lead analytical political philosophy to the development of various methodological frameworks from among which reflective equilibrium became the most influential one and nowadays it is being considered as the most widely used method in the contemporary political philosophy overall. Reflective equilibrium aims to provide knowledge that falls into the same category as scientific knowledge; however, it can also lead to various normative distortions resulting in the elimination of metaphysics, meta-ethics and religious claims from the normative part of political philosophical theorising. These normative distortions not only can result in epistemically wrong conclusions; above all, they implicitly affirm the normative propositions of political conceptions of liberalism. Hence, the prevalence and uncritical use of reflective equilibrium might narrow the topical scope and undermine the reflective and critical role of the discipline of political philosophy itself.

At head of title: Under the superintendence of the Society for the diffusion of useful knowledge. ; pt. 1. Principles of government. Monarchical government.--pt. 2. Of aristocracy. Aristocratic governments.--pt. 3. Of democracy. Mixed monarchy. ; Mode of access: Internet.

At head of title: Under the superintendence of the Society for the diffusion of useful knowledge. ; Mode of access: Internet.

At head of title: Under the superintendence of the Society for the diffusion of useful knowledge. ; pt. 1. Principles of government. Monarchical government.--pt. 2. Of aristocracy. Aristocratic governments.--pt. 3. Of democracy. Mixed monarchy. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Pt. 3 is called 2d ed. ; At head of title: Under the superintendence of the Society for the diffusion of useful knowledge. ; pt. 1. Principles of government. Monarchical government.--pt. 2. Of aristocracy. Aristocratic governments.--pt. 3. Of democracy. Mixed monarchy. ; Mode of access: Internet.

At head of title: Under the superintendence of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. ; pt. I. Principles of government. Monarchiacal government.--pt. II. Of aristocracy. Aristocratic governments.--pt. III. Of democracy. Mixed monarchy. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; Recon6.

Includes indexes. ; At head of title: Under the superintendence of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. ; Mode of access: Internet.

At head of title: Under the superintendence of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. ; pt. I. Principles of government. Monarchical government.--pt. II. Of aristocracy. Aristocratic governments.--pt. III. Of democracy. Mixed monarchy. ; Mode of access: Internet.

[Vol.3] called pt.2 on title page. ; v.1. Principles of government. Monarchical government. Eastern monarchies. - v.2. European monarchies. - [v.3] Of aristocracy. Aristocratic governments. ; Mode of access: Internet.