Suchergebnisse

Die vorliegende Festschrift will Prof. Dr. Paul-Ludwig Weinacht anlässlich seines 65. Geburtstags und seines Ausscheidens aus dem aktiven Universitätsdienst ehren und ihm sowie seinem Lebenswerk in der Politikwissenschaft und der Didaktik der Sozialkunde Respekt zeugen und Dank erweisen.

El artículo examina la cuestión lingüística austriaca a través de uno de los mayores exponentes de la socialdemocracia austriaca, Karl Renner. En un momento histórico caracterizado por continuos conflictos en relación con la compleja relación política y cultural entre las nacionalidades austriacas, Renner elabora una teoría política des-territorializada de la nación. Esta última es definida como sujeto de derechos y deberes más que como una entidad delimitada por precisos límites territoriales. En este sentido, Renner desarrolla y elabora ulteriormente una antigua tradición del pensamiento político austriaco, representada, por ejemplo, por el mentor de Renner, Adolf Fischhof. Se trata de una tradición cuyo objetivo era encontrar una solución pacífica a la cuestión nacional convirtiendo a Austria en un verdadero Gesamtstaat, capaz de unificar sus nacionalidades pero preservando su diversidad. En otros términos, el artículo pretende, a través de la perspectiva del pensamiento política de Renner, analizar una de las cuestiones cruciales del pensamiento político europeo: el problema –siempre complejo– de encontrar un compromiso entre la unidad política y el respeto de la diversidad. ; El artículo examina la cuestión lingüística austriaca a través de uno de los mayores exponentes de la socialdemocracia austriaca, Karl Renner. En un momento histórico caracterizado por continuos conflictos en relación con la compleja relación política y cultural entre las nacionalidades austriacas, Renner elabora una teoría política des-territorializada de la nación. Esta última es definida como sujeto de derechos y deberes más que como una entidad delimitada por precisos límites territoriales. En este sentido, Renner desarrolla y elabora ulteriormente una antigua tradición del pensamiento político austriaco, representada, por ejemplo, por el mentor de Renner, Adolf Fischhof. Se trata de una tradición cuyo objetivo era encontrar una solución pacífica a la cuestión nacional convirtiendo a Austria en un verdadero Gesamtstaat, capaz de unificar sus nacionalidades pero preservando su diversidad. En otros términos, el artículo pretende, a través de la perspectiva del pensamiento política de Renner, analizar una de las cuestiones cruciales del pensamiento político europeo: el problema –siempre complejo– de encontrar un compromiso entre la unidad política y el respeto de la diversidad. ; The article examines the Austrian linguistic question through one of the major austrian-socialdemocratic exponents, Karl Renner. In a historical period characterized a neverending turmoil about the complex political and cultural relationships among the many Austrian nationalities, Karl Renner proposed a de-territorial theory of nation, the latter was clearly defined as a subject of rights and duties rather than an entity within stabilized and defined territrial borders. In this sense, Renner elaborated and developed a year-long political Austrian tradition, represented for example by one of Renner,s mentor Adolf Fischhof, a tradition whose purpose was to find a peaceful solution to the nationalities question making the Austrian State a real Gesamtstaat, capable of unifing its nationalities while preserving their diversity. In other terms, through the lens of Renner's political thoery the article tries to address one of the core issues of European political thought: the always complex problem of balancing political unity and the respect of diversity.

As opposed to philosophy, theology and natural sciences, for which only the singular Man exists, for political theory the decisive fact is the plurality of men. Politics is preoccupied with common and mutual being of different men. It is created among men and established as their connectedness. Freedom exists only in the authentic interspace of politics. We are saved from that freedom in the "necessity of history", which is a revolting absurdity. When one wishes in our time to speak about politics, one must start with the prejudice towards it. The prejudice accurately reflect the truly existing contemporary situation precisely in its political aspects, and suggest that we have ended up in a situation in which we do not quite or do not yet know how to move politically. The prejudice towards politics are manifest in the notion that national politics is made up of lies and deception by corrupt interests and corrupt ideology, while foreign politics hovers between hollow propaganda and brute force. This causes a flight into powerlessness, a desperate desire for men in general to be deprived of the freedom to act. Politics is, always and everywhere, preoccupied with illuminating and dissolving prejudice. If one wishes to dissolve prejudice, one must first discover the past judgment contained therein, i.e. actually show their contents of truth. This is the task of the faculty of judgment, but not as mere capability to subject the individual regularly and adequately to the general that corresponds to it and regarding which there is agreement, but as judgment directly and with no standard. The loss of standard, which truly determines the modern world in its facticity and cannot be annulled by any return to the good, old tradition or any arbitrary setting up of new values and standards, is therefore a catastrophe of the moral world only if one presupposes that men would in fact be completely unable to judge things in and of themselves, and that their faculty of judgment is insufficient for original judgment. Politics is always centered on care for the world organized in this or some different way, without which those who care and who are political, think that life is not worth living. Where men come together, the world always breaks through between them, and all human actions take place in this interspace. Adapted from the source document.

It is with good reason that decisionism stresses the crucial importance of decisions in the political process. But it is necessary to evaluate critically its dramatic pretension (from Schmitt to Agamben), according to which the normality of life is juxtaposed with the pathos of the state of exception & crisis. This erases not only every distinction between normality & the state of exception, but even between democracy & dictatorship. The proper framework from which an explanation of decisionism & its dramatizing forms can be derived is the modern age as a whole. The birth of decisionism from the crisis of tradition & commonality can be observed already in the beginning of modernity: with Machiavelli & Hobbes. We find the peak of dramatisation in Schmitt's decisionism, in the use of political theology for the dramatization of politics as drama of the subject which obtains his self-willed freedom through a secularist disempowerment of God. The other strand of political philosophy advocates the political priority of discussion & discourse, as opposed to the priority of decision. The author is interested in forms of discourse which revolve in a Habermasian or Rawlsian way around the concept of deliberative democracy. The theories of deliberative democracy are mostly characterized by the following postulates: demand for equality & inclusion, for non-coercion & communicativeness, oriented towards mutual understanding. The author points out that these demands reflect too great expectations, which cannot be fulfilled by discourse & discussion (expectations of consensus & rationality, underestimating of pre-discursive assumptions). In the final section, the author concludes that both decisionism & theory of discourse resulted from the modern-age loss of tradition & commonality. Decision & discussion could be perceived as feuding brothers, although they are doing their best to negate their kinship. A mediation of opposition is possible insofar as the feuding brothers recognize the fact that they are related. Unification at least protects them from the danger of irrationalism & excessive expectation of rationalism. Adapted from the source document.