Politoloski rjecnik. Drzaza i politika (Mirjana Paic-Jurinic's Tr from German of Worterbuch. Staat und Politik)
In: Politicka misao, Band 38, Heft 3, S. 186-197
2286 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Politicka misao, Band 38, Heft 3, S. 186-197
In: Politicka misao, Band 49, Heft 4, S. 161-171
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.
In: Rus & samfunn, Band 3, Heft 4, S. 48-48
ISSN: 1501-5580
In: Stat & styring, Band 22, Heft 3, S. 11-13
ISSN: 0809-750X
In: Politicka misao, Band 47, Heft 1, S. 129-141
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.
In: Rus & samfunn, Band 1, Heft 3, S. 24-24
ISSN: 1501-5580
In: Revija za socijalnu politiku: Croatian journal of social policy, Band 6, Heft 1, S. 21-33
ISSN: 1330-2965
In: Ankara Üniversitesi SBF dergisi, Band 40, Heft 1, S. 1
ISSN: 1309-1034
In: Timaş yayınları 2261
In: Politika / perde arkası dizisi 57
In: Politika 57