In his study, the author analyses two different views of nationalism: Arendt's and Kedourie's. Hannah Arendt focuses on the link between racism, nationalism, and imperialism. According to her, nationalism differs from totalitarianism, which represents a more recent development. Kedourie sets out from Acton's critique of the French revolution and concludes that radical nationalism is a product of Franco-German national tensions. Finally, the author offers both concepts as his contribution to an easier understanding of the antagonisms which brought about the war on the territory of the former Yugoslavia. (SOI : PM: S. 151)
The article is dedicated to Professor Richard Wisser. It is a critical analysis of Husserl's essay "The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology". The author first outlines Husserl's diagnosis of the crisis of science, philosophy and culture, followed by the elements and the mechanisms of that crisis. The root of the crisis of European science and culture lies in foregoing the genuine productive humanity. The authentic humanity cannot be based nor explained from its objectivizations but solely through the analysis of its productive imagination. The author also deals with the crisis of spiritual sciences, which he claims have brought about the loss of insight into the ultimate purpose of the existence of Europe as a brainchild of the historical humanity. (SOI : PM: S. 176)
"Globalism" and "globalization" are suggestive and vague terms so that extreme caution is required when using them to define phenomena. There is no doubt there are certain actual issues due to which the world on the whole is becoming an object of attention to a bigger extent than it used to be. However, when the consequences and implications of these issues are concerned, it is easy to give free reigns to imagination and overestimate their farreaching repercussions, just as it is possible to underestimate them, believing "there is nothing new under the sun". (SOI : PM: S. 8)
Husserl's concept and definition of the living world represents a sort of the pinnacle of his later philosophical works. In the form of a new universal science - transcedental phenomenology - and by defining the living world as - for us - immediate and contiguous world, the known and acknowledged inter-subjectivity, Husserl provides a critique of the modern age i.e. the domination of the paradigm of the objectivist sciences. Husserl's phenomenology also delves into the equally central political and social problems of the contemporary age; Husserl calls for the establishment of a new rationality in judging social and political issues. Particular attention i given to Husserl's vehement critique of anti-liberalism as well as his novel relation "I - We", i. e. the individual and the community or the state. (SOI : PM: S. 153)
The author deals with "the three definite articles" of Kant's text "Towards the perpetual peace", their inner logic and their interdependence. Peace in the world can only be achieved if the constitution is republican, if the relations among the states are based on federalness and if the right of the citizen of the world is secured. The author highlights the importance and the novelty of the right which belongs to a person as a citizen of the world, and not only as a citizen of a particular state. (SOI : PM: S. 13)
The article presents a critical overview of underlying ideas, social context, and original teachings of two "mediating ideologies" (social democracy and conservatism) and two mass "political phenomena" (nationalism and populism). Each of them constitutes a form of more or less effective political compromise, which ought to neutralize constant tensions and clashes between the leading modern ideologies of freedom and equality, i.e. liberalism and communism. However, the clash of ideologies which were prominent in the 19th and 20th centuries has lost much of its intensity today, although the social causes that gave rise to them have remained unchanged: social inequalities, abuse of freedom, and uneven distribution of social power. At the same time, the main social forces and political organizations that had been the symbols and striking forces of freedom and equality in the preceding decades - the political parties of the "left " and "right", including the never clearly defined "political center" - also lost their identity and power. Th e then political mortal enemies look and behave today almost exactly as they did then: in the ideological sense, "everyone wants everything" (allegedly representing/ defending the interests of "all citizens"); in the organizational sense, there is almost no difference between them; whereas the difference in the manner they behave when in power is almost negligible.
Based on the experience of former rightist and communist dictatorships in Europe regarding different forms of opposition - both open and hidden within these regimes' structures - the author analyzes the role of the opposition in the process of the sweeping democratic change that has taken place the "new democracies" of Central and Eastern Europe in the direction of the state of law and civil society. His conclusion is, that in today's Central European countries political multi-party pluralism which includes viable parliamentary opposition was given a smooth start and has since taken root. However in the countries with only superficial democracy and an obvious "democratic deficit" - for example Croatia (and Slovakia) - parliamentary opposition plays the second fiddle. The prime movers of the change - and of the democratization as well - are still the ruling parties (not unlike during the communist single-party regimes). Changes occur only when the ruling party or its major fraction opt for them considering them the lesser of two evils, either because they are no longer satisfied with the distribution of power and goods within the existing status quo or because they are aware that it cannot be maintained in its present form. This happened in the Soviet Union , first under Nikita Khruschev and then again under Mihail Gorbachev. Changes, however, when imposed from above get out of hand and backfire against those who have set them off (remember Gorbachev); what emerges is usually a compromise between tbe vestige of the old and the emerging regime. (SOI : PM: S. 92)
