Suchergebnisse

Autor polazi od Aristofanove Lisistrate kao paradigmatskog antiratnog teksta ‎ženske politike otpora, no preispituje njeno čitanje kao feminističke kritike ‎rata te kao kritike atenskog imperijalizma. Prvo, autor ističe da ženska politika otpora kroz seks-štrajk i okupaciju javnog prostora nije nužno povezana ‎s antiratnim uvjerenjima, već proizlazi iz zaštite "ženskog svijeta" privatnih ‎odnosa i domaćinstva. Drugo, "ženski mir" kojim se satirizira atensko vodstvo ima antidemokratski predznak i nije kritika atenskog imperijalizma, već‎njegova obrana. Na kraju, u analogiji s Lisistratom, propituje se ruski ženski ‎aktivizam kao reakcija na ruske agresivne ratove u Čečeniji i Ukrajini. Taj ‎aktivizam primarno polazi od majčinstva kao legitimnog oblika artikuliranja ‎problema rata, ali ne dovodi rat u pitanje. Autor zaključuje da takav ženski aktivizam koji proizlazi iz racionalnosti brige za dobrobit djece i muževa, bilo ‎u Lisistrati bilo onaj koji se većinski manifestira kod ruskih majki i žena, nije ‎politički i vrijednosno utemeljen te ne artikulira koherentne antimilitarističke ili pacifističke stavove, pa stoga nije uistinu antiratni. U kontekstu Rusije, ‎svojim zahtijevanjem boljih uvjeta muškarcima u vojsci majčinsko-ženski aktivizam zapravo je strategija za optimizaciju rata, bitno se ne suprotstavljajući ‎ruskim državno proklamiranim ratnim ciljevima ili ih čak podržavajući.‎

This paper examines the ways in which modern philosophical and literary accounts have shaped and produced European modernity. The author looks at the myth as such, but especially in the quest, justifications, and narratives provided by Rousseau, Locke, and Daniel Defoe, among all. They are seen as grounding examples of modern mythmaking in which the concept of savagery has been uplifted and opposed to cultivating and civilizational practices, and used as a conceptual axis for articulating ideas of progress, self-preservation, and the state of nature. It is shown that modern bourgeois power of mythmaking through writing cannot be detached from racial bourgeois-capitalist worldmaking, or from the production and reproduction of racial capitalism – a structural and historical nexus of capitalism and racial oppression. The article concludes that by perpetuating myths of rational individuals rationally organizing the world, cultivating the wilderness, and enjoying freedom of production and consumption, European bourgeoisie conceptualized and constructed a fictional framework of modern man set within the mechanism of the modern state and capitalist production, that legitimized the predatory socio-economic practices based on harvesting social and natural resources, the same practices held by global capitalism as well.

Linking the idea of justice with human dignity through the 'politics of capabilities' is a recent theoretical project advanced by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum and inspired by the shortcomings of Rawls's understanding of justice. Rawls's view on the redistribution of resources or primary goods has nothing to say about someone's capabilities to use these goods, so the idea of capabilities becomes central since it is focused on the way of life a person has a reason to value. The article discusses Sen and Nussbaum's development of the capabilities approach and their criticism of Rawls's fundamental premises about justice. Although the capabilities approach attempts to rectify injustices that Rawls failed to address properly, there are limitations of that approach as well. At the end, it is shown that capabilities are valued in relation to their contribution to the system of production – having more capabilities enhances someone's socio-economic position within the given structure – but this does not question the existing power relations and the very structure that perpetuate inequalities. Hence, the author agrees with the line of criticism that invokes the issue of power relations provided by Vicente Navarro, yet extending this criticism to Rawls's theory of justice for not fundamentally questioning the power relations inherent in the institutions reproducing social injustices.

The author argues that the politicization of life discussed by many modern and contemporary political thinkers cannot be treated differently, and hence without the similar curiosity and importance, from the politicization of death. The dead body represents a powerful symbol and as such it is often politicized. The paper deals with the problem of postmortem violence and juridico-political mechanisms aimed at excluding from the political body those not being alive but whose dead presence threats the living. For that purposes the author reconstructs Sophocles' Antigone as a paradigmatic text whose reinterpretation and contextualization serve for rethinking the Greek conceptualization of the dead, and the ways in which the state penetrates into the realm of private attachments and funeral rites, especially when dealing with dead traitors/terrorists. Assuming an equal ontological status of every dead body, the author, on the one hand, defends mortalist humanism as an equal ability to grieve someone's personal loss against the state-sanctioned politics of mourning, and on the other hand, argues that subjecting the dead to bare death, i.e. by turning them to political corpses as legally constituted dead human entities disposed to postmortem political exclusion, degradation, violence, or to other dehumanizing or depersonalizing practices, accounts for the illegitimate expansion of political power, and thus for the rule of terror, as well as for the ultimate human evil. ; Autor tvrdi da se politizacija života, o kojoj govore mnogi moderni i suvremeni politički mislioci, ne može tretirati drugačije, a samim tim i bez sličnog zanimanja i važnosti, od politizacije smrti. Mrtvo tijelo predstavlja snažan simbol i kao takvo je često ispolitizirano. U radu se govori o problemu posmrtnog nasilja i pravno-političkim mehanizmima koji imaju za cilj isključiti iz političkog tijela one koji nisu živi, ali čija mrtva prisutnost prijeti živima. U tu svrhu autor rekonstruira Sofoklovu Antigonu kao paradigmatski tekst čija reinterpretacija i kontekstualizacija služi za ponovno promišljanje o grčkoj konceptualizaciji mrtvih, kao i o načinima na koje država prodire u domenu privatnih veza i pogrebnih obreda, posebice kad se bavi mrtvim izdajnicima/teroristima. Pretpostavljajući jednak ontološki status svakog mrtvog tijela, autor, s jedne strane, brani mortalistički humanizam kao jednaku mogućnost žalovanja nečijeg osobnog gubitka nasuprot državno određenim politikama žalovanja, a s druge, strane tvrdi da podvrgavanje mrtvih goloj smrti, tj. njihovim pretvaranjem u političke leševe kao pravno konstituirane mrtve ljudske entitete podložne posmrtnom političkom izopćenju, degradaciji, nasilju ili drugim dehumanizacijskim i depersonalizacijskim praksama, čini nelegitimno širenje političke moći, a samim time i vladavinu terora, kao i krajnje ljudsko zlo.

Linking the idea of justice with human dignity through the 'politics of capabilities' is a recent theoretical project advanced by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum and inspired by the shortcomings of Rawls's understanding of justice. Rawls's view on the redistribution of resources or primary goods has nothing to say about someone's capabilities to use these goods, so the idea of capabilities becomes central since it is focused on the way of life a person has a reason to value. The article discusses Sen and Nussbaum's development of the capabilities approach and their criticism of Rawls's fundamental premises about justice. Although the capabilities approach attempts to rectify injustices that Rawls failed to address properly, there are limitations of that approach as well. At the end, it is shown that capabilities are valued in relation to their contribution to the system of production – having more capabilities enhances someone's socio-economic position within the given structure – but this does not question the existing power relations and the very structure that perpetuate inequalities. Hence, the author agrees with the line of criticism that invokes the issue of power relations provided by Vicente Navarro, yet extending this criticism to Rawls's theory of justice for not fundamentally questioning the power relations inherent in the institutions reproducing social injustices. ; Povezivanje ideje pravednosti s ljudskim dostojanstvom kroz "politike sposobnosti" recentan je teorijski projekt koji uvode Amartya Sen i Martha Nussbaum, inspirirani nedostacima Rawlsova razumijevanja pravednosti. Naglašava se da Rawlsovo stajalište o preraspodjeli resursa ili primarnih dobara ne uzima u obzir sposobnosti pojedinaca da koriste ta dobra pa upravo stoga pojam sposobnosti postaje ključnom idejom koja predstavlja način života koji netko ima razloga cijeniti. Autor razmatra razvoj pristupa sposobnostima i kritiku Rawlsovih temeljnih pretpostavki o pravednosti u radovima Sena i Nussbaum. Iako pristup sposobnostima pokušava ispraviti nepravde vezane za ljudsko dostojanstvo koje Rawls nije uspio riješiti, postoje ozbiljna ograničenja tog pristupa. Naposljetku je pokazano da se sposobnosti vrednuju prema njihovu doprinosu sustavu proizvodnje – ako netko ima više sposobnosti, to povećava njegov društveno-ekonomski položaj unutar zadane strukture – ali ne propituju se postojeći odnosi moći i struktura koja održava nejednakosti. Stoga je autor suglasan s kritikom pristupa sposobnostima Vincenta Navarra, ali i proširenju kritike na Rawlsovu teoriju pravednosti, zato što ne dovodi u pitanje temeljne odnose moći koji su inherentni institucijama i njihovoj reprodukciji društvenih nepravdi.

Based on public demands for rectifying injuries of the past, memory politics recently became the most potent catalyst of social divisions and confrontations, as well as possible limitation of freedom of expression. In addition, facing the past might not yield conciliatory, but rather antagonizing effects, leading toward so-called "memory wars" regarding conflicting past narratives that might jeopardize political stability and aggravate cultural trauma in highly polarized societies, especially if there are powerful mnemonic warriors propelled with foundational and teleological attempts to impose historical "truth", as the author shows in the first part of the article. In the second part the author focuses on the origin of the politics of memory in Croatia and ongoing "memory wars" regarding displaying and using controversial symbolic expressions, while parts three and four contain a critical analysis of the Dialogue Document provided by the Council for Dealing with the Consequences of Undemocratic Regimes that aimed to deliver comprehensive recommendations for political decision-making and law-framing in an attempt to face the difficult past and socially contested symbolic expressions.

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.