Suchergebnisse

The Middle Ages was the era of the duality of power. The concept and understanding of power was dynamic at that time. The issue looked different in the early Middle Ages and different in the medieval period of "the enlightenment". In this situation, the rational or rationalizing arguments were supported by both proponents of the papalistic vision of the state, as well as the supporters of the concept of autonomous secular authority. It must be borne in mind that at the time of John of Salisbury (c. 1115–1180), the State was confessional, the difference between the sacred and the profane was only just intuitively perceived and was part of a long and complex process, which in a sense, ended upon the arrival of Niccolo Machiavelli's definition of the State. John of Salisbury formulates the following opinions on the essence of power: Firstly, it is a vision of a sinless monarch. According to him, it is basically the only condition of the recognition of the ruler as a real prince (princeps). The opposite of this legitimate authority is a tyrant. The requiremen there is appropriate education. It has to be princeps educatus (litteratus). Secondly, it is the organic vision of the state in which the political body is governed by the head, which is the habitat of reason, which is only subject to the conscience or the clergy. The construction of the State reflects the wisdom of God, who created man "in his own image and likeness". Therefore, the State is the reflection (expression) of humanity and its reasonable part. Thirdly, the particular parts of the State (its members) imitate the man and interact with one another. The two values which were earlier raised by St. Augustine: ordinis and pax can be ensured by reasonable and thus fair authority of a prince, which was already named as public authority by John of Salisbury. Fourthly, the authority of prince is exercised in protecting the law of God both by him and by his subjects, and its objective is the realisation of the common good. The implementation of the above objectives in practice is to be the result of certain rational guarantees which are formulated by John of Salisbury towards the authority of prince. ; Średniowiecze było epoką dualizmu władzy. Ujęcie i rozumienie władzy było wówczas dynamiczne. Inaczej problem ten kształtował się we wczesnym średniowieczu, a inaczej w średniowiecznym okresie "oświecenia". W takiej sytuacji po argumenty racjonalne, czy racjonalizujące, sięgali zarówno zwolennicy papalistycznej wizji państwa, jak i koncepcji autonomicznej władzy świeckiej. Pamiętać należy o tym, że w czasach Jana z Salisbury (ok. 1115–1180) państwo miało charakter wyznaniowy, różnica pomiędzy sacrum i profanum była dopiero intuicyjnie postrzegana, będąc fragmentem długiego i złożonego procesu, który w pewnym sensie zakończy dopiero definicja państwa Niccolo Machiavellego. Jan z Salisbury formułuje następujące opinie dotyczące istoty władzy. Po pierwsze, jest to wizja bezgrzesznego monarchy. To jest w zasadzie jedyny jego zdaniem warunek uznania panującego za prawdziwego księcia (princepsa). Przeciwieństwem takiej prawowitej władzy jest tyran. Służyć temu ma wymóg odpowiedniego wykształcenia. Ma to być princeps educatus (litteratus). Po drugie, organiczna wizja państwa, w którym ciałem politycznym zarządza głowa, czyli siedlisko rozumu, poddana jedynie zwierzchności sumienia, czyli klerowi. Budowa państwa odzwierciedla mądrość Boga, który stworzył człowieka "na swój obraz i podobieństwo". Stąd państwo jest odbiciem (wyrazem) człowieczeństwa i jego rozumnej części. Po trzecie, poszczególne części państwa (jego członki) imitują człowieka i współdziałają ze sobą. Dwie wartości podnoszone wcześniej przez świętego Augustyna: ordinis i pax są możliwe do zapewnienia dzięki racjonalnie działającej i w efekcie sprawiedliwej władzy księcia nazwanej przez Jana z Salisbury władzą publiczną. Po czwarte, władza księcia realizuje się w strzeżeniu prawa Bożego zarówno przez niego, jak i przez poddanych, a jej celem jest realizacja dobra wspólnego. Realizacja powyższych założeń w praktyce ma być efektem pewnych rozumowych gwarancji, które wobec władzy księcia formułuje Jan z Salisbury.

TOTAL NEGATION OF THE INTELLIGENTSIA. IDEAS BY JAN WACŁAW MACHAJSKI AND MICHAŁ BAKUNINThe article begins with a discussion on the main views expressed in the literature concerning the origins, the essence of the intelligentsia and its features. Against that background, it reconstructs a critical understanding of the intelligentsia as a social stratum as expressed by Bakunin and Jan Wacław Machajski. Both were the representatives of the radical, leftist thought of the 19th and the turn of the 19th and 20th century. It is indicated that neither of them defines the intelligentsia in their writings. They commonly use the term intellectual worker, which is quite accurately described.The issue of the intellectual worker and, more broadly, the intelligentsia, is clearly part of the doctrine of Bakunin. It is also important in the thought of Jan Wacław Machajski. They were both representatives of the intelligentsia in the sense of their social status. Both supported the instrumen­tal perception of the intelligentsia as a specific social group. The path of intellectual development and political activity of both writers and political activists, which led them to extreme revolutionary radicalism, was evolutionary. It led through a fascination with different, often conflicting, ideologies at various stages in life, eventually aiming at that radical revolutionary attitude. The political tho­ught in both cases was dynamic and subject to evolution. Both lived in literary and political circles. They considered their intellectual and political activity as a kind of liberation mission aimed at the enslaved society. They expressed similar views concerning the function of the intelligentsia both in terms of its social and political role in exploited and enslaved societies and, above all, its ambiguous place in the future revolution. Bakunin formulated anti-intellectual and anti-intelligentsia proposals, whereas Machajski — mainly anti-intelligentsia ones. The possible thesis about the identity of the anti-intellectualism and anti-intelligentsia seems to be at least questionable. Insofar as Machajski's concept of the intelligentsia only has a political aspect based on the Marxist phraseology, Bakunin's previous ideas and his anti-intellectualism have a mainly philosophical, and only then political, dimension. However, ultimately, they both represent the attitude of political nihilism. For both of them the critical characteristics of the intelligentsia generally applies to the revolutionary intelli­gentsia which claims the right to care of the proletarians, yet most often it does so in their own in­terest. Against this background, a conclusion is made that education is a kind of property and hence a source of exploitation, class exploitation, in fact. However, the arguments of both political writers concerning this issue are different, and so are the derived conclusions.