Suchergebnisse

What does it mean to be a hero? In The Heroic Heart, Tod Lindberg traces the quality of heroic greatness from its most distant origin in human prehistory to the present day. The designation of "hero" once conjured mainly the prowess of conquerors and kings slaying their enemies on the battlefield. Heroes in the modern world come in many varieties, from teachers and mentors making a lasting impression on others by giving of themselves, to firefighters no less willing than their ancient counterparts to risk life and limb. They don't do so to assert a claim of superiority over others, however. Ra

Since the beginning of the Christian era, people have used the words and ideas of Jesus to justify all manner of political action. Despite these repeated attempts, few have been able to move past the rhetoric and understand the true nature of Jesus's political views. Here, political analyst and commentator Lindberg goes beyond punditry to address how Jesus's words and teachings--once a radical set of ideas--have come to define our concept of government and our vision for society. Lindberg draws a crucial distinction between Christ's religious and his political teachings, presenting a detailed discussion of the world transformation that Jesus sought. Through close reading of the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus's parables, Lindberg offers a sophisticated portrait of Jesus as a teacher of unique insight and perception, one whose political views have transcended time and become essential to the way everyone lives in our society.--From publisher description

""Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus, "" wrote foreign policy guru Robert Kagan famously in his book Of Paradise and Power, which became an instant New York Times bestseller last year. Taking Kagan one step further, prominent foreign policy specialists - such as Walter Russell Mead, Timothy Garton Ash, and Francis Fukuyama - here provide multiple perspectives on the state of the transatlantic relationship after the war

The United States is home to a newer Left. Its political hopes repose not in a man able to muster less than 40 percent of the vote nationwide, but in the convincingly reelected president of the United States, Barack Obama. This newer Left is confident in itself, united both in its description of the problems the country faces and in how to go about addressing them. This Left is conscious of itself as a movement, and believes it is on the rise. It has already managed to reshape American politics, and its successes so far have hardly exhausted its promise. Policies are changing under its influence. And its opponents do not seem to have found an effective way to counter it politically. Adapted from the source document.

Examines the complexities & pitfalls inherent in any effort to administer international justice, focusing on the International Criminal Court (ICC). The issue of ICC jurisdiction is addressed in terms of two officially voiced objections voiced by the US with respect to the authority of the ICC prosecutor to bring cases on his own initiative & the ICC's authority to assert jurisdiction over nationals of a state not party to the Rome Statute. A detailed look at US criticisms & concerns of the ICC is then provided, highlighting the ideological debate on sovereignty vs global governance. In this light, considered is the referral of the Darfur crisis to the ICC & the US decision not to veto the resolution, which, it is argued, opened the door for a new US relationship with the ICC, wherein ideological objections might be put to rest. Attention is given to the ICC's actions & four policy options for the US: opposition, indifference, cooperation, & ratification. Why cooperation is more viable than ratification is addressed, identifying two reasons why the US is not ready for the latter. D. Edelman

Argues that the US has the capacity to prevent genocide in Sudan but requires the political will. Attention is given to the idea of projecting the principles of the Declaration of Independence & to problems in international institutions that inhibit proper responses to the threat of genocide & mass atrocities. Adapted from the source document.

Résumé Ainsi que le concept de "l'accord théorique imparfait" de Sunstein le formalise, nul ne peut s'attendre à un accord unanime ou à un raisonnement si unique et complet qu'il conduise à un accords général, même au sein de la plus homogène majorité dans un système démocratique. De même, les relations euro-américaines semblent correspondre à une situation de "désaccord théorique imparfait". Si l'Europe et l'Amérique divergent sur l'usage de la force, l'Irak, la peine de mort ou l'environnement, ils forment une communauté transnationale et ne s'oppose dans le cadre de cette communauté, notamment sur la politique à suivre vis-à-vis de ceux qui n'en font pas partie. La vérité est qu'il n'y a pas de désaccord fondamental entre l'Europe et l'Amérique, en tout cas pas de divergence si profonde qui puisse vérifier une mise en théorie du désaccord qui soit parfaite.

Delves into the meaning of the Beatitudes, which begin Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, addressing their content & structure & stressing their current salience. The Beatitudes are examined in relationship to each other & in terms of their promises or predictions, asserting that they offer a typology of what constitutes a "good person" & guidelines for good behavior of the privileged classes. It is suggested that the nature of the Beatitudes is evident if the categories Jesus called "blessed" are viewed in light of their opposites. The Beatitudes are seen to target the sociopolitical landscape of the Roman Empire & the Jewish religious elite of Judea & Jerusalem as the opening salvo of a more radical & fundamental challenge to political & social affairs. Further, it indicates the increasing fulfillment of the earthly human condition, arguing that Jesus' political agenda centers on the pursuit of righteousness. D. Edelman

The contention by Socrates that the old laws given by Minos meet the criterion of "a good lawgiver & pastor to the body distributes" (321d) is the context for Socrates opening question "What is law for us?" Attempts to answer the question by the interlocutor resulted in the fateful & ironic turn that leads to his praise of Minos that implies the objectionable claim that statesmanship is the only calling in which it is possible to realize the good or claim who the "best lawgivers among the ancients" were. Socrates completes his discussion of knowledge of "what is" by leading his companion through brief discussion of change in the law, but his presentation of change is one-sided. His claim that it is wrong for "certain persons. that lack knowledge" to change the "legal customs" (317b) yields a radical doctrine scrapping the lawless-writing by those who lack knowledge of "what is"--& replace it with truth based on knowledge of "what is." The issues inherent in this doctrine torture the relationship between knowledge of the subject, & putting such knowledge into practice, & questions the activity of "the discovery of what is." Discovery is an apposite word that leads to the difficulty between knowing about something versus knowing about knowing. What then, is "best for the souls of humans"? Although Socrates' description of good or bad law suggests a direction, he really doesn't have in mind a world in which "what is" is widely enough known & understood to be enacted and accepted universally as permanent law. Knowledge of the "what is" is not something that the historical Socrates chose to keep to himself as the special philosophers right to its position. Rather, he became our contemporary in speaking that law "for us" is the "what is of what is" that he discovered-the oldest law. References. J. Harwell