Suchergebnisse

Republicanism and liberalism, as foundations of Modernity, are presented in terms of how they are interconnected and condition one another, as expressed in the conception of Jurgen Habermas' deliberative democracy. Firstly, both concepts are concisely defined; republicanism stresses the principle of virtue and community, while liberalism reveals the freedom of the individual and of particular provinces as the basic point in the development of a free order. Secondly, the author shows how Habermas links the two in the concept of deliberative democracy as inseparable parts of the modern political order. After that, the way is discussed in which Habermas uses the concept in his analysis of the European Union, i.e. of the possibility of deliberative democracy in the space of Europeization and globalization. The author concludes that, viewed from the perspective of Europeization and globalization, the effective potency of republicanism has become significantly reduced, while the potency of neoliberal tendencies has grown, with decidedly fatal consequences. Adapted from the source document.

Philosophy of politics is currently going through an extremely grave crisis. The crisis of the political is apparent everywhere. Political interpretation in the conditions of the contemporary age is seriously shaken. This in turn brings into question the segment of society which is an essential part of the cultural identity of the West. One might say that, throughout the 20th century, no one inquired into the position of politics as thoroughly as Hannah Arendt. Her major contribution had to do with understanding the relation between philosophy and the application of its principles in politics, and her basic estimation was that the application of principles of philosophical thought on politics had devastating consequences. Although philosophy as metaphysics, since Plato and Hegel, contributed greatly to consideration of the political, Hannah Arendt was nonetheless of the opinion that the original sense of the political was lost in such philosophy and that the application of principles of philosophical thought on politics caused the political to be forgotten. The text provides a brief outline of Plato's perception of the relation between philosophy and politics, postulating the philosophical ideal that the veritable political community (polis) must be measured according to philosophical thought, and on the basis of principles of constitution of thought itself. On the other hand, Aristotle calls upon the ethos of the existing polis, but he always analyses the political under the primacy of philosophical principles. Arendt thus deems that Aristotle also considers the relevant knowledge of the political to be philosophical. She points out that political philosophy always discriminated against opinion and variety, and consequently also against the political as such. Aristotle and Kant are partly excluded from this judgment. Since the political categories created in the philosophy of politics determine our understanding of politics to this day, Arendt subjects them to criticism. Her different understanding of the political is manifest in her analyses of the fundamental political categories (government, power, force, authority, freedom), which can be adequately grasped only on the basis of relations between people, and not of some substantial and unquestionable domain. Adapted from the source document.

The author retraces the steps that brought Pazanin to the practical philosophy which he went on to constantly advocate and elaborate. He got the key stimulus from Hannah Arendt and her work Vita activa. The latter is based on an analysis of three forms of life -- theoretical, practical and poietic. Pazanin establishes very studiously a connection between activity (practice) and political life, and he shows that neither scientific-technical insights nor pure philosophical speculation can be substitutes for practice. In the author's judgement, credit belongs to Pazanin for pointing out the distinctiveness of practical political activity. On the other hand, he deems that it is not enough to be satisfied with mere rehabilitation of Aristotle. Instead, in view of the situation in the modem world, it is also necessary to construct the concept of the political. Pazanin did not perceive this endeavour, in the strict sense, as part of his task. Adapted from the source document.

The author shows the importance of Hobbes' political thought in formulating the modern state. His contractual argument did not become obsolete as his scientific method. Hobbes breaks from the Aristotelian & natural rights tradition, or rather, he gives the concept of natural right an entirely new meaning. In this context the state of nature, contract & state are logical constructs, & not concepts in direct causal relationship. Hobbes' contract is not just a contract about the system of government; it is what society begins with. The contract is only the ground for the formation of the sociability of the individual, if it is at the same time the ground for establishing the government. The author emphasizes that, just like Kant, Hobbes & Locke consider leaving the state of nature necessary, not simply because of pragmatic reasons, but because the state has to legitimate itself as a claim of pure practical reason. Therefore, the author, following Kant, holds that the duty towards civil society & state cannot be based in the context of Hobbes' & Locke's philosophy, because, although the creation of state can be seen as an act of prudence, that in itself does not show a real obligation to pass from the state of nature to the state of law. The author also notes Hobbes' error in constructing a state independent from ownership. Contrary to him, Kant reasonably & legally bases theory of property as decisive part of his contractualism & creates a philosophical & legal foundation for the philosophy of the state. References. Adapted from the source document.

The author's starting point is the assumption that the public is essentially political & also indispensable for democratic polity. After a brief analysis of the notions related to the concept of the public in different traditions, the author offers three essential elements for its formation: the liberal freedoms as a prerequisite of public life, the unseverable link between the public & democracy, & the legitimation & the control of power by means of the public. The public has a decisive role in all the functions of the state by ensuring three things: the legislature aspires to the public good, the public controls the parliament & government, & the court decisions are overt. In contemporary society the public sphere is safeguarded by parties, associations, trade unions, electronic media & the press in the sense that they prevent the parties in power to lead arcane politics. In the end, the author champions the idea of a proper distinction between the private & the public sphere, since the total public would mean the death of freedom-loving democracy. 6 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author describes the spiritual climate at the time of the publication of Rawis' A Theory of Justice (1971) & describes its huge impact on the political philosophy of the 20th century. Then he analyses Rawls' acknowledgement of Kant. First he depicts Rawls' formulation of his original position along the lines of Kant's idea of the autonomy of the individual & the categorical imperative. There might be some problems with the possible convergence of Rawls' economism & Kant's moral position. According to Rawis, the original position parties may express their nature, but at the same time they belong to the intelligible world. Raws has tried to overcome this divergence from Kant's concept in his paper Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory by means of distinguishing between the rational & the full autonomy, from which the author concludes that Rawis was inclined to adopt a certain version of utilitarianism. According to the author, Rawis' attempt to bridge Kant's rigorous distinction between the law & the morality by means of his sense of justice is entirely alien to Kant. Hence there is an unbridgable chasm between Kant & Rawis, which does not mean that Rawis' attempt at using Kant's categories in the design of democratic societies is insufficiently legitimate. 71 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author outlines some basic conceptual aspects of the legal evolution of international relations after 11 September 2001. First, he briefly sums up the classical international law. Then he goes on to analyze the two dominant approaches to the future development of international law -- the idealistic & the realistic -- by juxtaposing Kant & Hegel. Regarding this debate one should not forget Carl Schmitt, the German legal & political theoretician, since he challenges the universalist presumptions of Kant's project. Schmitt calls into question the function of the rationalization of governance which should be taken over by the constitution, both within & outside the nation-state. The author concludes that the US & other big powers will soon have to return to the path they paved & energetically followed between 1918 & 1945, the path of gradual progress in the historical evolution of international law. 12 References. Adapted from the source document.