Suchergebnisse

This study, framed in a much broader investigation of political realism in ancient and modern authors (from Kautilya and Thucydides to Raymond Aron and Carl Schmitt), presents one of the more important aspects of political philosophy by Julien Freund : the dialectic command-obedience, adopted by the French writer as supposition of any political action. According to Freund, human nature exists and is an essential fact in politics. Power is a part of politics, not as a mere thing, but as a highly dynamic reality that determines the politics in a double sense. There is power always, regardless of who holds it. An essential division among men is part of the essence of power: some people command and others obey; consequently politics is always characterized, at least on this sense, by an inexorable submission of wills. Some contemporary ideologies have looked down on any expression of power, assuming its intrinsic evil. Certain normative conceptions of public law have fallen into this trap, as Freund affirms; because they do not take into account the fact that command includes a moment of decision which cannot be reduced to any attempt of ordinary judgment. ; Este estudio, encuadrado en una investigación mucho más amplia sobre el realismo político en autores antiguos y modernos (desde Kautilya y Tucídides a Raymond Aron y Carl Schmitt), presenta uno de los aspectos centrales de la filosofía política de Julien Freundnd: la dialéctica mando-obediencia, tomada por el escritor francés en el sentido de un presupuesto de toda acción política. El punto de partida de Freundnd es que existe una naturaleza humana, dato esencial de lo político. A lo político pertenece el poder, pero no como mera cosa, sino como una realidad sumamente dinámica que condiciona la política en un doble sentido. Siempre hay poder, lo detente quien lo detente, y forma parte de su esencia una división esencial entre los hombres: unos mandan y otros obedecen, de modo que la política siempre se caracteriza, al menos en este plano, por una inexorable sumisión de voluntades. Algunas ideologías contemporáneas han despreciado toda expresión de poder, presuponiendo su maldad intrínseca. En esta trampa han caído, dice Freundnd, ciertas concepciones normativistas del Derecho público, que no tienen en cuenta que el mando comprende un momento decisionista, irreductible por tanto a cualquier intento de judicialización ordinaria.

Jennifer Bird examines the subjectivity of wives in 1 Peter with particular reference to the Haustafel (household code) section of the letter. Bird analyzes the construction of wives' subjectivity in 1 Peter , working primarily with that is referrre to as the Haustafel (household code) section and engaging feminist critical questions, postcolonial theory, and materialist theory in her analysis. Bird examines the two crucial labels for understanding Petrine Christian identity - 'aliens and refugees' and 'royal priesthood and holy nation' - and finds them to stand in stark contract with the comm

He who hungers for an easy formula, resolving all doubts as to "What is law?," is advised to lay aside this article. I deal in no such magic. For law, even though it is the great principle of order in life, must inevitably share in the uncertainties and paradoxes of the fluid reality it partially canalizes. Indeed—and perhaps better stated—law is merely a specially differentiated phase of life, a type of group activity. The problem of law's nature is tremendously complex, and if a few categories and definitions are here hesitatingly advanced, that is because no analysis is possible otherwise. They are not improvised to avoid examination of the tangled tissue of relationships they attempt to describe. Law I define as those rules of conduct which are generally obeyed. General obedience is a consensus within a given community in support of its rules. In Bentley's terms, the phrase "general obedience" looks at the phenomena as group activity, the phrase "consensus" as opinion activity. Despite the obvious ambiguity of these terms, the reader is requested to quiet his impatience. I may succeed in partially elucidating their meaning.

Scholars and activists have long been interested in conscientious law-breaking as a means of dissent. The civil disobedient violates the law in a bid to highlight its illegitimacy and motivate reform. A less heralded form of social action, however, involves nearly the opposite approach. As a wide range of examples attest, dissenters may also seek to disrupt legal regimes through hyperbolic, literalistic, or otherwise unanticipated adherence to their formal rules. This Article asks how to make sense of these more paradoxical protests, involving not explicit law-breaking but rather extreme law following. We seek to identify, elucidate, and call attention to the phenomenon of uncivil obedience. After defining uncivil obedience and describing its basic varieties and mechanisms, we explore tools that have emerged to limit its use. We explain that private law has developed more robust defenses against uncivil obedience than has public law, especially in civil-law jurisdictions. We argue that the challenges uncivil obedience poses to public law values are as substantial as those posed by civil disobedience. And we suggest that uncivil obedience may be a particularly attractive tactic for ideologically conservative individuals and the contemporary Republican Party. For these reasons and others, the Article aims to show, uncivil obedience deserves much more of the sort of critical attention that has been afforded to civil disobedience.

"If our study in the school of obedience is to be of any profit, rest not till you have written this down: Daily obedience to all that God wills of me is possible, is possible to me." Is such total obedience possible? We seem always to be failing! In The School of Obedience, Andrew Murray reveals not only what God demands, but also how obedience to those demands is possible through Christ's perfect example. Basic, practical steps toward a life in line with the will of God.

Pol'al man finds himself in many dilemmas because he is unable to create a gov which will insure that only just laws are passed. His commitment to the system may prevent him from becoming a revolutionary, but his sense of moral outrage prevents him from being a completely loyal subject. An effort is made to shed some light on the nature & variety of actions that comprise this category of extraordinary pol'al acts. The essay is in 4 parts. In the 1st the literature on civil disobedience is examined with a view to making explicit assumptions about the nature & limits of justifiable disobedience. Next these assumptions are traced back to their roots in traditional liberal theory & an attempt made to show that this theory actually allows a much broader range of disobedience than has been generally assumed. The 3rd section presents a characterization & examination of the kinds of disobedience encompassed within these broader limits. The final section explores some of the considerations involved in justifying such acts. Analyzed are disobedience as speech, radical disobedience, varieties of resistance, justifying resistance. This pol'al position is seen as the dilemma of many citizens in the US today. They are keenly aware of the value of the system under which they live, but at the same time they see that system committing what they feel are immoral acts both at home & abroad. It is to be hoped that clarification of the available alternatives will make it possible for men to define their relationship to their pol'al system more self-consciously & accurately. E. Weiman.