Suchergebnisse

In recent issues of the British Journal of Politics & International Relations a debate has developed between Shane O'Neill & Glen Newey on the role of liberal political theory in resolving conflicts in Northern Ireland. This article argues that the roots of this debate lie in the differing perceptions of the role of political theory that the two protagonists employ. It suggests that O'Neill's Habermasian approach relies on an abstract understanding of political legitimacy & an excessively legalistic approach to dealing with the conflicts that permeate politics in Northern Ireland. However, where Newey's critique focuses on the problems of conflicting rights as they emerge in O'Neill's theory, this article highlights the difficulties that arise from the latter's understanding of rationality when applied to the real problems of antagonism in Northern Ireland. This implies that we need to rethink our expectations of political theory when addressing enduring conflicts & that democratic processes are likely to lead to complex & contingent outcomes rather than "rational" answers to the prevailing antagonisms. 24 References. Adapted from the source document.

Contemplates the limitations of 1990s cosmopolitan theory with an eye toward providing direction for a more robust cosmopolitan democracy. Although contemporary cosmopolitanism draws on its legacy with roots in ancient Greece, its evolution as a political project is deemed an innovation; the Enlightenment form of cosmopolitanism is scrutinized. In this light, some reflections on cosmopolitanism's place between reactionary traditionalism or nationalism & corporate globalization are offered along with the components necessary for the emergence of a legitimate cosmopolitan democracy. In addition, the extent to which problems with liberalism's challenge to communitarianism shapes cosmopolitan theory is considered, suggesting that cosmopolitanism requires a more robust account of representation as well as how social solidarity & public discourse might develop sufficiently to foster active citizenship. It is asserted that cosmopolitanism underestimates the capacity for nationalism to cultivate solidarity & thus democracy. Attention is then given to the notion of solidarity, reiterating that cosmopolitan theory must complement the liberal idea of rights with a stronger sense of what joins people together. Cosmopolitanism's roots in rationalism & its attendant universalism are traced & seen to be manifest as liberal individualism in opposition to ideas of diversity, perhaps even a threat to cultural particularity. Cosmopolitanism's connection to global capitalism is next addressed, with some space given to multiculturalism & neoliberalism. Rather than embracing illiberal nationalisms or fundamentalisms as a counter to globalization, cosmopolitan democracy offers an alternative, provided it can relate diverse solidarities to each other rather than trying to overcome them. J. Zendejas

This article focuses on the moral assumptions underpinning the notion of social responsibility implied in the above slogan. It critically examines arguments that derive obligations to meet needs from shared moral agency & from social relations of reciprocity. Obligations to contribute according to ability are established by a series of arguments that justify regarding undeserved natural abilities & socially produced abilities as common assets, & that demonstrate that under certain conditions the maxim "ought implies can" is reversible as "can implies ought." The problem of motivation & voluntary action is tackled by arguing that there are intrinsic & extrinsic incentives to contribute unconnected with special rewards & that moral incentives replace material incentives to produce. The notion of responsibility is an essential concept for social life, but since its justification & adoption depends on an inclusive moral community with overlapping ends & purposes, it is not surprising that the duty to contribute is absent from liberal theory, & had no positive connotations in liberal society. Politicians of every hue are increasingly appealing to the responsibilities citizens are expected to fulfill; yet they fail to account for the conditions for their development & exercise. For this reason, the assumptions expressed in the socialist slogan are an important corrective to liberal perspectives. 30 References. Adapted from the source document.

陳立程. ; "2002年7月" ; 論文 (哲學碩士)--香港中文大學, 2002. ; 參考文獻 (leaves 106-114) ; 附中英文摘要. ; "2002 nian 7 yue" ; Chen Licheng. ; Lun wen (zhe xue shuo shi)--Xianggang Zhong wen da xue, 2002. ; Can kao wen xian (leaves 106-114) ; Fu Zhong Ying wen zhai yao. ; 鳴謝 --- p.i ; 論文撮要 --- p.ii ; 目錄 --- p.iv ; Chapter 第一章 --- 導言:政治自由主義的興起 --- p.1 ; Chapter 第二章 --- 知識份子與國家:文獻評論與本文分析框架 --- p.5 ; Chapter 第一節 --- 中國知識份子與國家關係簡述 --- p.5 ; Chapter 第二節 --- 知識份子與國家關係的硏究模式 --- p.7 ; Chapter (一) --- 知識份子對國家的依附:「庇護主義」 --- p.7 ; Chapter (二) --- 對知識份子自主性的思考一一市民社會與公共領域 --- p.12 ; Chapter (三) --- 對市民社會的質疑一一制度分析 --- p.15 ; Chapter (四) --- 其他的分析模式 --- p.17 ; Chapter (五) --- 小結 --- p.18 ; Chapter 第三節 --- 分析架構 --- p.18 ; Chapter (一) --- 思想史的進路 --- p.19 ; Chapter (二) --- 知識份子與意識形態 --- p.19 ; Chapter (三) --- 分析框架 --- p.21 ; Chapter (四) --- 資料蒐集方法 --- p.25 ; Chapter 第三章 --- 政治自由主義的內涵 --- p.30 ; Chapter 第一節 --- 自由主義在中國的命運 --- p.30 ; Chapter 第二節 --- 政治自由主義的主張 --- p.34 ; Chapter (一) --- 存有差異的自由主義觀 --- p.34 ; Chapter (二) --- 財產權是個人自由的基石 --- p.35 ; Chapter (三) --- 市場對資源的分配最有效率 --- p.35 ; Chapter (四) --- 憲政與法治是自由主義的制度核心 --- p.36 ; Chapter (五) --- 自由主義對政府的要求爲有限政府 --- p.36 ; Chapter (六) --- 民主必須建基於自由之上 --- p.37 ; Chapter (七) --- 消極的政治觀 --- p.38 ; Chapter 第三節 --- 從「新左派」與「自由主義」之爭談起 --- p.39 ; Chapter (一) --- 論爭的興起 --- p.39 ; Chapter (二) --- 論爭的聚焦點 --- p.39 ; Chapter (三) --- 新左派與自由主義的互相指責說明了什麼 --- p.41 ; Chapter 第四節 --- 經濟自由主義與政治自由主義 --- p.43 ; Chapter (一) --- 新左派與經濟自由主義爭論些什麼 --- p.44 ; Chapter (二) --- 論爭焦點的轉變 --- p.45 ; Chapter (三) --- 政治自由主義言說的公開 --- p.46 ; Chapter (四) --- 政治自由主義論述的核心 --- p.48 ; Chapter 第五節 --- 政治自由主義的內涵 --- p.49 ; Chapter 第六節 --- 小結 --- p.51 ; Chapter 第四章 --- 政治自由主義興起原因之一:國家與知識份子的分離 --- p.57 ; Chapter 第一節 --- 官方意識形態的轉變 --- p.57 ; Chapter (一) --- 真理標準大辯論 --- p.57 ; Chapter (二) --- 新的社會發展藍圖 --- p.60 ; Chapter (三) --- 效率:衡量經濟發展成效的標準 --- p.61 ; Chapter (四) --- 市場調節:提高經濟效率的主要手段 --- p.62 ; Chapter (五) --- 社會發展總綱領:社會主義現代化強國 --- p.63 ; Chapter 第二節 --- 促成八十年代知識份子與國家之間合作的基礎 --- p.64 ; Chapter (一) --- 黨內意識形態競爭中知識份子的作用 --- p.64 ; Chapter (二) --- ...

Considers the definition of political community & political belonging in the context of globalization, focusing on the strategies of belongingness & identification at the local & national level. In this light, two versions of cosmopolitanism are distinguished as alternatives for the expression of political community & belonging, in search of another route somewhere between these accepted options. Jeremy Waldron (1992) underpins a notion of "strong or hard" cosmopolitanism wherein the role of culture in choice & identity is central. Next a dual conceptual/empirical critique of liberal universalism ensues to suggest ways other than that to live while accepting some of the premises of cosmopolitanism, taking GB as an example. It is argued that the current context calls for a sort of vernacular cosmopolitanism that is aware of its limitations with respect to adherence to a single culture or identity. How to express such a situation in political terms is addressed in closing. J. Zendejas

Contemplates the limitations of 1990s cosmopolitan theory with an eye toward providing direction for a more robust cosmopolitan democracy. Although contemporary cosmopolitanism draws on its legacy with roots in ancient Greece, its evolution as a political project is deemed an innovation; the Enlightenment form of cosmopolitanism is scrutinized. In this light, some reflections on cosmopolitanism's place between reactionary traditionalism or nationalism & corporate globalization are offered along with the components necessary for the emergence of a legitimate cosmopolitan democracy. In addition, the extent to which problems with liberalism's challenge to communitarianism shapes cosmopolitan theory is considered, suggesting that cosmopolitanism requires a more robust account of representation as well as how social solidarity & public discourse might develop sufficiently to foster active citizenship. It is asserted that cosmopolitanism underestimates the capacity for nationalism to cultivate solidarity & thus democracy. Attention is then given to the notion of solidarity, reiterating that cosmopolitan theory must complement the liberal idea of rights with a stronger sense of what joins people together. Cosmopolitanism's roots in rationalism & its attendant universalism are traced & seen to be manifest as liberal individualism in opposition to ideas of diversity, perhaps even a threat to cultural particularity. Cosmopolitanism's connection to global capitalism is next addressed, with some space given to multiculturalism & neoliberalism. Rather than embracing illiberal nationalisms or fundamentalisms as a counter to globalization, cosmopolitan democracy offers an alternative, provided it can relate diverse solidarities to each other rather than trying to overcome them. J. Zendejas

Considers the definition of political community & political belonging in the context of globalization, focusing on the strategies of belongingness & identification at the local & national level. In this light, two versions of cosmopolitanism are distinguished as alternatives for the expression of political community & belonging, in search of another route somewhere between these accepted options. Jeremy Waldron (1992) underpins a notion of "strong or hard" cosmopolitanism wherein the role of culture in choice & identity is central. Next a dual conceptual/empirical critique of liberal universalism ensues to suggest ways other than that to live while accepting some of the premises of cosmopolitanism, taking GB as an example. It is argued that the current context calls for a sort of vernacular cosmopolitanism that is aware of its limitations with respect to adherence to a single culture or identity. How to express such a situation in political terms is addressed in closing. J. Zendejas

Liberal & Left interpretations of the events of September 11 (2001) are answered. It is contended that the American Left must continue to detail problems with the US war on terrorism while maintaining its stance that terrorist acts cannot be tolerated. However, several leading members of the American Left, especially Alexander Cockburn, James Petras, & Michael Parenti, are heavily criticized for offering insensitive or ill-timed commentaries on the September 11 terrorist attacks. Although additional criticism is levied against several other liberal & Left journalists & intellectuals, Michael Walzer's responses to the terrorist attacks are received with severe disapproval. Multiple difficulties or inconsistencies in Walzer's various writings on the terrorist attacks & the US's counterattacks against the suspected terrorists are highlighted. Similarities & differences between human rights violations that occurred during McCarthyism & the US's capture & detainment of suspected terrorists are then discussed. It is concluded that the foundation of a radical Left response to the present-day American political system exists in the nation's past. J. W. Parker