Suchergebnisse

Introduces a special journal issue on "Political Theory and Political Philosophy". Adapted from the source document.

It is argued that contemporary Marxism is in a crisis from which it is not likely to recover. Nevertheless, discussion of Marxism in the context of contemporary political philosophy is appropriate for two reasons: (1) Marxists set the agenda for current political & philosophical debate; & (2) Marxism has recently, at least in the West, given rise to a new & lively debate about the value of fundamental Marxian notions such as the idea of historical materialism & exploitation by the so-called (& self-styled) "analytical Marxists." The Marxians have undertaken a critical evaluation of Marxist political philosophy & have departed from orthodox Marxism. The analytical Marxists have tried to rephrase & uphold the framework of Karl Marx's political & materialist philosophy or have taken it upon themselves to construct a new Marxist edifice of political philosophy, even to reconstruct the whole Marxist scheme. This analytical Marxism is discussed in detail, along with endeavors by Western Marxists & dissident Marxists in & from Eastern Europe to come to terms with actually existing socialist societies & their basic political tenets. 63 References. Modified HA

In this issue of Res Publica, a status given to developments in the subdisciplines of political philosophy and political theory, in which many academics study politics in an empirical way. In this symposium, we talk about how empirical political scientists compare normative issues. Adapted from the source document.

The approaches of Jurgen Habermas & Jean-Francois Lyotard are compared with respect to issues in ethics & the philosophy of law. Though both consider language to be both the pivot of & the means to sociopolitical action & events, they differ in their diagnoses about the pathology of politics & society. Their opinions about language, law, morality, & the role of philosophy, politics, & science are compared, & sketched against the background of their general philosophy. While Habermas is a strong defender of the Enlightenment project & maintains that it is possible to apply philosophical ideas in the interest of democratization & the nonviolent settlement of conflicts, Lyotard's postmodern philosophy is more skeptical, asserting that no metadiscourse can exist in the social world that would allow real mediation & conflict settlement. The paradoxes in Lyotard's "language-ontology" philosophy, of which he is well aware, are explored. 6 References. Modified HA

The state of Dutch political thought in the seventeenth century is reviewed. Three main approaches are discussed: (1) The critical approach is represented by P. de la Court, who, influenced by Hobbes, defended a more democratic type of government. (2) The historical-philological movement, represented by J. Lipsius, Boxhornius, & Burgersdijk, was based on Aristotelian metaphysical concepts to develop a more systematic base for historical research. This movement influenced the development of the typical research style of the political sciences in Germany. (3) B. de Spinoza's passion-reason theory led to an analytical political science, exemplifying the typical method of integrating theory & empirical (historical) information. Modified HA.

The doctrine of benevolent empire posits that unilateral security governance has become a necessary & legitimate form of global governance. After first assessing if imperial governance can even be considered an instance of global governance, its claim of legitimacy is scrutinized. It is argued, with reference to the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, that its strategy of legitimation is eventually doomed to fail because benevolent empire appears to downplay both the importance of education in forging legitimacy & the context-specific nature of legitimacy. References. Adapted from the source document.

De problemen waarmee Europa sinds de economische crisis van 2007 worstelt, roepen meer dan ooit vragen op naar de verhouding tussen economie en politiek. Het Westen is er altijd op uit geweest deze twee categorieën strikt van elkaar te scheiden. Economie en politiek zijn steeds opgevat als tegengesteld: noodzaak versus vrijheid, privaat belang versus algemeen belang, maatschappij versus staat, markt versus politiek, globalisering versus soevereiniteit. Het ging erom de prioriteit van de politiek veilig te stellen en aan te geven dat zij zich niet laat herleiden tot de economie. In de huidige crises is de staat zich gaan inlaten met het beheer van de markten en hij doet dit onder dwang van die markten zelf. Dit betekent niet dat de economie de politiek opgeslokt heeft, zoals beweerd wordt door het neoliberalisme, integendeel. Economie en politiek staan niet meer tegenover elkaar, maar zijn wederzijds afhankelijk, zonder dat hun verschil is opgeheven. Hun verhouding is breekbaar. Maar noch de economie noch de politiek is in staat om concreet gestalte te geven aan de samenleving. De samenhang van de samenleving is niet louter economisch te begrijpen, zoals het neoliberalisme stelt, noch louter politiek, zoals de traditionele politieke filosofie poneert. De poreuze verbinding tussen economie en politiek stelt juist in staat om nieuwe vormen van samenleven uit te vinden