Suchergebnisse

The author writes about Jefferson's political philosophy. There is no text by Jefferson that would set out a certain political issue. There are numerous texts of his, written in the course of fifty years, but a collage of them would not amount to a political theory or a doctrine. Jefferson was not interested in theoretical but solely in technical & practical issues. This makes him a typical 18th-century lawyer of the common law vein. Common law of that time was an amateur area, devoid of any technical or professional expertise & part of general moral principles. Jefferson was deft at formulating the widely held ideas of his time, embracing some century-old well-known political truths by Grotius, Milton, Locke, & Burlamaqui. The author suggests that Jefferson was first & foremost a statesman, & his judgments were politically tainted. Nevertheless, he was the most educated statesman ever among American presidents. Adapted from the source document.

According to his own words, Jefferson's guideline while composing the American Declaration of Independence was "to harmonize the political sentiments of the day." This text is an attempt to explain the meaning & the underlying tenor of that statement. It focuses on the analysis of the structure of the Declaration, which is both a political & legal text & is rooted in the rationalist tradition. Structured as a legal syllogism based on the unfamiliar premises at the time of its compilation, the Declaration anticipates, rather than reflects, the "sentiments of the day." Thomas Jefferson's greatness rests not only on the Declaration but also on his consistent application of its principles. Thus, the great American president made sure that through the centuries the dominant political & legal paradigm in the world would follow its stipulations to the letter. Adapted from the source document.

Political attitudes & activity of Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of American democracy, are described in this text. The author describes Jefferson's role in political activities of major importance for the creation of the US: compiling the Declaration of Independence, operating the Legislative Assembly of the state of Virginia, enacting of the separation of church & state, creating American foreign policy & the policy of Western colonization, introducing the first ten Constitutional amendments as a guarantee of human & civil rights, & elaborating on the principles of the organization of federal government. Jefferson fought against excessive legislation on powers of central political institutions. He established the tradition of Republicans versus Federalists led by Hamilton. That opposition gave birth to the modern American two-party system. Jefferson's presidency was also significant due to the elimination of centralist & oligarchic tendencies of previous Federalist governments. The author suggests that Jefferson's political theory & practice have left a permanent mark on the contemporary theory of democratic republicanism. 45 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author draws our attention to the European unfamiliarity with American political thought. He also talks about Jefferson's natural law theory that he took over from Locke & adapted to American circumstances. The features of American political thought are outlined by means of comparing common law & rule of law with the concept of Rechtstaat. The author suggests that natural law & common law are a powerful determinant of the concept of republicanism that deeply influences American political thought. Adapted from the source document.

Cilj je ovoga rada pokazati da Toma Akvinski problem zla promišlja ne samo kao pitanje zla u njemu samome nego i u puno širem kontekstu Božjeg stvarateljskog djela i providnosnog upravljanja te na taj način dokazuje da činjenica postojanja zla u svijetu nije održiv argument protiv Božjeg postojanja. Naime, za Tomu Akvinskog zlo nije nešto, nekakvo biće sa svojom biti i naravi, nego je ono lišenost dobra, nedostatak onoga dobra koje je neko biće po naravi dužno imati. Zlo ima dobro za svoj subjekt, objekt i uzrok, a može na koncu imati i dobro kao svoj učinak. Takva potpuna uronjenost i ovisnost zla o dobru kazuje da je ontološki status zla s jedne strane realan, a s druge strane da nije apsolutan. Zlo ne može postojati od sebe, po sebi i za sebe. Ono je pod svakim vidom podređeno dobru. Takav statuszla postaje još očitiji u Akvinčevu osvrtu na odnos zla i apsolutnog dobra koje je Bog. Bog je onaj koji jest u apsolutnom smislu, a zlo postoji samo u odnosu na dobro koje je Božje stvorenje. Propadanje stvari je tek posljedica Božjeg stvaranja dobrog svijeta u kojemu postoje bića koja mogu biti deficijentna u dobru, što ona ponekad i jesu. To znači da Bog ne želi zlo, nego ga na neki način dopušta dok sve providnosno upravlja k dobru koje je on sam. Naime, Bog je toliko svemoguć da dopuštajući zlo može ostvariti i veća i brojnija dobra. U djelu Božjega upravljanja svijetom čovjek zauzima posebno mjesto jer je sposoban za osobni odnos s Bogom. No čovjek se slobodnom voljom može i odmetnuti od poretka i pravila koji ga vodi sjedinjenju s njegovim krajnjim dobrom koje je Bog. Takav čin se naziva moralno zlo krivnje ili grijeh. Toma Akvinski primjer i uzor pobjede dobra nad zlom nalazi u liku pravednog i nevinog Joba koji je, upravo zahvaljujući iskustvu strahovitoga zla, shvatio da Bog beskrajno transcendira ljudsku spoznaju, bitak i moć, te da bi svako pripisivanje zla Bogu bilo ludost, a svako nijekanje Božjega postojanja zbog zla koje ga je zadesilo bezumlje. Job je shvatio da Božja pravednost i logos vladaju svime i da je konačna pobjeda dobra sigurna. ; This paper aims to show that Thomas Aquinas consider the problem of evil, not only as a question of evil in itself, but in the much broader context of God's work of creation and providential government, and thus proves that the existence of evil in the world is not a viable argument against God's existence. For Thomas Aquinas, evil is not something, some being with its essence and nature, but it is the lack (or privation) of a good that should by nature be present in a being. Evil has good as its subject, object, and cause, and may ultimately have good as its effect. Such complete immersion and dependence of evil on good says that evil's ontological status is real, but not absolute. Evil cannot exist from itself, by itself and for itself. It is in every way subordinated to the good. Such a status of evil becomes even more apparent in Aquinas' view of the relation between evil and the absolute good that is God. God is the one who exists in the absolute sense, and evil exists only in relation to the good that is God's creation. The decay of things is only a consequence of God creating a good world in which some beings may be deficient in good, which they sometimes are. This means that God does not want evil, but in a way allows it while providentially governing everything to the good that he is. God is so omnipotent that by allowing evil he can accomplish even greater and more numerous goods. In the work of God's governing over the world, man occupies a special place because he is capable of a personal relationship with God. But man can also voluntarily deviate from the order and rules that lead him to union with his ultimate good which is God. Such an act is called the moral evil of guilt or sin. Thomas Aquinas finds the example and model of the victory of good over evil in the character of the righteous and innocent Job, who, thanks to the experience of a terrible evil, has realised that God infinitely transcends human cognition, being and power, and that any attribution of evil to God would be foolishness, that every denial of God's existence because of the evil that befell him would be insane. Job realised that God's righteousness and logos rule everything and that the ultimate victory of good is certain.

In contrast with earlier formulations of Hobbes' science of politics, the theory of sovereignty in Leviathan is expounded on a completely new legal basis. It is the theory of authorization, whereby the fundamental political relation between sovereign & subject is conceived as a representative relation. This work shows that, up to Leviathan & within the conceptual framework of state theory, sovereignty was defined as might & authority, but not as power. The missing element was legal substance, without which both might & authority are insufficient to make possible permanent abandonment of the natural condition. The theory of authorization is precisely the solution to the problem of constituting the state as a single legal person interconnecting the sovereign & the subjects. At the core of the theory lies the concept of person, which covers various modalities of the representative-represented relation. It is through the concept of artificial person that Hobbes shows in what way the disconnected multitude of individuals can be transformed into an operative political unity. This comes about as a result of the sovereign being given authorization by future subjects, who pledge to accept his will as their own in matters related to preservation of peace. Thus they can be legally treated as a single legal person, to which the will of the sovereign is ascribed as its own will. By accepting the will of the sovereign -- the artificial person of their representative -- as their own, the subjects themselves become an artificial person: the state. Adapted from the source document.

At a few places in his Philosophy of Right, Hegel directly addresses the discussion with his famous predecessor, Immanual Kant. These places indicate very clearly the distinction between the two philosophical standpoints. This article focuses on Hegel's criticism of Kant's views on peace & international law. For two reasons however, it starts with Hegel's rejection of Kant's moral point of view. First, this criticism is presupposed in Hegel's rejection of Kant's view on politics. Second, at least a partial return to Kantian morality is implied in Hegel's statement that war, although not to be condemned categorically, must be limited both quantitatively & qualitatively. Adapted from the source document.

The author designates the Croatian thinker Juraj Krizanic as a philosopher of politics, i.e. a modern political theorist who, on the one hand, founds his postulates on traditional theological thought, and, on the other, takes into account the postulates of modern political theory. As a theologian, Krizanic bases his conception of history and theology on the providentialism of St. Aurelius Augustine, and his political theory on the acceptance of a part of the thought of his contemporary Thomas Hobbes. The theoretical position -- political theology, positions him precisely between the political-theological postulates of Augustine and the political-theoretical hypotheses of Hobbes. In agreement with Augustine, Kriznic concludes that the political community (state) has its foundation in God and the values comprised in him, which is especially manifest in Providence and royal worship as basis of the internal structure of the state. But, in agreement with Hobbes, Krizanic understands that the mission of the state decreed by Providence operates within the earthly state and the secular political frameworks, and that, on the other hand, the king instituted by the will of God has his foundation also in the political body (the people), and this ranks Krizanic among the modern political theorists. Adapted from the source document.