In contemporary philosophical thought, Leo Strauss is associated with the rediscovery of ancient political philosophy against modern political philosophy. The rediscovery of ancient political ...philosophy is the rediscovery of classical rationalism or “moderate Enlightenment” against modern rationalism or “radical Enlightenment” and can be understood as recapturing the “the question of man’s right life” and “the question of the right order of society”. This article would like to show that it was his study of medieval Islamic and Jewish texts that enabled Strauss to rediscover the classical rationalism. Also, in this article we would like to argue that although the opposition between Athens and Jerusalem, Reason and Revelation embodies two irreconcilable alternatives or a way of life in his thought, this opposition should be only examined with references to claims about radical rationalism of modern philosophy. In this case, we would like to argue that there can be seen a commonality between these “opponents”, i.e., Athens and Jerusalem, Reason and Revelation in terms of both their attitudes towards morality and their approaches to the relationship between philosophy and society.
Modern culture is organized by the idea of rationalization which extinguishes the feeling of the tragic life that represent not only tragedy as a literary genre or an aesthetical category, but also ...the insolubility of conflict between the good ones, the contradiction and conflict in regard to the essence of life, the unexplainable arbitrariness of factual circumstances, devastating potential of passions. This very fact shows that tragedy cannot be seen solely as a means of entertainment or a literary genre. If tragedy as an aesthetical category is the artistic expression of tragic experience, it can only be understood in a cultural context that underlies experience. Tragedies are the ethos of human existence. Indeed, ancient tragic dramas are based on the metaphysical suppostion that conflict, contradiction, arbitrariness and uncertainity is implict to both the structue of human beings and to the whole universe. In this context, this article aims to offer a reflection on the foundations of law by considering the oxymoronic character of thinking law together with tragedy. From the perspective of this paper, such a reflection not only challenges our definition of tragedy as an artistic imitation of a certain aspect of human life and law as the specific social technique of forced order that excludes tragic situations; it may also show that tragedy has the potential to expose a tragic aporia that underlies modern law but is hidden behind cold legal texts and complex institutional arrangements.
Modern culture is organized by the idea of rationalization which extinguishes the feeling of the tragic life that represent not only tragedy as a literary genre or an aesthetical category, but also ...the insolubility of conflict between the good ones, the contradiction and conflict in regard to the essence of life, the unexplainable arbitrariness of factual circumstances, devastating potential of passions. This very fact shows that tragedy cannot be seen solely as a means of entertainment or a literary genre. If tragedy as an aesthetical category is the artistic expression of tragic experience, it can only be understood in a cultural context that underlies experience. Tragedies are the ethos of human existence. Indeed, ancient tragic dramas are based on the metaphysical suppostion that conflict, contradiction, arbitrariness and uncertainity is implict to both the structue of human beings and to the whole universe
Modern kültürün, yalnızca edebi bir tür olarak tragedyayı değil, aynızamanda tutkuların yıkıcı potansiyelini ifade eden trajik yaşam duygusunuortadan kaldıran rasyonelleşme fikrince örgütlendiği tezini temele alan bu yazı,hukuku tragedya ile birlikte düşünmenin oksimonik karakterini tartışmaya açarakhukukun kendi temelleri üstüne bir refleksiyona kapı aralamayı amaçlıyor. Buyazının perspektifinden bu tür bir refleksiyon, cebri düzenin trajik durumlarıdışlayan özgül sosyal tekniği olarak hukuk ile insani yaşamın belli bir açıdansanatsal taklidi olarak tragedya tanımımıza meydan okumakla kalmaz; aynızamanda tragedyanın modern hukukun temelinde yatan ama soğuk hukukmetinleri ve karmaşık kurumsal düzenlemeler ardına gizlenen trajik bir aporia’yıifşa etme potansiyeli taşıdığını gösterebilir.
Artykuł niniejszy stanowi próbę uchwycenia dynamiki i kompleksu przemian polityczno-społecznych dokonujących się w długiej perspektywie czasowej w Turcji przez odwołanie do koncepcji teologii ...politycznej C. Schmitta. Szczególna uwaga zostaje zwrócona na idee dotyczące państwa, społeczeństwa, jak i ogólne konceptualizacje życia politycznego i kultury, które pojawiały się w ostatniej fazie istnienia Imperium Osmańskiego, podczas narodzin Republiki Turcji, w trakcie realizacji projektu modernizacji oraz w najnowszym okresie rozwoju politycznego islamu. Ta z konieczności skrótowa synteza pozwala nam zidentyfikować istotne, stałe punkty ontologii politycznej w Turcji, ujawniające napięcie pomiędzy sekularyzacją, radykalizmem politycznym a teologicznym (religijnym) wymiarem władzy, suwerenności, norm i praw.
Hobbes'un politik felsefesinin en önemli çağdaş yorumları, onun pür legalistik ve prosedüralist karakterini (sosyal seçim teorisi, sözleşmecilik vs) sorgulayarak ölümün ve yaşamın yönetilebilirliği ...fenomenine odaklanırlar. Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida ve Giorgio Agamben gibi filozoflar, büyük ölçüde Hobbes'un Leviathan ve De Cive'da ortaya koyduğu analizleri referans alarak egemenliğin biyo-politik ontolojisine dair kendi versiyonlarını geliştirmişlerdir. Bu yazının temel amacı, ilkin, Hobbesçu devlet ve toplum kavramsallaştırmasına dair 20. yüzyılda Leo Strauss ve C.B.Macpherson tarafından geliştirilmiş iki etkili yaklaşımı ana hatlarıyla ortaya koymak ve onlar arasında karşılaştırma yapmaktır. İkinci olarak, Leo Strauss'un ve C.B.Macpherson'ın Hobbes'un politik düşüncesinde iktidar (yönetsellik) ile yaşam (ve ölüm) arasındaki ilişki konusunda biyo-politik-ontoloji okulunun temsilcilerinin sunduğundan daha incelikli bir anlayış sağladıklarını göstermektir.
The most prominent contemporary interpretations of the political philosophy of Hobbes focus on the phenomenon of the manageability of death and life by questioning its pure legalistic and proceduralist character (social choice theory, contracting, etc.). Philosophers such as Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida and Giorgio Agamben have developed their own versions of the bio-political ontology of sovereignty, largely by reference to Hobbes' analysis in “Leviathan” and “De Cive”. The main aim of this article is to outline and compare two effective approaches to the Hobbesian conceptualization of state and society in the 20th century, one offered by Leo Strauss and another by C.B. Macpherson. Subsidiary aim of the presented reflection is to show that Leo Strauss and C.B. Macpherson provide more complex and sophisticated understanding of the relationship between power (governance) and life (and death) in Hobbes' political thought than the representatives of the “biopolitical-ontological” school.
The most prominent contemporary interpretations of the political philosophy of Hobbes focus on the phenomenon of the manageability of death and life by questioning its pure legalistic and ...proceduralist character (social choice theory, contracting, etc.). Philosophers such as Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida and Giorgio Agamben have developed their own versions of the bio-political ontology of sovereignty, largely by reference to Hobbes' analysis in “Leviathan” and “De Cive”. The main aim of this article is to outline and compare two effective approaches to the Hobbesian conceptualization of state and society in the 20th century, one offered by Leo Strauss and another by C.B. Macpherson. Subsidiary aim of the presented reflection is to show that Leo Strauss and C.B. Macpherson provide more complex and sophisticated understanding of the relationship between power (governance) and life (and death) in Hobbes' political thought than the representatives of the “biopolitical-ontological” school.
Carl Schmitt je jedan od najposvećenijih protivnika liberalnog univerzalizma sa svojim pojmom pluralističke, racionalne i uključive konsenzualne politike kao progresivnog demokratskog projekta i ...svojeg razumijevanja političke arene kao pročišćene, od sukoba slobodne, i na taj način progresivne kretnje demokratske logike. U ovom radu nastojat ću pokazati Schmittove pesimističke i negativne stavove, zasnovane na ontološkim i teološkim temeljima, o deliberativnom modelu politike koja tvrdi da partikularna volja može doći do koncepta zajedničkog javnog interesa ili zajedničkog dobra kroz raspravu i dijalog. Nadalje, pokušat ću pokazati da unutar Schmittovog projekta koncept diktature suverena postoji kao nužni kontrapunkt pojmu politič- kog. Schmitt odbija razumijevati politički život kao medij dijalog koji vodi razumskom konsenzusu. U ovom kontekstu, suveren iz Schmittove teorije mora se razumijevati upravo kao sila napravljena da proizvodi homogenost kroz hegemoniju. Hegemonija, u Gramscijevom smislu, nije gola opresivna sila. Namjesto toga, odnosi se na vladajuću silu sposobnu upisati vlastitu ideologiju i pogled na svijet u javnost kroz uvjeravanje. U tom okviru, ljevičarski mislitelji poput Mouffea, koji preporuča da moramo misliti »sa Schmittom protiv Schmitta« kako bismo razvili novo demokratsko političko razumijevanje, svraćaju pozornost na Schmittovu tezu da je svaki politički identitet u funkciju »mi–oni« antinomije, ali im promiče činjenica da je nemoguće deducirati koncept zbiljski demokratske javne sfere iz Schmittove teorije. Kao što će biti naglašenu u radu, demokracija u Schmittovom smislu može biti savršena forma suverenosti, takva kakva usuprot liberalnoj demokraciji rezultira homogenizacijom i isključenjem heterogenosti, te na taj način mora biti začeta kao fundamentalno hegemonijski sistem. Schmittov ideal demokracije zahtijeva da politički identiteti, javno mišljenje, javna sfera i formiranje volje vudu rezultati suverenove volje i bez prostora za raspravu.
PDF
