Potraga za politickom realnoscu Rodin, Davor
Politička misao,
12/2013, Letnik:
50, Številka:
4
Journal Article, Conference Proceeding
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
In interpreting current social and political processes, one should recognize new and mutually different political and democratic forces, which should offer an alternative to trends which had ...generated the crisis. Since totalitarian regimes such as fascism and communism (and even neoliberalism) did not solve the crisis of capitalism in the past, writers like Habermas, Searle, Luhmann, Wolin, Vesting and others do not consider them as potential solutions for the contemporary crisis. The solutions are not being sought within the framework of universalisation of particular interests either. Even less they look for a solution within some universal virtue that would represent all other virtues. On the contrary - the contemporary theory recognizes that humanity in its lifeworld operates within different media and that the unified lifeworld is represented in different, incommensurable media, so the new theory attempts to create a modus vivendi among various representations of the world, not one single unitary interpretation. Contemporary theories are interested in the issue of coexistence between incommensurable differences, and thus they ask: how to preserve pluralism of social life. This process remains open. On the other hand, any idea of a single solution within a single unified medium leads to renewal of totalitarianisms, or even a world war, a new Holocaust or a new Hiroshima. PUBLICATION ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT IN CROATIAN: U znacenjima postojcéih socijalnih i politickih procesa treba prepoznati nove i drugacije politicke i demokratske snage koje ce biti sposobne revidirati trendove koji su ...generirali postojecu krizu. Habermas, Searle, Luhmann, Wolin, Vesting i drugi ne pomisljaju u postojecoj krizi privrede, demokracije i kreativne politike na ponovno pojavljivanje totalitarnih rezima fasizma i komunizma, pa ni neoliberalizma, jer ti sustavi u proslosti nisu uspijevali rijesiti krizu kapitalizma. Rjesenja se ne traze u pravcu univerzalizacije parcijalnih interesa u nekom sveobuhvatnom opcem dobru koje bi zastupalo sva druga dobra. Naprotiv, zbog uvida da suvremeno ljudstvo u svijetu zivota djeluje u razlicitim medijima i da se jedinstveni svijet zivota reprezentira razlicitim nesumjerljivim medijima, suvremena teorija nastoji projektirati modus vivendi razlicitih reprezentacija svijeta zivota, a ne njihovo jedinstvo. Teorije danas istrazuju kako je moguce zivjeti s nesumjerljivim razlikama i tako ocuvati svu raznolikost socijalnog zivota na Zemlji. Taj je proces posve otvoren, konacna rjesenja u sklopu samo jednog od medija vode u vec dozivljene katastrofe: u svjetske ratove, u Holokaust, u Hirosimu. // ABSTRACT IN ENGLISH: In interpreting current social and political processes, one should recognize new and mutually different political and democratic forces, which should offer an alternative to trends which had generated the crisis. Since totalitarian regimes such as fascism and communism (and even neoliberalism) did not solve the crisis of capitalism in the past, writers like Habermas, Searle, Luhmann, Wolin, Vesting and others do not consider them as potential solutions for the contemporary crisis. The solutions are not being sought within the framework of universalisation of particular interests either. Even less they look for a solution within some universal virtue that would represent all other virtues. On the contrary the contemporary theory recognizes that humanity in its lifeworld operates within different media and that the unified lifeworld is represented in different, incommensurable media, so the new theory attempts to create a modus vivendi among various representations of the world, not one single unitary interpretation. Contemporary theories are interested in the issue of coexistence between incommensurable differences, and thus they ask: how to preserve pluralism of social life. This process remains open. On the other hand, any idea of a single solution within a single unified medium leads to renewal of totalitarianisms, or even a world war, a new Holocaust or a new Hiroshima. Reprinted by permission of Fakultet politickih znanosti u Zagrebu
In interpreting current social and political processes, one should recognize new and mutually different political and democratic forces, which should offer an alternative to trends which had ...generated the crisis. Since totalitarian regimes such as fascism and communism (and even neoliberalism) did not solve the crisis of capitalism in the past, writers like Habermas, Searle, Luhmann, Wolin, Vesting and others do not consider them as potential solutions for the contemporary crisis. The solutions are not being sought within the framework of universalisation of particular interests either. Even less they look for a solution within some universal virtue that would represent all other virtues. On the contrary – the contemporary theory recognizes that humanity in its lifeworld operates within different media and that the unified lifeworld is represented in different, incommensurable media, so the new theory attempts to create a modus vivendi among various representations of the world, not one single unitary interpretation. Contemporary theories are interested in the issue of coexistence between incommensurable differences, and thus they ask: how to preserve pluralism of social life. This process remains open. On the other hand, any idea of a single solution within a single unified medium leads to renewal of totalitarianisms, or even a world war, a new Holocaust or a new Hiroshima.
In interpreting current social and political processes, one should recognize new and mutually different political and democratic forces, which should offer an alternative to trends which had ...generated the crisis. Since totalitarian regimes such as fascism and communism (and even neoliberalism) did not solve the crisis of capitalism in the past, writers like Habermas, Searle, Luhmann, Wolin, Vesting and others do not consider them as potential solutions for the contemporary crisis. The solutions are not being sought within the framework of universalisation of particular interests either. Even less they look for a solution within some universal virtue that would represent all other virtues. On the contrary -- the contemporary theory recognizes that humanity in its lifeworld operates within different media and that the unified lifeworld is represented in different, incommensurable media, so the new theory attempts to create a modus vivendi among various representations of the world, not one single unitary interpretation. Contemporary theories are interested in the issue of coexistence between incommensurable differences, and thus they ask: how to preserve pluralism of social life. This process remains open. On the other hand, any idea of a single solution within a single unified medium leads to renewal of totalitarianisms, or even a world war, a new Holocaust or a new Hiroshima. Adapted from the source document.
Democratization of Democracy Rodin, Davor
Anali Hrvatskog politološkog društva,
01/2011, Letnik:
7, Številka:
1
Journal Article
Recenzirano
A new wave of discussions on democracy launched in the EU that suffers from a democratic deficit. With the Union's democracy withdrawn from the scope of the national state, so the question is: can ...the framework of the respective Union in general function? Is it in fact a multinational Union altogether possible to democratize? Our thesis is authentic democratization of democracy is the form of its functioning. Adapted from the source document.
The 1970s movement aimed at rehabilitation of practical philosophy was an intellectual rebellion against scientific universalism. The movement was by no means unique. Some sought rehabilitation of ...practical philosophy in reinterpretation of Aristotle's ethics and politics. In these parts, Ante Pazanin and Danilo Pejovic inclined towards this strand. To Kant's and Hegel's universal rationalism they opposed Aristotle, who drew a clear distinction between practice, poiesis and theory. Instead of firmly establishing a new semantic paradigm in the understanding of practical relations, one moved back into the 'pre-scientific' history of practical philosophy, i.e. towards Aristotle. Nostalgia for Aristotle's Athens suppressed the reality of contemporary life. Others sought new paths in accordance with Husserl's, Heidegger's and Wittgenstein's semantic criticism of metaphysical tradition, both in its variant of Kant's and Hegel's scientific philosophy of identity and in the version of Aristotle's analogous logo-centrism. On the whole, all methodical preconditions for such a movement had already existed in Edmund Husserl's early works. Husserl is the author of the semantic turn of the Western logo-centric metaphysics which 'antiquated' both Aristotle and Kant. Through an interpretation of Husserl's diagnosis of the crisis of European sciences and the understanding of his overcoming of neo-Kantian formal transcendentalism, the author puts forward a semantic understanding of practice and politics, and shows how it is possible to found practical philosophy utilizing the devices of Husserl's phenomenology. He concludes that in the present day Husserl's phenomenology is undoubtedly relevant for both natural-scientific and social-scientific research. Reprinted by permission of Fakultet politickih znanosti u Zagrebu
The 1970s movement aimed at rehabilitation of practical philosophy was an intellectual rebellion against scientific universalism. The movement was by no means unique. Some sought rehabilitation of ...practical philosophy in reinterpretation of Aristotle’s ethics and politics. In these parts, Ante Pažanin and Danilo Pejović inclined towards this strand. To Kant’s and Hegel’s universal rationalism they opposed Aristotle, who drew a clear distinction between practice, poiesis and theory. Instead of firmly establishing a new semantic paradigm in the understanding of practical relations, one moved back into the “pre-scientific” history of practical philosophy, i.e. towards Aristotle. Nostalgia for Aristotle’s Athens suppressed the reality of contemporary life. Others sought new paths in accordance with Husserl’s, Heidegger’s and Wittgenstein’s semantic criticism of metaphysical tradition, both in its variant of Kant’s and Hegel’s scientific philosophy of identity and in the version of Aristotle’s analogous logo-centrism. On the whole, all methodical preconditions for such a movement had already existed in Edmund Husserl’s early works. Husserl is the author of the semantic turn of the Western logo-centric metaphysics which “antiquated” both Aristotle and Kant. Through an interpretation of Husserl’s diagnosis of the crisis of European sciences and the understanding of his overcoming of neo-Kantian formal transcendentalism, the author puts forward a semantic understanding of practice and politics, and shows how it is possible to found practical philosophy utilizing the devices of Husserl’s phenomenology. He concludes that in the present day Husserl’s phenomenology is undoubtedly relevant for both natural-scientific and socialscientific research.
