Political Philosophy

Through the application of the ideas of Karl Marx, Michel Henry and Emmanuel Lévinas, certain aspects of the constructivist sociology of Peter Berger, Thomas Luckmann, Pierre Bourdieu, Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot and others can be clarified. Analysis, on the one hand, of the norms of social justice used to measure injustices and inegalities and, on the other hand, the level of dissatisfaction relative to them, leads us to a definition of the political philosophy called libertarian social democracy.

In this paper, I argue that the vindicatory/unmasking distinction has so far prevented scholars from grasping a third dimension of genealogical inquiry, one I call possibilising. This dimension has passed unnoticed even though it constitutes a crucial aspect of Foucault’s genealogical project starting from 1978 on. By focusing attention on it, I hope to provide a definitive rebuttal of one of the main criticisms that has been raised against (unmasking) genealogy in general, and Foucauldian genealogy in particular, namely the idea that Foucault’s genealogical project lacks normative grounding and is therefore ultimately incapable of telling us why we should resist and fight against the mechanisms of power it nevertheless reveals in an empirically insightful way. This conclusion, I argue, is mistaken because it conceives of Foucauldian genealogy exclusively as an unmasking or problematising method, whereas I claim that Foucault’s genealogical project possesses a possibilising dimension that provides his work with sui generis normative force.

Ce texte propose une présentation synthétique du livre "Où est passée la critique sociale. Penser le global au croisement des savoirs (Paris, Éditions La Découverte, collection « Bibliothèque du MAUSS », 2012); suivie d'une discussion par le sociologue Bruno Frère ("De la légitimité du bricolage en sociologie ?", http://sociologies.revues.org/4814) et par la philosophe Sandra Laugier ("Politique de l’ordinaire et cultures populaires : Philippe Corcuff, self-made man", http://sociologies.revues.org/4815).
Où est passée la critique sociale ? est un livre de théorie sociologique et d’épistémologie des sciences sociales en dialogue avec la philosophie politique, mais aussi avec ce que j’appelle les « cultures ordinaires » (chansons, cinéma, séries télévisées ou polars) comme avec des engagements militants.

L'interpretazione del pensiero di Jünger da parte di Martin Heidegger è senza dubbio stata per lungo tempo legata alle poche, seppur significative, batute di Oltre la Linea. In questo lavoro tenteremo invece di ricostruire i passaggi esterni a quel famosissimo saggio, mediante un confronto con il volume Ernst Jünger, edito da Bompiani nel 2013: in tale volume sono raccolte tutte le occorrenze nelle quali il filosofo si occupa direttamente dello scrittore.

Partiremo da un breve ritratto di Jünger fatto di cenni biografici, di un'analisi del contesto culturale della Rivoluzione Conservatrice e di un necessario passaggio su L'Operaio, l'opera con cui Heidegger intratterrà il confronto più diffuso.
Seguirà poi la riflessione sui Colloqui del 1939/1940, una serie di incontri avvenuti in quegli anni all'università di Freiburg a porte chiuse, aventi come tema proprio il pensiero di Jünger.
Cercheremo poi di ricostruire le Annotazioni, una frammentaria serie di appunti di difficile lettura che tuttavia, una volta chiariti, ci offrono spunti fondamentali.
Passeremo poi alle ultime considerazioni, precedenti al saggio La Questione dell'Essere, che lasciano presagire già il loro sviluppo successivo, riguardante la questione del nichilismo e della tecnica.
Concluderemo poi con alcune riflessioni di ordine teoretico sulla divergente convergenza teoretica e sulla convergente divergenza politica tra i due autori.

Con questo lavoro vogliamo accendere una luce su una parte del pensiero di Heidegger che è rimasta troppo in secondo piano, nascondendo invece una serie di passaggi fondamentali per la sua articolazione.

La contribución de la obra de Francisco Suárez (1548-1617) para la revisión del concepto moderno de soberanía resulta imprescindible. Pero la figura de este pensador ha estado envuelta en múltiples polémicas que necesitan ser al menos correctamente situadas para entender el alcance de sus propuestas. Para unos se trata de un estricto continuador del pensamiento de Tomás de Aquino; para otros representa una clara desviación de los principios tomistas, influido por tanto por el voluntarismo como por el racionalismo moderno; para otros conviene reparar en que la acentuación del agustinismo le permite desarrollar los elementos personalistas que estaban ya presente en el tomismo. La visión personalista de la filosofía política de Suárez permite revisar el concepto de soberanía que actualmente subyace a los estudios jurídicos. En efecto, un asunto como la legitimación del poder desde su servicio a la dignidad humana y sus derechos encuentra en los planteamientos de Suárez un más que acertado enfoque que puede ayudar a superar los errores conceptuales que con frecuencia acaban apoyando las tesis del positivismo jurídico como humus necesario para un estudio riguroso del derecho actual.
Palabras clave:
Soberanía, derechos humanos, legitimación del poder, tomismo, suarismo, personalismo filosófico, fundamentación del derecho.
Abstract:
The contribution of the work of Francisco Suárez (1548-1617) for the revision of the modern concept of sovereignty is essential. But the figure of this thinker has been involved in multiple controversies that need to be at least correctly situated to understand the scope of his proposals. For some it is a strict continuator of the thought of Thomas Aquinas; for others it represents a clear deviation from the Thomistic principles, influenced as much by voluntarism as by modern rationalism; for others it is convenient to notice that the accentuation of Augustinism allows him to develop the personalist elements that were already present in Thomism. The personalist vision of the political philosophy of Suarez allows revising the concept of sovereignty that currently underlies legal studies. Indeed, a matter such as the legitimation of power from its service to human dignity and its rights finds in Suárez's approach a more than correct approach that can help to overcome the conceptual errors that often end up supporting the thesis of legal positivism as humus necessary for a rigorous study of the current law.

Keywords:
Sovereignty, human rights, legitimation of power, Thomism, suarism, philosophical
personalism, foundation of the right

This Master's thesis (in Finnish) studies the thoughts of Jacques Rancière (1940–) concerning equality in the context of pedagogy. In his work, Rancière locates in Western thought a false belief in what he calls ‘inequality of intelligences’. According to Rancière, this belief leads to stultifying pedagogy and in a thoroughly pedagogicized, hierarchical society. In Rancière’s account, the unequal divisions in society are largely due to education. More so, stultifying pedagogy withers people down by preventing the usage of one’s own intelligence. As a solution Rancière offers an egalitarian method of equality. In the method of equality, equality is concerned axiomatic and taken as a starting-point to all action. Equality is therefore verified in practice and at present. In the context of pedagogy, the method culminates in the verification of equality of intelligences, which Rancière calls intellectual emancipation. Intellectual emancipation aims in awakening the power of intelligence in oneself. It requires understanding of the equality of intelligences and seeing and showing what can be done under this presupposition. Like Rancière, this research starts from the root-level of pedagogy to study political philosophy and the philosophy of education. Leaning to modern critical theory, this study includes a practical intervention to equality: an action-study. Method of the action-study is critical autoethnography. The autoethnographic text tells a story of writer’s own teaching in a lower secondary school philosophy club, where equality of intelligences is taken as a pedagogical starting-point. This research agrees that the belief of inequality of intelligences lies in the background of learning and teaching. In an unequal society, the equality of intelligences is a demanding principle to comprehend. Rancière’s method requires the re-evaluation of the role of the teacher in education. This research concludes that Rancière offers a fruitful reference to critically re-establish the role of the teacher in education and furthermore, to examine teaching and learning as fundamentally equal and human actions.

וגיות של הגירה, אשר מצויות היום בלב השיח המשפטי והציבורי בישראל ובעולם, חושפות לעתים מתח רעיוני בסיסי הקיים בתיאוריה של זכויות היסוד. מצד אחד, החשיבה הרווחת על זכויות יסוד גורסת שזכויות אלו הן אוניברסליות – הן מוכרות ביחס לאדם באשר הוא אדם. מצד שני, הכרה בזכויות גוררת הטלת חובה מקבילה על גורם כלשהו לכבד את הזכות. במקרה של זכויות יסוד, הרי שהן צריכות להיות מכובדות בראש ובראשונה על ידי המדינה. מכאן, שעל פי מרבית התיאוריות הרווחות בנושא, זכויות היסוד מתווכות על ידי המדינה – הן מניחות את ההגנה של המדינה כרכיב בסיסי בהסדר הכולל הקרוי "זכויות יסוד". ואולם, מקובל לסבור כי המדינה (ובטח מדינת הלאום) היא מסגרת שלטונית שראוי שתראה לנגד עיניה לא את טובת בני האדם כולם, אלא בראש ובראשונה את טובת חברי הקהילה הפוליטית שלה, ה-demos.
מתח בלתי-פתור זה מתבטא בישראל בגישה הבעייתית של בית המשפט לשאלת תחולת זכויות היסוד על זרים, במסגרת השלב החוקתי הראשון בביקורת השיפוטית. הפסיקה הישראלית המועטה המתייחסת לנושא העלתה באופן ראשוני שתי הצעות: הראשונה היא כי יש להתייחס לזרים ולאזרחים בצורה זהה, כלומר להכיר בזכויות היסוד של זרים באופן מלא. ההצעה השנייה היא כי "גרעין" זכויות היסוד חל הן על זרים והן על אזרחים ותושבים, ואולם זכויות שהן "בפריפריה" – ראוי שלא יוכרו ביחס לזרים. המאמר טוען ששתי התפיסות הללו הן בעייתיות, ממספר טעמים נורמטיביים ודוקטרינריים, וכי יש להחליף אותן בתיאוריה מפורטת ומבוססת יותר של תחולת זכויות היסוד על זרים.
הרעיון הבסיסי שהמאמר מקדם הוא כי יש להבחין בין זכויות יסוד שמבוססות מבחינה נורמטיבית על רכיב של שהייה במדינה לאורך זמן מינימלי מסוים ("זכויות מבוססות שהייה"; לדוגמה הזכות לקיום מינימלי בכבוד), לבין זכויות שההצדקה הנורמטיבית העקרונית שלהן אדישה לשהייה לאורך זמן במדינה (לדוגמה, הזכות לחיים). על בסיס ההבחנה הזו, המאמר טוען כי על המדינה לכבד באופן מלא את הזכויות החוקתיות של כל מי שהיא מקבלת שעליה להכיל בתוך גבולותיה לתקופה מינימלית מסוימת – אלה הם החברים המלאים "בקהילה החוקתית" של המדינה. יחד עם זאת, מי שאיננו עתיד להישאר לאורך אותו פרק זמן מינימלי בגבולות המדינה – אף הוא זכאי להכרה חוקתית, אך רק ביחס לאותן זכויות שאינן מבוססות שהייה. המאמר מסביר את התיאוריה הזו מבחינה משפטית ומבחינה פילוסופית.

The article analyses Marx, the important work published in 1976 by Michel Henry (1922-2002), the non-Marxist phenomenological philosopher, in terms both of its decisive contributions and certain shortcomings it displays. It does so by way of a dual reading, within the “game of knowledge” (a notion drawn from Ludwig Wittgenstein), of critical sociology and within the framework of an emancipatory political philosophy. Henry enables us to reposition the question of individuality as an axis of a revitalised critique of capitalism and a renovated politics of emancipation. His reading of Marx remains however caught up in a philosophistic presupposition concerning the coherence of the work, a postulate which Michel Foucault effectively called into question. Henry’s subjectivist inclination furthermore leads him to neglect the importance of intersubjectivity, that is, of social relations, in Marx. However the balance is not equal, between Henry’s dazzling insights about Marx and his omissions. It is the former which are predominant, with the result that Henry’s Marx is a work that is too little known and that is unquestionably worth rediscovering.

This article explores the phenomenon of nation as narrative. This approach is rooted in political theory, more specifically, in post-foundational thought and poststructuralist narratology. The article is significantly informed by the so-called performative turn, especially in historiography. It will therefore focus on narrative and hi/story, as it is understood by Rancière: as a discourse which originally belongs to literature yet keeps escaping it. Relying on a literary technique, history constitutes itself as a science: this is why we can approach it by employing methods similar, albeit not identical, to those used to approach literature. The main argument put forward in this article is that society, understood in Laclauian terms, does not exist, whereas the (Croatian) society effect, that is, the illusion of society as a totality, is produced by the narrative of the so-called Croatian thousand-year dream. In other words, what Hobsbawm dubs the invention of tradition is founded upon the narrative’s past, while the impact of the present of this narrative’s narration is excluded from the mechanisms of the ontology of nationalism.

The role of anger in contemporary politics has received considerable attention in recent years, especially in the context of populism (Mishra, 2017; Nussbaum, 2016). Whether anger is a productive or a destructive political emotion is disputed, but one of the key issues at stake is whether (and how) we can have good reasons to be angry, that allow our anger to be ‘apt’ (Srinivasan, 2018). One thing that ‘apt’ anger requires is the possibility of a pause in affective flows, such that there is room for thought and recognition of anger, not so as to deaden it but at least so as to consider why it exists, and what injustices might need overturning in order to alleviate it.

This paper intervenes in these debates by considering anger in terms of different speeds. If we consider anger in terms of relationships of exchange, namely some kind of recognition or due has not been paid in the past, then we can also consider it in terms of how slowly or quickly such moments of exchange occur. Where anger becomes too slow, resulting in what Sloterdijk refers to as the build up of ‘rage banks’ (Sloterdijk, 2012), it leaves a deposit of past resentment that overshadows the future. Where it becomes too fast, on the other hand, it grows out of mis-recognition and mis-representation, rather than non-recognition or non-representation. This, it is argued, is the distinctive problem of the digital age, in which technologies and economies of ‘attention’ management necessarily result in rapid escalations of anger, due to the eradication of interruptions which are the necessary condition of a productive political anger. The paper considers how the digital public sphere has inbuilt tendencies towards anger, in which reasons and thought are squeezed out from flows of affective data.

Critical Theory is not a fixed set of authors grouped together into a school but rather a style of thought. One of Critical Theory’s particularities is its frequent reference to concepts derived from theology and religious vocabulary, a feature well known to eminent commentators such as Martin Jay, but held in low regard and inadequately expounded. This thesis attempts to map and describe the genealogy of the usage made of these concepts by looking at them from a genetic standpoint in order to elucidate their sources as well as from a structural standpoint in order to explain the functional contribution of Critical Theory to the general economy. Another aspect explored is the necessary confrontation of this meaning inherent to Critical Theory with the quarrel over secularization that has permeated German philosophical life since 1922 and the publication of Schmitt's Political Theology.
To this end we have studied a corpus that spans from the founders of the so-called Frankfurt School to later representatives who have been grouped under the term communicative shifting-point, also covering like-minded authors sharing Bloch or Kracauer's relationship to the secularization of theology. Research here is concerned with concepts as such and is not guided by historical rationale or any author classification scheme. An approach focused on major movements and conceptual changes has been emphasized. I nevertheless included the paradigmatic break, as it intersects a historical, methodological and conceptual turning point. Individual authors' positions have been compared with one another and their meaning placed in relation to underlying theological structures, in particular those dealing with the notion of Jewish messianism, but also with key themes surrounding secularization theory.
This use of secularized theological concepts enables us to view the communicational paradigm as a response to certain difficulties arising from earlier use of secularized theological concepts and as part of the transition from a theory of domination to a theory of democracy. Said transformation entails a shift from secularized theology to a political philosophy of religion. Moreover, we have come to realize that Critical Theory is redefining the epistemic scope of the secularization quarrel by advocating an alternative to the Löwith-Blumenberg debate. Beyond metamorphosizing Critical Theory, this theory constitutes a leaven for unity, heralding a model for the conception of complexified secularization. The latter now requires systematic modelling in order to account for the aporia between the persistence of the power of heteronomic religious thought and the decline of its hold on the political and legal organization of societies that have become self-sufficient.

ÖZ
Carl Schmitt ‘in realist bakış açısıyla bizlere sunduğu egemenlik, politik- olan ve uluslararası hukuk kavramları bugün belki de hiç görmediği kadar ilgi görüyor ve yeniden ele alınıyor. Özellikle günümüz uluslararası hukukun çıkmazları ve çelişkileri eleştirilirken düşünürün, ‘kim insanlıktan bahsediyorsa o sizi aldatıyordur’ ifadesi hiç olmadığı kadar anlamlıdır. Politik-olan kavramıyla egemenliğin özelliklerini ve de kimler tarafından nasıl uygulandığını zihinlerde somutlaştıran düşünür, bugünkü küresel siyaset alanına gerek felsefi gerekse siyasi ve de hukuki açılardan yeniden ve de tüm gerçekçiliği ile bakmamız için bizlere yeni bir alan sunuyor. Bu çalışmada da düşünürün politik-olan, Egemenlik ve Uluslararası hukuk alanlarına dair görüşleri incelenecektir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Schmitt, politik-olan, egemenlik, uluslararası hukuk.
ABSTRACT
Carl Schmitt’s notions of sovereignty, political and international law, which he presented to us from a realist point of view, are more and more of interest and re-discussed today. Especially when the dilemmas and contradictions of international law are being criticized, the expression of him that whoever is talking about humanity is cheating on you is more meaningful than ever. The thinker embodies the characteristics of sovereignty and how it is practiced by the political-concept, presenting a new field for us to look at today’s global politics field from a philosophical, political and legal point of aspect and to look.

I explore the Kantian duty to obey the law regardless of its content and consider Eichmann's defence of his actions as being in line with the categorical imperative. I argue that despite efforts to suggest otherwise, the Kantian duty to obey the law is a crucial element of Kant’s moral and political thought, but that its overemphasis on reason is its greatest weakness.

Bu makale, modern politika felsefesinde yönetimin nasıl daha etkili hale getirilebileceği meselesinin kökenlerini inceler. Modern politika, modernleşme süreçleriyle başlayan toplumsal değişim süreçlerinin yol açtığı problemlere çözümler üretme çabalarının bir sonucu olarak biçimlenir. Sürekli değişimin kaçınılmaz olduğunun kabulü yönetimin nasıl etkili kılınabileceğine dair problemlerin ortaya çıkmasına neden olur. Locke, tüm insanlar arasında doğal bir eşitliğin varlığını savunarak mülkiyet hakkını ve özgürlüğü güvence altına alan koşulları egemen kılmayı amaçlar. Bu da yönetimin, özgür bireyler arasındaki etkileşimler vasıtasıyla daha etkili hale gelen bir olgu olarak kavranmasına yol açar. Bu çerçevede, bu makale modern politikanın başlıca üç filozofunun (Machiavelli, Hobbes ve Locke) kavrayışlarından hareketle ‘yönetimin etkili hale getirilmesi meselesi’ni analiz eder.
[This paper examines the origins of the issue of how the administration can be made more effective, which is dealt with in modern political philosophy. Modern politics is shaped as a result of efforts to produce solutions to the problems caused by the processes of social change that begin with the modernization. The recognition of the fact that continuous change is inevitable leads to the emergence of problems about how administration can be made effective. Locke aims to establish the conditions guaranteeing the right to property and freedom by advocating the existence of a natural equality among all human beings. This leads to the understanding of administration as a phenomenon that becomes more effective through interactions between free individuals. In this context, this paper analyzes the issue of making the administration effective by taking into account the perspectives of the three leading philosophers of modern politics (Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke).]

The Constitution of the Athenians is a short work about the politeia of Athens and the conditions by which Athenian democracy can last as constitutional regime which manages the life of the polis. This  work  represents  both  a  philological  and  a  historiographical problem,  because,  even  if  it  was  transmitted  in  the corpus of Xenophon’s work, it is considered to  have  been written  by  another author,  known  as  Speudo-Xenophon  or  “Old  Oligarch”.  It  is  an oligarchic pamphlet which presents Athens as an upside down world, where  the  worst  people  rule  and  the  best  ones  are  as  reduced  to slavery by the ignorant multitude