We kindly inform you that, as long as the subject affiliation of our 300.000+ articles is in progress, you might get unsufficient or no results on your third level or second level search. In this case, please broaden your search criteria.
Please download the Table of Content to see en détail what you can find in this issue. Thank you.
More...
Please download the Table of Content to see en détail what you can find in this issue. Thank you.
More...
Please download the Table of Content to see en détail what you can find in this issue. Thank you.
More...
Please download the Table of Content to see en détail what you can find in this issue. Thank you.
More...
Please download the Table of Content to see en détail what you can find in this issue. Thank you.
More...
Please download the Table of Content to see en détail what you can find in this issue. Thank you.
More...
The article deals with the notion of law as determined by Fichte in his principal legal-philosophical work »Fundamentals of Natural Law According to the Principles of Doctrine of Science« (1796—1797. After reviewing at the beginning the context of Fichte’s legal philosophy (Montesquieu, Rouseau, Kant, French Revolution), the author explains that for Fichte the problem of law is found within the framework of philosophy of self-consciousness, namely he derives the notion of law out of the notion of the rational being. The community of free rational beings is possible only if they recognize each other, and if their freedom is limited, meaning that this community is possible only as a legal one. Therefore Fichte’s legal philosophy is considered in the study as a philosophy of inter-subjectivity — in terms of phenomenology. In its character it belongs to the conception endeavouring to solve the problem of law from the angle of freedom.
More...
Nietzsche was a philosopher for whom affirmation of life and transvaluation of values were some of the main subjects of philosophy. According to him, life and existence could only be seen through the art, precisely through tragedy as a poetic form. Inspired by Greek philosophy and poetry, he pointed out that the power of life can be manifested on the basis of two forces or two concepts which guide us through life. These are the Apollonian and the Dionysian concept. For the most part, Nietzsche did not affirm the Apollonian concept, which was the concept of order, harmony and strictness; he preferred the Dionysian concept, which conveys the fullness of life and freedom, both generally and in art. For Nietzsche, the Apollonian concept was not good enough to help him in his intention to affirm life through art. He turned towards the world of drunkenness that is actually the motto of the Dionysian concept. According to Nietzsche, a state of drunkenness is, in fact, a state of joy, excitement, which makes a man act. This drunkenness is a state which he called the aesthetic state of man, where the strength and fullness of life increase. The state of drunkenness should not be understood either as something negative or excessive, but as an ability of an artist to go beyond himself and his capabilities. The state of drunkenness cannot be temporary, and as such it cannot be considered an impulse but a passion that leads the artist through life and creation. In this world of drunkenness, as Nietzsche sees it, man becomes the central category to which the alienated nature returns to and tries to embrace him again as its own creation. In the Dionysian concept, man is released from the law, and as such he is able to reconcile himself with his loved ones again, without the veil of Maya being an obstacle to that union. Dionysus is the only god in Hellenic mythology that represents a tragic figure of a suffering god. However, although the basis of the Dionysian concept is tragic, Dionysus eventually succeeds in overcoming pain and suffering and thus affirms the joy of life. Nevertheless, although the Dionysian concept performed against the Apollonian concept and attempted to overthrow its rule of illusion and rigidity, according to Nietzsche, the Apollonian principle survived, as one that was like some kind of war camp, as a fortress-protected art.
More...
Although man as a central problem in philosophy reached its peak only in the 20th century, we give the answer to the question that permeates not only scientific discussions, but also everyday life of all people – What is man? – throughout the history of mankind. Nevertheless, with all the strong definitions of man as a social, spiritual, political being, rational or hard-working animal, etc., which are, as a rule, too broad or too short, it still remains open and ambiguous. As we were able to see, the question of man is the basis of the philosophy of Hobbes and Rousseau; therefore they approached the solution of this essential anthropological problem with the same enthusiasm as their contemporaries, but from entirely different thinking perspectives. Hobbes essentially sees man as a selfish, self-obsessed and aggressive egoist who is in a natural state of war against all others. It is for these traits, for his self-centred concern and interest in his own life and safety, that he eventually agrees to seek the possibility of establishing peace and becomes part of an organized society called the State. In this regard, humans, as impulsive and sensitive but yet mindful beings, in fact, only obey the “dictates of enlightened egoism” which Hobbes identifies with the laws of nature. On the other hand, Rousseau’s natural state is practically described as war of all against all. Neither moral nor sentimental connection, nor a thought of duty or any feeling, is what unites individuals here. Everyone exists solely for himself and seeks only as much as necessary to keep themselves alive. Needs, greed, oppression, desires, and all those arrogances that Hobbes ascribes to the natural state, according to Rousseau, are concepts taken from the existing society. As stated by Rousseau, when speaking of a savage Hobbes describes an educated man. The drive to rob and violently dominate is uncommon to a natural man as such. Therefore, the determining moment of the natural man is by no means the violent oppression of others, but the indifference towards them and the drive to be distinguished and separated from them. According to Rousseau, the man is a much weaker being than an animal, but therefore much better established, mostly due to the ability to improve of improvement. This concept allows him to create the history of man as a species. Improvement develops all other qualities of a man: openness, curiosity, a desire for change, etc. Thus we can see that while human nature according to Hobbes remains the same after the transition to the civil state, according to Rousseau, the human species is able to change its nature by adapting to new conditions, which is the basic conclusion of this work.
More...
The basic aim of the present study is the attempt to assure the efficiency of the classical normative method in conceiving the law in its totality or, in other words, to determine that within the framework of marxist conception of law, in addition to other ways (methods), there exists a legitimate space for implementing the normative method. This is because the multi-dimensionality of the essence of law shows, through one of its significant parts, its normative face. In his study the author does not deal with normativism, which in quite a specific sense is not a methodology either, but rather a philosophical doctrine. He does not elaborate along these lines the relationship with marxism, which in one of its aspects is also the same as above, but cannot be connected with the issue at the level of relevant conception. In the above mentioned goal the author attempts at a summary reconstruction of Marx's ideas of law. On the ground of that he comes to the supposition of three dimensions or three degrees of the »legal phenomenon«, namely: (i) law as a social reality (social relationship); (ii) law as a spiritual phenomenon (i.e. norm); and (iii) law as an ideology (i.e. value). In his conclusions the author affirms that normative analysis and the corresponding methodological procedures are (at least) necessary apparatus of the second level of the legal phenomenon. Such an approach naturally does not suffice in studying the total phenomenon of legality, which should inevitably be the marxist methodological foundation of the first degree. The results obtained exclusively on the ground of a normative analysis are not »true«, since they are expressed in only one dimension, and are of »one-factor type« in their nature. But they are correct in »the part« which is a constitutive element of the entirety which is »true«. Omitting any of the parts of that entirety may end up in reductionism of any kind. Therefore negating or disregarding the »normative conception« points at least to the still un systematized foundations of the marxist theory of law.
More...
Following are three basic component parts of the theory of self-management in Yugoslavia: (i) marxist science of social development, and more particularly of socialism and alienation; (ii) revolutionary creative thought on socialist revolution in Yugoslavia and on its continuity, as well as theoretical generalization of that historical practice; (iii) experiences of the struggle of the working class and of other democratic and progressive forces in the past in relation to the conception and realization of the freedom of man, and more particularly in the function of socialism, democracy and human freedom and equality. The theory of self-management in Yugoslavia is not, and should not be, conceived as an institutional theory, regardless of the importance of institutions for the realization of the self-management socialism. As any other theory, it contains ideas, conceptions and principles on the ground of which institutions and other relevant forms are defined, and not only described. This is why it is necessary that the institutions be not conceived as pure form or scheme, and still less as organizational formalism. The basic subject matter of the theory of self-management is the socialist society. Every reducing of that theory to describing the self-management as such is but a way of unscientific reductionism.
More...