.jpg)
printAbout Prospects of Political Logic of the Private
Kuzin I.V.,
Cand. Sci. (Philos.), Associate Professor, Institute of Philosophy, Saint-Petersburg University, iaffet@newmail.ru
elibrary_id: 113478 |
DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2017.02.08
For citation:
Kuzin I.V. About Prospects of Political Logic of the Private. – Polis. Political Studies. 2017. No. 2. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2017.02.08
Abstract
The article is devoted to the analysis of correlation of the principles of liberalism and traditionalism in metaphysical terms. The notions of private and universal are the basic categories of the paper. The focus of the argument is defined by this point – categories of private and universal. Another key concept of the paper is the transcendental. As the author shows the concept of the universal is defined by the transcendental and this thesis eventually disavows the claim of the private to be universal. These metaphysical concepts are used in the analysis of social being. It allows to demonstrate the correlation between the institution of private property and the state. In Modernity the institution of private property became of the great importance and also the key concept of the libertarianism. It was the great achievement for a mankind because individual began to conceive him or herself as free person. However as a result the ontological significance of the universal was devaluated. And at the same time the private is able to gain a totalitarian character. In this regard the goal of the paper is to analyze and to show in what way the priority of a private property breaks the metaphysical principle of the distinction between the private and the universal. Besides the research objective is to demonstrate why the neglecting of the universal is the danger for the society. The universal is the origin of the social life and society gets its distinctness through the transcendental. Without considering the principle of transcendent any developed social theories turn out to be unviable. It is undesirable to exclude him from the analysis. Such analysis is reached through establishment of balance in the relations between two of these institutions. At the same time it is insufficient simply to restore the authority of the state. It is also noted in the paper that the state can’t be reduced to the simple role of the agent of communication between the subjects. The state expresses the idea of the transcendental which needs to be rehabilitated in the social practice. Various modifications of the transcendental become more available through the diverse symbolical forms. As a result the offered metaphysical criterion creates conditions for development of various social theories and their check of social adequacy.
Keywords
private property; individuality; origin; state; transcendent; total; traditionalism; liberalism.
References
Aristotle. About the Soul. (Russ. ed.: Aristotle. O dushe. – Aristotle. Sochineniya v chetyrekh tomakh [The Works in 4 vols]. Vol. 1. Moscow: Mysl’. 1975. P. 369-448).
Aumann R.J. Irrationality in Game Theory. – Economic Analysis of Markets and Games (Essays in Honor of Frank Hahn). Ed. by P. Dasgupta, D. Gale, O. Hart, E. Maskin. Cambridge, London: MIT Press. 1992. P. 214-227.
Aumann R.J. Rationality and Bounded Rationality. – Games and Economic Behavior. 1997. No. 21. P. 2-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1997.0585
Aumann R.J. The Game of Politics: A Review of Rapport’s Fights, Games, and Debates. – Aumann R.J. Collected Papers. Vol. 1. Cambridge: MIT Press. 2000. P. 107-118.
Aumann R.J., Sorin S. Cooperation and Bounded Recall. – Games and Economic Behavior. 1989. No. 1. P. 5-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0899-8256(89)90003-1
Badiou A. La figure du soldat. (Russ. ed.: Badiou A. Figura soldata. – Badiou A. Zagadochnoe otnoshenie filosofii i politiki. Moscow: IOI. 2013. P. 55-79).
Chernikova I.V. Postneklassicheskaya nauka i filosofiya protsessa [Postnonclassical Science and Philosophy of Process]. Tomsk: Izd-vo nauch.-tekhnicheskoi lit. 2007. 250 p. (In Russ.)
Chubarov I. Benjamin is No Match for Schmitt, or the Agamben’s Mistake. – Logos. 2012. No. 5. P. 44-67. (In Russ.)
Dewey J. Liberalizm i sotsial’noe deistvie. – Dewey J. O svobode. Antologiya mirovoi liberal’noi mysli (1 polovina XX veka) [About Freedom. Anthology of the World Liberal Thought (the 1st Half of the XX Century]. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya. P. 331-384. (In Russ.)
El’ster Yu.The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theory. – Logos. 2012. No. 3. P. 60-87. (In Russ.)
Fishman L.G. Liberal Consensus: The Drift from Neoliberalism to Communitarianism? – Polis. Political Studies. 2014. No. 4. P. 152-165. (In Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/Jpps/2014.04.10
Gaidenko P.P. Istoriya novoevropeiskoi filosofii v ee svyazi s naukoi [The History of the New European Philosophy in Its Communication by Science]. Moscow: PER SE; SPb.: Universitetskaya kniga. 2000. 456 p. (In Russ.)
Gaidenko P.P. Nauchnaya ratsional’nost’ i filosofskii razum [Scientific Rationality and Philosophical Reason]. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya. 2003. 528 p. (In Russ.)
Glinchikova A.G. Democratic Modernization and National Culture. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No. 6. P. 54-67. (In Russ.) URL: http://www.politstudies.ru/article/4352 (accessed 01.02.2017).
Glinchikova A.G. Modernizatsiya, traditsiya i evolyutsiya chastnogo interesa [Modernization, Tradition and Evolution of Private Interest]. – Politiko-filosofskii ezhegodnik. Vypusk chetvertyi. Pod red. I.K. Pantina [Political and Philosophical Yearbook. Issue 4. Ed. by I.K. Pantin]. Moscow: IF RAN. 2011. P. 155-180. (In Russ.)
Guseinov A.A. Morals as a Limit of Rationality. – Voprosy filosofii. 2012. No. 5. P. 4-17. (In Russ.)
Habermas J. Der gespaltene Westen. (Russ. ed.: Habermas J. Raskolotyi Zapad. Moscow: Ves Mir Publishers. 2008. 192 p.)
Habermas J. Moral Bewußtsein und kommunikatives Handeln. (Russ. ed.: Habermas J. Moral‘noe soznanie i kommunikativnoe deistvie. SPb.: Nauka. 2000. 380 p.)
Habermas J. Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion: Philosophische Aufsätze. (Russ. ed.: Habermas J. Mezhdu naturalizmom i religiei. Filosofskie stat’i. Moscow: Ves Mir Publishers. 2011. 336 p.)
Heidegger M. Chto znachit myslit’? – Heidegger M. Razgovor na proselochnoi doroge [Country Path Conversations]. Moscow: Vyssh. shk. 1991. P. 134-145. (In Russ.)
Heyne P. The Economic Way of Thinking. (Russ. ed.: Heyne P. Ekonomicheskii obraz myshleniya. Moscow: Delo, Catallaxy. 1993. 704 p.)
Kagarlitskii B. Paternalism and Liberalism. – Logos. 2014. No. 2. P. 167-180. (In Russ.)
Kant I. Kritika chistogo razuma. – Kant I. Sochineniya v shesti tomakh. T. 3 [The Works in 6 vols. Vol. 3]. Moscow: Mysl’. P. 69-756. (In Russ.)
Kukatas Ch. The Liberal Archipelago: A Theory of Diversity and Freedom. (Russ. ed.: Kukatas Ch. Liberal’nyi arkhipelag: Teoriyaraznoobraziya i svobody. Moscow: Mysl’. 482 p.)
Martyanov V.S. Modernity Continues? – Polis. Political Studies. 2012. No. 3. P. 108-122 (In Russ.) URL: http://www.politstudies.ru/article/4566 (accessed 01.02.2017).
Martyanov V.S. One Modernity or “a Multitude”? – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No. 6. P. 41-53. (In Russ.) URL: http://www.politstudies.ru/article/4351 (accessed 01.02.2017).
Martyanov V.S., Fishman L.G. Overcoming Capitalism: From Moral Collapse to Moral Revolution? – Polis. Political Studies. 2012. No. 1. P. 63-75. (In Russ.) URL: http://www.politstudies.ru/index. php?page_id=453&id=4513&at=a&pid= (accessed 01.02.2017).
Mayatskii M. On the History of the Plato’s Denazification in Germany. – Logos. 2012. No. 6. P. 29-41. (In Russ.)
Mikhailov A.V. Iz istorii kharaktera. – Chelovek i kul’tura: Individual’nost’ v istorii kul’tury. Pod red. A.Ya. Gurevicha [Man and Culture: Identity in the History of Culture]. Moscow: Nauka. 1990. P. 43-72. (In Russ.)
Mises L., von. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. (Russ. ed.: Mises L. Chelovecheskaya deyatel’nost’: traktat po ekonomicheskoi teorii. Chelyabinsk: Sotsium. 2005. 878 p.)
Pyatigorskii A., Alekseev O. Razmyshlyaya o politike [Reflections on Politics]. Moscow: Novoe izdatel’stvo. 2008. 190 p. (In Russ.)
Rawls J. A Theory of Justice. (Russ. ed.: Rawls J. Teoriya spravedlivosti. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo LKI.2010. 536 p.)
Shvyrev V.S. O sootnoshenii poznavatel’noi i proektivno-konstruktivnoi funktsii v klassicheskoi i sovremennoi nauke [On the Relation Between Cognitive and Projective-Constructive Functions in Classical and Modern Science]. – Poznanie, ponimanie, konstruirovanie. Pod red. V.A. Lektorskogo [Knowledge, Understanding, Construction. Ed. by V.A. Lektorsky]. Moscow: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences. 2008. P. 30-47. (In Russ.)
Soboleva I. Karl Schmitt and the Left Thought: Limits of Compatibility of Concepts. – Logos. 2012. No. 5. P. 178-195. (In Russ.)
Stepin V.S. Teoreticheskoe znanie [Theoretical Knowledge]. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya. 2000. 744 p. (In Russ.)
Sukhanova M.I. Filosofskie osnovy sotsial’nogo liberalizma [The Philosophical Foundations of Social Liberalism]. – Politiko-filosofskii ezhegodnik. Vyp. 1. Pod red. I.K. Pantina [Political and Philosophical Yearbook. Issue 4. Ed. by I.K. Pantin]. Moscow: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences. 2008. P. 169-183. (In Russ.)
Content No. 2, 2017
See also:
Zhukova O.A.,
Subculture of power and russian social order: M.M. Speransky’s reform experience. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No2
Chestneyshin N.V.,
Conservatism and Liberalism: Identity and Distinction. – Polis. Political Studies. 2006. No4
Timofeyeva L.N.,
Russian Government and Bureaucratic State by V.P. Makarenko. – Polis. Political Studies. 2015. No3
Round Table of the «Polis» Journal, Kara-Murza A.A., Chugrov S.V., Zubov A.B., Rashkovsky Ye.B., , Zhukova O.A.,
Russian liberalism and christian values. – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No3
Kochetkov V.V.,
Social question and constitutionalism: ethical and legal grounds of political discourse. – Polis. Political Studies. 2012. No2
.jpg)
.jpg)