Dans l’article, il est question du modèle et des traits essentiels de l’éducation démocratique dans l’oeuvre de Dewey. La question suivante sert de point de départ : que signifient les concepts d’éducation et d’enseignement de Dewey pour la démocratie délibérative contemporaine ? Son idéal éthique de l’humanité peut-il fonder philosophiquement la valorisation et la justification de la pratique démocratique ? Dewey a-t-il sapé les fondements du libéralisme, comme l’affirmait Richard Rorty ? Ou son renouveau de la philosophie fait-elle revenir en (...) réalité le libéralisme à la vie et n’ouvre-t-elle pas de nouvelles voies pour la démocratie ? La dernière vague de la réception de la philosophie de Dewey montre certainement de plus en plus profondément que l’héritage de sa pensée, grâce aux confrontations fructueuses avec des idées et tendances contemporaines, fait ressortir quelque chose qui dépasse le cadre de la contemporanéité et qui implique l’avenir. Dans l’actuelle renaissance du pragmatisme, il est intéressant de noter que la critique profondément subtile que Dewey fait de l’ « individualisme » moderne, ainsi que sa défense du renforcement des liens moraux et démocratiques participatifs dans les communautés locales, trouve l’écho dans les arguments communautaristes. Pour conclure, en soulignant le rapport substantiel entre la communication , la communauté et le commun , Dewey ne mine pas les fondements du libéralisme et de la démocratie, mais au contraire les enrichit, les renforce et les élève à un niveau supérieur. (shrink)

The topic of this article is the relation between the modern process of globalization and democracy. The agenda starts with the concept of globalization, its different meanings and various layers, traps and paradoxes, consequences and effects, advantages and disadvantages in the horizon of contemporary life. Following a brief introduction into the theme, the article outlines a short historic philosophical review into the development of globalization from theancient times to the contemporary world. The focus of the philosophical view is that of (...) two significant authorities and opposite approaches in the process of developing ‘World Society’ – Immanuel Kant and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Kant explained the means to the status of ‘World Civility’ as a ‘Natural Purpose’. Hegel exposed the necessity of the development of world history to the state of global freedom. The question: Does the process of making global society threaten democracy in the modern world - is the key issue nowadays. All agree that the globalization process diminishes the area of the authentic political acting. Democracy originates from the ‘polis’ or small town republic and is a symbol of the government in the small political community. The step from the polis democracy to the national state democracy was the result of change from the direct to the representative democracy. The transition from the national to the supranational and global politics requires new essential transformation of the being of democracy. (shrink)

Le sujet de cet article est le rapport entre le processus actuel de mondialisation et la démocratie. Le plan de travail démarre par le concept de démocratie, ses différents niveaux et significations, ses pièges et ses paradoxes, ses effets et ses conséquences, ses avantages et ses inconvénients dans l’horizon de la vie contemporaine. Après l’introduction, l’article trace un aperçu historico- philosophique de l’évolution de la mondialisation des temps anciens jusqu’au monde contemporain. Le point de vue philosophique central est celui d’Immanuel (...) Kant et de Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel – deux autorités et deux approches du processus de développement d’une « société mondiale » opposées. Kant a expliqué les moyens du statut de « citoyenneté mondiale » comme une « finalité naturelle ». Hegel a exposé la nécessité de l’évolution de l’histoire mondiale jusqu’à l’état d’une liberté globale. La question de savoir si le processus de création d’une société mondiale met en danger la démocratie dans le monde contemporain est aujourd’hui une question clé. Tout le monde s’accorde pour dire que le processus de mondialisation affaiblit le champ de l’action politique authentique. La démocratie tire son origine de « polis », la petite Cité-Etat, et symbolise la gouvernance dans une petite communauté politique. Le pas entre la démocratie du polis vers la démocratie de l’Etat nation a été le résultat de la mutation de la démocratie directe vers la démocratie représentative. Le passage d’une politique nationale à une politique supranationale et mondiale nécessite une nouvelle transformation importante de la nature de la démocratie. (shrink)

The paper outlines the historical development of question about ambiguous and mysterious human nature, in particular considering the reasons and conditions for the founding of modern philosophical anthropology. Subsequently, it brings an overview of the conceptual beginnings and directions of anthropological research in Croatia. The focus is on the following questions: When did the investigations begin in the field of philosophical anthropology, in what kind of thinking environments were they shaped and what scientific achievements were reached? The presentation brings to (...) light the cognition that philosophical anthropology in Croatia got its first contours and valuable contributions to the very beginning of the contemporary renewal of this discipline, shortly after its phenomenological and scientific revivals in the ventures of Scheler and Plessner. The development of this research branch is, according to Hans Lankʼs model, divided into four main conceptual orientations. The anthropology from above shows the creative contributions of Stjepan Zimmermann, Vilim Keilbach, Rajmund Kupareo, Miljenko Belić, Ante Kusić, Josip Ćurić, Hrvoje Lasić and Ivan Koprek. The anthropology from below is illustrated by the reference to the research by Vera Ehrlich-Stein, Rudi Supek, the Institute of Anthropology, Pavao Rudan and Darko Polšek. For the anthropology from culture, the philosophical achievements of Pavao Vuk-Pavlović, Vladimir Filipović, Vjekoslav Mikecin, Esad Ćimić, Nikola Skledar, Branka Brujić, Milan Galović and Mihaela Girardi-Karšulin were delineated. Under the anthropology from history, the works of Predrag Vranicki, Milan Kangrga, Vanja Sutlić, Gaja Petrović, Hotimir Burger, Mislava Kukoč and Raul Raunić are outlined. The conclusion summarises four insights. 1. Philosophical anthropology is an under-researched and not enough appreciated field, which represents one of the most fertile currents of thought in the 20th century. 2. Creative contributions are presented in all four major orientations. 3. In the context of anthropological research, lively dialogue and a fruitful meeting of different worldviews were realised. 4. The beginnings of the development of the discipline should be moved earlier in history than previously considered, from the 1950s and 1960s to the early 1930s. The last insight points to the need for further exploration of the perceived, and so far largely neglected, continuity of anthropological themes and related ideas in the history of recent philosophy in Croatia. (shrink)

Slijedeći Fichteovu misao da »svatko izabire onakvu filozofiju kakav je tko čovjek«, u članku se ocrtavaju misaoni sklopovi stvaralačkoga opusa Ante Pažanina, u nastojanju da se na taj način osvijetle stožerne sastavnice njegove životne filozofije. Pažaninova istraživanja o filozofiji kao strogoj znanosti, fenomenologiji, praktičnoj filozofiji, etici i politici imaju znatan odjek i utjecaj ne samo u Hrvatskoj nego su zapažena i u svijetu. Na međunarodnoj pozornici privukla je zanimanje njegova osebujna koncepcija normativne političke filozofije u kojoj kritički rasvjetljuje i ukazuje (...) na posljetke suvremene znanstveno-tehničke civilizacije. Nasuprot novovjekovnom odvajanju etike od prava i politike, Pažanin se oslonio na aristotelovsku tradiciju praktične filozofije koja polazi od jedinstva etike i politike. Praktičnu filozofiju promatra kao samostalno i neovisno područje o poietičnoj techne i teoretskoj episteme. Takav pristup praktičnoj filozofiji nadilazi poteškoće aprirornoga univerzalizma teoretskoga utemeljenja etičkih normi te bolje odgovara suvremenoj raznovrsnosti svijeta života i njegovoj složenosti. Pažaninovu životnu filozofsku misiju može se prispodobiti Gadamerovu opisu »nasljedovanja« Aristotela u nastojanju filozofa da se pomoću filozofske teorije stavi u službu ljudske prakse. Njegova je praktična životna filozofija svojevrsno misaono nastojanje oko razumijevanja i posuvremenjenja odnosa između refleksivnih oblika teorije i praktične umnosti povijesnoga svijeta života. Filozofska refleksija za njega ima zadaću ne samo primjereno razumjeti praktični svijet nego ga time i odgovorno mijenjati u nastojanju za ozbiljenjem najvišega ljudskog dobra kao bitne svrhe čovjekova življenja. (shrink)

Within the framework of the contemporary discussions of the presuppositions of democracy, the author of this paper poses the question whether discussing justice primarily from the social rather than the personal aspect and level is, perhaps, more appropriate. This ties in with the question of the primary object of justice – is justice the trait of social institutions or individuals? Thus the question of what kind of justice matches democracy. The author explicates this network of questions through three underlying models (...) of the theory of justice – Plato, Aristotle and Rawls’s model. Plato’s model is about the realisation of a good life in a political community in view of the idea of justice that one should do that which is proper to one. Aristotle’s understanding of justice sets forth from a systematic analysis of the concepts that differentiate between the levels of general and particular justice. Rawls’s model of distributive justice rests on the mechanism of the forces of the institutional functional frameworks in well-organised societies. The author’s conclusion is that both forms of justice correspond well to the realisation of democracy. It is best when one’s personal disposition to justice provides strength and support to the social institutions of democracy. Without an adequate institutional framework there is, most certainly, no democracy. Without the personal support of citizens, which issues from fundamental consent, democracy can neither be sustained nor developed. In a democratic system, the private sphere of citizens cannot be fully separated from their public actions. Democracy always and necessarily contains in itself some of the political ideals, which citizens cannot, in their worldviews, relate to neutrally. The questions of the institutional and political shaping of relations, and the questions of the good and just life should be in the interest of the citizens. If they do not accomplish their democratic ideals through their own belief and virtue, then there is no substance that would shape identity for a just system of social institutions. If they do not relate to it as to their own common sense and good to be preserved, democracy has no prospects. (shrink)