Лекции по политическому праву, прочитанные в Мадридском Атенео. Лекция вторая (29 ноября 1836 г.): О народном суверенитете
In the second of ten Lectures on Political Right, delivered in Madrid’s Ateneo in November 29, 1836, Juan Donoso Cortés considers the notion of “popular sovereignty.” Distinguishing mind and will as two parts of human essence, Donoso deduces from the former the “law of the association” that unites all human beings, and from the latter, the “law of the individual,” that separates them. Hence, the main problem for Donoso as a liberal conservative is how to combine these two laws. Donoso states that while traditionalists propose to focus on the “law of the association” and ends with tyranny that destroys free will, revolutionaries, by contrast, focus on the “law of the individual,” which leads to anarchy as a variant of the same tyranny. In making a historical digression to the periods of the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages, Donoso shows how the revolutionary idea of “popular sovereignty”, linked directly to the “law of the individual”, gradually overcomes the idea of “divine right of kings”, based on the “law of the association.” Donoso criticizes the English and French philosophers of the 17–18th centuries (Hobbes and Rousseau, above all) the most, as these philosophers laid the foundation for historical drama of the Great French Revolution. Offering his own liberal-conservative alternative for the two named extremes (traditionalism and revolution), Donoso calls to abandon the “atheist”, “immoral”, “absurd”, and “impossible” “popular sovereignty”, and combine the “law of the individual” and the “law of the association” on entirely different basis of the “sovereignty of reason, sovereignty of justice”.
The article deals with apocalyptic motifs in the ideas, attitudes and values of two outstanding Spanish Catholic philosophers - Jaime Luciano Balmes (1810-1848) and Juan Donoso Cortes (1809-1853). Standing in the 1830-1840s. to protect the Ancient regime Balmes and Donoso were in the political camp defeated in the struggle with the liberal bourgeoisie, engaged in creating a New order. As a result, today they are on the periphery of social and political thought. However, their philosophical and political diagnoses remain a part of relevance to this day. Correlating Balmes and Donoso from the views of their main opponents - the French Enlightenment of the XVIII century and the British and French positivists of the XIX century, - we will be able to put the problem of the "end of history" in the universal - the general historical - context.
This article examines the history of the third trip of the Spanish poet Rafael Alberti in the Soviet Union, held in 1937, and of his meeting with Stalin. Archival documents provide insight into the reasons that led the poet to take such a long journey. The study offers a new look at the pilgrimage of Western writers to the Soviet Union: Alberti himself was a skillful diplomat, and as representative of the Spanish Republic, managed to carry out his tasks and to achieve a positive decision of Moscow on the convening of the Second International Congress of Writers in Spain in 1937.
The book examines two main topics related to the culture of the Spanish Republican exile in the Soviet Union: cultural centers of Spaniards in the USSR and the participation of Spanish exilées in Soviet cultural projects such as the review 'La Literatura Internacional' (later, Literatura Soviética) and the Spanish department of the publishing house Progress, in the period from 1937 until the 70ties. It's the first general study of the culture of the Spanish community in the Soviet Union based on the documents from the Spanish and Russian archives, news papers and journals, and testimonies of the Spanish exilées in the USSR.
The article analyzes domestic and foreign historiography of the "progressive nationalists" (progressivnie natsionalisty), who united Russian conservative elements in the Progressive block of Russian State Duma.
This book deals with the study of the court system during the XVII-XVIII centuries, which is not considered as the beginning of a new era, but as the end of a way of living and understanding the world. With these premises, the crisis of the values that underpinned the court system and the birth of a new social and political order is studied. A new approach to the traditional interpretation of the crisis of the Old Regime and the origin of the Contemporary Age is used.
Sovereignty is one of the most important problems in political philosophy because it makes us search for the answer to the most important questions of politics, ‘Who has the highest level of state authority?’. Do the people, representatives, monarch or God have sovereignty? Development of this topic is one of the most popular and fruitful directions in the political philosophy of the XIXth century. Studying sovereignty, Francois Guizot tried to fi nd answers to particular questions such as about the reasons of the decaying of revolution and death of the Napoleon empire, the fate and fortunes of the House of Bourbon and the vitality of the Charter of 1814. The analysis of the development of ideas and term has allowed to reconstruct Guizot’s concept of sovereignty and shows its relation to the intellectual and political environment of the Conservation epoch (1814–1830). By addressing to this topic, the author of the article has managed to restore a very important part of the political theory proposed by Guizot and to cast light on the philosophical sources of the French liberalism as well as to demonstrate the relation between this ideology and democracy. This has also allowed to understand the status of the problem of sovereignty in political practice.
In the article are : the social bases of power as a nation, the nation, the elite, the elemental forces of the political market. It is noted that the idealistic view on social grounds authorities do not correspond to modern realities. Long enough described expenses provisions on the management Board of the nation. It is proposed to consider the rationalist approach in the determination of the constitutions of the social bases of power. The examples of the constitutions of a number of foreign States, in which the provisions of popular sovereignty is not understood completely. Russia proposes changing approaches to understanding the essence of popular sovereignty and representative government.
Esta publicación, de carácter académico, ofrece, de la mano de especialistas rusos y españoles, una visión de conjunto de la historia de las relaciones hispano-rusas —diplomáticas, económicas y científi co-culturales—. En sus páginas, se presta particular atención a las cuestiones relacionadas con la recepción cultural, al análisis de los paralelismos creativos en España y Rusia, a la historia del pensamiento, y a los temas artísticos. La edición es bilingüe y está dirigida tanto a especialistas del ámbito de las ciencias humanas y sociales, como a todos aquellos lectores interesados por las relaciones hispano-rusas.
The article considers the Views of L. N. Tolstoy not only as a representative, but also as a accomplisher of the Enlightenment. A comparison of his philosophy with the ideas of Spinoza and Diderot made it possible to clarify some aspects of the transition to the unique Tolstoy’s religious and philosophical doctrine. The comparison of General and specific features of the three philosophers was subjected to a special analysis. Special attention is paid to the way of thinking, the relation to science and the specifics of the worldview by Tolstoy and Diderot. An important aspect is researched the contradiction between the way of thinking and the way of life of the three philosophers.
Tolstoy's transition from rational perception of life to its religious and existential bases is shown. Tolstoy gradually moves away from the idea of a natural man to the idea of a man, who living the commandments of Christ. Starting from the educational worldview, Tolstoy ended by creation of religious and philosophical doctrine, which were relevant for the 20th century.
This important new book offers the first full-length interpretation of the thought of Martin Heidegger with respect to irony. In a radical reading of Heidegger's major works (from Being and Time through the ‘Rector's Address' and the ‘Letter on Humanism' to ‘The Origin of the Work of Art' and the Spiegel interview), Andrew Haas does not claim that Heidegger is simply being ironic. Rather he argues that Heidegger's writings make such an interpretation possible - perhaps even necessary.
Heidegger begins Being and Time with a quote from Plato, a thinker famous for his insistence upon Socratic irony. The Irony of Heidegger takes seriously the apparently curious decision to introduce the threat of irony even as philosophy begins in earnest to raise the question of the meaning of being. Through a detailed and thorough reading of Heidegger's major texts and the fundamental questions they raise, Haas reveals that one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century can be read with as much irony as earnestness. The Irony of Heidegger attempts to show that the essence of this irony lies in uncertainty, and that the entire project of onto-heno-chrono-phenomenology, therefore needs to be called into question.
The article is concerned with the notions of technology in essays of Ernst and Friedrich Georg Jünger. The special problem of the connection between technology and freedom is discussed in the broader context of the criticism of culture and technocracy discussion in the German intellectual history of the first half of the 20th century.