Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (803) (remove)
Language
- English (293)
- Portuguese (199)
- German (180)
- Spanish (62)
- Italian (24)
- French (11)
- Ukrainian (9)
- slo (7)
- Multiple languages (4)
- Catalan (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (803)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (803)
Keywords
- Adorno (51)
- Critical Theory (27)
- Reconhecimento (26)
- Recognition (24)
- Axel Honneth (23)
- global justice (23)
- Theodor W. Adorno (20)
- critical theory (20)
- Teoria Crítica (19)
- Frankfurt School (18)
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (803) (remove)
El objetivo principal de este trabajo es replantear la posibilidad de realizar una síntesis entre la fenomenología de Husserl y la teoría crítica de la Escuela de Frankfurt. Para ello realizaremos una revisión crítica de los textos del primer Marcuse (1928-1933), cuyo proyecto filosófico consistió en formular una síntesis entre la ontología fenomenológica de Heidegger y el materialismo dialéctico de Marx. La tesis que defenderemos aquí es que este proyecto sigue siendo vigente, pero tomaremos como referente la fenomenología de Husserl, desde la que interpretaremos los textos de Marcuse, y no la ontología existencial de Heidegger.
Readers of Hannah Arendt’s now classic formulation of the statelessness problem in her 1951 book The Origins of Totalitarianism abound at a moment when the number of stateless peoples worldwide continues to rise exponentially. Along with statelessness, few concepts in Arendt scholarship have spawned such a volume of literature, and perhaps none have provoked as much interest outside of the field of philosophy, as ‘the right to have rights.’ Interpreting this enigmatic term exposes the heart of our beliefs about the nature of the political and has important consequences for how we practice politics on a global scale because it implicitly takes plural human beings, and not the citizen, as its subjects. Arendt’s conceptualization of this problem remains unsurpassed in its diagnosis of the political situation of statelessness, as well as its intimate description of the human cost of what she refers to as ‘world loss,’ a phenomenon that the prevailing human rights and global justice discourse does not take into account. And yet, as an alternative framework for thinking about global politics, the right to have rights resists easy interpretation, let alone practical application.
The paper argues that the current global market is organized by a system of transnational law whose development is best characterized as ambivalent. On the one side, legal juridification can lead to a hegemonic system of international law that lacks legitimacy, paradoxically creates extralegal spheres, promotes the ‘privatization’ of political areas, and, thereby, reduces the competences of states. On the other side, legal codification can also function as an engine of transnational democratization and as a barrier to an unhampered growth of transnational administrative and executive power. Scholarship on the idea of legitimacy in law and transnational governance in political and legal theory has to reflect these aspects of juridification on a world scale. Most approaches to the issue, however, have serious flaws: they neither offer an adequate empirical diagnosis of the de-embedding of international economic and legal processes, nor do they provide convincing proposals as to how such processes could be domesticated. Against this background, the paper lays out a critical analysis of legal codification processes as well as proposing an account of democratic governance, based on a realistic conception of deliberative democracy.
The main sources for the discussion of the category “relation” were Aristotle’s Categories and Metaphysics. Before their translation into Arabic in the 8th and 9th centuries, Christian theologians and in their footsteps Syriac scholars considered Aristotle’s works to be a useful tool in Christological discussions. This article analyzes the category of relation and its development in Arabic-Islamic philosophy in authors such as Kindī and his student Aḥmad Ibn aṭ-Ṭayyib as-Saraḫsī, Fārābī, Ibn Sīnā, Ghazālī, Ibn Rušd, the Sufi Ibn ʿArabī and others.
The flying geese model, a theory of industrial development in latecomer economies, was developed in the 1930s by the Japanese economist Akamatsu Kaname (1896–1974). While rarely known in western countries, it is highly prominent in Japan and seen as the main economic theory underlying Japan’s economic assistance to developing countries. Akamatsu’s original interpretation of the flying geese model differs fundamentally from theories of western origin, such as the neoclassical model and Raymond Vernon’s product cycle theory. These differences include the roles of factors and linkages in economic development, the effects of demand and supply, as well as the dynamic and dialectical character of Akamatsu’s thinking. Later reformulations of the flying geese model, pioneered by Kojima Kiyoshi, attempt to combine aspects of Akamatsu’s theory with neoclassical thinking. This can be described as the “westernization” of the flying geese model. It is this reformulated interpretation that has become popular in Japan’s political discourse, a process that might be explained by the change in Japan’s perspective from that of a developing to that of an advanced economy. The position taken by Japan in its recent controversy with the World Bank, however, shows that many basic elements of Akamatsu’s thinking are still highly influential within both Japan’s academia and its government and are therefore relevant for understanding current debates on development theory.
International politics is characterized by a lack of women. The few women holding high political positions are more likely to be criticized and judged based upon, what the author calls, ‘the construction of masculinity in international relations’. Tracing the origin and logic of this construction, the article critiques the dominant theories of international relations (namely, realism and liberalism) and argues for the aptness of a radical feminist social constructivist approach to the study of international politics. The article also illuminates the strong focus on men and men’s perspectives of these influential mainstream theories on their conception and interpretation of war. An examination of the concept of war reveals how masculinity and femininity are portrayed on matters of war and national security and what side effects this has on women in politics, particularly women with political positions.