What is Politics?

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
A. Jokūbaitis
{"title":"What is Politics?","authors":"A. Jokūbaitis","doi":"10.15388/problemos.priedas.22.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The division of political scientists into philosophers and sociologists is an important factor behind their inability to understand politics. Sociologists are incapable of grasping the whole, philosophers are bad at understanding particularities. The aim of the paper is to show the inadequacy of both of these forms of knowledge. Immanuel Kant’s conception of aesthetic judgement allows us to gain a better understanding of politics. Hannah Arendt attempted to explain Kant’s Critique of Judgment as an important treatise for political philosophy. The power of judgement opens up a broad horizon for our imagination. Ideas can be associated with various different appearances and this is why reliable theoretical definition of politics is impossible. It is impossible to ascribe an adequate object of experience to the idea of politics and for this very reason various substitutes are used. The formation of these substitutes corresponds to the requirements of the power of judgement that connects universality to particularity. The analysis of the aesthetic judgement reveals why attempts to define politics face unsolvable difficulties. Philosophers and sociologists attempt to gain a theoretical understanding of an object which belongs to the realm of aesthetic judgement. The article does not provide an answer to the problem of definition of politics, it shows why such a definition is impossible.","PeriodicalId":41448,"journal":{"name":"Problemos","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Problemos","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15388/problemos.priedas.22.2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The division of political scientists into philosophers and sociologists is an important factor behind their inability to understand politics. Sociologists are incapable of grasping the whole, philosophers are bad at understanding particularities. The aim of the paper is to show the inadequacy of both of these forms of knowledge. Immanuel Kant’s conception of aesthetic judgement allows us to gain a better understanding of politics. Hannah Arendt attempted to explain Kant’s Critique of Judgment as an important treatise for political philosophy. The power of judgement opens up a broad horizon for our imagination. Ideas can be associated with various different appearances and this is why reliable theoretical definition of politics is impossible. It is impossible to ascribe an adequate object of experience to the idea of politics and for this very reason various substitutes are used. The formation of these substitutes corresponds to the requirements of the power of judgement that connects universality to particularity. The analysis of the aesthetic judgement reveals why attempts to define politics face unsolvable difficulties. Philosophers and sociologists attempt to gain a theoretical understanding of an object which belongs to the realm of aesthetic judgement. The article does not provide an answer to the problem of definition of politics, it shows why such a definition is impossible.
什么是政治?
政治学家被划分为哲学家和社会学家,这是他们无法理解政治的一个重要因素。社会学家不能把握整体,哲学家不善于理解特殊性。本文的目的是为了说明这两种知识形式的不足。康德的审美观使我们对政治有了更好的理解。汉娜·阿伦特试图将康德的《判断批判》解释为一部重要的政治哲学著作。判断的力量为我们的想象力开辟了广阔的视野。思想可以与各种不同的外表联系在一起,这就是为什么政治的可靠理论定义是不可能的。不可能把一个充分的经验对象归因于政治思想,正是出于这个原因,人们使用了各种替代品。这些替代品的形成符合将普遍性与特殊性联系起来的判断力的要求。对审美判断的分析揭示了为什么试图定义政治面临无法解决的困难。哲学家和社会学家试图从理论上理解一个属于审美范畴的对象。这篇文章并没有回答政治定义的问题,它表明了为什么这样的定义是不可能的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Problemos
Problemos PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信