Search results

1

State at War: The Phenomenology of the Russian World by Max Scheler and Kurt Stavenhagen

100%

Gniazdowski A.

Eidos. A Journal for Philosophy of Culture

|

2022

|

vol. 6

|

issue 4

107-122

EN

The aim of the paper is to reconstruct the theoretical background and practical meaning of the so called war writings which emerged within the phenomenological movement during the First World War. The author exemplifies it by researching the works of two German representatives of this movement, Max Scheler and Kurt Stavenhagen. He focuses on their application of the phenomenological method to the analysis of Russian national identity, and historical as well as cultural foundations of Russian state. The paper’s main thesis is that the politicization and militarization of phenomenology consisted in both “personalization” and “sociologization” of the phenomenological approach to the problem of the state. While interpreting Scheler’s personalism as an exemplification of the approach to the state as a problem of social ontology, the author reconstructs the theoretical conditions of analyzing the Russian imperial state in terms of the “world.” The focus of the paper is particularly on the phenomenology of, as Scheler put it, Russian collective personality and Russian national consciousness or “soul” as well as on the question of legitimacy of Ukrainian resistance against Russian imperialism.

2

Suwerenność państwa w normatywistycznej teorii prawa Františka Weyra (1879–1951)

84%

Lewandowski B.

Przegląd Sejmowy

|

2016

|

issue 6(137)

91-114

EN

The normative theory of law developed by one of its greatest pre-war supporters, František Weyr, has been the result of a critical analysis of the previously dominant forms of legal research. The Czech philosopher of law addressed in a polemic manner several assumptions of the so called traditional study of law. He paid much attention, especially, to the concept of the state. Because of the philosophical foundations of his theory and his methodological carefulness, Weyr followed a monistic conception of the state and law. This fact determined his specifi c approach to state sovereignty (normative order), different from that proposed by Georg Jellinek and Jiři Pražák. The founder’s of the Brno neo-Kantian school of law approach to the concept of sovereignty was associated with his support for a monistic idea of international law and state law, along with the notion of supremacy of international law. The negation of the sovereignty of the state normative orders lent the Weyr’s theory a pacifi st dimension and contributed to implementation of his political thought.

3

Czesława Martyniaka krytyka normatywizmu Hansa Kelsena

67%

Stochmal M. P.

Miscellanea Historico-Iuridica

|

2020

|

vol. 19

|

issue 2

97-118

EN

The article aims to present a critique of Hans Kelsen’s pure theory of law by Czesław Martyniak and to present a “positive’ solution. Martyniak reduced his criticism of Kelsen’s normativism to three issues: 1) the uniformity of its philosophical foundations, 2) the force of applicable law, and 3) natural law. Martyniak’s critique of Kelsen’s concept of law shows two extremely different attitudes regarding the separation of the sphere of being and duty in the field of law made by I. Kant. Kelsen is an extreme supporter of the separation of Sein and Sollen, while Martyniak, on the contrary, assumes the coexistence and connection of these spheres. According to Martyniak, a mutual separation of the spheres of being and duty results with many absurd consequences on the basis of law and its theory. Martyniak’s critique of normativism remains close to Thomistic doctrine and is clearly inspired by the thoughts of Thomas Aquinas. However, it should be considered as a creative adaptation of Thomas ideas. It is debatable to what extent Czesław Martyniak’s criticism of Kelsen’s normativism is only of a historical value or could be considered timeless. It probably depends on the importance and “eternity” of the problems we take under our consideration, moreover, whether one is capable to work out their original solutions.

PL

Artykuł ma na celu przedstawienie krytyki czystej teorii prawa Hansa Kelsena dokonaną przez Czesława Martyniaka i zaprezentowanie “pozytywnego” rozwiązania. Martyniak sprowadził krytykę normatywizmu Kelsena do trzech kwestii: 1) jednolitości jego podstaw filozoficznych; 2) mocy obowiązującej prawa i 3) prawa naturalnego. Krytyka koncepcji prawa Kelsena przeprowadzona przez Martyniaka jest starciem się dwu stanowisk odnośnie Kantowskiego rozdziału sfery bytu i powinności w dziedzinie prawa. Kelsen jest skrajnym zwolennikiem rozdziału Sein i Sollen, natomiast Martyniak wprost przeciwnie: afirmuje współistnienie i łączność tych sfer. Opowiedzenie się za wzajemną separacją sfery bytu i powinności rodzi – wg Martyniaka – wiele absurdalnych konsekwencji na gruncie prawa i jego teorii. Krytyka normatywizmu przebiega po linii tomistycznej. Martyniak jest wyraźnie inspirowany myślą Tomasza z Akwinu, ale jest to jej twórcza adaptacja. Po przeprowadzeniu krytyki Martyniak proponuje “tomistyczne” rozwiązanie kwestii: mocy obowiązującej prawa i prawa naturalnego. Ta propozycja Martyniaka dopełnia krytykę. Jest dyskusyjne na ile krytyka normatywizmu Hansa Kelsena dokonana przez Czasława Martyniaka ma walor tylko historyczny, a na ile ponadczasowy. Zależy to chyba od wagi stawianych problemów i ich “odwieczności” oraz niebanalnych rozwiązań.

Refine search results

1 Eidos. A Journal for Philosophy of Culture

1 Miscellanea Historico-Iuridica

1 Przegląd Sejmowy

1 2023

1 2020

1 2016

1 Gniazdowski A.

1 Lewandowski B.

1 Stochmal M. P.

State at War: The Phenomenology of the Russian World by Max Scheler and Kurt Stavenhagen

Suwerenność państwa w normatywistycznej teorii prawa Františka Weyra (1879–1951)

Czesława Martyniaka krytyka normatywizmu Hansa Kelsena