Čovjek kao pravno-politički subjekt: pluralizam Hannah Arendt nasuprot autoritarizma Carla Schmitta

Who or what defines the sovereign ruler and it's political subject? Within legal and political framework of the modern world, questions about sovereignty and power always remain open. Human life is conditioned by the sovereignty of the state he resides in, and that, in turn, conditions the concept of the political which defines a person as a citizen, as well as his status, and political actions. The aim of this research is to compare two concepts of the political in the sphere of a man's position and role as a legal - political subject in modern philosophy of politics and law. The paper compares two distinguished political theorists, who have made their most relevant contributions to political philosophy during the time of Weimar Republic between two World Wars, as well as during the immediate post - war period during the 1950s of the 20th century. This paper interprets and compares the perspective of Hannah Arendt, a theorist whose entire legal - political thought is based on the idea of a human being that is conditioned to live among others, with capability of autonomous action, which is the basis of every political action. As such, human being is unavoidably a plural being. Also, the paper explores the view of a controversial German legal philosopher Carl Schmitt, whose concept of the political is based on the value of state above the individual, and the eternal legitimacy of the concept of the political is the human capability for making the friend/enemy criteria. The aim of the paper is not to discuss which framework is more or less ethically "justifiable", pro - social or humanitarian, the aim is to show their implications on the human being itself, as an authentic political subject. Implications concern political and human rights, as well as physical existence. The similarities, as well as differences in the philosophical views of the above mentioned philosophers are explored, and especially vital is their opposite view of the nature of conflict among human beings, for it is the possibility of conflict that leads to different consequences (political and physical) on human beings in their philosophies

Čovjek kao pravno-politički subjekt: pluralizam Hannah Arendt nasuprot autoritarizma Carla Schmitta

Who or what defines the sovereign ruler and it's political subject? Within legal and political framework of the modern world, questions about sovereignty and power always remain open. Human life is conditioned by the sovereignty of the state he resides in, and that, in turn, conditions the concept of the political which defines a person as a citizen, as well as his status, and political actions. The aim of this research is to compare two concepts of the political in the sphere of a man's position and role as a legal - political subject in modern philosophy of politics and law. The paper compares two distinguished political theorists, who have made their most relevant contributions to political philosophy during the time of Weimar Republic between two World Wars, as well as during the immediate post - war period during the 1950s of the 20th century. This paper interprets and compares the perspective of Hannah Arendt, a theorist whose entire legal - political thought is based on the idea of a human being that is conditioned to live among others, with capability of autonomous action, which is the basis of every political action. As such, human being is unavoidably a plural being. Also, the paper explores the view of a controversial German legal philosopher Carl Schmitt, whose concept of the political is based on the value of state above the individual, and the eternal legitimacy of the concept of the political is the human capability for making the friend/enemy criteria. The aim of the paper is not to discuss which framework is more or less ethically "justifiable", pro - social or humanitarian, the aim is to show their implications on the human being itself, as an authentic political subject. Implications concern political and human rights, as well as physical existence. The similarities, as well as differences in the philosophical views of the above mentioned philosophers are explored, and especially vital is their opposite view of the nature of conflict among human beings, for it is the possibility of conflict that leads to different consequences (political and physical) on human beings in their philosophies

Metamorfoze tumačenja javnog i privatnog područja

Richard Sennett analizirao je razdoblje od 1750 do suvremenosti, kada prevlast kulture intimnosti mijenja političke kategorije u psihološke. Uspon kulture intimnosti značio je propast društvene teatralnosti, što je dovelo do nestanka javnog života. Obitelj je od 'partikularnog, ne-javnog' područja postala utočište, svijet za sebe, sa strožim moralnim kodeksom nego što ga ima javno područje. Političari su počeli izlagati javnosti svoj karakter, osjećaje, snagu osobnih uvjerenja. Teorija Hannah Arendt ovdje je pak analizirana iz horizonta tzv. teatarske dimenzije javnog područja i agonističke politike, kroz što se govori o naravi svjetovnosti. Neki autori kritizirali su miješanje unutrašnjeg i izvanjskog područja (Hannah Arendt i Richard Sennett), a drugi (npr. Peter Sloterdijk) su pokazali da u nama postoje konstituensi koji prethode razdvoju na unutrašnje i izvanjsko

Marketing Semiotics by Constantine Cyril the Philosopher: Glagolitic presentation of Christianity as a forerunner of contemporary marketing semiotics

Cilj je rada, polazeći od teorijskog pristupa Davida G. Micka, Jamesa E. Burroughsa, Patricka Hetzela i Mary Y. Brannen (2004), istražiti jesu li teorije semiotičkog marketinga primjenjive u srednjovjekovnom kontekstu, tj. može li se reći da je Konstantin Ćiril Filozof u 9. stoljeću primijenio semiotički marketing pri kreiranju i promicanju glagoljskog pisma odnosno ideje kršćanstva. Autori ukratko podsjećaju na razvoj semiotike i navode važnije teorije o semiotičkom marketingu, osvrću se na nekoliko teorija o postanku glagoljičkog pisma te potom primjenjuju navedene teorije na glagoljičke grafeme i pismovni sustav u cijelosti. Životopis Konstantina Ćirila Filozofa nameće pretpostavku da se njegova misija odlikuje poštivanjem svih pravila marketinške komunikacije - izgradnjom glagoljičkog pisma Konstantin Ćiril Filozof promicao je ideju kršćanstva ugrađenu u vizualni identitet svakog pojedinačnog znaka (i svih znakova poredanih u azbučni niz) gotovo „slijedeći“ ili, bolje rečeno, anticipirajući naputke danas priznate teorije o pravilima učinkovite marketinške komunikacije. Autori postavljaju hipotezu da su glagoljička slova (grafemi) snažni proizvoljni znakovi čiju je proizvoljnost Konstantin Ćiril kodirao u smjeru ostvarenja ciljeva svoje misije. The aim of the paper, deriving from David G. Mick, James E. Burroughs, Patrick Hetzel and Mary Y. Brannen’s (2004) theoretical approach, is to analyse whether the theories on marketing semiotics are applicable in the medieval context as well, i.e. if it could be said that Constantine - Cyril the Philosopher applied marketing semiotics in creating and promoting the Glagolitic script, i.e. the idea of Christianity, in the 9th century. The authors briefly remind of the development of semiotics and mention some relevant theories on marketing semiotics, review several theories on the origins of the Glagolitic script and then apply the above theories on Glagolitic graphemes and the script system as a whole. Constantine - Cyril the Philosopher’s curriculum vitae imposes the assumption that his mission was qualified by all the rules of marketing communications - by the creation of the Glagolitic script, Constantine - Cyril the Philosopher promoted the idea of Christianity embedded in the visual identity of each individual sign (and all the signs ordered into azbuka sequence) almost ‘following’, or better to say, anticipating the guidelines of the nowadays acknowledged theory on the rules of efficient marketing communications. The authors postulate the hypothesis that Glagolitic letters - graphemes, are powerful, arbitrary signs, the arbitrariness of which Constantine - Cyril encoded with a view to accomplishing the goals of his mission. Key words :