Cassirers politische Philosophie: Zwischen allgemeiner by Roman Parkhomenko

By Roman Parkhomenko

Die Arbeit stellt die Hauptlinien der im 20. Jahrhundert in West- und Osteuropa geführten Totalitarismus-Debatten dar, um die besonderen Merkmale von Cassirers Auseinandersetzung mit demselben Phänomen des Totalitarismus zu zeigen. Der Autor konzentriert sich auf Cassirers Kulturphilosophie und politischer Philosophie im Verhältnis zu den dargestellten Debatten. So wird geklärt, welchen "Gewinn" Cassirers kulturanthropologisch angelegte Deutung totalitärer Herrschaft aus heutiger Sicht abwirft.

Show description

Read or Download Cassirers politische Philosophie: Zwischen allgemeiner Kulturtheorie und Totalitarismus-Debatte PDF

Similar other social sciences books

Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy

Lengthy over due, this anthology collects in a single quantity new translations of a few of the imperative works via significant early chinese language philosophers-Kongzi (Confucius), Mozi, Mengzi (Mencius), Laozi, Zhuangzi, Xunzi, and Han Feizi. The ebook bargains an outstanding and balanced collection of texts in readable translations that replicate the very most modern in fantastic scholarship.

Additional info for Cassirers politische Philosophie: Zwischen allgemeiner Kulturtheorie und Totalitarismus-Debatte

Example text

For Coleman, then, kinship in general and the family in particular represented a societal keystone, and he was frankly pessimistic about the prospects for social control rooted in a more artificial set of arrangements. 29 30 FROM METAPHOR TO CONCEPT Even so, Coleman’s theoretical framework still allowed for the possibility that some constructed forms of organisation were more likely to promote social capital than others. Here, the archetypal expression of a functional constructed form was the church, which was particularly successful at promoting closure of networks.

In this paper, he defined social capital as a useful resource available to an actor through his or her social relationships. It comprises a ‘variety of entities’ that, Coleman surmised, ‘all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain actions of actors – whether persons or corporate actors – within the structure’ (Coleman 1988–89: 98). Using the conventional economic distinction between public and private goods, Coleman explained how social capital helps understand the problem of collective action.

If they are, then this might suggest that Putnam must revisit his explanation of declining civic engagement in the USA, but it would not undermine his basic diagnosis of decline. More fundamentally, Putnam has been accused of adopting a ‘rather circular’ definition of social capital (Misztal 2000: 121). He is also said to lack theoretical precision. He allegedly fails to provide an account of the production and maintenance of social capital (Misztal 2000: 120), and ‘takes for granted’ the ‘causal link that connects trust and a rich network of associations’ (Sztompka 1999: 196).

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.86 of 5 – based on 25 votes