http___livro-ensino-medio.f1cf.com.br_sociologia_hr_sociology-205.html_1.xml
1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 5.2 6.1 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 8.1 9.1 10.1 11.1 12.1 13.1 14.1 15.1 16.1 17.1 18.1 19.1 19.2 21.1 21.2 21.3 23.1 23.2 25.1 25.2 26.1 27.1 28.1 29.1
Sociology Why Locke defends the legitimate power of the people to go against a form of government? Because he was against the absolute power exercised in their society, the English. This is further evidence that any type of government, for it is only valid if the consent of the people. Let's look at another answer to our initial question. It is given by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) , in his book The Social Contract , tells us that men made a choice between being infinitely free in their impulses, which can annihilate the "natural life" or accept guarantees of liberty and property provided by law. It can then be free even from the creation of laws? There is something weird because the laws do not limit us? According to Rousseau, not because we are part of active and passive in this process. How so? It is this: we elaborate laws and obey them at the same time, which shows the relationship can be perfect between freedom and obedience. Obeying the law written by ourselves is an act of freedom. For the best choice prevailed, it was necessary that all make use of reason and freedom in order to establish a contract. This is the first condition that gives legitimacy to political life, since we are all on equal footing. Thereafter men made a contract which inaugurated the organization of a state. And what form of government advocated by Rousseau? Unlike other thinkers presented here, it states that any form of government that is adopted is secondary since it is subject to the sovereign power of the people. The government is then understood as the governing body of the State, being limited by the power of the people. It is in this sense that, even under the monarchy, the power of the people can be sovereign, if the ruling monarch as an employee of the people. ACTIVITY Given these ideas, in some fit issues. answer them: the Search meaning "state of nature" to Hobbes and John Locke. It's the same explanation of "natural life" to Rousseau? Make a comparison between the meanings found. Reread the ideas of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. Then tell which one you agree with and disagree, and why. You are summoned to answer the question: "Why man, wanting to be free organizes a means of being controlled?" How to respond? And the problem continues even though we managed to understand some of the reasons for the state organization. And what would then be the best form of organization that State? Machiavelli advocates a centralized government in the person of a prince, Hobbes argues Formation of the Modern State
1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 5.2 6.1 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 8.1 9.1 10.1 11.1 12.1 13.1 14.1 15.1 16.1 18.1 18.2 18.3 20.1 20.2 22.1 23.1 24.1 25.1 26.1
Sociologija Zašto Locke brani legitimne moć ljudi da ide protiv oblik vlasti? Zato što je bio protiv apsolutne moći ostvariti u svom društvu, engleskom. Ovo je još jedna potvrda da je bilo koji tip vlasti, jer to vrijedi samo ako pristanak naroda. Pogledajmo drugi odgovor na naše početno pitanje. On je dao Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) , u svojoj knjizi Društveni ugovor , govori nam da su muškarci napravili izbor između beskonačno besplatno u svojim impulsima, koje može uništiti život "prirodno" ili prihvatiti Jamstva slobode i imovine predviđen zakonom. To onda može biti slobodan ni od stvaranja zakona? Tu je nešto čudno, jer se zakoni ne ograničavaju nas? Prema Rousseaua, ne zato što smo dio aktivne i pasivne u ovom procesu. Kako to? To je ovaj: mi razraditi zakone i poštivati ih u isto vrijeme, što pokazuje odnos može biti savršen između slobode i poslušnosti. Poslušnost zakon napisan po sebi je čin slobode. Za najbolji izbor prevladalo, bilo je potrebno da se sve iskoristiti razuma i slobode, kako bi se uspostaviti ugovor. To je prvi uvjet koji daje legitimitet političkog života, jer svi smo ravnopravno. Nakon toga muškarci napravio ugovor koji inaugurirala organizaciju države. A što je oblik vlasti zagovaraju Rousseau? Za razliku od drugih mislilaca koji možete pogledati ovdje, navodi se da je bilo koji oblik vlasti koji je donesen je sekundarno jer je predmet suverene vlasti naroda. Vlada je tada shvaća kao upravno tijelo u državi, što je ograničen snagom naroda. Ona je u tom smislu da, čak i pod monarhije, moći stanovništva, može biti suverena, ako vladajuća monarh kao zaposlenik naroda. AKTIVNOST S obzirom na ove ideje, u nekim pitanjima fit. odgovoriti na njih: Traži značenje "prirodno stanje" na Hobbesa i Johna Lockea. To je isto objašnjenje "prirodnog života" od Rousseaua? Napravite usporedbu između značenja nalaze. pročitao ideje Machiavellija, Hobbesa, Lockea i Rousseaua. Onda recite koja vam se složiti i ne slažu, i zašto. Vi ste pozvani odgovoriti na pitanje: "Zašto je čovjek, želeći biti slobodan organizira sredstvo pod kontrolom?" Kako reagirati? A problem je i dalje iako smo uspjeli shvatiti neke od razloga za državne organizacije. A što će onda biti najbolji oblik organizacije te države? Machiavelli zagovara centraliziranu vladu u osobi princa, Hobbes tvrdi Stvaranje moderne države