http___livro-ensino-medio.f1cf.com.br_filosofia_hr_philosophy-165.html_1.xml
1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 5.1 6.1 6.2 7.1 8.1 9.1 9.2 10.1 11.1 11.2 12.1 13.1 13.2 13.3 14.1 14.2
Philosophy One of the essential differences of Athenian democracy to contemporary democracies is that the policy had not the State, the institution that characterizes modern politics and contemporary. The Athenians lived and practiced direct democracy, for them, the political and the social are inseparable. Citizens are politicians, they do not have representatives. Hence, every decision in the political field is an immediate social achievement. In modern democracy, the people exercise their sovereignty through representatives - politicians. It is worth noting as Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), author of modernity, criticizes alienation of sovereignty and the threat of the loss of political freedom, as direct consequences of representative forms of government: Since the public service ceases to be the primary activity of citizens and they prefer to serve with her purse to serve with his person, the state is already close to ruin. Sovereignty can not be represented by the same reason it can not be alienated, consists essentially in the general will and the will is absolutely not. It is itself or another, there is no middle ground. The deputies of the people are not and can be its representatives; nothing but their commissioners, nothing can definitely conclude. It is null all the law which the people directly not to ratify; absolutely no law. The English people think being free and very wrong, because it is only during the election of members of parliament, since those elected, he is a slave, it's nothing. The idea of representatives is modern; comes to us from feudal government, from that iniquitous and absurd government in which the human species only degrades the name of man falls into disgrace. In the ancient republics and even in monarchies, the people never had representatives, and do not know this word. debate Discuss the meaning and implications of the terms, sovereignty, transfer of power and representation, presented by Rousseau. Also discuss the position of the philosopher, in relation to the role and power of the people's deputies. Do not forget to record in writing the ideas that emerged in the debate. The rules for the discussion was the introduction to this book. Back to antiquity. The Athenians exercised its power, sovereignty, directly on the ekklesia and did so because they were equal. Once assured equal rights before the law (equality) and also the equal right to use public and political word ( isegoria ) in the assemblies, the Athenians, after discussions and deliberations, made decisions that should be performed. How this happened? You need to know that the government of public affairs, the fixed positions were rare in general, citizens were appointed to execute tasks. How was deciding the distribution of tasks or jobs? There was no choice, nomination, election?
1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 5.1 6.1 6.2 7.1 8.1 9.1 9.2 10.1 11.1 11.2 12.1 13.1 13.2 13.3 14.1 14.2
Filozofija Jedna od bitnih razlika od atenske demokracije u suvremenim demokracijama je da je politika imala a ne država, institucija koja karakterizira moderne i suvremene politike. Atenjani živio i trenirao izravnu demokraciju, za njih, politička i društvena su nerazdvojni. Građani su političari, oni nemaju svoje predstavnike. Dakle, svaka odluka u političkom polju je neposredni društveni uspjeh. U modernoj demokraciji, ljudi ostvaruju svoju suverenost kroz predstavnika - političari. Važno je napomenuti kako Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), autor modernosti, kritizira otuđenje suvereniteta i prijetnju gubitka političke slobode, kao izravne posljedice reprezentativnih oblika vlasti: Budući da javne službe prestaje biti primarna djelatnost građana i oni vole poslužiti uz torbicu poslužiti uz njegovu osobu, država već je blizu u propast. (...) Suverenitet ne može biti zastupljena od strane istog razloga ne može biti otuđen, u osnovi sastoji u općoj volji i volja apsolutno nije. To je samo po sebi ili neki drugi, ne postoji sredina. Zastupnici naroda nisu i mogu biti njezini predstavnici, ništa, ali njihovi povjerenici, ništa ne može definitivno zaključiti. To je sve null zakon koji narod neposredno neće ratificirati, apsolutno ne postoji zakon. Englezi misle da besplatno i vrlo pogrešno, jer je samo tijekom izbora članova parlamenta, jer oni biraju, on je rob, to je ništa. (...) Ideja zastupnika je moderan, dolazi nam iz feudalne vlasti, iz tog nepravednog i apsurdno vlade u kojem se ljudska vrsta samo degradira ime čovjek pada u nemilost. U drevnim republikama, pa čak iu monarhijama, narod nikada nije imala predstavnika, i ne znam ovu riječ. debata Raspravite značenje i implikacije uvjetima, suverenitet, prijenos snage i reprezentacije, predstavio Rousseaua. Također razgovarati položaj filozof, u odnosu na ulogu i moć ljudi zastupnika. Ne zaboravite zabilježiti u pisanom obliku ideje koje su se pojavile u raspravi. Pravila za raspravu bio je uvod u ovu knjigu. Povratak u antičko doba. Atenjani iskoristila svoju moć, suverenitet, izravno na ekklesiu i to je učinio zato što su bili jednaki. Nakon uvjereni jednaka prava pred zakonom (ravnopravnost), a također jednako pravo korištenja javne i političke riječi ( isegoria ) u skupštinama, Atenjani, nakon diskusije i razmatranja, donijeli odluke koje treba izvesti. Kako se to dogodilo? Morate znati da je Vlada javnim poslovima, fiksne pozicije bile rijetkost u cjelini, građani su bili imenovani za izvršavanje zadataka. Kako je odlučivao raspodjelu zadataka ili poslovima? Nije bilo izbora, imenovanja, izborni?