| |
Question of the existence | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 | To live with others |  | The policy concerns us,
because others concern us.
|  | "I" and "You"
Inthe existentialism is a humanism Sartre (1905-1980) pointed out that two things are fundamental:
- conscience, because nobody can think for the other;
- others, because it is vis-a-vis with others, when this one is "You" looking at us and speaking to us, that our me leaves its loneliness and its silence in order to say "I".
So the shortest way towards ourselves passing by others, a conclusion is essential: to be, it is to be with others and thus to be together.
From where importance of the policy, as Spinoza (1632-1677 ) shows it; because the more "You" takes form, the more it "I" takes form with him.
However, the policy is far from going from oneself. Do not find one in it a passion of the capacity which can make insane, as shows itPlato (428-348 front. J.-C.) ?
Moreover, as Pascal (1623-1662 ) underlines it, can one deny that the capacity is the subject sometimes of a diversion on behalf of egoistic interests thus causing the division of the company between dominant and dominated?
Isn't such a capture of the violence which seizes the things, at the origin of one world to the back in which, violence being legalized, it is not any more the Juste who is strong but the fort which becomes right?
Like reveals it MichelFoucault (1926-1984), if there is true that there is a violence in policy coming from passions, is not it also a violence in this one coming from the reason?
Be-it-not in the name of the reason of State
or of the revolutionary reason that worst crimes
were sometimes perpetrated?
|
"To find a form
of association which
defends and protects
of all the force
commune the person
and goods
of each associate,
and by which
each one sunissant
all does not obey
however that with itself
and remains also free
that before "
Rousseau,
The social Contract.
| One is needed
philosophy
with the policy,
so that it
does not become
that a technique. |
|
| | Policy and reason All that is true. But is it necessary for as much discouraging itself? Isn't this precisely a reason to become present at the policy?
It is not because there is violence in policy which one should not make. Quite to the contrary! Political philosophy answers that violence is not a fate.
This one often nourishes collective renouncement taking the form of a "voluntary constraint".
Consequently of what, the policy endeavoured to think a rational capacity which is not insane, by setting up the three large bases of the contemporary democracy, namely:
- popular sovereignty expressing itself through the vote for all (Rousseau);
- the separation of the capacities (Montesquieu)
- multi-party system and freedom of the press. Thanks to this fight of the philosophers of the Lights * at the XVIIIe century, for the respect of the political thing like for the democracy, we enjoy today in France an invaluable freedom.
| | Policy and communication
As for the second objection formulated by MichelFoucault, it shows that the reason alone in policy is not enough. If it is important to rationally organize the company thanks to a State so that this one can become able of itself, as well as explainedHegel(1770-1831), the policy is also a business of communication. It is when, thanks to the latter, the "power is on" between its members that the company is formed, and not simply when skilful technicians direct it.
From where the importance of philosophy, like emphasizes it the contemporary philosopher JürgenHabermas (born in 1929). Because it is by the communication around great ideas that crowd transforms itself into public and that power starts to be on in it. |  |
|
