In this text I am dealing with the question of how the criticism of basic cultural categories translates into the attitude of the institutions of the modern democratic-liberal state. The result is the conclusion that for the opportunity to their criticism it is necessary to assume the existence -as a practical postulate -of socio-cultural reality independent of political power, which is possible on the ground of hermeneutics and very difficult on the ground of postmodernism.Słowa kluczowe: postmodernizm, idea dekonstrukcji, hermeneutyka, idea autorytetu, konstruktywizm
Throughout this article the author interprets the crisis of the rule law in Poland in 2020 caused by the phenomenon described as Covid-19 pandemic as the solidification and consolidation of biopower – the contribution of ideas and practices justified by the findings of natural sciences to the disestablishment of paradigms hitherto recognized as fundamental to the creation and application of law, that is the due process of law or its formal justice. I proceed from the assumption that the creation and application of law must be grounded in phronesis — the Aristotelian prudence, that is the intellectual process of assessment of not only the means but also the goals. Thanks to the discernment of both the goals and the means in the same cognitive act, one gains the opportunity to distinguish individual cases and insight into specific situations. I assume the phronetics of law to justify and at once enable its acquisition of the property referred to as justice in its formal sense — predictability, non-retroactivity, generality of regulation, and so on. If, on the other hand, the law becomes subordinated to paradigms justified with the use of natural sciences, it ceases to fulfil its function. Biopower invades the legal sphere as a discourse of necessity, such a necessity is in itself the very opposite of the fine art of balancing the various competing interests, appreciating the importance of form and ritual, distinguishing the various individual cases. The purpose of this article is to analyse the impact of the crisis referred to as the Covid-19 pandemic on law and in no way to pronounce on the medical aspects of its proliferation or express a moral or political judgement of the actions justified by the need to contain it.
The aim of the article is constitutional-legal and philosophico-legal analysis of the effects of one of the verdict of the Polish Constitutional Court. In this ruling, the authority found one of the provisions of the Personal Income Tax Act unconstitutional. Pursuant to Art. 190 paragraph 4 of the Constitution, such a ruling allows for the resumption of proceedings ended with a final administrative decision. It would have seemed that taxpayers can take advantage of this possibility. However, the Tribunal postponed the entry into force of its ruling, and the legislator started a kind of “race” with the citizens, and before the ruling entered into force, introduced a provision that even more limited taxpayers rights than a provision found unconstitutional, which in turn meant both for tax administration authorities and the administrative courts that any resumption is impossible. The author indicates this practice as an example of the destruction of the institutional nature of law, i.e. its predictability and symbolic dimension, which makes it part of a global trend. He also points out that this practice took place at a time when a fierce political struggle was taking place in Poland between the supporters of the ruling Law and Justice party and the opposition describing itself as liberal-democratic, the former ones used the slogans of defending the rule of law the latter ones of defending the „common man” against the arbitrariness of the judiciary. A practice which annihilates the rule of law and at the same time clearly violates rights has not been noticed, however
Przedmiotem artykułu jest koncepcja Pierre’a Legendre’a, współczesnego francuskiego filozofa i historyka prawa. Legendre, łącząc nawiązania do psychoanalizy Jacquesa Lacana z analizą historii prawa oraz współczesnej praktyki prawnej, uznaje prawo za zespół symboli, dzięki internalizacji których jednostka uzyskuje podmiotowość jako istota racjonalna i tożsamość jako członek społeczeństwa. Symbole te odzwierciedlają przede wszystkim fundamentalną ludzką kondycję: konstytutywną niemożliwość realizacji pragnienia i konieczność przeniesienia go na sferę języka. Prawo komunikuje w ten sposób znaczenie podstawowych wzorców kulturowych oraz autorytet instytucji społeczno-politycznych, samo zaś, dzięki zakorzenieniu w konkretnej kulturze, może oprzeć się na racjonalnej interpretacji. Według Legendre’a współczesność niszczy tę funkcję prawa, sprowadzając je do metody realizacji pragnień (paradygmat praw człowieka) lub odmiany inżynierii społecznej. Rezultatem jest zanik podmiotowości i więzi społecznej, zaś w dziedzinie prawa jego inflacja i infantylizacja. Ostatecznie społeczeństwo pogrąża się w „naturalności” – agresji i chaosie, maskowanych mitem „zarządzania”.
Przedmiotem artykułu jest analiza różnic w zakresie filozoficzno-politycznych implikacji postmodernistycznej idei dekonstrukcji oraz hermeneutycznej idei autorytetu. W niniejszym tekście przyglądam się temu, w jaki sposób krytyka podstawowych kategorii kulturowych przekłada się na stosunek do trwałości porządku społeczno-politycznego. Znana jest krytyka postmodernizmu a także hermeneutyki przeprowadzona przez Jurgena Habermasa, zdaniem którego odejście od idei uniwersalności rozumu choćby w postaci powszechnie ważnych warunków wolnej komunikacji przekłada się na relatywizm etyczno-polityczny. Moim zdaniem problem z postmodernizmem jest głębszy. Wysnuwam zatem tezę, że postmodernizm, odrzucając obiektywność zarówno ontologiczną, jak i podmiotową, zakłada jednak obiektywność samej dekonstrukcji w sensie działania politycznego, a nie rozumowania czy procedury naukowej. Tymczasem hermeneutyka Gadamerowska, narażona na zarzut historyzmu i relatywizmu, broni się przed nimi dzięki idei autorytetu.Postmodernist structure, hermeneutic authority, or political implications of two postmodern philosophical currentsThe subject of the article is the analysis of differences in the philosophical and political implications of the postmodernist idea of deconstruction and the hermeneutic idea of authority.In this text, I deal with the question of how the critique of basic cultural categories translates into the attitude to the permanence of the socio-political order. There is a known critique of postmodernism as well as hermeneutics, conducted by Jurgen Habermas, in which the departure from the idea of the universality of reason even in the form of universally important conditions of free communication translates into ethical and political relativism. In my opinion, the problem with postmodernism is deeper. My thesis is that postmodernism, rejecting ontological and subjective objectivity, assumes, however, the objectivity of deconstruction itself in the sense of political action, not reasoning or scientific procedure. Meanwhile, Gadamer’s hermeneutics, exposed to the charge of historicism and relativism, defend themselves against them thanks to the idea of authority.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.