Andrés Rosler

In this paper, I would like to tackle first Schmitt’s defence of the role of exclusion in political reasoning and his attendant rejection of extreme political pluralism. I shall then move on to explain not only why there is nothing Nazi—or even antisemitic—about Schmitt’s concept of the political, but rather the other way around: Schmitt’s concept of the political not only must have been used against National Socialism but it did not fail to have his fair share of Jewish, or at the very least Zionist, enthusiasts.

According to Ronald Dworkin's mature views on jurisprudence, legal normativity depends on judges’ views about political morality. Plato's own mature views on this subject seem to take the contrary position as he claims that the law is expected to be authoritative in order to preserve a given state of affairs. Therefore, in Plato's view judges are not expected to interpret the law ubiquitously according to their own standards of political morality. In what follows, the discussion starts off by offering a brief account of Dworkin's interpretivism and some of its shortcomings. We shall then move on to Plato's account of legal normativity, especially his views on the authority of law, law as preservation, and finally the politics of law in the light of the debate between conservatism and progressivism.

En este libro, el autor traza un retrato histórico-conceptual del republicanismo que desmiente por completo la imagen con que se lo suele asociar: la de un discurso anticuado, conservador, que moraliza lo político. A contrapelo de esa visión, el autor desarrolla su argumentación a partir del análisis de cinco aspectos republicanos claves: "la libertad como no dominación, la virtud como soporte motivador y epistémico de la participación cívica, el debate como el elemento constitutivo de la política, la ley como la otra cara de la libertad y la patria como el espacio particularista aunque estrictamente institucional de la república"

Este trabajo se propone contribuir al proyecto de atribuirle a Hobbes una teoría autónoma de la política, la cual defiende la existencia de cuestiones políticas que no pueden ser subordinadas lógicamente a otras esferas como la moral o la religión. Según esta posición los conflictos políticos no pueden ser meramente atribuidos, por ejemplo, a la inmoralidad o irreligiosidad de los involucrados, sino que incluso personas completamente morales y religiosas podrían llegar a verse envueltas en conflictos políticos

Very few—if any—will doubt Hobbes's aversion to the state of nature and sympathy for civil society. On the other hand, it is not quite news that it would be inaccurate to claim that Hobbes rejected the state of nature entirely. Indeed, he embraced or at the very least tolerated the state of nature at the international level in order to escape from the individual state of nature. Hobbes's recommended exchange of an individual state of nature for an international one does seem to have a smack of contradiction, arguably first noted by Rousseau. There is yet another charge of contradiction lurking around Hobbes's account of the state of nature. Hobbes's political thought would still reflect an ambivalent attitude towards a third instantiation of the state of nature, i.e. civil war. This is one of the main reasons why the political allegiance of Thomas Hobbes has been an issue ever since the publication of De Cive at the very least. This paper deals with Hobbes's differential treatment of the original and the international states of nature and discusses the source of Hobbes's somewhat ambivalent attitude towards civil war. It is here argued that Hobbes can fairly hold his ground vis-à-vis Rousseau's criticism, in spite of the normative resemblance between the international state of nature and the initial state of nature, and that Hobbes ambivalent attitude of attraction and repulsion towards civil war is actually due not so much to opportunism on his part as to the normative autonomy he has granted to the state of nature