Nenad Milicic

The article examines the patient-doctor relationship, relying on Michel Foucault’s concept of the clinical gaze. We argue that during the last decades, a profound transformation of the social nature of medicine took place, one that Foucault’s understanding of the clinical gaze cannot adequately account for. First, the article offers an elaboration of the three-node network of clinical gaze, the clinic, and nosology to explain the positioning of the doctor and the patient within the specific social ontology generated by the rise of medicine. We then discuss intensive but irresolute developments brought by technological advancements, especially the X-ray tube. Finally, we argue that in the contemporary clinic, equipped with a plethora of sophisticated devices, the position of the doctor endured the most radical transformation in comparison with Foucault’s proponent of the clinical gaze at the dawn of modern medicine.

The article examines the patient-doctor relationship, relying on Michel Foucault’s concept of the clinical gaze. We argue that during the last decades, a profound transformation of the social nature of medicine took place, one that Foucault’s understanding of the clinical gaze cannot adequately account for. First, the article offers an elaboration of the three-node network of clinical gaze, the clinic, and nosology to explain the positioning of the doctor and the patient within the specific social ontology generated by the rise of medicine. We then discuss intensive but irresolute developments brought by technological advancements, especially the X-ray tube. Finally, we argue that in the contemporary clinic, equipped with a plethora of sophisticated devices, the position of the doctor endured the most radical transformation in comparison with Foucault’s proponent of the clinical gaze at the dawn of modern medicine.

Kant?s legal and political philosophy is essential for understanding and advancing international order. The article aims to posit arguments that confront the claims that Kant was just war theorist. Since that is the most opposed part of Kant?s political philosophy, mostly due to the misleading interpretation of his argumentation, the author presents Kant?s standpoint on the matters of just war and international order and discusses potential ambiguities between Kant?s and his critics? theories. Furthermore, the consequences of opponents? arguments considering states of states, world republic and cosmopolitan democracy in contemporary political philosophy are debated. Finally, the possibility of consent between the three model solutions which are arising from the contemporary international order theory and Kant?s position are compared and analysed.