Filozofija i društvo / Philosophy and Society <p>&nbsp;<em>Filozofija i društvo </em>/ <em>Philosophy and Society</em> is a peer reviewed, open access academic journal established in 1987 and published&nbsp;quarterly by the <a href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory</a>, University of Belgrade. The journal was founded by members of the Belgrade ‘Praxis School’. The journal strives to cover and present key tendencies of contemporary theory and, at the same time, to encourage research in studies of philosophy and the humanities. It promotes innovative and critical thinking, open and constructive debate, creating in this way a clear space for an ongoing dialogue about questions of intellectual and social reality within the international academic community.&nbsp;<em>Contributions of high quality</em> – regardless of their tradition, school of thought or disciplinary background – are welcome. The journal covers a wide breadth of philosophical and social questions that are theoretically orientated. In accordance with this, the editorial board equally values disciplinary and interdisciplinary oriented studies.</p> <p>The highest quality of editorial standard is ensured by the international membership and disciplinary expertise of the editorial board.</p> Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, University of Belgrade, Serbia en-US Filozofija i društvo / Philosophy and Society 0353-5738 <p>Articles published in the&nbsp;<em>Philosophy and Society</em>&nbsp;will be Open-Access articles distributed under a&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 License</a>.</p> Le naturel politique selon Aristote <p>Quel est le sens de « nature » dans la célèbre formule aristotélicienne :&nbsp;« l’humain est, par nature, un animal politique » ? Dans le cadre d’un&nbsp;débat avec les thèses du Socrate de la République, la référence à un&nbsp;naturel politique signifie que la cité n’est pas l’effet d’un manque, mais&nbsp;l’expression d’un désir positif. Ainsi, il n’y a pas pour l’être humain un état&nbsp;de nature antérieur à l’existence politique. Ce qui ne signifie pas que tout&nbsp;ce qui est politique est naturel.</p> Annick Jaulin ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-06-25 2018-06-25 29 2 157 169 10.2298/FID1802157J In What Sense Exactly Are Human Beings More Political According to Aristotle? <p>According to Aristotle, human beings are by nature political animals. It&nbsp;is now common knowledge that being political is not a human privilege&nbsp;for him: bees, wasps, ants and cranes are other political species. Although&nbsp;they are not the only political animals, human beings, for Aristotle, are&nbsp;still more political than the other political animals. The present article&nbsp;investigates the precise sense of this comparison; and it claims that the&nbsp;higher degree of human politicalness is not to be explained by reference&nbsp;to those exclusively human features like having capacity for speech and&nbsp;moral perception. It is claimed that human beings are more political rather&nbsp;because they live in a multiplicity of communities differing in form.</p> Refik Güremen ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-06-26 2018-06-26 29 2 170 181 Machiavellis realistisches Menschenbild und seine Rechtfertigung des Staats <p>Der vorliegende Aufsatz analysiert Machiavellis Menschenbild. Er&nbsp;argumentiert gegen die vorherrschenden Auffassungen, die es entweder&nbsp;als pessimistisch oder als optimistisch charakterisieren und begründet die&nbsp;These, dass der Florentiner ein realistisches Menschbild hatte. Machiavelli&nbsp;ist ein „psychologischer Egoist“, der den Menschen als ein Wesen ansieht,&nbsp;dessen Handlungen durch seine Triebe, Wünsche und Leidenschaften&nbsp;motiviert werden, die ihn häufig zu unmoralischem Verhalten verleiten.&nbsp;Die zentralen Antriebe des Menschen sind „Ehrgeiz“ (ambizione) und&nbsp;„Habgier“ (avarizia). Der vorliegende Aufsatz untersucht auch Machiavellis&nbsp;Naturbegriff und zeigt, dass die Unwandelbarkeit der menschlichen Natur&nbsp;für ihn die zentrale Prämisse ist, die eine wissenschaftliche Analyse von&nbsp;Politik ermöglicht. Trotz der Tatsache, dass die menschlichen Triebe und&nbsp;Fähigkeiten zu allen Zeiten dieselben sind, kann der Mensch durch gute&nbsp;Gesetze, militärisches Training und Religion verändert und zur „Tüchtigkeit“&nbsp;&nbsp;(virtù) erzogen werden. Die Voraussetzungen für derartige Veränderungen&nbsp;sind jedoch eine gute gesetzliche und politische Ordnung. Machiavelli&nbsp;rechtfertigt den Staat wegen dessen Fähigkeit, die menschliche Natur&nbsp;umzugestalten und den Menschen zu verbessern. Der Staat ist nicht bloß&nbsp;eine Zwangsgewalt, sondern auch eine moralische Institution. Daraus&nbsp;ergibt sich die Konklusion, dass Machiavelli die Politik nicht von der Moral&nbsp;trennt, wie die meisten Wissenschaftler behaupten.</p> Manuel Knoll ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-06-26 2018-06-26 29 2 182 201 10.2298/FID1802182K Legal Ideology and the Commons: Why are Jurists Falling Behind? <p>The last quarter of a century has featured a surge in interest and studies&nbsp;on the commons, spearheaded, of course, by the efforts of Elinor Ostrom.&nbsp;These efforts have problematized the once well-established paradigm&nbsp;of the tragedy of the commons most clearly described by Garrett Hardin&nbsp;in 1968. One could say that the commons, thus, have become a fundamental&nbsp;field of study in most social sciences. This is not the case in the field of&nbsp;legal scholarship (with one noticeable exception that I will discuss later),&nbsp;which leads me to the overarching issue of this essay, namely the difficult&nbsp;relationship between jurists and the commons. The phrase “difficult&nbsp;relationship” does not refer to an explicit antagonism, but to something&nbsp;even worse: complete indifference and a scandalous lack of knowledge.&nbsp;While my main purpose is to try to explain this sorry state of affairs, I&nbsp;also hope to make a more general point on the nature of law and legal&nbsp;change. In this sense, the commons can be considered a case-study in&nbsp;legal theory. The main issue of this paper is to tackle following subquestions.&nbsp;What is the status of commons in the Western European legal&nbsp;discourse? Why do most legal scholars pay such a poor attention to the&nbsp;growing literature on the commons in other disciplines? What factors&nbsp;contribute to this peculiar case of cultural deafness? What promise of&nbsp;improvement does the future hold?</p> Filippo Valguarnera ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-06-27 2018-06-27 29 2 205 218 On the Blinding Clarity of Property Rights: Seven Fragments of Reductionism in the Theory of Property <p>This paper presents a historical commentary on arguments in theory of&nbsp;property that reinforce the vision of strong and clear property rights&nbsp;dominant in developmental policy today. Building upon the article from<br>Duncan Kennedy in 2013 that analyses this vision, this paper tackles&nbsp;additional issues in emergence of the vision. In doing that the paper relies&nbsp;on broadly genealogical approach to focus on a binary opposition that<br>has been present in the theory of property almost since its historical&nbsp;establishment in Western thought. This methodology allows us to&nbsp;conceptualize the problem in more substantive terms than Kennedy does<br>and show how radical shift is necessary to overcome the problems that&nbsp;the vision entails.</p> Aleksandar Stojanović ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-06-27 2018-06-27 29 2 219 238 The Problem of Cognitive Significance – a Solution and a Critique <p>In this paper I will deal with the solution to the problem of cognitive&nbsp;significance offered by the so-called new theorists of reference, as well&nbsp;as with the critique of that solution given by Howard Wettstein. I will&nbsp;claim that the answer to this critique provided by John Perry is not&nbsp;sufficiently convincing. First, I will clarify some relevant concepts in order&nbsp;to present the problem of cognitive significance in a clear manner. Then&nbsp;I will expose the solution to the problem offered by Perry and David&nbsp;Kaplan. After that, I will present Wettstein’s critique of that solution.&nbsp;Subsequently, I will also analyze Perry’s attempt to defend against this&nbsp;critique. Finally, I will discuss the extent to which Perry’s attempt is&nbsp;successful. It will be shown that it is significantly not so.</p> Filip Čukljević ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-06-27 2018-06-27 29 2 239 252 Reason without Feelings? Emotions in the History of Western Philosophy <p>The paper critically analyzes the interplay between reason and emotions in the history of Western philosophy, as an inadequately ambivalent interrelationship of contrast, control and conflict. After the analysis of the philosophies of emotions and passion amongst the most important philosophers and philosophical works of classical antiquity and the Middle Ages, the paper presents ideas on this interrelationship within the framework of modern philosophy, or during the so-called Age of Reason.<br> Finally, the paper analyzes the character of emotions in the contemporary philosophy, while examining possibilities for the history of (philosophy of) emotions and feelings, but also the possibilities for overcoming the undue opposition of reason and emotions, which was present in the dominant Western philosophical tradition.</p> Aleksej Kišjuhas ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-06-27 2018-06-27 29 2 253 274 10.2298/FID1802253K The European National Welfare States and the Dissolution of the EU <p>This paper examines the causes of prominent radical political options and&nbsp;behaviors that are already visible on a daily basis in the European Union.&nbsp;In public discourse there is a simplified belief that the primarily responsibility&nbsp;for this lies with the immigrants and fear caused by terrorist attacks&nbsp;carried out in Europe or the old European latent nationalism. Although&nbsp;these elements undoubtedly contribute to the development of radicalism,&nbsp;the author argues that the key sources for this issue should be found in&nbsp;the difficulties encountered by the European national welfare states. This&nbsp;is the source of ever-greater mutual intolerance among the citizens of&nbsp;the European Union, which can take on various forms of political, cultural,&nbsp;ideological and physical conflict. On the basis of these arguments the&nbsp;author concludes that the European Union is indeed in a historic milestone&nbsp;but the real danger of the European Union’s disintegration is not primarily in cultural, civilization, confessional, security or geopolitical sources, but&nbsp;this source should first be sought through the prism of the European&nbsp;national social states and the expectations of citizens referring to them.</p> Ivor Altaras Penda ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-06-27 2018-06-27 29 2 275 290 10.2298/FID1802275A Elizabeth S. Goodstein, Georg Simmel and the Disciplinary Imaginary, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2017. <p>(Elizabeth S. Goodstein, <em>Georg Simmel and the Disciplinary Imaginary,</em> Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2017.)</p> <p>Dejan Petrović</p> Dejan Petrović ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-06-27 2018-06-27 29 2 291 296 Anne Deneys-Tunney and Yves Charles Zarka (eds.), Rousseau Between Nature and Culture: Philosophy, Literature, and Politics, De Gruyter, Berlin, 2016. <p>Janos Kun<br>(Anne Deneys-Tunney and Yves Charles Zarka (eds.), <em>Rousseau Between Nature</em><br><em>and Culture: Philosophy, Literature, and Politics</em>, De Gruyter, Berlin, 2016.)</p> Janos Kun ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-06-27 2018-06-27 29 2 297 300 Julie L. Rose, Free Time, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2016. <p>JULIE L. ROSE, <em>FREE TIME</em>, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS,<br>PRINCETON, 2016.<br>Marko Konjović</p> Marko Konjović ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-06-27 2018-06-27 29 2 301 304 Margaret Moore, A Political Theory of Territory, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015. <p>MARGARET MOORE, <em>A POLITICAL THEORY OF TERRITORY</em>,<br>OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, OXFORD, 2015.<br>Jovica Pavlović</p> Jovica Pavlović ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-06-27 2018-06-27 29 2 305 307 Jelena Ćeriman, Irena Fiket i Krisztina Rácz (ur.), Žongliranje između patrijarhata i prekarijata: usklađivanje porodičnih i profesionalnih obaveza akademskih radnica, IFDT i CELAP, Beograd, 2018. <p>JELENA ĆERIMAN, IRENA FIKET I KRISZTINA RÁCZ (UR.),<em> ŽONGLIRANJE&nbsp;IZMEĐU PATRIJARHATA I PREKARIJATA: USKLAĐIVANJE PORODIČNIH&nbsp;I PROFESIONALNIH OBAVEZA AKADEMSKIH RADNICA</em>, IFDT I CELAP,<br>BEOGRAD, 2018.<br>Sanja Milutinović Bojanić</p> Sanja Bojanić ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-06-27 2018-06-27 29 2 308 309