The state is the means by which the most primeval human problems are solved. It is, an entirety, capable of confronting an opponent in a fierce fight for survival. It is an authoritative, total and sovereign entity, having at its disposal the power to set out measures, to encompass the whole of public life and to make final decisions; it is in such words that this institution was described by Carl Schmitt, who added: should any of these features be missing, (...) the state will cease to exist. Its existence depends on this power, which is necessary to identify the enemy adequately, to defeat it and to make peace. The state is also an answer to those human passions too destructive to be freely unleashed; conceit, envy and aggression. Machiavelli, Hobbes, de Maistre or Hegel, regarded as political thinkers par excellence, had no doubts whatsoever in this respect. Because of their anthropological pessimism, they were all followers of Plato. They knew that the realm of politics is a cave where one should not expect to meet wise men and saints. A hero of politics is enthralled by the play of shadows and echoes and devotes to it his all time and passion. Moved by an exuberant ambition and tempted by the hope of immortal glory, he pursues mirages.The liberals seem not to understand these nooks and crannies of the human psyche and not even to notice them. They reduce the mystery of our multifarious needs to one: lust. The entire wealth of feelings is reduced to the fear of poverty, greed and the want of luxury. They claim that all our choices are accompanied by economic motivation. The central character of liberal philosophy is Adam Smith’s homo oeconomicus. The Wealth of Nations is, to them, a priceless source of knowledge regarding everyone’s conduct. The economic way of thinking and the methods of eliminating tensions derived from the capitalist economy should, to them, provide a template for the solving of conflicts in other areas as well, including politics. What becomes important is the scope of power, which raises the highest distrust. It is the largest threat to the value which has been recognised as the most precious: human freedom. (shrink)

According to international conventions, everyone can leave his or her country and choose a country in which he or she wishes to live. This opportunity, however, raises some doubts. Are emigrants’ rights to choose their own state accompanied by the state’s obligation to accept them? Do the hosts have any duties with respect to strangers? To what conclusions does the dialectic of mutual rights lead in this regard? How does one resolve the conflict of conflicting values, interests and emotions felt (...) by free individuals on both sides of the border? The author searches for answers to these questions from the perspective of the individual perspective. She refers to Robert Nozick’s concept of liberal utopia as being representative of individualism. This allows for the formulation of two conditions of citizenship as pre-selection criteria for immigrants. (shrink)

The law of force as a political consequence of naturalism: on the example of Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Jean‐Jacques Rousseau rejected the Enlightenment ideas of reason, equality and progress. He experienced the charm of physical vigour and male causative power. He preached the apotheosis of primal instincts and the cult of strength. Rousseau’s historiosophy disavowed the optimistic vision of the Enlightenment and became its main competitor. The philosopher questioned the existing civilization; on its debris he wanted to restore the natural order based (...) on biologically conditioned inequalities. (shrink)

Jesteśmy istotami społecznymi. Fakty ukazują niesamodzielność jednostki, jej potrzebę usytuowania i znalezienia sensu w ramach większej całości. Akceptacji powyższej diagnozy powinna towarzyszyć świadomość zagrożeń wypływających ze społecznego wymiaru natury ludzkiej. Pragnienia uzależniają od obiektów pożądania, potrzeba społeczna uzależnia od społeczeństwa. Z lęku przed wykluczeniem godzimy się odgrywać role sprzeczne z naszym sumieniem. Z drugiej strony, w każdym człowieku istnieje potencjał do zachowań autonomicznych, indywidualnych, nieposłusznych. Rzadko wykorzystywany, niemniej obecny, stanowi uniwersalne zaplecze naszych możliwości sprawczych i obowiązków etycznych. Poziom indywidualnej podmiotowości (...) moralnej jest dla nas wyzwaniem, celem wysiłków. W takiej interpretacji ma szansę stać się poszukiwanym remedium na zgubne skutki społecznego podporządkowania. (shrink)