Parte de:<\/span><\/p>\n \u00bfQu\u00e9 es la Filosof\u00eda Pol\u00edtica? \/ I. El problema de la Filosof\u00eda Pol\u00edtica<\/span><\/p>\n Por Le\u014dnardus Str\u016bthi\u014d<\/span><\/p>\n\n The cognitive status of political knowledge is not different from that of the knowledge possessed by the shepherd, the husband, the general, or the cook. Yet the pursuits of these types of man do not give rise to a pastoral, marital, military, or culinary philosophy because their ultimate goals are sufficiently clear and unambiguous. The ultimate political goal, on the other hand, urgently calls for coherent reflection. The goal of the general is victory, whereas the goal of the statesman is the common good. What victory means is not essentially controversial, but the meaning of the common good is essentially controversial. The ambiguity of the political goal is due to its comprehensive character. Thus the temptation arises to deny, or to evade, the comprehensive character of politics and to treat politics as one compartment among many. But this temptation must be resisted if it is necessary to face our situation as human beings, i.e., the whole situation.<\/span><\/p>\n Next paragraph<\/a><\/p>\n Previous paragraph<\/a><\/p>\n El <\/span>estatus <\/span>cognoscitivo del conocimiento pol\u00edtico no se diferencia en nada <\/span>de aquel <\/span>conocimiento que posee <\/span>el<\/span> pastor, <\/span>el<\/span> marido, <\/span>el<\/span> general o <\/span>el<\/span> cocinero. No obstante, las pretensiones de estos tipos humanos no dan lugar a una filosof\u00eda pastoral, marital, militar o culinaria, porque sus fines \u00faltimos son suficientemente claros y <\/span>sin ambages<\/span>. <\/span>La meta definitiva de <\/span>lo pol\u00edtico, <\/span>por otro lado<\/span>, exige <\/span>de manera urgente<\/span> una reflexi\u00f3n coherente. La meta de<\/span>l<\/span> general es la victoria, mientras que la de <\/span>el <\/span>pol\u00edtico es el bien com\u00fan. <\/span>Lo que significa la victoria no es esencialmente materia de controversia; <\/span>sin embargo, comprender el significado del bien com\u00fan <\/span>s\u00ed que lo es<\/span>. La ambig\u00fcedad que rodea <\/span>a los<\/span> fines pol\u00edticos proviene de su car\u00e1cter compre<\/span>he<\/span>nsivo. <\/span>Por tal motivo,<\/span> surge la tentaci\u00f3n de negar o eludir el car\u00e1cter comprensivo de lo pol\u00edtico y tratarlo como un comportamiento m\u00e1s. Pero tenemos que resistir esta tentaci\u00f3n si queremos enfrentarnos con nuestra <\/span>situaci\u00f3n <\/span>como seres humanos, es decir, con <\/span>la<\/span> situaci\u00f3n en su totalidad.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Siguiente p\u00e1rrafo<\/a><\/p>\n P\u00e1rrafo anterior<\/a><\/p>\n Ir al inicio de esta entrada<\/a><\/p>\nLe<\/span>\u014d<\/span>nard<\/span>\u012b<\/span> Str\u016bt<\/span>h<\/span>i<\/span>\u014dnis verba<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n
Hisp<\/span>\u0101<\/span>nice<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n