Parte de:<\/span><\/p>\n \u00bfQu\u00e9 es la Filosof\u00eda Pol\u00edtica? \/ II. La soluci\u00f3n Cl\u00e1sica<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Por Le\u014dnardus Str\u016bthi\u014d<\/span><\/p>\n\n Compared with classical political philosophy, all later political thought, whatever else its merits may be, and in particular modern political thought, has a derivative character. This means that in later times there has occurred an estrangement from the simple and primary issues. This has given to political philosophy the character of \u201cabstractness,\u201d and has therefore engendered the view that the philosophic movement must be a movement, not from opinion to knowledge, not from the here and now to what is always or eternal, but from the abstract towards the concrete. It was thought that by virtue of this movement towards the concrete, recent philosophy has overcome the limitations not only of modern political philosophy, but of classical political philosophy as well. It was overlooked, however, that this change of orientation perpetuated the original defect of modern philosophy because it accepted abstractions as its starting point, and that the concrete at which one eventually arrived was not at all the truly concrete, but still an abstraction.<\/span><\/p>\n Next paragraph<\/a><\/p>\n Previous paragraph<\/a><\/p>\n Comparado con la <\/span>filosof\u00eda pol\u00edtica cl\u00e1sica, <\/span>to<\/span>do pensamiento pol\u00edtico posterior <\/span>\u2014<\/span>cualesquiera que puedan ser su m\u00e9ritos<\/span>\u2014, <\/span>y en particular el pensamiento pol\u00edtico moderno, tiene un car\u00e1cter derivado y carente de originalidad.<\/span> Esto significa que en los \u00faltimos tiempos se ha producido <\/span>un distanciamiento de los asuntos <\/span>m\u00e1s<\/span> simples y primarios que ata\u00f1en a lo pol\u00edtico<\/span>. <\/span>Dicho distanciamiento ha otorgado a la filosof\u00eda pol\u00edtica el car\u00e1cter de <\/span>\u00ab<\/span>abstracta<\/span>\u00bb <\/span>y, en consecuencia, ha engendrado la opini\u00f3n de que el movimiento filos\u00f3fico debe ser un movimiento, no de la opini\u00f3n al conocimiento, tampoco del aqu\u00ed y el ahora a lo que es permanente y eterno, sino m\u00e1s bien de lo abstracto a lo concreto. <\/span>Se crey\u00f3, que en virtud de este movimiento hacia lo concreto, la filosof\u00eda m\u00e1s reciente hab\u00eda superado las limitaciones no solo de la filosof\u00eda pol\u00edtica moderna, sino incluso de la propia filosof\u00eda pol\u00edtica cl\u00e1sica. <\/span>Sin embargo, pas\u00f3 desapercibido que este cambio de orientaci\u00f3n perpetu\u00f3 el defecto originario de la filosof\u00eda moderna. A saber, al aceptar la abstracci\u00f3n como punto de partida y a lo concreto como un destino al que finalmente arribar, escamote\u00f3 lo obvio: un punto al que arribaremos no es en absoluto algo concreto, sino que sigue siendo una abstracci\u00f3n.<\/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>\u012b<\/span> verba<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n
Hisp<\/span>\u0101<\/span>nice<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n