Note 1.5 - criticism of previous solutions

Note 1.5 - criticism of previous solutions

Either: Covering up the problem of unity with rational concepts such as representation and identity, which amount to a fiction of unity. A.

or: one-sided (one-dimensional) attempts to explain e.g. Anxiety Theory (Hobbes), Consent Theory (Rousseau) B, Habit (Sir Henry Maine), Usefulness (Bentham), Benevolent Promotion (Enlightened Absolutism).

or: single-sided down to a single unit type, such as System (Kelsen), action unit (Heller) equality (English state teaching about Finer).

Slip 1.5a - Parallel views in literature:

U. Scheuner, “Basic questions of the modern state”, in: Recht, Staat, Wirtschaft Vol III (1951), p. 126ff. (129). Contrasts a new conception of democracy (à la Schumpeter) with
the classical conception. In doing so: “If the will of the people is not faked as asubstancethat isactually present, but is understood as a political process of will formation, …”

Scheuner, The area of ​​government, Smendfestgabe, Göttingen 1952, p. 253ff. (271): "The state is … not a dormant being, a connection of static elements, but one that is maintained and maintained at all times through organized, ie conscious human intervention

Slip 1.5b

… advanced action unit ".

loc . cit . : “The state is a spiritual life process in which conscious human action unites a collective unit across the change of individuals and time to form a uniform activity.”

see. quoted at Scheuner, Smendfestgabe, note 48: Donoso Cortes, Lecciones de derecho politico (1836/37) Obras, Madrid 1893, vol III, p. 126 : “Todo Gobierno es una accion de tal manera que un Gobierno que non obra abdica: para un Gobierno obrar es ser.”

These Scheuner : "So the state lives only in organized actions of people supporting it;

Slip 1.5c

other collective units, for example the people, on the other hand , are able to exist in a dormant manner through the continued existence of a community spirit of unconscious type X [??]."

This lack of clarity in the last half of the sentence is typical. One can not imagine anything right under this type of unity.

X Indicates an influence by Nikolai Hartmann. For this and against it cf. 28.2 ff.

Laski, A Grammar of Politics, p. 263 : "It [path to a solution] does not, as in the classic theory of politics, begin by postulating the necessary unity of society and continue by insisting on the supremacy of the state as the organ of that unity. It admits that the varying factors in the equation of life impel the admission of diversity. It agrees, that unity is not there, but has to be made. "

Slip 1.5d Key, p. 209 : “Speculators about democracy seemed to believe that by some mystic process the ‘will of the people’ would be expressed and rulers would be selected. But a mass of people cannot act as a unit; a smaller inner circle has to narrow the choices for public office and to formulate questions of public policy.”

1.5e The most striking argument against kritisier is the unit requirements but a methodical, namely that this kind conditions as axioms are unsuitable a scientific system because from them the most contradictory conclusions, so no clearly-specific, experimentally testable conclusions results derive. You are not falsifizier - bar. From an epistemological point of view, they are on the same level as the acceptance of disembodied spirits or direct divine interventions in nature, which science has been doing for a long time for these reasons refuses.