The author offers a new approach to a phenomenon of social legends of great individuals from a philosophical point of view. He starts with a presentation of his interpretation of the concept of the Platonic tradition of a divine man and a cult or hagiography of such men in the ideal Platonic state, alongside with an explanation, inspired by Platonic authors. He collates this concept and its justification (rationalization) with today’s social and political reception of axiology, in order to present it as an epiphany of higher values. He collates it also with the results of philosophical reflection on a ductility of history, in order to show it as a prototype of something real in its historical efficiency. The author ends with summary and explanation of his proposal. 

Political wisdom, judgement or genius do not stem from the spirit of science and is not the upshot of theoretical generalizations or learning. There is of course “political science” and “political philosophy” but politicians can properly act without them because it is neither the discovery of laws or generalizations in the field of politics nor “knowledge about political things” but “political sense” that is crucial for his actions. As Isaiah Berlin put it years ago: “What makes statesmen, like drivers of cars, successful is that they do not think in general terms – that is, they do not primarily ask themselves in what respect a given situation is like or unlike other situations in the long course of human history (which is what historical sociologists, or theologians in historical clothing, such as Vico or Toynbee, are fond of doing). Their merit is that they grasp the unique combination of characteristics that constitute this particular situation – this and no other. What they are said to be able to do is to understand the character of particular movement, of a particular individual, of a unique state of affairs, of unique atmosphere, of some particular combination of economic, political, personal factors; and we do not readily suppose that this capacity can literally be taught”. Therefore politics is not a quest for “general terms” or general features of political phenomena but a direct and individual insight into concrete reality. Being a politician takes not learning but talent, not expertise but intuition, not knowledge but sense; it takes looking not at general but the particular dimension of human actions. Politicians can be taunted for their posture as Napoleon, they can be uneducated as farmer George Washington or act against morality as Cardinal Richelieu but frankly speaking all these vices are unimportant in the political realm.

€The most important ideologies of the XIX and the first half of the XX century took a stand on communities. €This was expressed not only in the liberal criticism of the communal lifestyle but also in the socialist commendation; in the conservative hierachy or communist absolute equality. Invariably a community constituted one of the central categories around which concepts of life of a human being and functioning of the society were created.

The conviction that particularly political sphere abounds in permanent paradoxes, that they constitute its inherent attributes, was already familiar to political philosophy classics, although they expressed them in different ways. “The paradoxical mix of order and chaos compelled the Greeks to seek out more creative, inclusive and reflexive modes of thought and action”. One of them, Socrates, talked about “the true political craft”, that is a rejection of politics, and at the same time, its admission. The paradoxical features of politics that arise from human nature were examined by Thomas Hobbes. Jean-Jacques Rousseau observed the paradoxes that underlie the act of free will declaration. Carl Schmitt paid attention to the internal paradox of democracy, pointing out that despite the conditions of declared citizens equality, the policy is dominated by inequalities deriving from other spheres, particularly economy.

The aim of this essay is to provide a theoretically satisfactory de€nition of communitarianism, a de€nition which would be theoretically proli€c and so fully substantial that it would allow to distinguish communitarianism from the other philosophical streams; and it would give us an answer as to why a given idea or thinker is categorized as communitarian. e essence of this goal is to show a rationally justi€ed method of constructing the de€nition of communitarianism is aim will be achieved in three steps: 1. Showing that communitarianism related research has not been able to provide a theoretically satisfactory de€nition of the philosophy; 2. Identifying the causes of this theoretical failure; 3. Formulating a rational method for constructing the theoretically satisfactory de€nition of communitarianism.

The article aims to present and critically analyze one of the currents of thought within the framework of deliberative democracy. The main dispute that we identify in the framework of this theory is the dispute between the impartialist and pluralistic approach. The role of reason towards the phenomenon of pluralism is the subject of these discussions. The impartialists base their arguments above all on the idea of public reason, while pluralists deny its value to other values. It can therefore be concluded that this dispute consists in opposing the rationality of pluralism to the pluralism of rationality. In addition to analyzing the arguments of the pluralist approach, we also focus on the criticism of the impartialism that these positions have put forward. The article distinguishes three possible forms of pluralism: rationality of pluralism, plurality of rationality prima facie and plurality of rationality sensu proprio. This allows us to show the relationship between impartialism (rationality of pluralism) and pluralism (plurality of rationalities prima facie) and the plurality of pluralism proposed by the critics of impartiality (plurality of rationalities prima facie) with a specific form of pluralism (plurality of rationality sensu proprio). In addition, in the article we identify the directives which pluralists propose to take place of public reason. The pluralistic approach which we analyze in the text is presented by such authors as: Iris Marion Young, Seyla Benhabib, Chantal Mouffe, Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson. The impartialist tradition should be associated with John Rawles and his interpreters and critics such as Joshua Cohen and Brian Barry.

Artykuł analizuje podejście Leo Straussa do filozofii politycznej rozumianej jako powrót do naturalnego i zdroworozsądkowego pojmowania spraw politycznych. Koncentruje się na takich Straussowskich kategoriach jak życie polityczne, filozofia i natura. Strauss zwraca uwagę na trudności związane z naukowym rozumieniem „tego, co polityczne” i problemy dotyczące relacji nauki i etyki. Filozofia polityczna jest próbą ponownego odkrycia naturalnej i zdroworozsądkowej perspektywy życia politycznego. Niniejszy tekst jest zarysem Straussowskiej diagnozy.

Basic thesis of the article is the clam, that contemporary developmenttrends of theoretical reflection about politics show ideological associations of a slightly different character and in dimensions separate from those previously connected with classical philosophy of politics. As in the classical form of reflection normative involvement indeed stemmed from care about common well being and urge to search for ideal order model and social organization, current trends of development of political theory – especially postmodernistic influences on social sciences – indicate new forms of bonds with political axiology.

In the article, the author wonders what the identity of Western civilization is today. To answer this question, he analyzes the views of, among others, Fernand Braudel, Samuel Huntington and Francis Fukuyama. The conclusions of the paper say that the identity of the West consists of Christianity, Western culture and democracy; however, the author states that this identity is something „ephemeral/ fleeting” both in relation to individual nations and in the lives of the inhabitants of Europe and America.