The highly problematic relationship between ‘political sovereignty’ and the ‘economic sphere’ is the main characteristic of Modernity.1 It manifests the need for forms of ‘political government’ adequate to the requirements of civil society, which has always had a critical-osmotic relationship with the State.2 It is not difficult to identify the theoretical and historical foundations of the connection between the political and economical spheres. More complex, however, is to identify a conceptual development able to maintain their unity, as it should be capable of grasping the dyskrasìa, overlapping and displacement, which they generate in the modern era. A line of argument connecting a time span ranging from the mid seventeenth to the mid twentieth century – linking idealiter Hobbes and Keynes – is inconceivable, since it can only appear, both historically and conceptually, the fruit of a banal Historismus. More appropriate, instead, might be to make reference to a sequence of problematic interlacements, wherein each of the knots represents a conceptual discontinuity with which to deal – a próblēma, therefore, able to create a theoria, even when it does not allow an adequate unravelling.

Economic Philosophy Economic foundations and Political cathegories

Cosma Orsi
2008-01-01

Abstract

The highly problematic relationship between ‘political sovereignty’ and the ‘economic sphere’ is the main characteristic of Modernity.1 It manifests the need for forms of ‘political government’ adequate to the requirements of civil society, which has always had a critical-osmotic relationship with the State.2 It is not difficult to identify the theoretical and historical foundations of the connection between the political and economical spheres. More complex, however, is to identify a conceptual development able to maintain their unity, as it should be capable of grasping the dyskrasìa, overlapping and displacement, which they generate in the modern era. A line of argument connecting a time span ranging from the mid seventeenth to the mid twentieth century – linking idealiter Hobbes and Keynes – is inconceivable, since it can only appear, both historically and conceptually, the fruit of a banal Historismus. More appropriate, instead, might be to make reference to a sequence of problematic interlacements, wherein each of the knots represents a conceptual discontinuity with which to deal – a próblēma, therefore, able to create a theoria, even when it does not allow an adequate unravelling.
2008
978-3-03911-342-2
Economic Philosopy Marx Schumpater Adam Smith
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11769/582413
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact