Legalists return the idea of the (modern nation-state) to the eighteenth century, and it was manifested in a number of texts, including the text of (Voltaire) “A Treatise on Ethics and the Spirit of Nations” and its clearest formulation was not formulated; Except in the nineteenth century, and the most famous of them; Presented by (Ernest Renan) in a lecture entitled: “What is the nation”? or “What does a nation mean? He delivered it in 1882, and (Renan) considered “nationalism” a spirit “reflected in language, religion, common interests, convictions, and values.”
The Moroccan thinker, Dr. Adel Hadjami, believes; Perhaps one of the most famous philosophical “coins” is Aristotle’s definition of the human being as the civil animal. The human’s humanity for the philosopher remains dependent on his belonging to the city, that is, on the extent of his ability to engage in a “collective destiny.” That is why he was the one who was unable to live in the group, or who was rich. He is either a beast (the first case) or a god (the second case).
Pointing out that the cities of (Aristotle) meet in one goal, which is the attempt to “manage plurality”, that is, to manage differences, and even contradictions, as according to him they are closer to structure than to unity.
He explained that the types of systems are three; The first is “the single reference and authority”, and the second is the aristocracy that is dominated by “the rule of the virtuous”, and the third is “civilian” which is governed by the numerical majority by adopting the principle of representation, indicating that history teaches us that these cities and systems are capable of realizing and actually continuing, and are threatened with disease and decay, and disease. This disease of hers comes from one element, which is her inability to preserve the “harmony” between her contradictions, and therefore her inability to fulfill the conditions of the reference that she adopted as a basis for her, and she may turn into cities in which a single individual dominates (in the first model) or is dominated by a single group (in the second model). ), or are dominated by the bestiality of the crowd (in the third model).
And he affirms that all these cities remain, in principle, possessing legitimacy if they are able to preserve their well-being, and they will not be able to preserve this well-being unless they fulfill conditions and remove impediments, which are conditions and impediments, including what is objective that affects the origin and possibility (the existence of a constitution and a contract that is safe from chaos ), and among them is what is the result of good management and acumen, (guidance to the good in leadership), and this is an essential matter in politics, because in order for the city to continue, the one who leads must achieve a degree of political and intellectual nobility, according to the perception of virtue that we mentioned above.
Hadjami showed; His reservation on the principle of (Jurgen Habermas), who believes that racism and intolerance cannot be avoided; Except by abandoning the concepts of origin, race, and the like in defining the meaning of citizenship, as the only reference that can be relied upon to avoid all of this is the “constitution.” Only “constitutional citizenship” protects us from the illusions that these ambiguous concepts create. The fact that (Habermas) tried to get rid of racism; He denied (the nation-state).
Hadjami asked; Are we here facing a moral conception of man and the city?
and he answers; Yes, on the condition that we understand that it is morals within the framework of a complicit vision from all sides, so if the city is what determines the humanity of a person, then this city does not revert, when we analyze it, except to a final unit that is this same person, i.e. the citizen, because there is no criterion A human “above” can be relied upon to determine the meaning of any of them. In this context alone, and according to this perception exclusively, we should explain the connection of politics with morals in Aristotle, and the primacy of “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Oedemian” over the book of politics and the constitutions of Greece with him. Adding that the final aim of Aristotle is to search for "harmony", and perhaps "harmony", but it is a harmony between differences; It refers to its components in their interdependence, and is achieved between a city and two citizens who are only in each other.
revealed; That there is no possibility of “management of the solitary” according to Aristotle, as it was previously mentioned, for man, as he is a free-speaking, civil being, is a being who grew up in the city, as there is absolutely no possibility to talk about any first identity in man, which is prior in consideration to the city. And because the city precedes the individual, until he settles, temporally and legally, it is absurd to search for happiness far from it, i.e. far from citizenship, for a happy person is necessarily a citizen.
And he went to the point that (Aristotle) decides that there is no existence of what is just by “absolutely”, as we should not believe any constitution that presents itself as “just” in itself, but rather that we cannot even “morally” differentiate between constitutions, as a whole, as they are all It has an authority in comparison to its axioms. The goal of what we might reach is to compare them in the extent of their ability to achieve “the greatest possible amount of good and the common good.” That is why the constitutions were multiple, and the cities were multiple with the multiplicity of constitutions, and consideration of politics required consideration of these same constitutions. To classify and arrange them, and only in the context of this perception can we talk about “justice”.
Presented by: Ali Al-Rubai @Al_ARobai
