Abstract: this paper deals with my approach to the Personalism, a philosophical tradition that in Italy had a particular political dimension. I underline as Antonio Rosmini founded a “liberal Personalism.” Rosmini’s philosophy of person is a philosophy of freedom with deep metaphysical, ethical and political connections. In his thought it is central the definition of human person as “subsistent right and very essence of right.” Rosmini’s view of “person”, seen as an inviolable end which can never be reduced to the status of “means”, leads spontaneously to what today is seen as paramount in human existence, that is, the question of human rights. In this paper, I underline the reasons for the actuality of this philosophy based on the concepts of person and liberty: in particular, I put in evidence as the Italian philosopher of the 20th century – Augusto Del Noce (1910-1989) – elaborated the fundamental ideas of Rosmini on the ontological dignity of the human being, and gave an original interpretation of the modern secular age. Departing from Rosmini he criticized the totalitarianism and he proposed a political liberalism founded on the respect of the constitutive liberties of person. In the last part of this paper I analyze the problems of multiculturalism and ethical relativism: in the dignity of the human being we can find an “overlapping consensus”.
Abstract: This paper aims to demonstrate that the concept of responsibility (Verantwortungsbegriff) it is always indispensable in the ethical and political field. Responsibility is founded on the human freedom to choose good and evil, and therefore I have tried to argue favour of a philosophy of freedom, which is the theoretical basis of a socially inspired liberalism. Social liberalism (also known as modern liberalism in the United States, and left liberalism in Germany) is a political ideology and a variety of liberalism that endorses a regulated free market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights.
Abstract: The intention of this paper is to show how Leo Straussʼ mature writings respond to the twofold necessity of political philosophy: contributing, at the same time, to the good of the city and to the good of the philosophers. In the first place, it will try to prove this point by analyzing in detail the Introduction to On Tyranny (1948), which represents an essential step in order to understand the intention of the author. In the second place, it will tackle the problem of justice, that is, of natural right, by concentrating on the so called “tyrannical teaching”. This teaching is a way to present a truth which the city cannot find acceptable, that is, an unpleasant truth concerning the irresoluble problem of justice and legitimacy. In conclusion, it will point to the tension between philosophy, i.e., search for knowledge, and the city, i.e., the realm of opinion. For the philosopher, as such, has to “corrupt” the young in order to pursue his search for knowledge of the whole, or the nature of all things. Therefore, he weakens the city, since philosophizing implies unbelief in the gods of the city.