著者
長谷川 高生 ハセガワ コウセイ Kosei Hasegawa
雑誌
近畿福祉大学紀要
巻号頁・発行日
vol.2, pp.22-33, 2001-12-15

In this paper, I analize the political process of transition to the democracy in Spain more in detail than in my book, From Dictatorship to Democracy - Spain and Japan - (1999). I try to examine political reality of the transitional process to the democracy, by considering the policies and disputes among the political parties and analizing the results of elections in this process. As I offered in above-mentioned book, I devide this process into four periods:the period to December of 1973, the period from January of 1974 to July of 1976, the period from July of 1976 to 1979 and the period from March of 1979. In the first period, the authoritarian strategy from above by Franco regime was executed on liiegal oppositions. But this period was ended by the assassination of L. Carrero Blanco. In the second period, C. Arias Navarro did the strategy of confrontation against democratic insistence of the labor movements and oppositions, but failed between the attack from the right and the refusal from the democratic oppositions. The third period is characterized with the strategies of consensus adopted by Adolfo Suarez. He took the policy of consent to both the arms, the conservative right and the parties of democratic opposition, and got the success of democratic transition. He could also execute the strategy of consensus to from UCD as a consociational party and to deal with the parties of AP, PSOE and PCE etc. In the fourth period the democratic system was established, but the strategy of confrontation between the ruling party and the opposition parties appeared again.
著者
長谷川 高生
出版者
近畿医療福祉大学
雑誌
近畿福祉大学紀要 (ISSN:13461672)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.7, no.1, pp.37-48, 2006-06-15

The contemporary society, at which modern society could finally arrive, is a mass societywhere the average vulgar mass-man is contented with good facilities in a modern civilization.Such a mass-man entirely disregards the value of tradition in the historical past, deeplyimmerses himself in self-satifaction, and oversympathizes with anonymous others. Above all things, I think, it is the absence of the historical past and tradition in the presentday that roduces the basic cause of the conditions of mass society in our time. In thispaper, I will study the opinion of J. Ortega y Gasset, the Spanish philosopher who isworldwide famous for his "The Revolt of the Masses" published in 1930, about the "Past",that is to say, the past and tradition in history. In Japan, the Third Opening has inaugurated revisions of the Japanese Constitution and theFundamental Law of Education. These revisions may add the concepts of history andtradition to two fundamental laws, because the active Constitution and the Fundamental Lawof Education are lacking in these concepts. Ortega, the philosopher who belonged to the school of Philosophy of Life in the history ofwestern thoughts, attempted to establish his philosophy of vital reason or historical reason,by criticizing modern rationalism and by emphasizing the importance of life, particularlypastness and futurity on the base of presentness in the temporality of life. And also Ortega,the transitional philosopher from modern to postmodern times, showed an ambivalent attitude,negative and positive, toward the past and tradition in premodern history which wasrefused by the modern era. Therefore, I will try to clarify Ortega's opinion on the "Past" inhistory, particularly historical past, traditionalism, and feudalism, by applying to them thetheory temporality which consists of pastness, presentness, and futurity in subjective time.Pursuing and considering the "Past" in history, Ortega discovers the historical structure ofhuman beings, the actual exstence of historical past, the value of tradition, and thespiritualism of feudalism. And moreover, he catches the dualism of passive, traditional, andinertia power - pastness - and positive, challenging, and active power - futurity -, in humanbeings both as individuals and as groups.Finally, I intend to find the interaction of pastness and futurity in Ortega's view of the"Past" in history, confirming the actuality of historical past, the value of tradition, and thejustification of feudalism.
著者
長谷川 高生
出版者
近畿医療福祉大学
雑誌
近畿福祉大学紀要 (ISSN:13461672)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.3, pp.42-46, 2002-12-15

In this paper I try to analyze the relationship between individual and society through the consideration on the opinions of three famous western philosophers, M.Heidegger, M.Buber and J.Ortega y Gasset. First of all, M.Heidegger shows the ontological distinction between entity (Seiendes) and being (Sein), and according to his view, the being of Dasign is 'care' (Sorge) and the meaning of the being of Desein is 'temporality'. By the direction of this 'care' , Dasein has two modes of being : unauthenicity (das Man) and autenticity (eigentliche Existenz). These modes of existence are constructed in the world, and so Dasein is called Being-in-the-world (In-der-Welt-sein). This Being-in-the-world contacts with the world of utensils (Zeuge) by 'attention' (Besorgen), and with the world of others by 'nurturance' (Fursorge). Next, M.Buber puts special interests on the relationship between subject-object through 'arts' and between subject-subject, and particularly on the relationship between I -Thou (Ich-Du) with 'love'. In his opinion, man can find mistery of God by 'religious revelation'. Thirdly, J.Ortega y Gasset starts from each one's human life which is the radical reality and consists of him and his circumstance. In this world of circumstance we find things and others. In the relation to things, we find minerals, planets and animals on the 'pragmatic fields', and in the inter-individual relationships, we 'co-live' with parents, lovers, and friends. With relation to the majority, Ortega point out the revolt of the masses in the present days.In the social life, Ortega put a special focus in the phenomenon of 'usage' (uso), impersonal, irrational, and pseudo-natural. This usage automatizes human behaviors and makes man live a creative life at an altitude of the times. The difference of these opinions on individual and society designed by three philosophers depends on the characters of their own philosophies : Heidegger's theory of being, Buber's theology and Ortega's philosophy of life.