This article argues that populism, both in its left-wing and right-wing versions, is a social pathology in the sense contemporary critical theorists give to it. As such, it suffers from a disconnect between first order political practices and the reflexive grasp of the meaning of those practices. This disconnect is due to populists’ ideal of freedom, which they understand as authentic self-expression of ‘the People’, rejecting the need for mediating instances such as parties, parliaments or epistemic actors. When enacted in (...) political practices and institutions, this ideal creates the conditions for undermining different forms of political freedom, including populist’s own ideal of collective self-expression, which they erode by fostering expressive domination. This all makes populism a self- defeating political ideology and bad candidate for advancing democracy in times of crisis. The article ends with a consideration of the advantages of this view compared to existing approaches to populism. (shrink)

Populism is currently one of the most studied socio-political topics. However, no shared definition is present at the moment. Fortunately, common features are emerging in recent studies, so that the possibility to devise a comprehensive concept of populism does not seem illusory anymore. In this article I evaluate whether an ontological determination of the concept is conceivable, according to a critical and dynamical perspective. This means that epistemological questions are considered as fundamental, and ontology looks at dynamical systems theories in (...) order to conceptually organize the outcomes of scientific researches. Taking advantage of ontological and system theoretic categories, I try to delineate some not obvious issues in the current approaches to populism. (shrink)

_Purpose._ The article aims to problematize the forms of correlation between the fundamental category of freedom and the phenomenon of resentment in the context of the formation of ethical discourse, as well as to consider the symbolic mechanisms of the collective imagination in the formation of a picture of the human world. _Theoretical basis__._ The study uses the method of historical and philosophical analysis and methods of the humanities – hermeneutics and phenomenology. _Originality._ An attempt is made to comprehend the (...) correlation between freedom as a category of philosophical anthropology and practical philosophy and the phenomenon of resentment. _Conclusions._ The ethical category of freedom, explicitly or implicitly, significantly shapes the content of the process of choice and social action by a person, which can be manifested in discursive practices and narratives of ideologies, public opinion and collective imagination. Symbolic mechanisms of human consciousness record the paradoxical correlation and at the same time the antithesis of reality reception and meaning generation between rational awareness and existential experience, humanization and appropriation of freedom and emotional-affective, reactive attitude of a person to narratives, motives, symbols and images of resentment. At the same time, freedom can presuppose the conscious content of resentment, while resentment deforms the concept of freedom into arbitrariness or violence, appealing not only to the archaic values of tribalism, but also to the rational basis of individual freedom of the individual, on which the philosophical tradition of the West is based. The resentful forms of thinking and emotional reception of reality function as symbolic constructions, that is, they can have a wide and internally contradictory field of interpretations. Western philosophical thought has a significant potential to reinterpret the challenges of the phenomenon of resentment based on the tradition of ontotheology and ethics of discourse due to the specific rationalism of the vision of the philosophy of freedom. (shrink)