Abstract

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: The aim of the article is to present two ways of un derstanding man dominating in Western political thought: liberal and republican.

THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND METHODS: The article poses the following questions: what is the essence of the republican approach, derived especially from Aristotle’s considerations? Does the “nature of the species” lead him to live in social groups, especially in a perfect, self‑sufficient state community? Does the political moment merely complete the “natural” moment of human society? What is the essence of the liberal approach, which has been “competing” with the republican approach since the seventeenth century? Has man acquired different characteristics than he was once given? Does he first create, as in Hobbes’s case, the state as an instance that gives it political value, which only enables it to create social groups? 

THE PROCESS OF ARGUMENTATION: The essence of both approaches is presented and a critical analysis of the arguments raised by their proponents is made. Both approaches were then applied to contemporary debates concerning multicultural societies pursuing the project of liberal democracy.

RESEARCH RESULTS: The arguments presented in the text show the ten sions not only between the republican approach (to some extent also close to Catholic social teaching) and the liberal one, but also between the different ap proaches characteristic of the latter. Each of these tensions affects contemporary ways of presenting solutions relating to multicultural societies. They are also influenced by the different anthropologies chosen by the proponents of each of these approaches and each of their variations.

CONCLUSIONS, INNOVATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The analyzed tensions are still valid in the contemporary reflection on the hu man being  found in relation to other people. They are also revealed in the considerations about the duties incumbent on the subject/person in comparison with the consequentialist...