Regarding policies of moderation: the continuation of a dialogue with Rafael del Águila
Keywords:
Political thought, ideologies, concept of politics, Max Weber, the ethics of responsibility and accountability.Abstract
The article stems from a proposal Rafael del Aguila made in his last book, Crítica de las ideologías, about a politics of moderation as a response to the ideological catastrophe of the last century: a kind of politics that would avoid the fanaticism of ideologies and their destructive consequences. On analysing this proposal, the article shows the elements it has in common with Max Weber’s concept of politics, in an attempt to recover Max Weber in the construction of a politics that is prudential and responsible.Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors whose contributions are accepted for publication in this journal, accept the following terms:
a. The authors retain their copyright and guarantee to the magazine the right of first publication of their work, which will be simultaneously subject to the Creative Commons Attribution License Attribution-Noncommercial-No derivative works 4.0 Spain, which allows third parties to share the work as long as its author and its first publication is indicated.
b. Authors may adopt other non-exclusive license agreements to distribute the version of the published work (e.g. deposit in an institutional repository or archive, or published in a monographic volume) provided the initial publication in this journal is indicated.
PLAGIARISM AND SCIENTIFIC FRAUD
The publication of work that infringes on intellectual property rights is the sole responsibility of the authors, including any conflicts that may occur regarding infringement of copyright. This includes, most importantly, conflicts related to the commission of plagiarism and/or scientific fraud.
Plagiarism is understood to include:
1. Presenting the work of others as your own.
2. Adopting words or ideas from other authors without due recognition.
3. Not using quotation marks or another distinctive format to distinguish literal quotations.
4. Giving incorrect information about the true source of a citation.
5. The paraphrasing of a source without mentioning the source.
6. Excessive paraphrasing, even if the source is mentioned.
Practices constituting scientific fraud are as follows:
1. Fabrication, falsification or omission of data and plagiarism.
2. Duplicate publication.
3. Conflicts of authorship.
