Giorgi Baramidze
 
 
General Aspects of Understanding “The Federalist” and Republicanism
 
 
According to “The Federalist” republicanism is fundamentally related to federalism (papers N 10. 39). According to the founders’ intention America is a federative republic. Thus, we have to talk not generally about “republic” and “republicanism”, but about “federative republic” and “federative republicanism”. That’s why we’d better know the literal meaning of each of these concepts beforehand. According to the definition of the old Roman statesman and philosopher Cicero, republic is a public matter– res publica – res populi est. Thus, in this expression we have two basic words: matter and people. Federalism also comes from the Latin word foedus which in Georgian means union (with the related variants: contract and covenant). The thing is that there are voluntary communities and political institutions in this or that country. Naturally, the question arises – how these two things are related to each other. Relatively small self-governing communities are united with relatively large self-governing communities on the basis of the contract. Thus connected social institutes sign the contract with political establishments. So, contract is the basis of such a social-political order . But the main thing is that the main basis of such an agreement is the contract , the covenant, which, according to Bible, God makes with a man – at first Noah, then Abraham. Thus, a covenant has so called a theological element; the element whose the basic meaning is the first-maker, i.e. the thing that constitutes the essence of the agreement, what forms it as a conenant. Generally speaking, the soul of republicanism comes from people, and the soul of federalism – from the relations with God. Thus, at  first glance, the name federative republic appears to be a combination of two mutually exclusive domains; the divine domain and the secular domain. As it is supposed, when the contract is understood in this way, one of the main objections towards federalism can easily be annulled. It implies the fact that the contract can always be broken and the union built on it is unstable. But such a word-combination does not take into consideration one main thing; namely the fact that every alliance is made between people while the covenant federalism is based on a covenant made with God. And God is always devoted to his covenant.
 
The question can be put this way: what is the political order or political union based on? It can be based on two things: either on private persons or on so called collective persons. An individual man is regarded as a private person. But such things as family, guild, neighborhood, community, nation are considered as collective persons. The first position is known as individualism; the second one is called corporatism;  the word corporation comes from Latin and means union. It should also be taken into consideration that the political order or union is evaluated according to several criteria. First of all, people are interested in how strong, firm, durable and fair it is. It is also rather significant how it contributes to everybody’s well-being. Thus, the solidity of the political order should be the guarantee of a good life. It is a well-known fact that people aspire to two things: a good life and the deliverance of their souls after death. It is also known that the language of this or that nation determines essential differences itself. We say that an individual person, a private person lives, but  persons coexist. A person from west during long historical epochs was convinced that good life as well as soul salvation is possible namely on the field of coexistence. Though, in the same west a lot of people consider that an individual person is also able to do the same. But the main thing is how we understand a man.
 
 
“The Federalist” and understanding a man
 
According to the 51st paper a man is not an angel: “If men were angels”. According to the first paper a man has the ability of judgment and making decision. An animal in principal lacks such capabilities. Thus, a man is between an angel and an animal. According to the founders it means that a man is a fallen and imperfect creature. It seems that the American Founding Fathers take into consideration Plato’s notion (expressed by Socrates in Book 2 of the Republic) that the necessity of the city is due to the fact that a man is a creature having needs. Need is the expression of imperfection. A perfect creature has no needs. Thus, according to the Founders’ opinion, a man is an imperfect creature endowed with the faculty of reflection and making decisions, or who (according to the 39th paper) has the capacity for self-government, i.e. the ability to govern himself. But the main thing is what unites such individuals in one nation. From this point of view the second paper, in which the word Providence is essentially important, is rather interesting. It speaks about one whole country and nation who have common ancestor, speak one language, and confess one religion. The basis of such unity is divine Providence. Thus, according to the American Founding Fathers the basis of men’s coexistence is divine Providence. Those people should think deeply about this circumstance who think that it is possible to found this or that collective without a divine will. According to the founders, a federative republic is namely that form of political order, political union, which mostly corresponds to the American nation that Providence has united in one corporation. In 85 papers nothing is said about the fact that God made a  covenant to American people. But in these wise papers namely biblical experience and analogue are felt. From this standpoint the founders’ view is federal view, federal world outlook from basic understanding of federal where in means covenant. We think that this situation says much to seekers for “the American soul”. But traditional thought considers that political thought which has such theological elements must leads us to the necessity of a monarch or a monarchical system. Thus, the question is, what is the relation between monarchy and republic.
 
 
Monarchy and republic
 
Monarchy is a Greek word and consists of two parts: monos – which means only or one and arche – which means first or ruling. Consequently, the literary meaning of monarch is self-governing or autocrat; monarchy means self-government or autocracy. The Monarchic political system is as follows: a king is the head of state authority who is the sovereign blessed by God. It means that the right of supremacy is conferred on him by God. According to the Founding Fathers the divine mandate is conferred on the whole nation. In one case the divine mandate is conferred on the king, in the second case – on people. One state-political system is presented as a monarchy, the other – as a republic. Though, in case of this latter the theological element plays the role of a so-called first mover and it does not interfere in the political life. In other words, in one case the sovereign is a king, in the other – the people. So, the main thing is to understand what sovereignty is; it is a word of Latin root and means supremacy. Consequently, a sovereign is supreme. In our political reality are often heard the words uttered with great self-confidence and enthusiasm: “Its supremacy Georgian people”. From the traditional point of view, sovereignty is inseparable and indivisible. Monarchy is a sovereignty of such a kind. Speaking about the people’s supremacy implies its inseparability. The sovereign of the inseparable nation is the king having the inseparable and indivisible sovereignty. The source of his sovereignty and authority comes directly from God.
 
Republicanism is namely that political system which denies royal authority and considers that the only sovereign is nation. According to the Founding Fathers the source of state authority and state power is nation’s supremacy. Nation can be understood in two ways: according to one point of view it consists of individuals; according to the second standpoint it consists of collective persons, i.e. private persons united by corporations. In one case we deal with a personal will, in the other case – with a corporate will. According to the Founding Fathers, republicanism is related to individualism. The main thing is an individual as well as his will and rights. But the Founding Fathers’ republican world outlook is not exhausted by advancing only individualism. They fundamentally related individualism to the federal principle of self-organization of society. This situation is well seen from the passage in which the jurisdiction of federal law is discussed: the federal law, it is said, should be applied to the citizens of each State as individual, as private persons. But what concerns America, it should be the union of States (i.e. separate states) as a union of collective persons. Moreover, the social structure of the whole country is built with such associations as family, guild and other voluntary establishments. It means that the people consists of such self-governing wholes. It is not inseparable and indivisible, but separated and divided. But this situation is the basis of its solidity and inseparability and not of its breaking up and separation. It can be said that the Founding Fathers turned the principle of self-arrangement of American society into the principle of state arrangement. According to them, a state is not a certain reified entity , but it is a political unity, political corporation or unification. As it is so, state authority should also be based on the principle of division and separation. This is how the American Founding Fathers introduced the principle of divided and separated sovereignty in political thought and practice. This latter became the basis of dividing the state authority into different branches.
 
Divided sovereignty and the branches of authority
 
Divided sovereignty requires the division of authority or divided authority. Consequently, a state itself is nothing but a political association, political corporation. Such understanding of a state absolutely differs from its traditional understanding which considers it as reified entity. There is only one step from the inseparability of a state and state authority to a totalitarian state. State as an association, inseparable sovereignty and divided authority are the preconditions of avoiding the totalitarianism and the violence from the state’s side. This latter is that disaster for avoiding of which the American Founding Fathers fight with such selflessness. Though, they do not talk only about such violence. Any kind of expression of violence is unacceptable for them. Thus, the state authority is divided into three branches: the executive authority, the legislative authority and the court authority. Each of them has its own authority the volume of which is stated by the constitution. President is at the head of the executive authority. The presidential authority was the subject for hot discussions. Some of the opponents proved that it exceeded the authority of the British monarch and saw a great danger in it. But the answer of the Founding Fathers to the opponents could be formed this way: such danger is real in the case of inseparable and indivisible sovereignty. But in the conditions of divided sovereignty it almost does not exist. Though, only the above mentioned principle is not enough to achieve this goal. Namely in this item the Founding  Fathers for the first time introduce such phenomenon in political thought and practice (“The Federalist” N 10) which is known as checks and balances mechanism. It implies such essential situation when the branches of authority check and balance each other. The aim of such action is to locate each branch of authority in its own sphere. The sovereignty of division and the inter-balance and check mechanism are the weapon against the usurpation. Usurpation is a Latin word and means capture. When we talk about the negative sides of the presidential republic, it’s worth thinking what the divided sovereignty is and how the inter-balance and check mechanism should be held. While discussing republicanism, it should be relevant to understand the Founding Fathers’ standpoints and think what the federative republic means. They teach contemporary as well as future generation: “And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.” (Paper N 10). The Founding Fathers accomplish several kinds of synthesis. On the one side we deal with the synthesis of the federal and republican systems. On the other hand federative republicanism presents the synthesis of individual and corporate. The baseis of political order is namely the synthesis of individual and corporative. 
 
According to the Founding Fathers the soul of republicanism is expressed by one of the three branches of government – the legislative. That is why they consider that the danger of usurpation can be anticipated especially from it. Here, also, the principle of division appears as a savior. The legislative authority is divided between a House of Representatives and a Senate. The House of Representatives expresses the popular dimension of authority as its source is the whole American people. The Senate expresses the federal dimension of authority as its source is not the inseparable American people as Reified entity, but States as equal political societies (Paper N 39). In practice the principle of power division looks like this: at first it is divided into two levels – common-national and federal; each of the levels on its turn, is divided into three branches; and the legislative authority on each of these levels is divided into two parts. Consequently, we have to understand well enough that absolute sovereignty is no more possible.
 
But the principle of division not applicable only to the state authority. The thing is that the field of civil society, which, as is known, provides the opportunity for the exercise human freedom, is equally exposed to the danger of violence and usurpation of rights,. That is why there always exists the danger that a biased majority could assemble  or a collective of such unreliable people could be established in power. The Founding Fathers consider two ways of avoiding this danger. One way is as follows: to establish an unbiased corporate within the society which will not show partiality towards either of the groups. But they think that this cannot be accomplished. The second way is to divide the society into as many sects as possible in order to avoid the possibility of establishing biased majority who could easily accomplish usurpation and oppression. Sect is a Latin word and means a religious school, doctrine or group. But the Founding Fathers do not use this word in a religious meaning. They consider a sect as any small community. Divided society means that it is divided into many small communities. Namely such mechanism is considered to be the guarantee of the impossibility of forming the biased, violent and usurper majority. Divided sovereignty, divided state authority and divided society are considered as the basis of the republican freedom. The republican freedom and the republican democracy are chained to each other.
 
Republicanism is cannot be imagined without federalism. This latter, probably, is not unknown to Georgia as well. It is implied that Georgian society always was divided into communities having responsibilities and devotion to each other. We can also talk about cultural federalism in Georgia. The principle of cultural variety is not the similarity among different parts, but difference among them. But is it possible for difference to be the basis of unity? The American Founding Fathers teach future generations exactly this, that  difference is the foundation of genuine unity. We Georgians always strove for strong, solid, stable union on the political domain. We have more than 3000 years of statehood. But the periods of the united inseparable statehood are rather short during this period. The thing is how we understand national statehood. The traditional view is as follows: we seek for what is common among the different parts of Georgia; it is nothing else but common Georgian, i.e. common-national; thus, the nation state appears to be a form of political institutionalization or political establishment of this latter. The logic of the political view is as follows: what is common is supreme and undivided; but what differentiates divides and separates us. But there also exists a logic of political thinking, so called the logic of difference. This latter considers that it is exactly difference that is the basis of the genuine unity. The Federative state is considered as the form of the political establishment of the difference. According to this logic, difference does not divides, but unites and strengthens the country. If we think in this way, in our past we were facing not the “breakdown” of  statehood, but its continuity was presented in the form of breakdown and division.
 
Republicanism and democracy
 
The Founding Fathers resolutely state that the essence of republicanism is representation. It means that the people’s power is exercised  through the actions of the people’s representatives. Prior to the time of the American Founders the idea prevailed that in a democracy the people themselves would exercise power and rule the country. Ancient Greece, which nourishes western thought, recognizes only direct democracy. Its implementation is related to the territorial principle in that it was thought that  only  a small territory could be governed democratically. Opponents argued to the Founding Fathers that democracy cannot be accomplished on such a very large territory as that of America. But the Founders consider that the peculiarity of the American republicanism and the American Democracy is the fact that they are applied on the largest territory. Exactly this distinguishes representative democracy from direct democracy. As has been said, in a democratic regime, the people rule the country, but in a republican system the representatives of people rule the country. The representative principle works in the field of governmental authority as well as in the field of society. In the latter it is accomplished in the following way: a smaller corporation, e.g. a corporation established by a professional feature, i.e. guild sends its representative to a larger  guild which, on its turn, sends its representative to a larger guild, etc. The principle of simultaneous delegation is accomplished in the field of governmental authority as well. Thus, the whole country is covered by a network of representation. A representative is a person who is devoted to the sender and feels responsible towards him/her. If we consider it from this viewpoint, the social as well as political body of the whole country is filled with the sense of responsibility and obligation. In special political-scientific language this phenomenon is called the loyalty toward the state. What conditions the republican loyalty according to the Founding Fathers? It is necessary to understand the essence of the republican freedom and the republican democracy. As it is said, we deal with democracy when the country is ruled by people, and we deal with a republic when the country is ruled by law. The Constitution is regarded as the major law of the country.
 
 
Republicanism and constitution
 
Constitution is a Latin word and basically means arrangement and resolution. First of all the arrangement of a republic means to arrange on the basis of the most fundamental resolution. According to the Founding Fathers, the United States is the constitutional federative democratic republic. Constitution is the expression of people’s will. Its plan was worked out by the Convention – the body which consisted of the most outstanding representatives of the nation. Then the common-public discussion of the plan worked out by the Convention was held. Constitution is the basis of the legality of the state authority. Legality stems  from the Latin word Lex what means rule, law. The concept of legitimacy is equally important. This word has the same root as law, but it also has another meaning; there is a peculiar relation between legitimacy and legality. Legitimacy matches more with authority, legality – with lawfulness. Legal is opposed by illegal, legitimate – by illegitimate what means not having authority. Some think that the following has been accomplished in the contemporary epoch: legality has become the basis of legitimacy; ratio is regarded as the base of lex; ratio is mind the content of which is expressed by calculation.
 
In this connection it would be desirable to remember Max Weber. He bases his consideration on the opposition which exists between mind thus understood and the religious source. The essence of this opposition is the fact that mind in general, and state and juridical mind in particular, is not adequately grounded. It always strives for theological establishment from the side of religious ethos. Thus, the main problem is not to establish society and state from the side of mind, but what kind of religious ethos establishes this mind. This is the case also when legitimacy dominates.
 
Legitimate domination  is the peculiar type of authority: its legality comes from the free will of those people towards whom this domination is accomplished. The main thing in it is the so called anticipation effect. This is the case when the agent of domination expects that his right of domination will be admitted and shared. But where does such a right of domination come from?
 
Its source can be the tradition of patriarchal domination. It had the following structure: religiously consecrated  sovereign – servants and subordinates. This type of legitimacy is distinguished by special firmness and solidity.
 
Charisma or the divine gift can also be a source of domination. In this case we deal with the so called charismatic domination. A prophetical form is typical of this form of domination: “Hear as it is said, and I shall tell you”. “I shall tell you” means to oppose the order which is religiously mandated  or guaranteed by the law. That is why charisma is considered a revolutionary element.
 
Both types of domination – traditional and charismatic – share a common feature: it is based on the personal relation between a master and those who are in slavery. A personal moment is essential in it.
 
The third type of domination is the so called legal domination. The essence of this type is characterized by personal, not formal-legal origin. This latter is nothing else but law. It implies the calculation of dominating relations, directing it methodically based on the principle of exact calculation. The so called calculating mind and not the theological element appears to be the basis of law. The purest type of legal domination is the so called bureaucratic apparatus. But according to Weber it does not have the self basis. At the head of the bureaucratic apparatus stands either a hereditary monarch or the President or the Parliament elected by general public elections.
 
Weber persistently states how unstable legitimacy is in the modern legal state. Though Weber considers that bureaucratic domination is the most appropriate form for modern society, he admits the necessity of its strengthening. He considers that maintaining the institution of  monarchy is the only thing that will strengthen the bureaucratic type of domination.
 
The Founding Fathers’ standpoint essentially differs from Weber’s. According to them state mind is based on the constitution. Many thinkers suppose that namely this is the peculiarity of our epoch. But is the constitution based on anything else but people’s will? The Founding Fathers’ consideration concerning this problem is rather important. In paper 43 it is said that the American confederation is based on the transcendental law and God of nature. Transcendental means beyond. The law of nature can be transcendental towards a man as it reveals the divine will. In the history of political thought this situation was expressed by the term: natural law. It can easily be concluded that natural law is the manifestation of divine justice. Some thinkers consider that this does not mean the order of existence which is characteristic of the nature of objects, but that normative order which God gave to man. In Paper 15 the Founding Fathers speak about that sacred knot which united the American nation. These two essential things – divine or natural law and sacred knot which, according to the Founding Fathers, is the basis of the constitutional order of America (and generally of a state).
 
In this connection it would be desirable to remember Hegel’s opinion about the relation between people. His consideration concerning the fact that the whole should necessarily be divided is well-known. But what united its parts? Contract becomes essential in which my will is identical to the will of others. But Hegel differentiates common will (Gemeinsame Wille) and universal will (Allgemeine Wille). Thus, the contract implies that willfulness and chance precondition its instability. Trust (Zutrauen) introduces the elements of stability in willfulness and chance of the contacts between the sides. It appears to be a pre-contactive base of the contract.
 
But the thing is that the trust between the sides is not stable as it is of sensual-emotional and religious origin and is not ensured by the universal character.
 
Thus, the contact is that which connects people who have a pre-contactive base – trust.
 
But trust, in its turn, is based on the sacred, and the sacred is based on the saint of saints, what Hegel calls Substantielles Band.
 
Thus, trust (Zutrauen), willfulness (Willkür), and chance (Zufälligkeit) whcih constitute the social contacts are based on Heilige (sacred) and Heiligste (saint of saints).
 
Thus, the civil and state coexistence between people is not the relation of contractual  values or their wholeness, but it is based on sacred and saint of saints. Or to be more adequate, in this sight a contract becomes what is called Foedus, covenant. Namely this is implied to be the theological dimension of the state and civil coexistence of people. In the western thinking space several theologies are differentiated. One theology is based on Apocalypses, the other – on Conversion; in case of Foedus (covenant) we deal with a theology which is based on the covenant given to a man by God. This latter is known as federal or  covenant theology.
 
It is not difficult to see the similarity between Hegel’s opinion and the Founding Fathers’ consideration. The main thing is that the Founding Fathers as well as Hegel indicate that thinking space in which a man’s existence is founded theologically. Now, probably, we can more fully understand the Founding Fathers’ viewpoint: a man is an imperfect creature who has the gift of self-government and whose existence is founded theologically. As J Elazar says the federal-republican view about man’s society comes from the theological system of thought, it does not depend on the latter.
 
It would be desirable to remember Hegel again. He underlines two essential phenomena: Elders or ancestors (Alter) and posterity or future generation (Nachcomme). Hegel says that in the present time there is no relation between them as this relation no more has the sacred fundament or that what the modern thinker Roger Scruton calls transcendent obligations vanished.
 
The element of sacredness is maintained in the so called traditional thinking which is the full scope of a man’s particularity, his freedom; universal in preserved in the so called rational thinking. Some of the thinkers suppose that the epochal requirement expressed in Hegel’s formula still remains as the sign of our epoch “dass Allgemeine verbunden sei mit der vollen Freiheit der Besonderheit” (see Hegel’s Philosophy of Law. $ 260, appendix) “. . . universal to be combined with the full freedom of particular”.
 
The Founding Fathers express the aspiration of the modern epoch when they accomplish the basic synthesis. It is that synthesis which implies combining a man’s individualism and corporatism in the world outlook of the federal or the so called covenant (covenant means vow) republicanism. This is that special case when individualism and corporatism (conditionally private person and collective person) balance and check each other. So, checks and balances do no more have anything in common with the meaning of a political scientific term and a regulator of the political practice and can be perceived as the onto-theological principle (in theological is implied was has been mentioned above, and in ontological -  a man’s existence), which simultaneously unites and disconnects two opposite values.
 
Thus, it can be said that according to “The Federalist” the constitutional order comes from the theological order but does not depend on it. This situation is considered to be the pre-political precondition of the political order.
 
 
Pre-political preconditions of the political order
 
The word which is very often used by the Founding Fathers is rather interesting and noteworthy; this word is prejudice. It comes from Latin praejudico. It consists of two parts – the prefix prae what means before and judico what means to pass sentence, to discuss, to judge. But this verb, in its turn, consists of two parts: jus which means law and dico what means to say, to utter. judico is to say truth, to announce truth. The above mentioned word in English has several meanings. In one case is means such judgment which is not based on facts; in another case partiality is considered in it. In Georgian it can be translated as prejudgment. In English this word came from French where it is related to doing harm and thus, in Georgian it is close to superstition. When the Founding Fathers speak about prejudices, they imply biased opinions which blind people to reflect on federal or national interests. But basically prejudice can be understood from “The Federalist” in which is implied that law which precedes and establishes the human law.
 
One more synthesis which the Founding Fathers accomplish is that they point to the relation which exists between political and pre-political dimensions of human existence. Like Montesquieu, they admit that the human law is based on that esprit, spirit, mind and soul which acts in it and is not of human origin. Thus, it is about the coexistence of law and character. It is considered that law regulates a man’s as a citizen’s behavior; but character or moral regulates his as a member’s behavior. In order to understand what a man as a member means, it is necessary to understand what baptize is. This latter implies that a man from the very beginning is baptized  in that moral order or cultural environment which is passed by the tradition and is consecrated religiously. Federative republicanism unites two basic experiences: that of citizenship and that of membership. The unity of these experiences is the base of republican virtue . The virtue is that phenomenon which preconditions devotion towards people. Some people consider that republicanism which underlines a person’s individuality lacks the possibility to establish corporate or common devotions. Such a form of devotion is, for instance patriotism. From the Founding Fathers’ position is seen the synthesis of two kinds of patriotism: patriotism towards homeland, the United States and that patriotism which Hegel calls political patriotism. This latter implies devotion towards political institutions.
 
Thus, the democratic federative republic is nourished by the so called pre-political order. From such relations of political and pre-political, however, is seen that resistance which generally exists between knowledge and faith. Such resistance is regarded as the exposure of the opposition existing between mind and heart. This issue is related to the problem of the relation between God and a man.
 
Some thinkers (e. g. Elazar) indicate the importance of the Founding Fathers’ opinion in the present, in the period of realization of such a collective of peoples, of such an idea of their coexistence, as the European Union. The importance of the Founding Fathers’ experience will be more vivid if we take into consideration the fact that the above mentioned union is the form of the union of European States.
 
When Jürgen Habermas discusses the problem of political supremacy in the modern epoch, he puts the following question: What are the pre-political principles of a democratic legal state? He has to admit that a modern secular state is nourished by such normative preconditions which the state itself is not able to ensure. He also expresses doubt about the whether after law became totally positive, it is possible to establish unreligious and non-metaphysical supremacy. It is interesting what a liberal-secular state offers its citizens in the so called post-secular epoch. This is the epoch when people face the social problem, i.e. the problem of the relation between them and they realize that a human mind does not have self-basis. After this, he talks about a secular constitutional state which is based on a practical mind. Consequently, he is a supporter of a certain kind of Kantian republicanism. This latter is based on the principle of the autonomy of mind and considers it to have a self-sufficing basis. Habermas also talks about the linking knot which unites free individuals with equal obligations. However, he considers that the so called democratic process is this very linking knot. This process is such a “magic power” which established itself as well as people’s coexistence. Then he tries to present the secularization as the bilateral process of cognition in which Christianity and Greek metaphysics penetrate through each other. As a result of this process – in which mind and religion fill each other – God’s image and similarity change into the dignity which exists in every person and deserves unconditional respect. Finally, according to Habermas, the problem of the relation between pre-political and political is the relation between believers and atheists in the post-secular society. From this viewpoint, the secular mind gives epistemic (knowledge) status to religious views; as a result these views lose the status of irrationality. Habermas considers that thus can be achieved the ideological neutrality of state authority.
 
In his article “What unites the world. Pre-political moral principles of the free state”, Joseph Ratzinger  raises the problem this was: Power and justice. This latter is that element which in the secular post-modern epoch detached from the discourse about legitimating the political supremacy (beginning from Plato the problem of legitimation was always considered in the relation with justice). Justice is no longer considered from the viewpoint of power; it is considered on the basis of legality (positive or introduced, established law). Ratzinger assumes that the problem should be sought in the arrogance of a human mind. According to him, the only way is the dialogue between mind and religion.
 
From the above mentioned it is obvious that every social project which is built on arrogant, self-sufficing mind undergoes crisis. Nothing can help – neither secular nationality, nor tolerant rationality, nor strict rationality. It is also clear how significant it could be to realize that principle which was found by the American Founding Fathers and which is known as checks and balances. It is that very situation when heart and mind, knowledge and faith (and every form of their establishment) balance and check each other.
 
 
 

 

Copyright © 2008 Grigol Robakidze University
Created by Gr.Robakidze University Design Group