{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02541371158392435, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.961267605633803, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Homo politicus: Man as a political, religious and historical creature from the perspective of philosophy

In his contribution on “Homo politicus”, Prof. Siep deals with the human being as a political, religious and historical creature from the point of view of philosophy. He makes it clear that the zoon politicon in Aristotle is inextricably linked to the definition of human beings as reason and language talent (zoon logon echon). He points out that nowadays the Aristotelian tradition of homo politicus can be supported by scientific and cultural insights. Furthermore, the author also refers to the results of modern brain and behavioral research, which explores the physiological basis of specifically human abilities and deficiencies. In the following, the author goes into the anthropological basics - in particular the reduction of instincts and human language, which enables exchange between rational beings. He makes it clear that public speech was already the language of political beings in antiquity, if it is based on the equal co-determination of everyone, then, according to Aristotle, one speaks of a "polity", which means that one has arrived at democracy. If one also wants to designate other forms of government as “political”, the author believes that the term must be broadened, which in his opinion is made possible by referring to the monopoly on the use of force. The monopoly on the use of force requires legitimation. This leads the author to Max Weber's "Concept of the Political" and its forms of domination. Finally, he raises the question of consensus and dissent in a democracy, how individuals and groups with different views can agree in a 'public speech'.