An Introduction to Political Philosophy

Product Information

An Introduction to Political Philosophy Rationalist and Empiricist Theories, and that this division reflects, and depends upon, the division betweenrationalistand empiricist theories of logic and knowledge. If this is so, nofinalanswer can be given to the questions of political philosophy without a decision on these broader issues, but a necessary and important task will have been accomplished if the problems of political philosophy are reduced to their ultimate and logical form. Find free online philosophy articles, podcasts, and videos with this organised collection of 400+ free philosophy resources.

An Introduction to Political Philosophy An Introduction to Political Philosophy

But there is a corollary to this insight. The regime is always something particular. It stands in a relation of opposition to other regime types, and as a consequence the possibility of conflict, of tension, and war is built in to the very structure of politics. Regimes are necessarily partisan, that is to say they instill certain loyalties and passions in the same way that one may feel partisanship to the New York Yankees or the Boston Red Sox, or to Yale over all rival colleges and institutions, right? Fierce loyalty, partisanship: it is inseparable from the character of regime politics. These passionate attachments are not merely something that take place, you might, say between different regimes, but even within them, as different parties and groups with loyalties and attachments contend for power, for honor, and for interest. Henry Adams once cynically reflected that politics is simply the “organization of hatreds,” and there is more than a grain of truth to this, right, although he did not say that it was also an attempt to channel and redirect those hatreds and animosities towards something like a common good. This raises the question whether it is possible to transform politics, to replace enmity and factional conflict with friendship, to replace conflict with harmony? Today it is the hope of many people, both here and abroad, that we might even overcome, might even transcend the basic structure of regime politics altogether and organize our world around global norms of justice and international law. Is such a thing possible? It can’t be ruled out, but such a world, I would note–let’s just say a world administered by international courts of law, by judges and judicial tribunals–would no longer be a political world. Politics only takes place within the context of the particular. It is only possible within the structure of the regime itself. Rawls argues most people would agree to basic healthcare, fairness, and so on — and uses this as his basis for his “justice as fairness” social contract whereby the state has an integral role to play in the lives of its citizens, which he builds upon in detail throughout this brilliant and significant work.Exploring the institutions, operations, and techniques of totalitarian movements, Arendt’s 1951 The Origins of Totalitarianism focuses on two genuine forms of totalitarian government in our recent history — Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia — which she shrewdly establishes as two sides of the same coin, rather than opposing philosophies of Right and Left. Republic, 1,337 (translation by F.M.Comford). ibid., 1,346. A modern illustration of this principle is the fate of Hitler after his refusal to accept the settlement reached at the Munich Conference in October, 1938, and in ultimately losing all his power by placing no limit to his ambitions. Republic, I, 352. First published in 1953 by Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd This editionfirstpublished in 2010 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX 14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor

An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Routledge Revivals) An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Routledge Revivals)

A translation of this fragment has been incorporated as an Appendix to Chapter III of Sir Ernest Barker's Greek Political Theory. Each chapter, when accessed digitally, includes tutorial-style videos from the author to help students understand the key questions and controversies in political philosophy and encourage them to form their own opinion.Our open-access short courses include day events, weekly learning classes and summer schools. Learn more about our short courses. Academic credit But a regime is more than simply a set of formal structures and institutions, okay? It consists of the entire way of life, the moral and religious practices, the habits, customs, and sentiments that make a people what they are. The regime constitutes an ethos, that is to say a distinctive character, that nurtures distinctive human types. Every regime shapes a common character, a common character type with distinctive traits and qualities. So the study of regime politics is in part a study of the distinctive national character types that constitutes a citizen body. To take an example of what I mean, when Tocqueville studied the American regime or the democratic regime, properly speaking, in Democracy in America, he started first with our formal political institutions as enumerated in the Constitution, such things as the separation of powers, the division between state and federal government and so on, but then went on to look at such informal practices as American manners and morals, our tendency to form small civic associations, our peculiar moralism and religious life, our defensiveness about democracy and so on. All of these intellectual and moral customs and habits helped to constitute the democratic regime. And this regime–in this sense the regime describes the character or tone of a society. What a society finds most praiseworthy, what it looks up to, okay? You can’t understand a regime unless you understand, so to speak, what it stands for, what a people stand for, what they look up to as well as its, again, its structure of institutions and rights and privileges. In one sense, you could say political philosophy is simply a branch or what we call a subfield of the field of political science. Yes, all right. It exists alongside of other areas of political inquiry like American government, comparative politics, and international relations. Yet in another sense, political philosophy is something much different than simply a subfield; it seems to be the oldest and most fundamental part of political science. Its purpose is to lay bare, as it were, the fundamental problems, the fundamental concepts and categories which frame the study of politics. In this respect it seems to me much less like just a branch of political science than the foundation of the entire discipline. An Introduction to Political Philosophy Coherence Theory of Truth is accepted, it does not follow that all possible judgments constitute a logically related system of which the necessity could be apprehended by anyone with a sufficiently comprehensive experience. The only logical relationship which appears to relate many judgments is that of consistency, and if that is so it cannot be inferred that experience necessarily takes the form which it does take, or that the experience of different individuals must ultimately be harmonized in the Absolute. For other judgments might have been equally consistent with the rest of experience. It is only if the universe is first defined as that which has certain specified characteristics that it follows a priori that it must have these characteristics and could not conceivably have other characteristics. But this definition is an analytic proposition and does not imply that the universe must have the characteristics which it actually does have. For the above reasons it is very doubtful whether either Kant or Hegel was successful in refuting the essential principles of Hume's Empiricism; and many modern philosophers would agree with Hume that reason has only a hypothetical application to the real world. On this view it can never establish the truth of a belief, but can only demonstrate its logical implications; while in the sphere of conduct it can never justify the ends of action but can only devise the most effective means for attaining the ends determined by the irrational * passions1. The Implications of Empiricism If the foregoing conception of the nature and scope of reason is accepted, it follows that philosophy has a more limited scope than has been widely assumed in the past. Its function will be to discover the logical implications of beliefs, not to provide a rational justification of their truth. Their truth, whether defined in terms of coherence or correspondence, will never be rationally justified, and their logical implications will have neither more nor less truth than the beliefs themselves. Philosophy, in other words, will be concerned with meaning and not with truth. Truth will be the objective of science, and will be reached by generalization from experience, i.e. by discovering the general laws describing regularities of coexistence and sequence. Science will differ fundamentally from philosophy in that the formulation of these generalizations is not a rational process, and their application to experience has only a hypothetical validity. There is, for example, no rational justification for inferring that, because all examined samples of arsenic have proved to be poisonous, therefore all samples whatsoever must be poisonous; but if it is assumed that all samples whatsoever are poisonous, then it follows, as a logical implication, that any given sample must be poisonous. In short, if the Empiricist Theory is accepted, reason will apply only hypothetically to experience, and it will be impossible to provide a categorical demonstration of the truth of any proposition about what exists or what occurs. It will only be possible for reason to show what are the logical implications of such a proposition, i.e. to show what must exist or must occur on the assumption that X exists or occurs. But this latter assumption cannot Familiarise students with the key arguments for and against the main positions in the main debates in political philosophy.