Samenvatting
Summary History of Political Philosophy block 1
- Instelling
- Universiteit Leiden (UL)
Complete summary of the secondary literature for the exam of the first block of History of Political Philosophy.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 2 van de 15 pagina's
Voorbeeld 2 van de 15 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
3 beoordelingen
Door: margotnelissen • 5 jaar geleden
Door: surenasshe • 6 jaar geleden
Door: joelvandam • 6 jaar geleden
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
History of Political PhilosophySummary Block I – secondary literature
Week 1 – What is modern political philosophy?
Strauss – What is Political Philosophy? (1957)
All political action aims to either preservation or change. Prevent a change to the worse or
bring about something better guided by some thought of better or worse implies thought of
the good. All political action has in itself a directedness towards knowledge of the good (the
good life, the good society etc.). Explicit goal to acquire knowledge of the good life and good
society political philosophy.
Philosophy: quest for universal knowledge, knowledge of the whole.
Political philosophy: the attempt to replace opinion about the nature of political things by
knowledge of the nature of political things. Political things are in essence not neutral must
be measured by standard of goodness or justice. Political philosophy is the attempt to truly
know both the nature of political things and the right political order.
Political philosophy is victim of the great scientification of academia. Is considered not
scientific and not historical. Only history of political philosophy is still done.
Positivistic social science is ‘value-free’ or ‘ethically neutral’. Neutral in ‘good’ and ‘evil’. Might
lead to nihilism. Most social scientists are however not nihilist. By stating things like
democracy and truth are values they say they do not have to think about why it might be
good or bad but that he just follows his societies values. Social science positivism fosters not
so much nihilism as conformism and philistinism.
Weaknesses of social science positivism:
1. It is impossible to study important social phenomena without making value
judgements. It is impossible to understand thought or action without evaluating it.
Value judgements enter through the backdoor and are often invisible. Distinction
between democratic and authoritarian characteristics is often a distinction between
what so-called neutral social scientists deem good and bad. To know what is political
science, one must know what is political one must define what is relevant to the
polis, the state, and must thus define what the state actually is. To do this one must
describe the purpose of this state cannot be neutral political science cannot be
value-free.
2. Rejection of value judgements is based on assumption that conflicts between
different values or value-system are essentially insoluble for human reason. But has
never been proven!
3. Belief scientific knowledge is highest form of human knowledge depreciation of pre-
scientific knowledge all pre-scientific knowledge thought of as folklore. Things which
every ten year old knows are regarded as being in need of scientific proof in order to
become acceptable as facts.
4. Positivism transforms itself into historicism. Danger of mistaking peculiarities of one
society for the essential character of human society. To avoid danger cross-cultural
research is necessary. But misses meaning of other cultures because it interprets
them through a conceptual scheme which originates in modern Western society.
, Must understand other society as themselves use history historical understanding
basis of truly empirical science of society.
Historicism is antagonist of political philosophy. It rejects the question of the good society
because of the essentially historical character of society and of human thought.
Classical political philosophy (Aristoteles, Plato) is non-traditional; it belongs to the fertile
moments when all political traditions were shaken and there was not yet a tradition of
political philosophy. In all later eras political philosophers were partly guided by tradition.
Classical philosophers saw things with an ever since unequalled freshness and directedness.
All later political thought has a derivative character estrangement from simple and primary
issues character of abstractness seen as a movement instead of as a way to knowledge.
Good citizen is relative to the regime. What was considered a good citizen in Hitler Germany
would be a bad citizen elsewhere. Meaning of good man is always and everywhere the same.
The good man is identical with the good citizen in only one case; the case of the best regime.
Objections to classical political philosophy:
- Is anti-democratic and hence bad.
- Is based on classical natural philosophy or classical cosmology and this has been
proven to be untrue by modern natural science.
Habermas – The Classical Doctrine of Politics in Relation to Social Philosophy
Old politics as Aristotle did was mixture of practical and philosophical side of politics. Is not
broken off in separate disciplines. Old politics has become alien to us:
- Politics was understood to be the doctrine of the good and just life; it was
continuation of ethics. Only the politeia makes the citizen capable of the good life.
Human is zoon politikon because he is dependent on the city for the realisation of his
human nature. Now ethical conduct is clearly distinguished from legality of his
external actions. Morality separated from legality and two are separated from
politics.
- Old politics referred exclusively to praxis. Politics always directed toward formation
and cultivation of character.
- Aristotle emphasised that politics cannot be compared in its claim to knowledge with
rigorous science. Subject matter – the Just and the Excellent – lacks ontological
constancy and logical necessity. Ideal of new science implies we only know an object
to the extent that we ourselves can produce it.
Week 2 – Hobbes’ epistemology, method and anthropology
Strauss - Modern natural right
Locke is the most influential modern natural right teachers. Richard Hooker seems to be his
authority. But when you compare texts of Locke and Hooker many differences occur. Notion
of natural right had undergone a fundamental change between Hooker and Locke. Break in
natural right tradition had occurred following the emergence of modern natural science,
nonteleological natural science and herewith the destruction of the basis of traditional
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper fcvanlit. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €3,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 67096 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen